[Development] Map Suggestions

I'm afraid that approach still wouldn't solve Tunis/Qart-Hadahst problem, or many others that doesn't have a continuity in the area..

Spoiler :

If Qart-Hadahst is renamed to Tunis upon Islam, this will breaks Rhye's signature Tell-el-lalala city naming and also a consistency problem
If Qart-Hadahst is NOT renamed to Tunis, we will see more ancient archeological mound as bustling city name.


How about taking a bargain where cities like this first take the Arabicized name (well, it usually arise when Arab came, conquer and raze these classical cities and built one near it) and in the next or next next turn they get renamed to the real nearby city set by the conquering civilization? I thought this is a win win solution, but could be pain in the butt coding it.

Code:
Illustration:

Turn -1: Qart-Hadasht, a Carthaginian city. (or its variation)
Turn 0: Qart-Hadasht conquered by Arab, rename to Qartaj
Turn 1/2/3*: Qartaj (now Arab), renamed to Tunis.

Thus the Qart-Hadasht variation of city name set will cease to exist and the next conquering names of the tiles use Tunis' variation set.

Another prime example will be Babylon (or its variation) -> Babil -> Baghdad
*can be discussed later
 
That's nothing different from how things work right now, once Carthage has become Tunis there is no way back.
 
That's nothing different from how things work right now, once Carthage has become Tunis there is no way back.

Sorry, I should have been more clearer.

This is all entry on the CNM on the Gulf of Tunis (that contain Qartaj):

1. Carthaginian, line 4483
Code:
    "Cartagine"             :    "Qart-Hadasht",
    "Carthago"              :    "Qart-Hadasht",
    "Karkhedon"            :    "Qart-Hadasht",
    "Kartaca"                 :    "Qart-Hadasht",
    "Qartaj"                    :    "Qart-Hadasht",
    "Qart-Hadasht"        :    "Qart-Hadasht",

2. Arabia, line 5816
Code:
    "Qart-Hadasht"        :    "Qartaj",

While these are all entry on the CNM on the Gulf of Tunis that contain Tunis:

1. Arabia settler map, Line 1346 (not gonna copy the whole row here, obviously)

2. French settler map, Line 1696

3. Turkish settler map, Line 2467 (as Tunus)

4. dIdentifiers, Line 4902 (I don't really understand what it's for since it wasn't there when I was tampering with CNM long ago)
Code:
"Tunis"            :    "Tunus",
"Tunus"            :    "Tunus",

5. Arabia, line 5855
Code:
    "Tunus"            :    "Tunis",

*from this example we can infer that if Carthaginian was Roman city (as it should historically), Greek, Turkish, or even Italian (whut?), when Arabian camels set foot, the city name will remain a quo - as is if the city was conquered from Arab (there are no other entry that even tells Qartaj will be called Kartaca should Ottoman conquer it).These are easily missed oversight, because there are so many entries and what ifs. Perhaps it's nigh time for a more effective way, indeed. With 7 name variation, there will be 21 (if my Math is right, no longer using it) possible combination already.

As far as I understand there has't been any command yet to rename
Cartagine or Carthago or Karkhedon or Kartaca or Qartaj or Qart-Hadasht to Tunis or Tunus. I don't see any chance Tunis will be in the game unless a specific condition where the tile was razed followed by a new Arabian settler (or remain empty until French or Ottoman settler come) and settle there. Beside not historically that correct (Tunis was already there and also a seat of Catholic bishopric stuff at Roman time, but overshadowed greatly by nearby Carthago) , this scenario also very unlikely to happen since Carthage is where Carthaginian capital is located and AI don't usually raze bigger city. Also perhaps the Turkish name Kartaca and Italian name Cartagine should be removed as well, it's absurd and certainly will make the game more anachronistic.*

Perhaps, when all canonical cities has been decided, a separate thread could be started to discuss each of the permutation of the canonical cities. I could help more when the times come.
 
You're right, it doesn't happen with Carthage, but it's the case for the various incarnations of Byzantion/Constantinople/Istanbul.
 
