[Development] Map Suggestions

[DC123456789]

As far as I can tell, the current map is laid out based on the modern coastline, so if anything we should take away a land tile to return later. I see two problems with this: it reduces the space in Mespotamia when you need it the most (if you really want to represent a Sumerian city), and I am hesitant to dynamically change coastlines because there are graphical artifacts until you force the map to rerender by reloading etc.

Maybe it could start off as a lagoon tile, switching to a desert/floodplains tile later?

 

[Leoreth]

Interesting idea, but I don't think that Ur was built literally in the water like Venice or New Orleans are, so that would be misleading.

 

[Steb]

So, maybe not feasible, and probably not a good idea. All right. I couldn’t find a good date anyway. It’s possible the silting happened far enough in the past that it wouldn’t matter except in the first few turns of the game.

 

[Enyavar]

If players want to behave very unhistorically, they can settle Middle Europe really early. I know I have done stuff as Greece or Rome, in Britain/Germany/Russia, even Scandinavia. And if not with Settlers, then with exploring warriors/archers, claiming all the huts. I really was frustrated when a Greek archer once beat my Babylonian militia to the final European hut in Norway. Which is as hilarious as when I built Roman Roads through Poland... in BCE times.

Would it be possible to set large parts of Middle Europe as "Forested Swamps", and switch them to "Forested Grassland" areas once civilizations are going to settle there in earnest?

• It makes these areas undesirable in the ancient/classical game, as they should be anyway (for the AI which is guided by settler maps; and the player who is guided by UHV)
  
• It makes some areas unaccessible for all military units - only scouts would still be able to go there in the early game, and they're bear snacks.
  
• It is historical correct and simulates how the "native" inhabitants have spent centuries towards making their lands arable, long before the advent of the "proper" civilizations that settle there later.

I can imagine Northern France, Germany, Poland, Russia, Scandinavia and England covered in forested swamps, nearly everywhere where there is no hill, and sometimes even on hills (bog moors). Well, scandinavia wouldn't have THAT much swamps, but Finland would, cutting the peninsula off from early explorers. Northern France clears up (partially) first, with the advent of the Gauls, fully when Francia spawns. The England spawn should remove the swamps on their island. Germany's south and west clears up around 100 AD (limes times), and fully when Germany spawns. Some parts of Germany around Berlin take their time until the 1000s even. Poland clears nearly fully up around that same time, one or two spots take their time still. Russia's prime spots should be possible to settle when Russia spawns, but also take their time until the 1000s, and several northeastern parts of their core take time until the 1200s.
Summing it up: Nothing to seriously impede the medieval Civ spawns, but seriously impeding the ancient civs from even roaming there.

 

[ozqar]

I'm really in favor of forested swamps! Not sure to what extent they should cover that many areas as Enyavar mentions, but the general idea is nice. Also (mentioned in another thread) they are relevant in many places of the world: Congo, Amazon, Orinoco basin, Borneo, Louisiana, Florida, etc. I'm not sure about China, but perhaps this were partly a reason why river deltas in the east and south weren't settled from early times.

 

[Leoreth]

I think it's too complicated to manage all of that. Once we have an agreed upon state of the world in 3000 BC we can start thinking about some of that more, but I think it's sufficient to address this with resource spawns, e.g. having resources in parts of e.g. Europe that weren't developed until the Middle Ages appear only after the classical period, and so on.

I think that's somewhat out of the scope of creating the map itself and more something to work on when the map actually becomes integrated into the mod.

 

[Krieger-FS]

So like was promised, I'm sending the world builder save and game save with my revised proposals for South America.

I've made several minor adjustments after the posts and following suggestions, the main being:
- minor adjustments in Amazon basin rivers, the most relevant was the removal of Putumayo (Colombia-Peruvian border) for the representation of the more important Japurá-Caquetá river 1N (Colombia-Brazil).
- minor adjustments in cities locations, mostly in North and Central-West Brazil. In the former, I've adjusted them in relation to the 1E enlargment of Colombia, while in the latter I've tried to place them the most accuratelly possible considering the distortion imposed by the enlargement of Brazilian Southeast and South regions.
- added a suggested lagoon in South Brazil representing Lagoa dos Patos, which would be the canonical location of Porto Alegre. The Lagoa dos Patos is the largest "true" lagoon (10.000 sq km) in South America, however its shape (long but not very wide) may dismiss its inclusion.
- added Iguaçu/Iguazú river in the triple frontier of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay.
- added some floodplains near Plate/Paraná and Magdalena rivers, so the Argentine and Colombian cores could have larger cities. After Brazil, these are the most populated countries in South America.
- added jungle in Pacific NW Colombia to prevent founding cities there.
- added moorland terrain in Falklands and Argentine Patagonia.
- added some marsh terrain (not the feature!) so we can have an aesthetical terrain diversity in Amazon.
- added suggestions of Andean passes in Peru and Ecuador.

Thanks again for all suggestions and feedback!

