[Development] Map Suggestions

[Kewlipo]

Hi there,

I recently saw your new map overview thread and thought that everything looked exceptional! I've only made a few posts on these forums and don't follow new updates very much so I apologize if I missed something - I made a post a while ago about changing the marshes in the Amazon and perhaps in the Congo to include trees so the marshes would blend in better. You told me that the best solution is to simply make the actual marsh terrain include those trees, which makes sense. Following that, merjin made some really good looking marsh terrain with trees. Unfortunately I didn't see that terrain in the new map overview!

Was there a reason for its exclusion? Not that it is too much of a pressing issue, I just thought that it would have looked really good!

 

[Steb]

Suggestion 1: make it so that there are always at least two tiles between the Nile and the Red Sea.

Rationale:

• It doesn't feel quite right that the Nile's east bank touches the eastern desert hills. There are cities, such as Thebes/Luxor, that should be on the east bank of the Nile, but the current state of the map makes such cities coastal and on a hill (as noted by @LacsiraxAriscal), which doesn't feel right at all.
• Founding such a city that is both coastal and on the Nile might be too powerful, especially if it's not on a floodplain (since it can work more floodplains). (An earlier version of the map had a mountain to prevent this, I think. Please don't put a mountain there.)
• Even at its thinnest point, which is near Thebes at the start of the eastward bend, the eastern desert is about the same width as the Red Sea. In the map, the Red Sea is always at least two tiles wide.
• In the smaller old map, the eastern desert is larger. In fact it is mostly 3 tiles wide, which is too much (and I just noticed that the delta ends up being directly south of Crete, which is... very off), but 2 tiles would be good.

How: the easiest way would probably be to simply remove the eastward bend and have the Nile flow straight from the delta to Sudan. There would be a slight loss of accuracy about the course of the river, but I think that would be an acceptable compromise. The westward bend in Sudan could be exaggerated somewhat to give a better feel of the meandering course of the Nile. Another possibility would be to create a small westward bend directly south of Cairo.

An alternative would be to move the entire Nile west. It would be fine to sacrifice some of the Sahara for this, but I think it would be too involved and too inaccurate relative to the Mediterranean.

***

Suggestion 2: add an oasis just west of the Nile and SW of Cairo, representing the Faiyum Oasis. Egypt probably doesn't quite need another oasis, and the Siwa oasis isn't far to the west, but the Faiyum oasis is pretty major. Look up a satellite map of the area: the oasis is the big green spot a short distance away from the Nile.

 

[Leoreth]

Hi there,

I recently saw your new map overview thread and thought that everything looked exceptional! I've only made a few posts on these forums and don't follow new updates very much so I apologize if I missed something - I made a post a while ago about changing the marshes in the Amazon and perhaps in the Congo to include trees so the marshes would blend in better. You told me that the best solution is to simply make the actual marsh terrain include those trees, which makes sense. Following that, merjin made some really good looking marsh terrain with trees. Unfortunately I didn't see that terrain in the new map overview!

Was there a reason for its exclusion? Not that it is too much of a pressing issue, I just thought that it would have looked really good!

I don't keep track of merijn's graphics changes mostly because he usually makes a pull request immediately when it's ready. Not sure if he forgot, isn't done yet or thought I don't want it, but I'm definitely interested in additional graphics in that direction.

 

[merijn_v1]

I remember that I worked on this, but I did forget what happened to it. Apperantly I never made a PR out of it. I guess I was waiting for you to decide which versions you liked most and only include those in the PR. And somehow I forgot about it. I still should have the files and could make a PR out of it quite easily.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-map-during-1-17.646586/page-25#post-15537709

This also reminds me about the waves near shrimp fix. I did one attempt fixing it but that didn't work. I postponed all other attempts fixing it. Maybe I should release the PR with static waves and will make a new PR if I somehow figure out how I can include proper waves.

 

[Leoreth]

I remember that I worked on this, but I did forget what happened to it. Apperantly I never made a PR out of it. I guess I was waiting for you to decide which versions you liked most and only include those in the PR. And somehow I forgot about it. I still should have the files and could make a PR out of it quite easily.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-map-during-1-17.646586/page-25#post-15537709

Here it is.