Thank you. Byzantion/Constantinople/Istanbul, however, is a continuous settlement.

For cities that aren't that continuous, a better mechanic should be warranted. Please allow me to try putting another example here, while also highlighting the mechanism of their fall. I really enjoy doing this analysis haha

Spoiler :

Wikipedia for BABYLON said:
A tablet dated 275 BC states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace and a temple (Esagila) were built. With this deportation, Babylon became insignificant as a city, although more than a century later, sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary.
[...snip...]
Ibn Hauqal mentions a small village called Babel in the tenth century; subsequent travelers describe only ruins.

Wikipedia for SELEUCIA said:
The city eventually faded into obscurity and was swallowed by the desert sands, probably abandoned after the Tigris shifted its course.

Wikipedia for CTESIPHON said:
Ctesiphon was founded in the late 120s BCE. It was built on the site of a military camp established across from Seleucia by Mithridates I of Parthia. The reign of Gotarzes I saw Ctesiphon reach a peak as a political and commercial center.
[...snip...]
Later on, when the Muslims arrived at Ctesiphon, it was completely desolated, due to flight of the Sasanian royal family, nobles, and troops.
[...snip...]
Still, as political and economic fortune had passed elsewhere, the city went into a rapid decline, especially after the founding of the Abbasid capital at Baghdad in the 8th century, and soon became a ghost town.

For these city tile, since their fall can't be illustrated as ideal as their rise, I would like to propose a several point-of-no-return checkpoints, where some changes to be made in the CNM to making sure this will works.
1. If Babilû is conquered by Greece, instead of Babylon, it became Seleucia. (a quo: Babylon)
2. If by Persia, it shall become Tēsifōn or Tesifon* (a quo: Babirush**).
3. From there on, its name will be either a variation of Seleucia (for example: Veh-Ardashir by Persia, or Behrasir by Arab the reference can be found in the V-A link) or variation of Ctesiphon (for example: Qatasyfun by Arabia, Ctesiphon*** by Greece or Rome)

4. Whatever it current name (Babilû / Seleucia / Tēsifōn or its variation, including Arabic variation), shall change to Baghdad in 762 AD or turn ?? (Arab ownership is almost 100% guaranteed anyway)****
Note that a Ctesiphon (as Tisfun) -> Baghdad already existed in the file (Line 3269), though I'm not really sure if I understand.
5. Bagdad, if the sovereignty then transfers from Arab to Ottoman*****.


*Tisfun, the a quo entry, is a New Persian language
**The name Babirush can still be preserved as vassal name Satrap of Babirush (but status quo is fine too in line with other subjugated civs name)

***It should be Ktēsiphôn (Ktēsiphôn), but will be too complicated for a city that only appear on 1 of 1000 chances.
**** A nice easter egg if Babylon ever survive all Greek, Persian, and Arab invasion and managed to re-conquer their capital after it become Baghdad: Baghdatha
***** Unfortunately, I found no solid reference on Baghdad name post-Mongol sacking. Everywhere I read doesn't mention any Mongol-unique name during its rebuilding.

However, for easter egg reason, here you go:

1. Baghdad (Arab)
2. Bagdad (Ottoman, Mongol, English [this is historical, they got the city from Ottoman anyway] , default for European)
3. Bagdatum (Rome, Byzantium)
4. Baoda (China)
7. Baekdaet (Thai)
5. Bageudadeu (Korea)
6. Bagudaddo (Japan)
8. Paktat (Tamil)

Names that bolded, I deem it necessary because the tendency of these civilization to wander and conquer around.

 
Last edited:
Slowly marching on.

Caucasus region and southern Russia

upload_2018-7-8_0-18-33.png



Marked borders of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and six modern Caucasian states (red), fixes of Kuban and Terek (blue), draft border of arid steppe/semidesert (beige).

City map is sort of deformed (aftershock of shrunken in height Balkan region, as I see), but this placement doesn't make a lot of pain.

