Civ4 BTS is my favorite game. I loved the idea of "Rhyes and Fall of Civilizations" (RFC), putting all Civs into historical space-time context is the most interesting that can be in the game. But I totally hate the original map, I was pissed off how far from reality and how lieful it is, when I compared it to the globe and accurate Gall-Peters Map projection that represents surfaces in realistic proportions as they are on the globe, instead of making Greenland the size of Africa...
First, the line of the Equator can be quickly determined by some easy noticeable landmarks. This are Lake Victoria in Africa, Galapagos Islands in South America, south of Borneo (Kalimantan) island in Indonesia. On the original RFC map, the Lake Victoria has shown the Equator on about 26 out 0f 68 tiles, which means Northern Hemisphere was about twice the size of Southern Hemisphere on that map, Europe about same size of Africa - even the lieful mercator robinson projection doesn't lie that much! RFC original map had Britain bigger than Madagascar, Borneo, Sumatra, etc - which are really much bigger islands than Britain. The original RFC map missed many islands. Really lake Tanganyika is longer than lake Malawi in Africa, but on that map it was vice versa. Java and Cuba must be much bigger, they are similar size as Britain.
It put mountains on best places to found cities, where should be hills. One tile on that map is about 300*300 km, so it should be mountain when more than a half is mountain - like Himalayas, Andes, Rocky Mountains, etc. But if a tile has less than 10% actual mountain while most of it are meadows - that should be hills.
The original RFC map distributed with Civ4 BTS disk is extremely biased - it had intention to make Europe as grotesquely big and overloaded with resources as possible, while the rest of the world it was depopulating and making as poor as possible. Resources were also unproportionally distributed - I looked for example lists of countries by confirmed oil reserves, uranium, and other resources - and distributed resources more realistically, more proportionally to their real amounts. Island that were bigger - I gave them more seafood, small islands didn't have any seafood, I tried to maintain proportions. If you want the history to be probably as it was - you can give European empires more units, technologies and money on the start - but making Europe the size of Africa is way too big lie. What is more, when we make a realistic map - we understand that the history how it was, when tiny part of the world oppressed looted and genocided most of the world - was NOT probably and NOT easy, that required huge effort of certain people to make the history go that way...
All people have biases. I realize my main intention was to make the whole world as much populated and productive as possible but still realistic and accurate enough, especially on most photosynthetically efficient fertile and productive Equatorial and Tropical latitudes, use all surface and resources as efficiently as possible. I was so angry and pissed off about how far the original RFC map is from reality, from realistic proportions of surfaces and resources - that I spent my precious time to make different RFC map that would be more accurate. I called it "Earth Equatorial Islands" because main attention was on the Equator and so many islands that were missing. I really severely lack time, and I wish someone would develop this map to fully accurate playable mode, and distribute it as wide as possible instead of the extremely biased original RFC map that too much deviated the reality. It is open source, please take it, develop it further, and distribute as wide as possible - I would love to teach the world to be more realistic, accurate, and less eurocentric. I would love an Equator centered world, because of cheapest orbital launch from the Equator on Yunitskiy's GPV, highest photosynthetically active radiation power, most efficient productive and fertile climate, etc. If we make a map of photosynthetically active radiation per surface, life efficiency, productivity potential proportional to surface how many people we can feed there - world map of this and other planets would be even significantly more Equator centered then the Gall-Peters map projection, because the Gall-Peters map projection only represents accurate proportion of surfaces, but doesn't take into account the photosynthetic efficiency and thus available population that those surface can feed.
I haven't exactly fully achieved what I wanted, but the attached file is some first step in this direction. Mirror:
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/fsfn/9t2zFxj2T
I moved the map 4 tiles up, but to make the Equator in the correct position - it should go another 3-4 tiles up. In such case, Native American civilizations will go too far into the ocean, and their cities won't flip, thus they can't start...
Also, the map is very disproportionate - when you see South America, Africa, and Australia on the globe view simultaneously, you realize something is wrong... The width of the map must be more than twice the heights, because something 75 to 90 and -75 to -90 latitudes should go under polar ice caps. The original RFC map has the opposite - 124*68 dimensions are quite disproportionate. If we keep the sum of both dimensions constant, it should be rather 132*60, but I wish to do a bigger map to make more interesting play and more smaller features represented, and more civs simultaneously. The more complexity - the more interesting.