I didn't change anything to the model in this image. The blue color is the result of the marsh terrain type.

Spoiler :

EDIT:
Some variations with some underbrush. I made 3 versions: only grassy underbrush, light underbrush and dense underbrush.

Spoiler grassy :

Spoiler light :

Spoiler dense :

Bonus: A WIP version with the shadow of the jungle. But that looks a bit too dark, so in the versions above I used the savannah shadows, which only uses the shadow of the trees, not the underbrush.

Spoiler too much shadow :

I must have missed those edits, so nothing ever came of it. I think all three versions (without shadows) look quite good, I prefer dense though. That said, those palm trees stand out a little too much. Not sure what to do about it exactly.

This also reminds me about the waves near shrimp fix. I did one attempt fixing it but that didn't work. I postponed all other attempts fixing it. Maybe I should release the PR with static waves and will make a new PR if I somehow figure out how I can include proper waves.

Alright. That means I can just merge the PR right away?

 

[merijn_v1]

I must have missed those edits, so nothing ever came of it. I think all three versions (without shadows) look quite good, I prefer dense though. That said, those palm trees stand out a little too much. Not sure what to do about it exactly.

I could try to reskin the palm trees a little so they stand out a little less.

Alright. That means I can just merge the PR right away?

I will update the PR with unanimated waves under the shrimps. That should be ready somewhere this weekend. If I manage merge the wave animation from the clams I will make a new PR.

 

[Leoreth]

I could try to reskin the palm trees a little so they stand out a little less.

Or maybe drop the palm trees and just go with the regular trees, not sure.

I will update the PR with unanimated waves under the shrimps. That should be ready somewhere this weekend. If I manage merge the wave animation from the clams I will make a new PR.

Good, I will merge it then.

 

[merijn_v1]

I made a post in the Graphics Modification request thread if someone could help with adding the animation to the waves. That will increase the chance of succeeding a lot I hope.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-requests-thread.171898/page-77#post-15627348

 

[merijn_v1]

The PR is ready now.

 

[Tigranes]

Turks and Caicos are only 238 square miles and do not deserve to be represented by one whole land tile. Bahamas (Andros), Jamaica, Puerto Rico -- all these islands have thousands of square miles areas, not few hundreds. Also Turks and Caicos were never terribly important. Island feature can represent them just fine.

 

[TJDowling]

I noticed the new map doesn't have horses in Tibet, closest is in NE India, will that affect the Tibetan UU too much?

 

[Leoreth]

Good point, but on the current map they also spawn later if Tibet is actually in the game, it can be the same here.

 

[Tab911]

Small additional proposal to South Central/North South America (lot of directions)

Spoiler Colombia :

Add jungle to Guatemala/Mexico. This area is made up of two nature preserves and is underdeveloped in present day. Additionally this is an attractive spot for Maya players to settle their capital, a jungle forces players to place a Yucatan city to reach the northern tiles.

Resource change in Colombia: move... I can't tell... onyx? south one tile to free up Medellin. I still don't see it getting settled in most games, but I'd prefer it to Cali 1s.
P - I don't feel very strongly about this one, add pearls to Panama/Cartegena. The idea here is that Cartegena (possibly the most relevant historical Colombian city) and Panama City have always been valuable and commerce-rich seaports. Pearls would reflect this value, possibly move the ones north of Caracas (and move the Trinidad oil 1w into its BFC).

L - Move the lagoon (or add another lagoon because Lago de Maracaibo really is a lagoon). This allows Maracaibo to be settled 1n which I think is more accurate to its true location and prevents it from working too many Colombian tiles.

M J - Add a marsh and Jungle to Southern Venezuela. The region south of the Orinoco is generally, unused or preserved. The region between the Orinoco and the Apure is underdeveloped and marshy. I think I remember horses spawning here, perhaps the productive boost to Caracas is more important than marsh.

 

[Tab911]

More additional proposals: No one Lives in Canada Edition.