Mostly, resource placement in region is correct (or I'm not so familiar with it to notice errors), only fixed A) placement of coal (from Volgodonsk moved 1N)
Unnecessary fixes
- B) wine can be added in Batumi, both representation of wineyards of Caucasus and enforcing settling on more historically siginificant spot of Tbilisi than coastal ones.
- C) millet moved 1S, from 2nd Volgograd tile to Astrakhan, Stavropol and Atyrau BFC.
- D) Hill in West Kazakhstan moved from Aktau plot to 1NW (minor and irrelevant fix, Mangyshlak region needs tons of industrial resources somewhen).

Resource spawning:
- E) corn 1W from Saratov (89; 63) at 1700
- F) wheat in Armavir (87; 59) at 1700
- G) tobacco in Volgodonsk (87; 60) at 1700
- H) tea 1N from Baku (91;55) at 1850

In previous versions, silk spawned somewhere at Lover Volga in times of Golden Horde - it shouldn't, neither Mongols nor Russians didn't introduce silk here.

After all:

upload_2018-7-8_0-18-1.png


P.S.
Wikipedia is awesome (as usual):
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Agricultural_maps_of_the_world
 
Last edited:
Finbros's vision of new map is really complex and magnificient:) #NationalGeografic
Also I want to show my small changes for Central Russia, Ukraine and Crimean peninsula
1. + Vine + Horses in CRIMEA (greeks promote vine-production here and Catherine Second reanimate this tradition in the end of 1700-s;
2. + Cow + Corn to Ukraine - historically Ukrianian Lands had very reach soils etc.. and that's why Poland and Russian Emire fight fot them against each other during 16-18 centuries;
3. More marches near the Moscow: I think two is most balanced way which woun't damage core Russian area;
4. + Potato to Eastern Belarus which transrform land of forests to more convenient area of colonization (perhaps it should appear in 1800-s)
5. + OIL + Horses to Bashkiria (South part of Ural's montains)
6. Horses moved 1N and 1W - nowadays they situted near the river Don (famous Don's Cossaks etc)
7. Also there is disputed idea to add extra cows and potato into empty plains between Moscow and Lower Volga - but it will be really intrerting to listening other visions about this territiory
 

Attachments

  • MAP.jpg
    MAP.jpg
    539.3 KB · Views: 381
Last edited:
Is Moscow surrounded by geographically significant marshes or are you suggesting them to nerf the location?
 
Also I've prepared micro changes for Ukraine
1. IRON go 3E because center of local metallurgy Krivoi Rog should situated west then river Dnepr;
2. More SHEEPS in the western part of Carpatian Mountains (generally they will help Poland to keep its growth);
3. May be there is sense to move horses 2W because Kiev shuld't have access to them (because cossaks lived in the most south part of Dnepr). Also it will help to decrease productivity of Kiev and it will stimulate to found more sities in South or Eastern Ukraine. By the way in this location there are at least three big sities like Char'kov, Dnerpopetrovsk + Zaporozje - their common population is more than 4 millions so horses are good stimul to develop such area;
4. - 3 HILLS in the Western Ukraine (because only very small part of Carpatian mountains situated in Ukraine)
+ In the realistic map they should't cover Lvov/lemberg and either eastern lands
In map which I've found - there is info that Carpatian mountains occupy only the most western lands of Ukraine
 

Attachments

  • Ukraine.jpg
    Ukraine.jpg
    683.5 KB · Views: 278
  • Map Urkaine.jpg
    Map Urkaine.jpg
    95 KB · Views: 247
  • Ukraine 2.jpg
    Ukraine 2.jpg
    187.9 KB · Views: 238
Last edited:
Last region before Siberia.



Volga-Kama and Southern Ural.

