[Development] Map Suggestions

[ozqar]

Scandinavia looks a bit too resource dense, especially for a region that's supposed to incentivize pillaging. I'd at least get rid of the sugar because it's meant to represent a tropical commodity (cane) that should encourage trade or colonization, not just any replacement for it. I'd also consider removing one of the horses. I like that you suggest having some of the food resources spawn late in the game, I think that would work well!

 

[merijn_v1]

I would move one of the horses (the one from Norway) to Finland, to represent the Hakkapeliitta and finnhorse.

 

[Temujin8k]

I think Mesopotamia and Levant are already enough as it is now in terms of shape. It may also require distorting of nearby regions. I don't think we can still force 4/5 of the cities, which will look like this in the current setup. While adding one more row to Levant may give more room to 3 cities there, I don't think it's feasible yet to add another city, at least.

Spoiler Prospective Levant city spots :

 

[DC123456789]

I think Mesopotamia and Levant are already enough as it is now in terms of shape. It may also require distorting of nearby regions. I don't think we can still force 4/5 of the cities, which will look like this in the current setup. While adding one more row to Levant may give more room to 3 cities there, I don't think it's feasible yet to add another city, at least.

Spoiler Prospective Levant city spots :

View attachment 529129

If we move Damascus 1E we could have all of Jerusalem/Tyre/Damascus coexisting. Question is if this worth squishing Tyre/Phoenicia so much (which I suppose is historical, but possibly problematic for gameplay?)

 

[Steb]

Scandinavia looks a bit too resource dense, especially for a region that's supposed to incentivize pillaging. I'd at least get rid of the sugar because it's meant to represent a tropical commodity (cane) that should encourage trade or colonization, not just any replacement for it. I'd also consider removing one of the horses. I like that you suggest having some of the food resources spawn late in the game, I think that would work well!

I was going to say something similar. I don’t think Scandinavia should really have any land food resources, except, say, the pig in Denmark (since it has a major pork industry). Scandinavia just wasn’t and isn’t very populous.

Other than that, it looks quite good! I would put a few more grassland tiles along the coast in Finland. Also, I think the Sundsvall spot should be 1SW. I like that Uppsala 1NW of Stockholm is viable and hope the final map allows for Uppsala as an alternative.

 

[TJDowling]

I've marked down only the most important Levantine settlements that we need to include in the big map. We're really going to need to expand this it seems

Spoiler :

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I've marked down only the most important Levantine settlements that we need to include in the big map. We're really going to need to expand this it seems

We obviously don't need all of those, and honestly, we could probably do without Aleppo and Edessa.

But we pretty much need Antioch, Tyre, Damascus, and Jerusalem to all coexist, just like we need to fit Lisbon, Barcelona, and Seville into Iberia at once.

 

[Leoreth]

No.

 

[ozqar]

I've marked down only the most important Levantine settlements that we need to include in the big map. We're really going to need to expand this it seems

Spoiler :

View attachment 529171

Just put Antioch south of the wheat (or leave it where it is), Damascus on the iron (and move the iron), let Tyre and Beirut share the Beirut tile, leave Jerusalem where it is, have Amman East of the marble. That's already 5 cities, you don't more, and it's ok that they're crowded.

 

[ozqar]

No.

I think TJDowling was just being sarcastic.

 

[Leoreth]

Just want to be clear that it would be a waste of time to Koenigsberg this situation.

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

I think Mesopotamia and Levant are already enough as it is now in terms of shape. It may also require distorting of nearby regions. I don't think we can still force 4/5 of the cities, which will look like this in the current setup. While adding one more row to Levant may give more room to 3 cities there, I don't think it's feasible yet to add another city, at least.

Spoiler Prospective Levant city spots :

View attachment 529129

Edessa would be one tile east anyway, I don't think there's a problem with fitting Edessa. I don't think damascus and Tyre can be fitted at once and I actually advocate making them same tile to solve the issue. I don't think Damascus had a huge importance during the Phoenician period to be represented at the same time.

 

[TJDowling]

I think TJDowling was just being sarcastic.

Yes.

 

[Temujin8k]

Edessa would be one tile east anyway, I don't think there's a problem with fitting Edessa. I don't think damascus and Tyre can be fitted at once and I actually advocate making them same tile to solve the issue. I don't think Damascus had a huge importance during the Phoenician period to be represented at the same time.

While Edessa could indeed be placed 1E, it would conflict with Mosul instead, which is idk if it's an important city during the Medieval Era, at least. The importance of Damascus grows starting on the Roman period, so from then on it would be more fitting to put it instead of Tyre for the later scenarios.

If we move Damascus 1E we could have all of Jerusalem/Tyre/Damascus coexisting. Question is if this worth squishing Tyre/Phoenicia so much (which I suppose is historical, but possibly problematic for gameplay?)

Methinks that position would be a bit too far for Damascus. While it is an inland city IRL, I think the current position would be enough despite its coastal position as it would only get a few coast tiles.

We obviously don't need all of those, and honestly, we could probably do without Aleppo and Edessa.

But we pretty much need Antioch, Tyre, Damascus, and Jerusalem to all coexist, just like we need to fit Lisbon, Barcelona, and Seville into Iberia at once.

Iberia is a different case. The reason why they can fit much better is that they are spread out more evenly around Madrid/Toledo: Barcelona to the east, Seville to the south, and Lisbon to the west. On the other hand, the cities we are talking about in Levant are spread across a straight line, and we have the issue of Tyre-Damascus and Antioch-Aleppo-Edessa city groups being very near each other to be represented as at cities of >=2 tiles apart.

 

[cmakk1012]

I've marked down only the most important Levantine settlements that we need to include in the big map. We're really going to need to expand this it seems

Spoiler :

View attachment 529171

Very cool, we can finally add the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem as a civ on this map.

/s

 

[Enyavar]

Well, for the sake of the World map, ancient Sur/Tyre is the same spot as modern Beirut.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, I agree with that. Kind of vascillating between current Dye or 1NE of that as the Tyre spot, the latter is probably better for gameplay but way out of position. Especially considering that Tyre was the southernmost of the Phoenician cities.

 

[merijn_v1]

Will major waterbodies also get their own region ID and name? I think it will add a little bit of extra flavour if the game displays the name of the water body.

 

[Publicola]

Unrelated to the whole debate about city placement, but... Jerusalem needs to be a hill tile. That region has lots of hills and valleys, and Jerusalem itself is located one of the most significant.

 

[Leoreth]

Will major waterbodies also get their own region ID and name? I think it will add a little bit of extra flavour if the game displays the name of the water body.

Yes, it's part of my plans to redo the region map after the terrain changes are done. I think it would be nice to make regions less "secret" and surface them in the interface more, and in that case it's a nice idea to cover the water part of the map as well. SoI does this neat thing where every lake is properly named which I always liked.