1) When I tried to make even the standard 128*64 map for RFC - the mode failed to launch. Does anybody know how to make RFC mode launch with different, more realistic map dimensions proportions, where the map width is more than 2 heights of the map?
2) Could anybody please edit the mode to change the starting positions and flipping areas of the Civs, so Civs start exactly where their capitals are in this file, and the flipping areas and continents are corresponding to the new map? I would also suggest both Canaries islands should flip under Spain when it starts first or uprises, and Cape Verde and Azores islands should flip under Portugal, because the AI doesn't care much to take them soon enough. In this map, Egypt represents all Nylotic Civilizations - Egypt, Kush, Sudan, Ethiopia - while due to lack of Civilizations we need some Civ to represent all Swahili Civilizations - Kilwa coastal empire, Somalia, Malagasi, etc. So, Ethiopia must start at Kilwa, and represent all Swahili civilizations. We would also need Congo basin Civilizations, Zimbabwe / Monomotapa Civilizations while keep Zulu, Indonesian civilization as it was big strong and technologically advanced civilization in any sense, Viet Nam should also be. Polynesian Civilizations should be also a Civ like Indonesia. If we have late Civs like USA - we should also have Brazil. Maybe Argentina and Great Colombia with Simon Bolivar. And Australia.
Most of the world was NOT an empty place to settle - most territories were populated long ago and conquered many times. AI tend to produce mostly archers and defensive units, while I would suggest more cavalry and specific units of each civ on start - most civs were nomads at the beginning.
1. First 4 Civs OK, Zulu – 8 Impi 4 settlers, any Impi gets Combat 1 promotion under Shaka, add horseback riding tech;
2. Greece – units OK,
remove: hunting, wheel, metal casting, writing, sailing, pottery;
add: agriculture;
3. Persia – 12 Immortals, 2 settlers;
remove techs: bronze working, masonry, mining, monarchy, monotheism, priesthood, polytheism, mysticism, pottery, archery, hunting, writing, sailing, fishing, horseback riding – as they accelerate too fast;
add: agriculture;
4. Carthage – 7 Numidian Cavalry, 2 swordsmen, 1 trireme, 2 galleys, 2 work boats, 2 settlers;
remove: metal casting, alphabet, masonry, wheel, pottery, priesthood;
add: agriculture;
5. Rome – 9 Praetorian 3 settlers;
remove: metal casting, alphabet, hunting, sailing, priesthood, pottery;
add: agriculture;
6. Japan – 11 Swordsmen 2 settlers;
remove: monarchy, monotheism, priesthood, polytheism, mysticism, metal casting, wheel, writing, masonry, pottery; so they don’t found Islam before Arabs;
add: Iron Working;
7. Kilwa (Ethiopia) – 8 Impi, 3 settlers, 1 work boat;
remove: monarchy, monotheist, wheel, masonry, writing, priesthood;
add: agriculture;
Kilwa is the start point, Mombasa and Quelimane flip;
8. Maya – units OK,
remove: wheel, pottery, masonry, mining;
Tikal and Chichen Itza only flip initially;
9. France – 10 gallic warriors, 6 crossbowmen, 3 horse archers, 1 knight, 3 settlers;
Should start 480 AD, from Clovis Merovingian, with the following techs:
mysticism, polytheism, priesthood, monotheism, theology, agriculture, wheel, animal husbandry, hunting, horseback riding, archery, monarchy, fishing, sailing, pottery, writing, masonry, mining, bronze working, iron working, metal casting, feudalism, currency, alphabet;
10. Arabia – 12 Camel Archer, 4 settlers, 6 Islamic Missionaries, 1 Great Prophet – Muhammad;
remove: mathematics; construction;
11. Khmer – 4 ballista elephants, 4 horse archers, 3 spearmen, 3 swordsmen, 3 settlers, 1 galley, 3 Buddhist missionaries;
remove: machinery, monotheism, metal casting, code of laws, monarchy, pottery, iron working;
12. Vikings – 10 berserkers (6 loaded in galleys), 4 horse archers, 4 swordsmen, 3 galley, 3 settlers;
remove: alphabet, currency, mathematics, masonry, construction, code of laws, machinery, metal casting, pottery, wheel, agriculture, priesthood, monarchy, feudalism, writing,
