New update:
- adjusted terrain around Khorasan, Afghanistan and Balochistan in Greater Persia
- adjusted terrain around the Hudson Bay
I am so glad to have this icon art issue finally behind me that had been plaguing me for days. We can go back to the map now. Left on the agenda:
- some minor suggestions for Siberia
- enlarging Iberia (currently strongly favoring to abandon the explicit "tip" with Cadiz/Gibraltar and make it a full row instead)
- looking at the shape of the Baltic Sea
- the shape and size of the Malay peninsula is still bothering me so if someone wants to make a grand unified proposal on how to relocate Indonesia, Australia and the Pacific Islands I would like it, preferable with a WBSave attached so it's easy to apply and play around with
I have a question, should Lemon, pomelo and mandarin count as orange (as bonus varieties)?
Also, there is jujube in East Asia, should it count as dates? If so, I can make a bonus map in China (or East Asia)
Lemon and Pomelo would fall under the default Citrus graphic for me, the Orange one makes more sense for Mandarin. And sure, those seem close enough to dates, but on the other hand in that area Citrus is already abundant so maybe that should get precedence.
long time player coming back, checking out the mod after long hiatus. The new map looks terrific, great work and many thanks to all involved.
I have a couple of questions:
1. I saw that the git branch for the map is usable but it is thousands of commits behind the main. How playable is the map branch?
2. If possible could you give an estimate when 1.17 will come out ?
thanks in advance.
1. The map branch should be fairly up to date with develop, I rebased it a while ago after 1.16 was released. Maybe you need to delete and fetch it again.
2. Here are my plans for 1.17, if you haven't seen that. Technically I haven't even started on 1.17, since the new map will not be part of that release, so I cannot possibly give an estimate.
I settled 2 citrus(orange) and 2 dates(jujube) in China. Citrus(orange) place in Zhejiang(129, 47) and Hunan(124, 45), dates(jujube) place in Shandong(126, 52) and Xinjiang(106, 55).
Spoiler:
Many citrus(orange) are planted in America and Brazil nowadays, so maybe add some there after colonization(but I don't know the regions).
Also I think Tibet needs to be adjusted.
In recent map, Tibet is filled with desert hills and tundra hills. In fact, desert seldom exists in Tibet, There're mostly steppe in east Tibet, semidesert in the middle part and tundra in the west part. Also there're not only hills, as we see, Qinghai-Tibet Plateau is a plateau, it's mixed with hills and plains.
I placed wheat(represent highland barley), yak and horse near Lhasa to strengthen Tibet civ, and wheat and horse spawn after 600ad. As for balance, I remove an incense in Shigatse.
Spoiler:
Attachments
Tibet terrain adjust and Citrus&Dates in China in Alternative map.CivBeyondSwordSave
- added three additional tiles: 1S of Valencia, 1SW and 1SE of Cordoba
- this essentially moves both Madrid and Cordoba 1S and adjusts the rivers accordingly
- rearranged hills and peak in southeast Spain, the Guadalquivir basin is actually quite flat
- added Citrus (oranges) in SE Spain, it's the most significant producer in Europe
- moved Wine to the new Cadiz tile to represent Jerez (sherry)
- moved Horses into Andalusia (Andalusian horses are the most famous Spanish breed), it's positioned between Toledo and Cordoba to make control worthwhile for Spain and let both fight over them. Note that Moors can also get Horses from North Africa.
- moved Cows into the north, according to my sources the north and northwest are the major cattle regions in Spain
- moved Wheat 1N to keep it out of reach of Cordoba, which has a lot of food already
In general there may be a little too much food in Spain now, so it may be worth considering to give the Moors a new UP. Andalusia is a bit cramped as a location of their capital, but it should be possible now to not spawn Spain in Toledo and make that spot a fought over city between them, so it should work. Having Sevilla on the same latitude as Cordoba looks wrong but it's the best possible configuration given the circumstances.
In general I am not totally sure about this, but it's the best I could come up without doing something totally crazy with Africa. Feedback welcome.
Maybe scrap the tile 1S of Valencia? That would make Spain and the Western Mediterranean look a little less distorted I think, although I'm not totally sure about the knock-on effects on resources, especially if you want Valencia to be a viable city site.
Maybe scrap the tile 1S of Valencia? That would make Spain and the Western Mediterranean look a little less distorted I think, although I'm not totally sure about the knock-on effects on resources, especially if you want Valencia to be a viable city site.
But there are quite a few important cities south of Valencia (Murcia, Cartagena, Alicante), so it would feel wrong that no land exists in the area. If a land tile should be removed, I feel it should be the mountain (and that tile south of Valencia would move where the mountain was).
Actually, depending on what the mountain is supposed to be, I think it should be moved 1 SW. Look up where Mulhacén, Spain's tallest peak, is: just southeast of Granada, close to the southern coastline, and much closer to Cordoba than to Valencia. Then it would free up space in the eastern coast in the Murcia area.
Also, although it's not wrong per se, I think it looks weird that the Guadalquivir's source touches the sea in the east.
