[Development] Map Suggestions

Hi all! I've been reading this forum for a while, but have never really contributed, until now! I thought I'd give the political boundary method on the United States a shot. (long post, sorry :))

Methodology:
First, I overlayed a map of the US onto a screenshot of the continental US from the new map, trying to skew it and distort it to roughly fit the shape of the coast.

Spoiler US Map overlay :
1m4e3t.png


I used that map as a rough guide as I filled in cultural boundaries. While the shape of each state was most important when choosing tiles for each state, I also kept track of how many tiles each state occupied, and compared that to how many tiles they should occupy given their actual land areas. This helped me keep proportions. This is what I got:

Spoiler USA Map States Labelled :
Wr0nq4.png


And here are the results for the comparison between actual size and represented size:

Spoiler USA Map Size Accuracy :
bv9ysm.png


I'd like to think I remained mostly faithful, but I had to make a few compromises in areas in favor of shape over accuracy.

With the political map done, I moved on to the next step of trying to improve the map's geographical features. I have only done bodies of water (rivers and lakes) right now, but if people like my approach I'd be happy to tackle more, including resources and terrain type! Here are the changes I thought were best by region:

North:
I'll start with the region with the most drastic changes. It was not possible for me to reconcile either the shape or the area of states with the current positioning of the Great Lakes - they're just too far west (as you can see in the first image). Accordingly, I moved each lake 1 tile east and shortened Lake Ontario to only one tile. If we look at the actual sizes of the great lakes, Lake Ontario and Erie should only be one tile at most, Lake Michigan and Huron should be 2 tiles, and Lake Superior should be 3. I only changed Lake Ontario because I liked the shape of the remaining Great Lakes. I moved over resources adjacent to the Great Lakes too so they would remain in the same spot relative to the lakes.
Other changes include:
-lengthening the Hudson and Susquehanna Rivers
-shifting the northern Mississippi river over to the East by one tile to hug the eastern border of Iowa.
Spoiler North Changes :
zoE2W4.png


South:
The only non-river change: I added the Florida Keys west of Miami (instead of south) to not slow ships moving between Florida and Cuba.
I used a map of major US rivers to determine which rivers to include or not, so that is why there are both inclusions and removals:
-added the Savannah river to the border of Georgia and South Carolina
-shifted the mouth of the Alabama one tile west to put it closer to where Mobile would be
-removed Brazos River. There is a river in East Texas near Houston on the current map (I think it is supposed to be the Brazos)
-shifted a part of the Rio Grande one tile north to have it conform to the border of Texas
-added the Red River that forms the Oklahoma-Texas border and feeds into the Mississippi
-shifted the Arkansas River over one tile (in Arkansas) because it should not border Texas
-shifted the Arkansas River up one tile (in Kansas and Colorado) because it should not border Texas
Spoiler South Changes :
2EzHkX.png


Midwest Changes:
-Added the Platte River
-Shifted the Missouri River East so that it forms the eastern border of Nebraska
-Shifted the Missouri River North so that it does not stay on the South Dakota-Nebraska border too long
-Shifted the Missouri River South so that it does not border Canada
Spoiler Midwest Changes :
KsqnqN.png


West Changes
- Moved the mouth of the Columbia River one tile north so that it is on the border of Oregon and Washington
Spoiler West Changes :
RG0Xpo.png


Thanks for reading, and I'd love to hear feedback!
 
The borders look good, and also the river changes seem sensible.

I don't think I will include the moved great lakes though. While it's more accurate, it just takes space away from the east coast that is more historically significant and rather crowded already.
 
Perhaps we should just move away from the whole Greece discussion entirely, since it doesn't seem to have helped in any way. (sigh)

For the record, I think North Africa's shape is fine as it is. I don't know about resources though.
 
Perhaps we should just move away from the whole Greece discussion entirely, since it doesn't seem to have helped in any way. (sigh)

For the record, I think North Africa's shape is fine as it is. I don't know about resources though.

Has anyone said welcome to you yet? Welcome to the best modmod in CIV history. Also welcome to our most contentious thread. Seriously, we've had more fights over Königsberg than Israel-Palestine-Judea-Philistine.
 
Volksfront von Königsberg vs Königsberger Volksfront, fight
 
All right, but apart from the tech tree, the new civs, the new buildings, the 1700 start, the altered game speeds, the stability overhaul, the diplomatic overhaul, the religious overhaul, and the espionage overhaul, what has Leoreth ever done for us?
 
Has anyone said welcome to you yet? Welcome to the best modmod in CIV history. Also welcome to our most contentious thread. Seriously, we've had more fights over Königsberg than Israel-Palestine-Judea-Philistine.

I meant progress with the map, since it looks like Greece will be staying the way it was. General facts though, I learned quite a bit. :lol:
 
Has anyone ever tried or read about the feasibility of adding another terrain elevation level (i.e. besides water, flatland, hills, peaks)?

I am thinking that it would be cool to have a highlands terrain that looks like hills but has the properties of flatland (easier movement, more food over production). It would be nice to have for places like Ethiopia, Highveld or Tibet.
 
Has anyone ever tried or read about the feasibility of adding another terrain elevation level (i.e. besides water, flatland, hills, peaks)?

I am thinking that it would be cool to have a highlands terrain that looks like hills but has the properties of flatland (easier movement, more food over production). It would be nice to have for places like Ethiopia, Highveld or Tibet.
Could also be useful in the Andes between the coast and the mountains as much of the inhabited regions are definitely higher than hills and are the more productive/fertile than the typically arid coastal regions. That and the coastal plains are very narrow in reality.
 
I once did some experiments by replacing the current peaks with the suggested highlands. I made a new feature type that replaced the peaks.

I didn't consider adding a new elevation type as an option, so I have no clue how feasible that is. But I can take a look at it. Although based on my understanding of some mechanics I got from the experience I'm afraid it could be hidden in the graphics engine.
 
Yeah I recall that. I don't actually need it too look different if that's a problem, but I don't think they're worth getting rid of an existing elevation. There's definitely some DLL code to change because many mechanics are hardcoded to specific elevation types, but I can make that work later. I'm currently wondering if it works with the graphics engine at all.

Another solution is to use hill terrain but add an invisible feature called highlands with +1 food -1 production. But that's ugly especially because that would introduce conflicts with other features.
 
Mostly cosmetic, but it could have implications on movement going from flatlands to highlands.
 
I believe the Alpha Centauri mod has three types of elevation, with units unable to move from one extreme to another (so for example, flatlands > hills is possible, flatlands > mountain is impossible).
 
Has anyone ever tried or read about the feasibility of adding another terrain elevation level (i.e. besides water, flatland, hills, peaks)?

I am thinking that it would be cool to have a highlands terrain that looks like hills but has the properties of flatland (easier movement, more food over production).

Could you change peak into terrain feature and then change peak elevation level into highlands?
 
I don't think so, terrain features are objects on the terrain surface, and only the elevation type can impact the actual shape of the surface.
 
But if we had a good enough model of peak for use as a terrain feature, would that then accomplish what you want?
 
I believe the Alpha Centauri mod has three types of elevation, with units unable to move from one extreme to another (so for example, flatlands > hills is possible, flatlands > mountain is impossible).

It does. But that mod doesn't have peaks because of this.

Could you change peak into terrain feature and then change peak elevation level into highlands?

That is exactly what I did in my experiments. But Leoreth mentioned he would rather not get rid of a plotType. (Peaks in this case)
 
Back
Top Bottom