[Development] Map Suggestions
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
The USA has had a few suggestions, but certainly not as much as Europe has.
I don't think I've seen any suggestions for South America, or Indochina (i.e. SEA excluding the archipelagos (Philippines and Indonesia)).
Japan had an issue of reconciling the importance of Kyoto and Tokyo with the geographic shape of Honshu - Northern Honshu if geographically accurate is a bit too good gamewise. Not sure if this was resolved.
I don't think I've seen any suggestions for South America, or Indochina (i.e. SEA excluding the archipelagos (Philippines and Indonesia)).
Japan had an issue of reconciling the importance of Kyoto and Tokyo with the geographic shape of Honshu - Northern Honshu if geographically accurate is a bit too good gamewise. Not sure if this was resolved.
No, I would actually most prefer proposals that change the actual landmass and not just what terrain and resources there are. The reason is that at some point I would like to enter the next stage of the city name manager development, and after you do that most coastlines etc. should be locked in.
So if someone wants to make an attempt at reshaping Japan, please go for it. Everything else that goes in a similar direction as well of course. Maybe I will also make my own attempts.
So if someone wants to make an attempt at reshaping Japan, please go for it. Everything else that goes in a similar direction as well of course. Maybe I will also make my own attempts.
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,071
I may try to reshape Japan's coastline as suggested. It may be horrible, but I'll try. It's the least I can do to make up for CMC.
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,071
Man, Japan is really difficult. I've been staring at the Robinson Projection and fiddling with the map for an hour, but no dice. I've tried drawing it out of simple shapes, carving waterways from a block of land, randomly placing and removing tiles from a base piece, and tracing but I can't find an arrangement that feels right. I think the current Japan is about as good as we'll get.
Based on forum evidence, Japan’s currently so good that it messes with both the Indonesian and Aztec UHVs.
Re: Japan, Here's my best effort, a joke, and a pipe-dream:
I think the biggest problem with designing Japan has always been Shikoku. It's important but it takes up too much space with full land tiles which messes up Japan's very important waterways. I think Hokkaido isn't a big problem being OP if we sufficiently nerf it with the new Arctic-ish terrain types. But here it is. Ignore Korea being flattened, I didn't want to mess with moving the whole thing right now. We'll just have to move Japan one tile closer to California because that seems reasonable at this point.
Anyway, I elongated Honshu by one tile West to get the shape West of Kyoto a bit better, I think. I changed the shape of Hokkaido, I think it looks a lot like other proposals but I think it's generally better than the current map. I changed Kyushu a bit. I think it's smaller now. but a better shape maybe. Shikoku still sucks.
Here I've punished Shikoku for being difficult to map.
Here I've shopped an up until now and probably indefinitely non-existant modular "large island" feature where Shikoku should be.
I think the biggest problem with designing Japan has always been Shikoku. It's important but it takes up too much space with full land tiles which messes up Japan's very important waterways. I think Hokkaido isn't a big problem being OP if we sufficiently nerf it with the new Arctic-ish terrain types. But here it is. Ignore Korea being flattened, I didn't want to mess with moving the whole thing right now. We'll just have to move Japan one tile closer to California because that seems reasonable at this point.
Anyway, I elongated Honshu by one tile West to get the shape West of Kyoto a bit better, I think. I changed the shape of Hokkaido, I think it looks a lot like other proposals but I think it's generally better than the current map. I changed Kyushu a bit. I think it's smaller now. but a better shape maybe. Shikoku still sucks.
Spoiler :
Here I've punished Shikoku for being difficult to map.
Spoiler :
Here I've shopped an up until now and probably indefinitely non-existant modular "large island" feature where Shikoku should be.
Spoiler :
Am I the only one that doesn't like the intersection of Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu? Well, I did change Hokkaido. What precisely is the problem with Hokkaido? It doesn't seem that bad.
I suppose you mean Honshu? Well historically, northern Honshu (anything north of the Kanto plain) wasn't very developed and didn't play an important role at any point of Japanese history. Kanto and Kansai (commonly represented by Tokyo and Kyoto in the game) are the core of the Japanese state and are very important in its history. Even then, another city in Kyushu (especially when trade and western contact are ought to be emphasised) is more important than anything in northern Honshu. Its largest city, Sendai, is currently only of medium importance in Japan.
On the other hand, in your map, the Sendai spot is more attractive than almost any other in Japan, with loads of resources available. This is even worse than in the current smaller map because there at least these resources are within reach of Tokyo.
If any change is made to Bautos's current shape of the archipelago it would be a Europe style distortion of the southern half of Honshu at the expense of the northern half.
On the other hand, in your map, the Sendai spot is more attractive than almost any other in Japan, with loads of resources available. This is even worse than in the current smaller map because there at least these resources are within reach of Tokyo.
If any change is made to Bautos's current shape of the archipelago it would be a Europe style distortion of the southern half of Honshu at the expense of the northern half.
For some reason I read Hokkaido on your last post. As far as Northern Honshu goes, shouldn't it just be a matter of tweaking the resources/terrain? Shape is fine I think.
Shape means terrain means economic power. There isn't a lot of space in southern Honshu the way it is shaped right now, so there isn't really space to put all the resources. But even if you would, that will open up equally useful cottage grassland in the north.
Okay, but isn't it more important that Japan as a whole is balanced in relation to other regions not that regions within Japan are balanced relative to each other? There aren't any other civilizations on those islands so what's the point of worrying about the internal mechanics. Spread the resources out, it's not geographically accurate but from a gameplay perspective... Or if it really is a problem change the terrain in the North, make it unproductive. Swamps, mountains?
Both are important, and I don't see a reason why they should be mutually exclusive. One of the player experience goals of this mod is that playing optimally should feel like playing historically, so your best cities should be where they were in history. I'm still not sure whatever goal you value above that so it's hard to see any merit in your position.
Jarlaxe Baenre
Emperor
So, the issue is that southern Japan needs to be better than northern Japan?
Place more seafood in the south. No need to mess around with land, then.
Place more seafood in the south. No need to mess around with land, then.
Thanks for making this post, I now know that you are not in this discussion to make a constructive contribution or actually know enough about map making or this map in particular. You can go now, thanks.
Jarlaxe Baenre
Emperor
Is that really necessary?
Similar threads
