[Development] Alternative Map during 1.17

I don't know I think it's weird that Axum is a coastal city but that's a very popular idea here. It's clearly inland but it was the major center of a coastal civ. That's exactly how I feel about Cordoba, in order to not eff the Moors on coastal potential it seems to me we should just accept that Cordoba will be on the coast (as it is on the current map). It is the most important city of a coastal civ in a map too small to place both a coastal city and a landlocked city by any means accurately in the region of Cordoba.

 

I think there're 2 ways to delay the development of South China.
First, as I mentioned before, set a lot of rainforests and marshes in South China in 3000bc, then change to developable tiles at the scheduled time. Here below I've made a schedule of the tile changes in South China (Basically in accordance with historical facts), for reference.

Spoiler :

3000BC(Only reserves the tiles of important cities)
[118, 46] change to rainforest
[119, 44] change to rainforest
[120, 46] change to rainforest
[120, 45] change to rainforest
[120, 43] change to rainforest
[121, 47] change to peak
[121, 46] change to hill, bamboo(it's the tile of Guiyang)
[121, 44] change to rainforest
[122, 48] change to rainforest
[122, 45] change to marsh
[123, 49] change to marsh
[123, 48] change to marsh, remove rice
[123, 47] change to rainforest
[123, 43] change to rainforest
[124, 49] change to marsh
[124, 45] change to rainforest
[124, 41] change to rainforest
[125, 46] change to rainforest
[125, 45] change to rainforest
[126, 45] change to rainforest
[126, 44] change to marsh
[127, 46] change to rainforest
[127, 45] change to rainforest
[127, 44] change to rainforest
[130, 44] change to marsh, remove sugar
[130, 43] change to rainforest
[131, 44] change to rainforest

Spoiler :

500BC #the rise of Chu State
[123, 49] marsh changes to grassland
[123, 48] marsh changes to grassland, add rice
[123, 47] remove rainforest
[124, 49] marsh changes to grassland

Spoiler :

200AD #the rise of Three Kingdoms
[120, 46] remove rainforest
[122, 48] rainforest changes to bamboo
[125, 48] jungle changes to forest
[125, 46] remove rainforest
[127, 46] remove rainforest

Spoiler :

600AD #develop in South China after Tang Dynasty
[117, 45] independent Dali spawns(the rise of Nanzhao State, maybe spawn in 738AD)
[118, 46] rainforest changes to bamboo
[120, 45] rainforest changes to forest
[123, 46] remove rainforest
[124, 45] remove rainforest
[125, 45] rainforest changes to forest

Spoiler :

1100AD #the Royal Family of Song Dynasty moves to the South
[122, 45] marsh changes to grassland
[123, 43] remove rainforest
[124, 41] remove rainforest
[126, 45] remove rainforest
[126, 44] remove marsh
[127, 45] rainforest changes to forest
[127, 44] remove rainforest

Spoiler :

1350AD #the rise of Ming Dynasty, develop in Yunnan and Taiwan
[118, 44] remove rainforest(can build pasture on this cow till now)
[119, 44] remove rainforest
[120, 43] rainforest changes to forest
[121, 44] rainforest changes to forest
[130, 44] marsh changes to grassland, add sugar
[130, 43] rainforest changes to forest
[131, 44] rainforest changes to bamboo

Spoiler :

The second is to add a new terrain feature, Dense Forest. It's existing in RFCEurope, and has 2 shapes, one looks like Taiga and another exists in warm regions. I think it could also make sense in DoC, not only exists in South China, but also in Manchuria, South Siberia, Alps, Scotland, North America and so on. Dense Forest could -1 food and commerce, +0.5 to the tile, and when you get Steel or Machinery, you can chop it and get some hammers.
In this way players can decide when to develop these tiles by themselves, but not decided by AI.

Spoiler :

 

I really like the idea of adding Dense Forest

Perhaps it could give +1 or even +2 with Lumbermill? That way these tiles could prove useful in the late-game, even with the built-in disadvantages you list.

 

Looks like the southeastern coastline of China is perhaps too diagonal and not horizontal enough?

For instance, relative to Hainan and Taiwan I would see Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta on the tile with the islands feature, 1W of the fish. But then it feels weird that HK gets a large eastern coastline, so the tile 1N of the fish would need to be land too.

Alternatively, HK could be the tile 1NW of the fish, but I would still turn the tile east of it into land. Actually that might work fairly well: Guangzhou could be 1W of HK and Macao (if we want a Macao tile) 1SW.

In any case, I think at least 1 land tile needs to be added to extend the west-east shape of the southern coastline.

 

Adding a row in South China makes it weird to look, I prefer to keep the recent shape of South China.
Also, if add a row in Burma and Vietman, will it be possible to add Burma civ and Vietnam civ in the game? The space is enough, and can prevent AI China expand into North Indochina.

 

Basically the southern coast of Guangdong is at the same latitude with the southern tip of Taiwan. Considering the Qiongzhou Strait is much wider in the game than in reality, I think keeping the recent shape of South China coast is a good choice.

Spoiler :

 

I like the additional tiles in Indochina, but I don't think they look good in South China. Taiwan is heavily out of proportion, so we shouldn't use it as a reference to adjust other landmasses. A two-tile (vertically) bay off Hanoi would look appropriate I think (which is to say, it's also good in that sense to remove the tiles from southern China).

 

I tend to like what you've done with the above adjustments @Leoreth

To my eye, Southern China was completely messed but I had no idea where to start with it. I am inclined to agree with ozqar that we should have a two tile bay vertically around North Vietnam but it would be either a larger Southern China or a larger Indochina. Also, I don't think the map soulbreathing provided is Robinson projection so I don't know if it applies. I'm inclined to agree that the southern coast of China should extend South of Taiwan and to me this is of greater priority than Indochina if it's a trade-off. Guangdong has, I think, greater historical significance.

 

I know, I've wanted to try, but work has been crazy these last weeks and I barely have any free time. I come to the forum to distract myself momentarily

 

For me, I prefer keeping the recent shape of South China and Indochina. Do not move Australia 1S, I feel Tasmania is too close to the Antarctica, if Australia moved 1S. (Maybe New Zealand needs to move 1N because of the same reason, the southern lip of New Zealand is only 2 tiles away from Antarctica, it's a little odd)
I know you want to make Banda Aceh at the same row with the southern lip of Sri Lanka, so how about cut a row in South India and move Sri Lanka 1N? It's a simple way to achieve the goal.
It's only my own opinion, just for reference.

Spoiler :

 

India's southern tip looks odd. Try either moving or adding land 1 tile to the west.

 

Shifting Indonesia 1S without also shifting Australia will make the two regions too close to each other, and they might even touch. Also, the Tamils need the space so I'm against removing any more tiles from southern India. I think Sri Lanka is a bit enlarged, though; if correct, we can take this into account.

About Guangzhou and Hong Kong, I was thinking that (wrt the map before shifting regions because the rivers haven't been fixed yet), Hong Kong should be on the Guangzhou tile, and Guangzhou would be 1N on the Sugar. Guangzhou here would still be a coastal city, although it'd be a bit more inland. I think that would be better than having to bother about a lagoon on Hong Kong.

I'm not sure about this, but I think the tip of the Malay peninsula should be much further down (1-2 tiles?). But I also think this wouldn't be possible without shifting the rest way too south.

Spoiler :