Sketch:

upload_2018-7-9_18-5-34.png


Fixes:
1) Restored Tatarstan oil (Neftekamsk tile)
2) Placed horses 1W from Ufa (Bashkir horses)
3) Deers from Yekaterinburg tile moved 1NE (freeing location).
4) Moved sheeps 1W from Orenburg (freeing location)

Rearranged ores depostites in Southern and Central Ural: mostly randomly, except:
- aluminium removed at all.
- copper under Polevoy (5) — Gumyoshevsky mine, "The Copper Mountain" from modern Russian folklore
- uranium (6) placed less realistically, but more near to secret Soviet atomic towns (two marked on map, Novouralsk and notorious Ozersk)
- gold under Miass (7) — one of largest sources of gold for Russian Empire (sort of ahistorical - gold was found at Ural relatively late, at 183x, and lack of precious metals was an important fact for Russian history. If you want to remove it, place uranium from (6) here instead)
- iron placed under the Magnitogorsk (8) represents former Magnitka Mountain.
- in northwest Kazakhstan placed oil (9, Caspian petroleum province), salt (10) and rare earthes (11, chromites of Aktobe and Khromtau)

Semidesert belt extended east, broadleaf forest northern border moved north. It's tempting to start fixing marshes, but where marshes - there are rivers, where are rivers - there is whole Siberia with cities and resources, repeat eastern, and then I will not stop anywhere until Kamchatka.

upload_2018-7-9_18-16-55.png


upload_2018-7-9_18-25-12.png



Yes, Ural region now can provide place for 3-5 highly productive cities — as IRL. But food sources should be scarce, and barbarian pressure should be signficant (Bashkir horse archers, rebel cossacks) up to XVII - XVIII cc, so, building a full-scale industrial base on Ural will require building and guarding the infrastructure. As IRL.

The next post will be the last: I'll get a general overview, fix errors (if I notice any), finish with biomes and upload the map.
 
Awesome. Do you plan to address Steppe terrain as part of your biome revisions?

Edit: oh, and also: the biome map you posted earlier has the entire Urals region as either taiga or dry steppe, so does it have too much grassland still in your proposal? Maybe it is a good idea to place more Moorland or Taiga features (or some combination of the two) to limit overall food in the area and further inhibit settlement of the region until the Industrial period.

To be honest I am a bit worried about how powerful Russia will be with this terrain, especially compared to what America has (although I am not sure how they stack up against each other right now), but also other European civs earlier in the game. Even only European Russia is very useful right now, and that's not even counting Siberia. While it's true that Russia has always had a huge potential, it only started to really manifest in the Industrial age and we should make sure that enough obstacles exist to replicate this in the game.
 
Last edited:
Awesome. Do you plan to address Steppe terrain as part of your biome revisions?
Yes, but details depend on your decision about its properties.
(I'm still think that returning of +1 gold next to rivers is necessary (as representation of river trade), and limitation for cities foundation removed).

And now steppe looks bad (brighter than plains though less productive, and bordering with grasslands look poor), but I suppose that this can be fixed.

Edit: oh, and also: the biome map you posted earlier has the entire Urals region as either taiga or dry steppe, so does it have too much grassland still in your proposal? Maybe it is a good idea to place more Moorland or Taiga features (or some combination of the two) to limit overall food in the area and further inhibit settlement of the region until the Industrial period.
I'll look further. I was focused mostly on resources and general geography, so forgot to fix terrain on Ural.
I think that replacing most of grasslands with moorlands and blocking unhistorical city spots with Taiga will be good, yes.

To be honest I am a bit worried about how powerful Russia will be with this terrain, especially compared to what America has (although I am not sure how they stack up against each other right now), but also other European civs earlier in the game. Even only European Russia is very useful right now, and that's not even counting Siberia. While it's true that Russia has always had a huge potential, it only started to really manifest in the Industrial age and we should make sure that enough obstacles exist to replicate this in the game.

I'm generally agree.
Now turning point for Russia is Chemistry with its +1 food to farms that make plains profitable (and, to a lesser degree, Hydraulics' levees in the river-rich core), and things should be keeped this way. (btw, Machine Tools looks like a good tech for Taiga clearing).

Probably, size of productive Russian heartland should be like general European one, and cities in moorland North or steppe South willn't go into self-sufficiency too easy.