Spoiler W Canada :

White circle = moorland

When looking at a biome map, these areas are all considered Taiga. Put simply, no one lives in Canada, and the thirty some people that do live there all live along the border because anywhere further north is too cold. Canada's total population is about the same as Tokyo's metro area, this should be considered with their terrain.

Spoiler E Canada :

Moorland added based on Taiga map.

Red circle = Add productivity resource.
Add, move, whatever, New York (lagoon tile) should get two productive resources to give it the power to churn out all of its historic wonders.

Spoiler Mexico :

Orange circle = plains
Green circle = grassland
Pink circle = savanna
Blue circle = marsh
Yellow x = remove forest
Green lines = add jungle
Blue lines = add rainforest
Pink lines = add savanna trees

Other notes:
White triangles are potential placements for Texas cities (Dallas, Houston and San Antonio/Austin). Deer should be moved to free up the most accurate Dallas location, oil should be moved to the richer area of the Texas oil fields. The blue line near New Orleans is a change already proposed in the thread. I concur that the Mississippi should be routed south of the New Orleans lagoon tile as I've sketched out here. It looks weird without a city but is geographically more accurate given how the Bayou extends south of New Orleans.

Spoiler Colombia :

We've been over these changes. Added plains because the area north of Baranquilla is quite dry (even classifies as desert on the coast). More jungle in Honduras/Nicaragua because this area on the Atlantic coast is largely undeveloped and composed of forest preserves. Grassland change in Central American highlands, its only the highlands that are dry, the coasts and lowlands are wet here.


Thoughts?

 

[Leoreth]

If the changes for the last image are explained somewhere, please link there. I'm not going to find this when making edits later otherwise. A production resource in the radius of New York makes sense for gameplay, but also historically. Upper New York state was an important industrial region for the United States until recently.

 

[MechatronicJazz]

When looking at a biome map, these areas are all considered Taiga. Put simply, no one lives in Canada, and the thirty some people that do live there all live along the border because anywhere further north is too cold. Canada's total population is about the same as Tokyo's metro area, this should be considered with their terrain.

This is mostly true, but be careful that those changes to Western Canada don't nerf cities like Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg too much. Sure, they're all small cities in a global perspective, but they're fairly major centres within Canada. They probably shouldn't be rivalling major world population centres, but they need to be able to get big enough to be somewhat useful in game, otherwise there isn't really a point to having a Canada civ or really even having that part of the map habitable. I'm not sure what the ideal balance between historical accuracy and gameplay is here, but something to keep in mind.

It looks like the changes to eastern Canada would also affect Toronto, Montreal, and Quebec City, as well as Chicago, Detroit, and maybe Boston. I'm not sure how much adding moorland will change things, but those are all fairly major cities, so again, something to consider when balancing terrain accuracy and gameplay.

On the whole though, good suggestions!

 

[Tab911]

The changes have all been redrawn in that picture so you won't miss anything.

Can't say for sure until play testing but I don't think its too severe a nerf. Western Canadian cities needed a nerf, at present you can set up farms and have one of the largest inland cities on the continent. Moorland reflects that this is not a verdant area but still gives it enough food to work valuable production resources once cities are developed. Seriously, when was the last time one of these cities won the Stanley Cup? As for Eastern Canada, we can always offset terrain bonuses with additional food resources if necessary. I don't think it would be, once the post-Colombian exchange happens, all the important cities have one or two food resources. Sorry Canada, maybe some day we will take you seriously eh?

Next up is the Pacific coast: California would be the world's 5th largest economy edition.

Spoiler Pacific :

Ignore black area.
White numbers are city placements that I would like to see encouraged.
1 - Vancouver
2 - Seattle
3 - Portland
4 - San Francisco
5 - Los Angeles
6 - Phoenix
7 - Las Vegas
8 - Salt Lake City
9 - Boise
10 - Denver
11 - El Paso
12 - Santa Fe
13 - Helena (Billings?)