add: civil service, horseback riding,
Vikings should start 700 AD with tech civil service to make berserkers but without currency tech to slow down so they are berserks still in 1100 AD;
13. England – 8 longbowmen, 2 swordsmen, 2 axemen, 3 horse archers, 1 knight, 3 settlers, 2 galleys, 2 workboats;
Add: Engineering tech, Divine Right;
14. Holy Roman Empire / Germany – 6 landsknechts, 3 swordsmen, 3 crossbowmen, 3 horse archers, 1 knight, 3 settlers;
remove: currency;
add: guilds;
15. Russia – 3 spearmen, 3 axemen, 3 swordsmen, 7 horse archer, 4 settlers;
remove: currency, machinery, code of laws, mathematics, construction, metal casting, theology, monotheism, masonry, pottery,
add: fishing;
16. Netherlands – 3 crossbowmen, 3 pikemen, 1 swordsman, 1 horse archer, 1 knight, 2 galley, 2 settlers;
Techs: OK;
17. Mansa Musa – 3 settlers, 6 skirmishers, 2 camel archers;
remove: metal casting, currency, alphabet, construction, mathematics;
18. Spain – 4 swordsmen, 4 crossbowmen, 4 landsknechts, 3 horse archers, 1 knights, 4 settlers;
add: Guilds, Engineering, Divine Right, Aesthetics, Literature;
Spain should start 1010 AD - because before 1010 AD pyrenean peninsula was Muslim Arabian Caliphate. Both Canarian islands flip on start;
19. Portugal – 3 crossbowmen, 4 landsknechts, 3 swordsmen, 3 knights, 3 galleys, 3 settlers;
Cape Verde and Azores islands flip on start.
Add: Compass tech, Aesthetics, Literature;
20. Tawantinsuyu Incas – 12 Quechuas, 4 holkans, 4 settlers;
Techs OK;
21. Mongolia – 12 Keshiks, 21 Horse Archers, 5 settlers;
remove: currency, code of laws, mathematics, construction, masonry, tech so they don’t accelerate too fast. Mongols were nomadic, and had only cavalry initially, if they have smaller starting army – they won't beat China and Russia;
22. Aztec – 7 Jaguar, 3 settlers;
Techs OK;
23. Turkey – 10 horse archers, 8 swordsmen, 3 trebuchet, 3 longbowmen, 3 spearmen, 2 crossbowmen, 1 axeman, 3 galleys, 3 settlers;
In 1280, the Osmans might have discovered gunpowder, but haven't time to build gunpowder units yet in non-negligible amounts – their armies were numerous but not best equipped at the beginning, famous giant cannons were built couple centuries later;
24. USA – 12 Cavalry, 4 riflemen, 4 settlers, 3 christian missionary, 1 Frigate;
remove: Chemistry tech;
And one more thing I would highlight – the mode too much slows down and destabilized big Civs. All European empires that were rich and powerful – were big all over the world. In isolation, without exploiting overseas colonies – they would never achieve what they achieved. I would suggest to less slow down destabilize and discriminate big empires.
And the game speed should be marathon – just not enough time for units to walk to model rise and fall of many empires, epochs and empires last just a few dozens turns…
And how to turn off the dynamic resources module? I have put all the resources in place already, horses are far from native american civs starting positions.
Inflation should appear only after any civ discovers banking technology – because BEFORE banking there was golden standard limiting money supply, nobody printed money like today, thus inflation before banking was negligible! And Federal Reserve System DOES NOT decrease inflation – in fact, no matter how you print money unsupported by goods, you still get inflation! This event should be like: if you agree to make FRS – you will have +10% inflation, but all other civs will have +30% inflation, I am not sure about exact numbers but something like this.
Also, the game art-styles look very racist – why do Zululand, Ethiopia, Mali have most units white skin? Even Native Americans have own units art-style, but why are Blacks drawn white/brown, like Black people don’t exist in the game except 3 special units? At least settlers, workers, warriors, spearmen, axemen, swordsmen, archers, horse archers, war elephants, etc. of African Civilizations – must be Black skin color!