But I think that main problem of Russian middlegame (between Mongols and Modern) is not uncontrolled sprawl, but lack of rivals.
Vikings (Sweden) collapses early, no one secures Baltics, Poland is more of piece of cake than OTL eternal menace, barb Qazan is ridiculously easy, and Ottomans pay little attention to Pontic Steppe.

I suppose:
- strong indy Riga at ~1200 AD, blocking amber happiness and Baltic grasslands.
- strong indy/barb Qazan and Astrakhan at ~1400 AD (I still want Bulgar/Tatar civ for painful backstab rebellions in Volga-Ural region, but single-use neutrals are good too).
- Derbent in 600 AD scenario, flipping to Ottomans
- encourage AI Greece, Byzantium and Turkey to settle in Crimea, place Crimea into initial Ottomans flipzone. Now South Ukraine is locked too.
- barbs

So, after the Mongols Russia will find itself between European civs on the west, barbs and Ottomans on the south, neutral, but tough Khanates on the east and unhospitable lands of north. And without any sources of happiness except furs.
 
Awesome. Do you plan to address Steppe terrain as part of your biome revisions?

Edit: oh, and also: the biome map you posted earlier has the entire Urals region as either taiga or dry steppe, so does it have too much grassland still in your proposal? Maybe it is a good idea to place more Moorland or Taiga features (or some combination of the two) to limit overall food in the area and further inhibit settlement of the region until the Industrial period.

To be honest I am a bit worried about how powerful Russia will be with this terrain, especially compared to what America has (although I am not sure how they stack up against each other right now), but also other European civs earlier in the game. Even only European Russia is very useful right now, and that's not even counting Siberia. While it's true that Russia has always had a huge potential, it only started to really manifest in the Industrial age and we should make sure that enough obstacles exist to replicate this in the game.

Generally You are right:) But on the other hand:
1. About U.S.: We have no vision of America with Old World's recources, I think a lot of horses, cows, potato, sheeps will change potential of Eastern Coast, TEXAS, Great Plains and Western Coast;
2. Colonization is long period: Russia will get all potential of its power only when it found a lot of cities and also develop their infrustructure;
Even in old map Russia colonized full European part AFTER European's Reformation and first settlements in the New World - now map is much bigger, so such trend should save;
3. "Early foes" like Poland and Ottomans are perfect historical goals which stimulate Russia produce more warriors but not settlers/workers
4. Your new luxury resorse's mechanic is "key" which can decrese full potential of new cities growth;
5. A little bit Marches to North-East and tundra's tile in the North also will dramatically decrese core Russian area;
6. Ural Mountains - there is no property for many cities - perhaps 2/3 will be realistic because we have rocks, hills and only two food resorces;
7. 90% lands of Eastern Siberia and 50% land of Far East are de-facto useless espessially if we will remember about enlarged China;
8. Golden Horde: damage of WAR against mongol tribes is terrible which totally decrease 1200-1300 Russian direct development and also stimulate long slowdown from Western Countries;
 
Last edited:
Yes, but details depend on your decision about its properties.
(I'm still think that returning of +1 gold next to rivers is necessary (as representation of river trade), and limitation for cities foundation removed).

And now steppe looks bad (brighter than plains though less productive, and bordering with grasslands look poor), but I suppose that this can be fixed.


I'll look further. I was focused mostly on resources and general geography, so forgot to fix terrain on Ural.
I think that replacing most of grasslands with moorlands and blocking unhistorical city spots with Taiga will be good, yes.



I'm generally agree.
Now turning point for Russia is Chemistry with its +1 food to farms that make plains profitable (and, to a lesser degree, Hydraulics' levees in the river-rich core), and things should be keeped this way. (btw, Machine Tools looks like a good tech for Taiga clearing).

Probably, size of productive Russian heartland should be like general European one, and cities in moorland North or steppe South willn't go into self-sufficiency too easy.

But I think that main problem of Russian middlegame (between Mongols and Modern) is not uncontrolled sprawl, but lack of rivals.
Vikings (Sweden) collapses early, no one secures Baltics, Poland is more of piece of cake than OTL eternal menace, barb Qazan is ridiculously easy, and Ottomans pay little attention to Pontic Steppe.