My big concern with the new changes is that, from what I can tell, there is no reason for the Moors to actually settle Cordoba instead of Seville. Valencia is in their core, as is Morocco, so there'd be a strong tendency to settle next to the coast rather than inland. I wonder if, when we adjust the UHV, we could add a condition like Babylon where the capital has to be settled on the starting tile to beat the UHV. That'd take care of human players, and it'd just be a matter of weighting the settler map to force the AI.
I tend to agree; the Guadalquivir is hugely important, but it's not that long of a river. Also, both Seville and Cordoba fall on its southern bank, so I'd suggest the river start on the northern edge of Cordoba, then the northern edge of Seville, then the western edge of Seville -- that'd still be three tiles long, but without hitting the Mediterranean.
I tend to agree; the Guadalquivir is hugely important, but it's not that long of a river. Also, both Seville and Cordoba fall on its southern bank, so I'd suggest the river start on the northern edge of Cordoba, then the northern edge of Seville, then the western edge of Seville -- that'd still be three tiles long, but without hitting the Mediterranean.
Maybe scrap the tile 1S of Valencia? That would make Spain and the Western Mediterranean look a little less distorted I think, although I'm not totally sure about the knock-on effects on resources, especially if you want Valencia to be a viable city site.
It kind of is for Madrid, that part of the map isn't food saturated, it's more the coasts.
But there are quite a few important cities south of Valencia (Murcia, Cartagena, Alicante), so it would feel wrong that no land exists in the area. If a land tile should be removed, I feel it should be the mountain (and that tile south of Valencia would move where the mountain was).
Actually, depending on what the mountain is supposed to be, I think it should be moved 1 SW. Look up where Mulhacén, Spain's tallest peak, is: just southeast of Granada, close to the southern coastline, and much closer to Cordoba than to Valencia. Then it would free up space in the eastern coast in the Murcia area.
My big concern with the new changes is that, from what I can tell, there is no reason for the Moors to actually settle Cordoba instead of Seville. Valencia is in their core, as is Morocco, so there'd be a strong tendency to settle next to the coast rather than inland. I wonder if, when we adjust the UHV, we could add a condition like Babylon where the capital has to be settled on the starting tile to beat the UHV. That'd take care of human players, and it'd just be a matter of weighting the settler map to force the AI.
Doesn't the UHV already explicitly require Cordoba?
I tend to agree; the Guadalquivir is hugely important, but it's not that long of a river. Also, both Seville and Cordoba fall on its southern bank, so I'd suggest the river start on the northern edge of Cordoba, then the northern edge of Seville, then the western edge of Seville -- that'd still be three tiles long, but without hitting the Mediterranean.
First attempt to move the Scandinavian peninsula 1E to correct the shape of the Baltic Sea.
Spoiler:
Having it east is actually more accurate looking at some maps. I also changed the shape of South Sweden now that there is more distance to Denmark. I'm not really happy with it though, and I didn't put any work into fixing the Norwegian coastline. Looking for more suggestions.
The sea passage between Morokko and Spain looks weird, when I compare it to a map. It looks more like the Dardanelles passage to me. It should be two tiles wide except around Gibraltar. The current map has a 1-tile gap; the suggestion introduces a "tunnel" of five (!) blockable tiles. Which suggests to me, that once the coast cities are around, this is not going to be a passage anymore, just a blockage: First the Carthaginians. Then the Romans. Then the Barbarians. Then the Moors, the Independents, the Spanish, the Morrokans. You need for one power to completely own all five tunnel segments to pass your ships through.
I would drown four land tiles to widen the passage: 1SE of Cordoba, 1S of Valencia, 3S of Valencia, and 2SE of Valencia. (And naturally, that also distort the coastline, so that's ging to have another rat's-tail of changes.
... Or we abandon the concept of cultural sea tile control, not just for caravels and Dutch ships.
This is about chokepoints. If you want to pass through unimpeded, you or a OB friend needs to be in control of 1 (or more) of X tiles. So if you are a very very lucky England and manage to be friends with Spain and Italy, you might be actually able to pass towards British-Egypt and British-Arabia via Gibraltar, if Spain controls at least 1 water tile at each column.
From west to east, the 1.16 map has the following configuration: 4 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 4. This means, if Morokko and Spain both controls the one tile closest to Hispania/Africa, the third column would be the single choke point. Of course, if Morokko controls the one tile of the third column and Spain both tiles of the sixth column, nobody's ships can pass through - unless these ships have OB with both nations. Or, with at least two forced stops, if they are at war with both nations.
Your new big map presents the following configuration: 4 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 4 / 4. That means three single-tile chokepoints (I looked wrong before, it's not five). But even three, are much worse.
The current map already has a totally worthless mediterranean sea unless you are willing to go to war over each and every ship movement. The following nations are competing in the ancient times: Egypt, Phoenicia/Carthage, Greece, Rome. The dark ages then add Barbarians, Independents, Byzantines, Vikings and Arabians. Then the medieval times add Moors, Spanish, French, English, Holy-Germans, Russians. Late medieval adds Polish, Portuguese, Italians and Turkish. I have bolded the ones who often hold naval passageways hostage in my games, and who do so for long, long times while I can't access the general area. Historically, the English should also be included as bolded ones, but that rarely happens.