Also, I would argue about some units strength, and suggest to introduce one more mounted horse cavalry unit – Lancers, early light cavalry, recon cavalry, armed with spears / lances / pikes but no heavy armor which differs them from knights. Lancers should have 6 strength and +100% against siege weapons because light cavalry can gallop very fast, faster then knights, thus with less losses pass distance from max shoot range till melee, more of them survive till melee & defeat siege weapons including cannons & artillery easier. Lancers require “Horseback Riding” and “Hunting” techs, and “horses” resource – no metal required. Lancers and Horse Archers when those tech researched, make chariots obsolete (not in parallel but completely obsolete) – that is why Native Americans, Africans, and most civs except most ancient, never ever used chariots, but only horseback riding – chariots were very short period of civilizations, Persians even did NOT use chariots at all but had Immortals riding horse backs, because it is much more maneuverable and efficient (disadvantage of immortal is lack of stirrups compared to lancers), and chariot production should cost almost same hammers as Lancers and a bit more expensive horse archers, maybe even more than each – you have to build whole cart and spears for a chariot, but only a spear / bow & stirrups for Lancers and Horse Archers. Carthagian Numidian Cavalry replace Lancers with additional +50% against melee units, while Mongolian Keshiks replace knights – Mongols never had heavy plate armor due to scarcity of metals, but Keshiks were extremely efficient, like knights – horse archers & lancers are separate units for Mongols. Horse archers were very powerful units very widely used by all civs especially nomadic, no unit should ever replace this most common globally ubiquitous units, from Persians and Mongolians to Native Americans and Africans… Horse Archers used hit-and-run tactics against melee units, evading melee combat because horses are much faster then footmen, thus horse archers must have 7 basic strength and +50% attack against melee units – only attack, as they don’t have this advantage when they are stuck in a city defense, forest, or other tight place. Mounted units are strongest in open fields, cavalry should be king of fields and infantry – king of trenches. Numidian Cavalry are lancers with extra +50% against melee units, and normal +100% against siege weapons. Horse archers are the most Mongolian units ever, Keshiks are heavy cavalry equal to knights, but much cheaper to produce. Knights might be available for production simultaneously with lancers & horse archers, because knights are very strong but very expensive to manufacture, while lancers & horse archers are cheap cavalry, that historically were used simultaneously a lot – knights were nobles while light cavalry were cheaper recruits. War elephants were much stronger units, normally carrying more than one person onboard – they had usually towers on their back with at least 1 spearman and 2 archers in the tower on top of their back, and they must have at least 9 or more basic strength. How a macemen regiment can beat a war elephant regiment, even if there are 2000 macemen and 100 elephants in a regiment? Elephants crushed may times outnumbering Roman Praetorian regiments. Macemen should have 7 strength, its only advantage against a horse archer is in defense in city, forest, hills, or other terrains where macemen don’t have to run long distance under rain of arrows. Elephants must be much stronger then macemen – each War Elephant has many people in tower on top of its back, with several archers and one or more spearmen with long spear alowing to impale any melee unit before he approaches close, long tusks, it is NOT easy to hit an elephant, and even once you hit it – elephant is not going to fall because of just one hit with a mace, it has much stronger bones then a human... Knight should have 11 strength +25% against archery units, Cuirassier 13 strength + 25% against melee units, Cavalry 16 strength +10% against siege weapons. Either Lancers 6 strength + 100% against siege weapons (Lancer is stronger against a machine gun or cannon because it runs faster then heavy knight, siege weapons are awfully mortal at significant distance, but once cavalry reached melee – Lancers & other cavalry can kill siege weapons almost punishlessly in a melee) or Horse Archers 7 strength or both make chariots obsolete not produceable anymore, also Lancers & Horse Archers are cheaper to produce than chariots because no cart less manufacturing, but Knights might replace only Lancers (or, Lancers still replace Knights with Guilds if no Iron available, or lancers & horse archers & knights produceable simultaneously)) while still allow to produce Horse Archers in parallel, as Horse Arches are very much cheaper to produce then knights, but almost same attack efficiency against melee units – knights only way outperform horse archers against archery units & mounted units. Also, almost any mounted unit from chariots to knights have pike as main primary weapon because who strikes first wins, & sword as secondary after losing a spear stuck in enemy body.