I suppose:
- strong indy Riga at ~1200 AD, blocking amber happiness and Baltic grasslands.
- strong indy/barb Qazan and Astrakhan at ~1400 AD (I still want Bulgar/Tatar civ for painful backstab rebellions in Volga-Ural region, but single-use neutrals are good too).
- Derbent in 600 AD scenario, flipping to Ottomans
- encourage AI Greece, Byzantium and Turkey to settle in Crimea, place Crimea into initial Ottomans flipzone. Now South Ukraine is locked too.
- barbs

So, after the Mongols Russia will find itself between European civs on the west, barbs and Ottomans on the south, neutral, but tough Khanates on the east and unhospitable lands of north. And without any sources of happiness except furs.

I totally support conception of Russia-the-Mother which surrounded by many different foes which consentrate on its defence:)
1. It's 100% historical feature - by the way Russia have spent to War all it's time (except 1880-1890s and second part of XX century);
2. It will give to RUSSIA a lot of weak and strong enemies (weak Kazan and Riga and more powerfull Ottomans);
3. It will kill some Russian Military Units on the one hand and give Great General's points on the other hand;
Some ideas have succesfully realizied in current version: for example there is Kazan but is's really weak and also Crimea go to Ottomans and generally it's right
Perhaps Ottomans AI need extra troops to conquer it like Western Europens have in the New World or Greeks/Romans have against Persia and Egypt.
If Crimea will go to Ottomans without army is will be super-easy victim of Russia or even Poland
 
Last edited:
I totally support conception of Russia-the-Mother which surrounded by many different foes which consentrate on its defence:)
1. It's 100% historical feature - by the way Russia have spent to War all it's time (except 1880-1890s and second part of XX century);
2. It will give to RUSSIA a lot of weak and strong enemies (weak Kazan and Riga and more powerfull Ottomans);
3. It will kill some Russian Military Units on the one hand and give Great General's points on the other hand;
Some ideas have succesfully realizied in current version: for example there is Kazan but is's really weak and also Crimea go to Ottomans and generally it's right
Perhaps Ottomans AI need extra troops to conquer it like Western Europens have in the New World or Greeks/Romans have against Persia and Egypt.
If Crimea will go to Ottomans without army is will be super-easy victim of Russia or even Poland
Yeah this map has a lot of potential for increasing the number of potential foes (or allies) Russia has in Eastern Europe. Previously there wasn't much room for Eastern European civs because the space between Moscow and Warsaw was very tight. In the Middle Ages there is now room for Poland, Kievan Rus, Novgorod, possibly a Baltic independent. Later on there is room for Ukraine, Finland, Baltic independents again. I don't know that most of this would be incorporated except by independents in the main mod but the mod-mod potential is great.
 
I have to say I'm certainly an advocate for a Kievan Rus and Lithuania civ that could cow Russia significantly until the modern era, and then with high chance respawns cripple them a little again by taking away the Baltics and Ukraine.
 

Attachments

  • scotlands_oil.png
    scotlands_oil.png
    449.1 KB · Views: 350
Yes, but details depend on your decision about its properties.
(I'm still think that returning of +1 gold next to rivers is necessary (as representation of river trade), and limitation for cities foundation removed).
I'd rather tailor its properties to support its geographical and historical role than otherwise. Maybe it should be +1 food base and then +2 food +1 commerce next to rivers? I'm wondering what you think is best here. The founding limitation can easily be removed as well.

And now steppe looks bad (brighter than plains though less productive, and bordering with grasslands look poor), but I suppose that this can be fixed.
It's made with the Blue Marble plains/grass textures in mind. But it's always easier to adjust graphics with a real proposal that reflects its positioning in the map. So I'm in no way committed to the current art.

I'll look further. I was focused mostly on resources and general geography, so forgot to fix terrain on Ural.
I think that replacing most of grasslands with moorlands and blocking unhistorical city spots with Taiga will be good, yes.
Okay good, thanks.

