Some ideas for small changes.
Quick commentary:
- I think moving Jerusalem 1S is a good idea
- Mecca definitely will lose resources if it isn't the capital anymore
- Sardis being part of Persia's warmap sounds good, but moving two fish resources into its BFC seems like too much
- Babylon feels to far north in that position ...
- a triggered Fort spawn on Cyprus makes sense if not under human control
I agree about Baghdad being the Arab capital. 2 ideas (already have been brought up in some form or another): 1) have Arabs spawn at Baghdad a bit after Islam being founded at Mecca. or 2) have Arabs spawn at Mecca, then script a capital change to Baghdad (Baghdad would be already founded as independent city). How difficult would it be to script their capital to Baghdad 80% of time and 20% of time to Cairo?
The thing is, Islam is founded by the Arabs because they spawn with Divine Right. Its holy city will be the first city, wherever they found it.
Making the capital spawn random is one option, the other is to automatically shift the capital to Baghdad on founding/conquest and to Cairo if Baghdad isn't acquired at a certain date (say, 1100 AD).
Regarding moving Marseille 1W... Marseille is definitely on the east side of the Rhone. How would things look if the river is shifted 1W as well? Having Milan instead of Venice and Genoa would mean it would mean for both the 3000BC and 600AD scenarios, Italy's start would be comparable. Historically Milan was also one of the more dominant Italian city states as well. Too bad Milan and Venice can't mutually coexist in this game... Maybe Romans could get some city other than Mediolanum in the 3000BC scenario?
I think shifting the Rhone would be too much (it looks wrong). Cities often happen to be at the wrong side of their rivers, just look at Mainz and Cologne at the Rhine.
With a little stretch we could assign the tile 1N of Genoa the name Milan as well (though it's actually Turin, which only became important in later centuries though). Then the player could decide between founding Genoa or Milan, who both had their prominent history in Italy. The preplaced 3000 BC Milan does mess things up though.
Personally I do agree with the earlier Italian civ spawn. But there are some problems however. (you're prolly aware of them already, but just in case...)
The problem with recreating a single Italian civ was that Italy/Italian cities were a great power at two different time periods, once during the Renaissance, and then again after the 19th century. In between that time their lands were contested between France, Spain and Austria.
Vikings and Sweden could be easily represented as one civ because in between their two periods of greatness, their lands were never occupied for multiple centuries by foreign powers. Italy on the other hand was completely dominated by foreign powers between 1600 and 1800.
Well, we can't keep the cake and eat it, unfortunately. It's a little bit unrealistic to have Italy survive, but I'll try to get some historical accuracy into it by making Italy rather weak militarily (they have low production anyway), so that there's still a chance they get eaten by their neighbours and respawn (via Nationalism this time) somewhere in the 19th century.
(77,40) I used the coordiantes of Babylon as a guide for my suggestion for Baghdad's location so it doesn't interfere with the Levant. It is on the stone (I would move it). Simple change... but I'd hate to do it for most civs. Wow. Modding takes a lot of time, huh? OH! If you move Baghdad--to guarantee Makkah, give Arabia 2 total settlers and build an indie Makkah that gets Islam automatically.
You get used to it, most of the time. It gets worse when you try to do something the system is not made for yet
, if you don't want to add Damascus, I guess its ok... But yes then, change Alexandretta to Antioch (the different variations of it)