Knights become less efficient from arrows – longbow arrow carry a lot of momentum, and can break bones even if they did not penetrate the plate armor, thus no immunity from first strikes! Crossbowmen were like medieval snipers and should have additionally +50% city attack +1 first strike, while longbowmen should have additionally +25% against crossbowmen +2 first strikes. Melee units were cheap but weak, mounted units were strong but expensive, which lead to the emergence of the whole nobility class & feudalism formation – the whole purpose of feudalism was to make cavalry pay for their own maintenance. Production of ship should be *4 hammers of same epoch melee / archery / infantry unit, production of tank *3 hammers of production of marine or infantry, production of air units should be *2 hammers of corresponding epoch land units, production of mounted cavalry units should be *1.5 hammers of corresponding epoch melee / archery / musketeer units, production of siege weapons should be *2 hammers of corresponding epoch melee / archery / gunpowder units. Thus, poor civilizations build cheap melee / archery / infantry units militias thus incur higher losses, while wealthier more industrious civilizations have more professional armies with more cavalry, ships, and other heavier units – which cost more both to produce & upgrade, but are more efficient in combat, allows to win with less losses.
Also, I would argue about siege weapons concepts – siege weapons are the more efficient the more concentrated the enemy is, but if enemy dissipated in an open field on widest surface surrounding a single canon regiment caught without infantry or cavalry to protect it in open field, or catapults even less efficient – in open field, lets say 100 canons surrounded by 2000 macemen or musketmen, then one shot of canon even with grapes kills 1 enemy, in best case 2-3, compared to dozens killed and wounded from a canon shot in a dense crowd in a city, which is more collapsing buildings also kill and injure or temporarily capture people under ruins even without cannonballs hitting them directly – so, cannons and other siege weapons are extremely efficient when storming a crowded city with very high density of enemy warriors, but very low efficiency in open field if caught by enemy infantry or cavalry without support of your infantry or cavalry – thus, siege weapons must be escorted, are very efficient only in siege, but very weak in other situations. Thus, catapult should have 4 strength +100% on city attack and available with construction because it needs both mathematics and complex construction; trebuchet 3 strength +250% city attack, canon 8 strength +50% city attack +50% against war elephants +25% against knights, artillery 14 strength +50% city attack, mobile artillery 20 strength + 25% city attack.
Musketmen can have 9 strength but +50% against war elephants who have 10 strength.
Spearmen should have 5 strength and Pikemen should have 7 strength, pole weapon has an advantage of first strike in melee combat; spearmen regiment must beat a catapult in open field.
Also, I see completely misunderstood concepts of modern fleets: missile cruiser has way much wider range then any battleship and can sink a battleship way before it comes close enough to even fire a shot – that is why modern fleets stopped producing battleships, because rockets have way way beyond range compared to barrel artillery! Thus, missile cruiser should have 4 first strikes! Missile cruiser is weaker then WW2 battleship in near combat – if battleship pops out of nowhere near missile cruiser, for example gets out of well defended port or cave right in front of missile cruiser – battleship would probably win. So, missile cruiser might have 36 strength compared to 40 for battleship. But in reality, missile cruiser will sink a battleship with rockets way before battleship comes close enough to make even a single shot! That is why 4 first strikes – modern naval warfare is mainly about the range, as we can beat any armor – it became more efficient to produce many lighter ships that just carry rockets, then big ships with thick walls, as rockets will sink them anyhow! Missile cruiser will basically sink most WW2 & earlier ships almost flawlessly by 4 first strikes. Only submarines should be immune to first strikes, but no other unit on land, sea, air, etc.! Also, WW2 Submarine can NOT carry nukes – it is too small and there were no nukes at that time, 24 strength earliest Submarine should carry only 1 cargo space of scouts, explorers, missionaries, spies, great people, or maybe on footmen unit without machines (melee, archery, or gunpowder except mechanized infantry – no tank or artillery as they won’t fit it, but USSR transported a lot infantry in WW2 submarines into Sevastopol during its defense) – that is all it can carry, it is like underwater caravel! But WW3 30 strength Attack Submarines – they do carry nukes only, 3 cargo spaces – the authors confused old and modern submarines cargo functions completely, need to do cargo for submarine types vice versa to correct! And also, the Ironclad should look NOT like those ugly malfunctional weak first ever ironclads, but like the famous symbol of the Great October Revolution, the Aurora Cruiser – that is how most steam ships ever produced looked, during WW1! And Dreadnought type WW2 oil based ships became MUCH stronger because instead of many small canons, they used a few long barrel long range huge caliper cannons with cumulative warheads, which sank enemy ships far away before they even came close enough to fire a shot from their let it be numerous but shorter range canons – modern naval warfare is mainly about maximizing the range, it is about whose missiles reach enemy first, who has longest range wins!