I'm generally agree.
Now turning point for Russia is Chemistry with its +1 food to farms that make plains profitable (and, to a lesser degree, Hydraulics' levees in the river-rich core), and things should be keeped this way. (btw, Machine Tools looks like a good tech for Taiga clearing).
Yeah, I think that makes sense historically.

Probably, size of productive Russian heartland should be like general European one, and cities in moorland North or steppe South willn't go into self-sufficiency too easy.

But I think that main problem of Russian middlegame (between Mongols and Modern) is not uncontrolled sprawl, but lack of rivals.
Vikings (Sweden) collapses early, no one secures Baltics, Poland is more of piece of cake than OTL eternal menace, barb Qazan is ridiculously easy, and Ottomans pay little attention to Pontic Steppe.

I suppose:
- strong indy Riga at ~1200 AD, blocking amber happiness and Baltic grasslands.
- strong indy/barb Qazan and Astrakhan at ~1400 AD (I still want Bulgar/Tatar civ for painful backstab rebellions in Volga-Ural region, but single-use neutrals are good too).
- Derbent in 600 AD scenario, flipping to Ottomans
- encourage AI Greece, Byzantium and Turkey to settle in Crimea, place Crimea into initial Ottomans flipzone. Now South Ukraine is locked too.
- barbs

So, after the Mongols Russia will find itself between European civs on the west, barbs and Ottomans on the south, neutral, but tough Khanates on the east and unhospitable lands of north. And without any sources of happiness except furs.
That's right. I think we need to adjust our assumptions about what other civs will do on this larger maps. For example, Poland (+Lithuania) has a lot more terrain available now and will probably be a formidable power. I also previously did not want to encourage Ottoman presence north of the Black Sea because it crowded Russia too much, but now there is plenty of space to do so.

The larger map makes the inclusion of new civs in the region also more likely. With a Swedish civ separate from the Vikings, we can have them focus more on the east militarily and be an opponent to Russia. A (Kievan) Rus civ would limit Russian (as in Muscovite) expansion as well, depending on how things play out between them and Poland. At least many prominent cities in western Russia like Novgorod would need to be captured by force instead of just settled.

I'm also wondering how a Tatar civ would work. Would they begin as the Volga Bulgars, or represent the Golden Horde somehow? It would be nice to have a real civ at least for some of its successor civs, including the Crimean, Kazakh and Sibir Khanates which would also provide a more formidable obstacle to Russian expansion.

Of course any of these could also be represented as barbarians or minors until proper civs are added, including the Baltics and Cossacks.
 
I'd rather tailor its properties to support its geographical and historical role than otherwise. Maybe it should be +1 food base and then +2 food +1 commerce next to rivers? I'm wondering what you think is best here. The founding limitation can easily be removed as well.

1 hammer, 1 gold next to river, 1 food next to river, all improvements, +x% to improvement construction speed, some bonus to light cavalry (movement? attack? pillaging without losing movepoints?).

So, with steppe belt somewhere here -
upload_2018-7-10_14-49-15.png


- steppe east of Volga river is mostly untouched (farms are harder to built, and barbarians more threatening, but nothing too extreme), but Southern Siberia is seriously nerfed: cities still can be founded here, but their growth will be delayed until Chemistry and labourers, and even then they will need huge amount of work.



I'm also wondering how a Tatar civ would work. Would they begin as the Volga Bulgars, or represent the Golden Horde somehow? It would be nice to have a real civ at least for some of its successor civs, including the Crimean, Kazakh and Sibir Khanates which would also provide a more formidable obstacle to Russian expansion.

Bulgars -> Kazan/Astrakhan Khanate -> Tatarstan/Bashkiria, or Khazars -> Crimean Khanate/Nogai Horde -> Northern Causasus states and ethnicities.

First (Volga) variant provides more serious opponent to Russia (sudden rebellion in middle of empire), but Bulgars are less known and less interesting as PC civ.
Second (Pontic) less challenging for Russia and less historical, but Khazars (Judaism state religion, at last!) is more interesting civ.

Don't think a lot, though.
 
Top Bottom