I was just recently playing an Italy game, and the "mare nostrum" meant that with 1 laternas, 1 caravel and 1 transporter ship, I could walk around the Mare until it was fully Nostrum. There was a single sea battle in the 14th century, the rest was silence, I just had to conquer the coasts from the independents, one civ after the other. As Russia, only the AI tries to build ships, at all. As Turkey, I might build a similar fleet as in my recent Italy game to defend the eastern mediterranean and all the seas around Arabia - and that fleet would feel overbuilt for most of the game. As Morocco, the Corsair raiding is much easier in the North Sea than in the Mediterranean! As England, there is no point in constructing Suez, unless I also conquer Sicily and Gibraltar. As France, the mediterranean coast is completely worthless for seafaring purposes, even if I own Marseilles. It all goes similarly for players of Byzantines, Arabs. You can exert cultural control of the water and the sea resources, but there is no point in seafaring expeditions. As Holy Rome, you either do a quick land crusade via the OB of Byzantium, or you forget about Jerusalem.
The quickest and safest ways on the oceans are always around Cape Hoorn and Capetown. That is even more aggravated by the idea that the open ocean would always allow for faster travel than the coast. I don't really like that idea.
SpoilerSo here is what I would change about the entire situation :
I think there should be three types of water terrains (not counting lakes):
- Coast: 1 movement point for most ships (half with "Coastal Navigation")
- Ocean: 1 movement point for most ships (impassable before Compass; halved for ships with Oil/Uranium Engines)
- Deep Ocean: 2 movement points for most ships (impassable before Exploration; halved for ships with Oil/Uranium Engines, )
Of course, there are still the island features:
- Islands/Atolls (visible features): 2 movement points (Tech Navigation provides defense bonus). A ship that has less than 2XP, takes 1/5 damage when leaving this tile; and gains 1 XP.
- Coastal Reefs (invisible): 3 movement points (Impassable before compass. Tech Cartography provides: battle bonus and halved movement costs for tile owner and their OBs). A ship that has less than 5 XP, takes 1/3 damage when leaving the tile, and gains 1 XP.
The "Deep Ocean" would represent unfavorable currents as well as stormy areas, while the "Ocean" would represent the areas that are generally favorable for ship movements. This would require the players to not blindly send ships out, but to look for the best routes. Deep ocean would be involved in separating the Brazil tip from Africa, so that the earliest explorer ships (Spanish/Portuguese or later French/English) would mainly use two or three "lanes" across the Northern Atlantic (west, and not southwest for the Brazil tip a.k.a. Recife). Also, the south Atlantic, south Indic and south Pacific would mainly be Deep Ocean. This would put a definite end to the current strategy to circumsail the world around Antarctica, and force players (human and AI) to concentrate on a course closer to the equator. Cape Hoorn and Cape of Good Hope would be surrounded with Reefs and Deep Oceans, which disincentivizes these routes. It also complicates things for "Early Eastern Explorers" (Arabia, Mughals and China quite regularly circumsail the world first and we all go "hahh?"). The Deep Oceans would also be less regularly explored, at least until late in the game. Introducing the shipping lanes mentioned above would also allow for easier ambushes.
Okay, this makes things complicated for the Antarctic shortcuts - but how can the Mediterranean area be made un-complicated? With that, I also mean the Red Sea + Arabia, the Baltic Sea, the Carribean, and the entire East-Asian area.
This way: Changed Navigation mechanics:
"Open Seas Navigation": (starting promo for: caravel, all Dutch ships): The ship can enter Ocean/Deep Ocean tiles that are under control of another Civ that the ship-owner doesn't have Open Borders with, including Independents. Available as entry-level promo for frigate, lineships, submarines and carriers. Available for the rest* of the ships when having at least one other navigation promo already. (the rest*: just not for coastal-only ones, duh)
"Coastal Navigation" (starting promo for: galleass; Viking longship, fishing boat, torpedo boat): The ship can move in own/OB coastal territory at half movement; and can enter not-OB coastal territory. Available as regular promo for many* other ships, if having at least one other navigation promo already. (many*: not for Carriers, Nuclear Submarines and Battleships).
"Navigation 1": +1 movement, can be acquired if having at least one other navigation promo already, OR "Disengage 1".
"Navigation 2": +1 movement. Prereq is "Navigation 1".
That would make certain ships specialists for their environment: a Caravel would need 2XP; a Frigate however 5 XP to get towards Coastal Navigation, and then be able to go through the Mediterranean area (and others) in a breeze. A French Galleass or Torpedo Boat could be built in Marseilles, and immediately be moved around Spain to protect the French Atlantic coast. A cog or galleon would however need to gain 10XP to move into the protected coastal areas... unless it is a Spanish or Dutch one, which get their first navigation promos for free, and just need to invest 2XP. And a spanish caravel starts with three navigation promos (one from caravel, two from UP). While coastal navigation (crossing non-OB waters) should be available in all eras just as a possibility for smaller craft, the biggest capital ships like the Carrier shouldn't be able to exploit that for sneak maneuvers.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