Also, we can introduce the concept of cover: archers can give one free strike on enemy attacking a melee unit on same tile before regular combat, siege weapons can give one free strike on enemy attacking a human (non-machine) (melee / archery / gunpowder / mounted) unit on same tile, it is one hit before regular combat begins – but this is not important.
Also, regarding the technologies. You can’t have Drama without Literature – because without Literature, there is nothing important in the theater! While Literature is an extremely civilizationally important technology – there should be no way to bypass it for Drama and Music, while Literature should give more, maybe extra +2 culture per library... Aesthetics is NOT a civilizationally significant technology – you can do anything including landing humans on Mars without it! I would suggest to remove Aesthetics from tech tree at all, because many many much more civilizationally important technologies are missing. For example, “Canvas” tech – might be necessary for sailing because what will you make sales from, and before Canvas all people are naked thus no unit can enter snow ice and tundra before the discovery of Canvas (I mean any kind of textile fabric and ropes) tech. Canvas can be researched only after discovering Agriculture tech first as basic requirement, and might be necessary for sailing and entering snow and tundra. Maths has many levels – “Calculus” tech (Higher Maths) should be required for Physics, and it requires Mathematics to be discovered. Plastic is not that important as “Semiconductors” – “Semiconductors” technology must come from Radio and required for Computers. “Semiconductors” technology should lead to “Computers”, “Superconductors”, “Composites”, “Laser”, & “Photovoltaics” technology, that allows to build Solar Power plant farm improvement giving +1 hammer + 1 coin (+2 with environmentalism, +1 food with State Property), which consumes 1 land tile no matter what terrain even desert or mountain even far from water, provides electricity to any city factory without resources, but can be build only between 60 & - 60 latitudes, no bonus of anything (hammer, commerce, food) if farther then 45 to – 45 latitude. “Photovoltaic” technology leads to “Ion Thrusters” technology, which allows interplanetary missions, and leads to “Superconductors” technology. Mathematics and Philosophy are both required and lead to “Logic” technology. “Logic” technology is required for Scientific Method, Education, and “Algorithmization” technologies. Logic leads to “Algorithmization” technology, while “Algorythmization” is required for Assembly Line, Rocketry and Computers. Thus, we probably should remove “aestetics”, and add “Canvas”, “Logic”, “Calculus”, “Algorithmization”, “Semiconductors”, “Photovoltaics”, “Ion Thrusters” to the tech tree.
Please help me to make Civs appear in correct positions and flip with correct territories and continent sizes, so that the new map is fully playable without need to go to WorldBuilder every time a Civ appear, to put it into correct place?
And also I would appreciate if somebody can help me fix the mode so it will run correctly till the end of the game with map that has widths more then twice heights, to make proportions correct.
Thank you.
First, the line of the Equator can be quickly determined by some easy noticeable landmarks. This are Lake Victoria in Africa, Galapagos Islands in South America, south of Borneo (Kalimantan) island in Indonesia. On the original RFC map, the Lake Victoria has shown the Equator on about 26 out 0f 68 tiles, which means Northern Hemisphere was about twice the size of Southern Hemisphere on that map, Europe about same size of Africa - even the lieful mercator robinson projection doesn't lie that much! RFC original map had Britain bigger than Madagascar, Borneo, Sumatra, etc - which are really much bigger islands than Britain. The original RFC map missed many islands. Really lake Tanganyika is longer than lake Malawi in Africa, but on that map it was vice versa. Java and Cuba must be much bigger, they are similar size as Britain.
It put mountains on best places to found cities, where should be hills. One tile on that map is about 300*300 km, so it should be mountain when more than a half is mountain - like Himalayas, Andes, Rocky Mountains, etc. But if a tile has less than 10% actual mountain while most of it are meadows - that should be hills.
The original RFC map distributed with Civ4 BTS disk is extremely biased - it had intention to make Europe as grotesquely big and overloaded with resources as possible, while the rest of the world it was depopulating and making as poor as possible. Resources were also unproportionally distributed - I looked for example lists of countries by confirmed oil reserves, uranium, and other resources - and distributed resources more realistically, more proportionally to their real amounts. Island that were bigger - I gave them more seafood, small islands didn't have any seafood, I tried to maintain proportions. If you want the history to be probably as it was - you can give European empires more units, technologies and money on the start - but making Europe the size of Africa is way too big lie. What is more, when we make a realistic map - we understand that the history how it was, when tiny part of the world oppressed looted and genocided most of the world - was NOT probably and NOT easy, that required huge effort of certain people to make the history go that way...