 

[Leoreth]

Thank you for the wbsaves, but can you also show your final changes in a series of screenshots? I usually work from there, since merging a wbsaves directly becomes problematic when our base maps diverge, and it's not possible to have two saves open at the same time.

 

[Krieger-FS]

Sure, here it goes. Some places changed quite little and may be difficult to spot it.

Eastern Amazon basin:

Spoiler :

Western Amazon basin + Andean mountain passes:

Spoiler :

Revised Colombia:

Spoiler :

Brazilian Central-West:

Spoiler :

Southern Brazil, Northern Argentina and Paraguay:

Spoiler :

Southern Patagonia and Falklands:

Spoiler :

 

[Leoreth]

Thanks!

Any ideas on how to close off the Andes to the north to contain the Inca?

 

[BarbarianX]

Thanks!

Any ideas on how to close off the Andes to the north to contain the Inca?

Maybe have them start as jungles and change to forest/clearing in 1500.

 

[Leoreth]

Settlers, workers and scouts can cross jungles.

 

[Krieger-FS]

Well, as I said in the post about Colombia, I see two basic possibilities: 1) the easiest would be add mountain titles in Pasto and 1W of it (that would open in 1500, which is when the Spanish arrived), effectivelly limiting the Incas to their real life maximum northern expansion or, the more complex/fun but possibly not effective, 2) add an independent/native Bacatá in Bogotá title spawning by 1400, hostile to the Incas and well garrisoned. Perhaps it could be a combination of the two, with a mountain block before 1400 and Bacatá after.

 

[TJDowling]

I understand and agree with the "distortions policy" in DoC, however I don't think we can make much more room at the expense of Amazon, as it is already compressed in all sides. If we take more, Amazon rainforest might lose its huge scale. Besides, the Colombian issue, as I see, is more vertically related to the larger Andean valleys in Peru (needed for the Inca and which could be optionally compensated by the artic row for a better South American shape) and the need to proper represent, horizontally, the Magdalena basin.

Regarding the last, I think I can come with a solution at expense of the Guianas. JDowling's suggestion of moving the eastern South American coast 1E, which I fully embraced in my proposal, meaned the French Guiana basically doubled her size, and I think we could removed some titles there. Later I will make my post of Venezuela/Guianas with that proposal, which tries to solve at least the Colombian Magdalena area issue.

Yeah I found it pretty difficult to represent both Peru and Colombia adequately in the space given. Definitely seemed compressed vertically.

And regarding the North-South limits of the Incas similar to my suggestion that the Mapuche should be represented by a well-garrisoned independent, so too could the Bacata. Seems much more interesting than vanishing mountains. I think vanishing mountains should be saved for the passages near Cuzco and Tiwanaku.

 

[ozqar]

Hey Krieger, would you want to take a look at the proportions of Venezuela relative to the rest of the continent? I think it suffers the same issue as Colombia, in the map it looks incredibly flat. I see the borders you marked follows the shape of the real ones, and are aligned to them, but it looks like there's also a whole row of land tiles missing. Colombia looks way better now with the changes you made, but Venezuela didn't really benefit from this (perhaps because the land you added was in Southern Colombia). I'm wondering if Brazil is too big here and if the border (and geographical features) should be pushed south? Alternatively, possibly pushing the row that includes Caracas one tile North would fix this. This would also make the Guajira peninsula longer, but I think that might be good, and possibly there's no need to push North America north because the connection to Panama is farther south than this.

 

[TJDowling]

Also another thought if we're really concerned about space in the more important regions of South America, without touching the Arctic if we revert Tierra del Fuego back to its original shape (not the more aesthetically pleasing one I proposed) then I think we get one more tile space between the tip of South America and Antarctica making it possible to shift Antarctica 1S from whatever latitude necessary. Considering Tierra del Fuego is not very important geographically the reduced size/detail wouldn't be much missed.

 

[Enyavar]

Perhaps it could be a combination of the two, with a mountain block before 1400 and Bacatá after.

Well, as I said in the post about Colombia, I see two basic possibilities: 1) the easiest would be add mountain titles in Pasto and 1W of it (that would open in 1500, which is when the Spanish arrived), effectivelly limiting the Incas to their real life maximum northern expansion or, the more complex/fun but possibly not effective, 2) add an independent/native Bacatá in Bogotá title spawning by 1400, hostile to the Incas and well garrisoned. Perhaps it could be a combination of the two, with a mountain block before 1400 and Bacatá after.

If I knew these dates and wanted to have some cheese, I'd place a city right next to the mountain. Then the mountain disappears but Bacata and its garrison can't be placed. That's what you mean by "not effective", right?

Well, I'm not sure about the mountain blockades, in the current map the two disappearing mountains are pretty subtle.
I first thought Guayaquil would be a predestined spot to place just one mountain to ward the Incas off, but Quito (north of that spot) was a late Inca conquest before the Spanish invaded.