Dark red shading - Add pine trees
Pink shading - Add savanna trees. Not fully sure yet here, I think it will make Southern California look a bit less barren. In reality this is mostly xeric shrub land.
Blue line - River correction. Portland is south of the Columbia River.
Green lines of three - Add islands to the Puget Sound. These areas are littered with small islands, were they intentionally left out?
Red box - With the fish moved out one to make room for the islands, Seattle should get another resource here to incentivize its settlement with Portland.
Red Numbers are resources:
1 - Horses
2 - Potatoes: Idaho is famous for these two things, breaking horses and farming potatoes.
3 - Wine: World Famous Napa Valley wine. Could also be placed 1w to free up this tile for another resource.
4 - Rice: California's central valley is one of the top producing agricultural areas in the world, rice in the US typically comes from either Carolina or California.
5 - Citrus/fruits: California also leads the way in fruit production.
6 - Cows: Bakersfield and Fresno have famously bad air pollution from the amount of cows that graze here.
7 - Wine/Horses: Depends on what LA needs more of, this area is mostly ranches and vineyards.
8 - Nothing: I remember wine spawning here, it should be kept open as this is San Diego.

 

[Tab911]

Alternatively, we could do no river correction, Portland 1s, Seattle 1s and Vancouver 1se. In this case the Portland deer would move 1sw.

 

[DC123456789]

More additional proposals: No one Lives in Canada Edition.

Spoiler W Canada :

View attachment 542418

White circle = moorland

When looking at a biome map, these areas are all considered Taiga. Put simply, no one lives in Canada, and the thirty some people that do live there all live along the border because anywhere further north is too cold. Canada's total population is about the same as Tokyo's metro area, this should be considered with their terrain.

Spoiler E Canada :

View attachment 542419

Moorland added based on Taiga map.

Red circle = Add productivity resource.
Add, move, whatever, New York (lagoon tile) should get two productive resources to give it the power to churn out all of its historic wonders.

Spoiler Mexico :

View attachment 542420

Orange circle = plains
Green circle = grassland
Pink circle = savanna
Blue circle = marsh
Yellow x = remove forest
Green lines = add jungle
Blue lines = add rainforest
Pink lines = add savanna trees

Other notes:
White triangles are potential placements for Texas cities (Dallas, Houston and San Antonio/Austin). Deer should be moved to free up the most accurate Dallas location, oil should be moved to the richer area of the Texas oil fields. The blue line near New Orleans is a change already proposed in the thread. I concur that the Mississippi should be routed south of the New Orleans lagoon tile as I've sketched out here. It looks weird without a city but is geographically more accurate given how the Bayou extends south of New Orleans.

Spoiler Colombia :

View attachment 542421

We've been over these changes. Added plains because the area north of Baranquilla is quite dry (even classifies as desert on the coast). More jungle in Honduras/Nicaragua because this area on the Atlantic coast is largely undeveloped and composed of forest preserves. Grassland change in Central American highlands, its only the highlands that are dry, the coasts and lowlands are wet here.


Thoughts?

You should probably also consider climate maps, which generally show the border between temperate and subarctic areas further north than the southern bounds of the boreal forest; the overlap (a significant portion of which is really more mixed than pure boreal forest is probably best represented with grassland (or perhaps plains, in some areas) + forest, rather than moorland + forest (except of course for the parts of the Canadian Shield that are unsuitable to farming, but your proposal does go a far bit farther than that - it's probably more important to emphasize populated riverside areas than the empty forest inland, both from a gameplay and purely geographical/map POV - and in any case that's not really relevant to Western Canada).

 

[Steb]

I tend to agree with DC123456789 regarding moorland in Canada and the US. I think Tab911's proposal has too much moorland, but some of the suggested moorland tiles might be a good idea. Moorland in the NY state Appalachians or in Michigan doesn't make sense, though, I'd argue. I think Canadian cities will tend to be limited in growth by the lack of abundant food resources compared to most of the world's major cities. This is what is happening in the current map to some extent.

In any case, I'd like to make a more thoroughly researched alternate proposal, but that won't be right now.

Regarding California, don't forget oil. I think I have said this already, but it is worth emphasizing: California, in 1914, produced 38% of the US's oil. It still produces 8%. The oil resource should be near Los Angeles or in the San Joaquin valley, i.e. central California. (Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_oil_and_gas_industry)