I would imagine not to ward the Inca off the north with a hard restraint. Instead trigger the appearance of two wild Jaguars in the Colombian jungles whenever one jungle-passing unit comes past a certain tile? And the same for the Maya's approach from the North? That works unless the AI is prioritizing scouts, thus wasting energy and time to make it past the wildlife.

 

[Krieger-FS]

And regarding the North-South limits of the Incas similar to my suggestion that the Mapuche should be represented by a well-garrisoned independent, so too could the Bacata. Seems much more interesting than vanishing mountains. I think vanishing mountains should be saved for the passages near Cuzco and Tiwanaku.

I don't know if it would be a good idea to represent the Mapuche as an independent city. I'm far from being an expert, but afaik, the Mapuche never devolped a state organization or built proper cities, especially this early. I would rather maintain their representation as it is already implemented, with native units spawning in Chile.

Hey Krieger, would you want to take a look at the proportions of Venezuela relative to the rest of the continent? I think it suffers the same issue as Colombia, in the map it looks incredibly flat. I see the borders you marked follows the shape of the real ones, and are aligned to them, but it looks like there's also a whole row of land tiles missing. Colombia looks way better now with the changes you made, but Venezuela didn't really benefit from this (perhaps because the land you added was in Southern Colombia). I'm wondering if Brazil is too big here and if the border (and geographical features) should be pushed south? Alternatively, possibly pushing the row that includes Caracas one tile North would fix this. This would also make the Guajira peninsula longer, but I think that might be good, and possibly there's no need to push North America north because the connection to Panama is farther south than this.

About proportions, I don't think Venezuela is too much distorted or compressed in relation to the rest of the continent. I must admit that I had troubles with Guajira peninsula because I found difficult to properly represent it in map and I'm not much satisfied with current design. Pushing a row north could be a good idea, but I would limit in Venezuela to only the two titles west of Caracas (i.e., the Falcón state). If we change all the line, it would probably mess with the Guyana border.

About Brazil, I don't think it is too big vertically here. In fact, Brazil as whole is probably compressed one title vertically, which would to be add south of Salvador to the border with Bolivia. The main distortion in Brazilian Amazon is the western border with Colombia/Peru, which in map is probably 1W of what should be. However, this change would only affect Peru (which is already enlarged relatively with other countries) and Colombia (who doesn't have any important city in Amazon).

Brazil represents about 50% of South America and I tried to maintain this proportion. The main areas enlarged are the southeast and south regions, which were expanded at the cost of Brazilian central-west, Bolivian lowlands and Paraguayan Gran Chaco (the latter two are also compressed by the enlargement of the Altiplano). If you guys think that Brazil should be smaller, I can come of a solution reducing the southeast region (São Paulo, Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro states), however I should stress that ideally Brazil should have at least three large cities there to properly represent it.

Also another thought if we're really concerned about space in the more important regions of South America, without touching the Arctic if we revert Tierra del Fuego back to its original shape (not the more aesthetically pleasing one I proposed) then I think we get one more tile space between the tip of South America and Antarctica making it possible to shift Antarctica 1S from whatever latitude necessary. Considering Tierra del Fuego is not very important geographically the reduced size/detail wouldn't be much missed.

We could do that and I agree with you, but I don't think we urgently need to add another title line in the continent. I think that removing one Artic ice line (of the two in the original map) was enough and the shape seems good to me, but of course any ideas to improve it are welcome.

If I knew these dates and wanted to have some cheese, I'd place a city right next to the mountain. Then the mountain disappears but Bacata and its garrison can't be placed. That's what you mean by "not effective", right?

Well, I'm not sure about the mountain blockades, in the current map the two disappearing mountains are pretty subtle.
I first thought Guayaquil would be a predestined spot to place just one mountain to ward the Incas off, but Quito (north of that spot) was a late Inca conquest before the Spanish invaded.

I would imagine not to ward the Inca off the north with a hard restraint. Instead trigger the appearance of two wild Jaguars in the Colombian jungles whenever one jungle-passing unit comes past a certain tile? And the same for the Maya's approach from the North? That works unless the AI is prioritizing scouts, thus wasting energy and time to make it past the wildlife.

What I mean by not effective is that player units would still be able to pass the blockade (Bacatá and units) with some work, like how Egyptian/Babylonian players could do it early in game with Jerusalem. Nonetheless, if the player really wants, he/she could also bypass the mountain blocks with ships, so I was only thinking here in terms of the IA.

About blocking near Guayaquil, you are right, that probably could be the predestined spot, however I found that the area had a substantial Inca presence. The indigenous peoples in present day Ecuador made a fierce resistance against the Inca (which would be nice to represent with native units appearing), what led them to built several fortresses, called Pukara, in the area. Also, both present-day Quito and Cuenca were very important cities within the Inca empire.

I do like the idea of native units spawning if Inca units pass the "block" area, though.

 

[Leoreth]

Why reduce the southeast of Brazil of all places? I think the northern Amazon basin can easily lose some tiles.

 

[Krieger-FS]

Well, just thinking in solutions if you think that Brazil is too enlarged. I will push the Venezuelan border south so we can see how it becomes.