All people have biases. I realize my main intention was to make the whole world as much populated and productive as possible but still realistic and accurate enough, especially on most photosynthetically efficient fertile and productive Equatorial and Tropical latitudes, use all surface and resources as efficiently as possible. I was so angry and pissed off about how far the original RFC map is from reality, from realistic proportions of surfaces and resources - that I spent my precious time to make different RFC map that would be more accurate. I called it "Earth Equatorial Islands" because main attention was on the Equator and so many islands that were missing. I really severely lack time, and I wish someone would develop this map to fully accurate playable mode, and distribute it as wide as possible instead of the extremely biased original RFC map that too much deviated the reality. It is open source, please take it, develop it further, and distribute as wide as possible - I would love to teach the world to be more realistic, accurate, and less eurocentric. I would love an Equator centered world, because of cheapest orbital launch from the Equator on Yunitskiy's GPV, highest photosynthetically active radiation power, most efficient productive and fertile climate, etc. If we make a map of photosynthetically active radiation per surface, life efficiency, productivity potential proportional to surface how many people we can feed there - world map of this and other planets would be even significantly more Equator centered then the Gall-Peters map projection, because the Gall-Peters map projection only represents accurate proportion of surfaces, but doesn't take into account the photosynthetic efficiency and thus available population that those surface can feed.
I haven't exactly fully achieved what I wanted, but the attached file is some first step in this direction. Mirror:
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/fsfn/9t2zFxj2T
I moved the map 4 tiles up, but to make the Equator in the correct position - it should go another 3-4 tiles up. In such case, Native American civilizations will go too far into the ocean, and their cities won't flip, thus they can't start...
Also, the map is very disproportionate - when you see South America, Africa, and Australia on the globe view simultaneously, you realize something is wrong... The width of the map must be more than twice the heights, because something 75 to 90 and -75 to -90 latitudes should go under polar ice caps. The original RFC map has the opposite - 124*68 dimensions are quite disproportionate. If we keep the sum of both dimensions constant, it should be rather 132*60, but I wish to do a bigger map to make more interesting play and more smaller features represented, and more civs simultaneously. The more complexity - the more interesting.
1) When I tried to make even the standard 128*64 map for RFC - the mode failed to launch. Does anybody know how to make RFC mode launch with different, more realistic map dimensions proportions, where the map width is more than 2 heights of the map?
2) Could anybody please edit the mode to change the starting positions and flipping areas of the Civs, so Civs start exactly where their capitals are in this file, and the flipping areas and continents are corresponding to the new map? I would also suggest both Canaries islands should flip under Spain when it starts first or uprises, and Cape Verde and Azores islands should flip under Portugal, because the AI doesn't care much to take them soon enough. In this map, Egypt represents all Nylotic Civilizations - Egypt, Kush, Sudan, Ethiopia - while due to lack of Civilizations we need some Civ to represent all Swahili Civilizations - Kilwa coastal empire, Somalia, Malagasi, etc. So, Ethiopia must start at Kilwa, and represent all Swahili civilizations. We would also need Congo basin Civilizations, Zimbabwe / Monomotapa Civilizations while keep Zulu, Indonesian civilization as it was big strong and technologically advanced civilization in any sense, Viet Nam should also be. Polynesian Civilizations should be also a Civ like Indonesia. If we have late Civs like USA - we should also have Brazil. Maybe Argentina and Great Colombia with Simon Bolivar. And Australia.
Most of the world was NOT an empty place to settle - most territories were populated long ago and conquered many times. AI tend to produce mostly archers and defensive units, while I would suggest more cavalry and specific units of each civ on start - most civs were nomads at the beginning.
1. First 4 Civs OK, Zulu – 8 Impi 4 settlers, any Impi gets Combat 1 promotion under Shaka, add horseback riding tech;
2. Greece – units OK,
remove: hunting, wheel, metal casting, writing, sailing, pottery;
add: agriculture;
3. Persia – 12 Immortals, 2 settlers;
remove techs: bronze working, masonry, mining, monarchy, monotheism, priesthood, polytheism, mysticism, pottery, archery, hunting, writing, sailing, fishing, horseback riding – as they accelerate too fast;
add: agriculture;
4. Carthage – 7 Numidian Cavalry, 2 swordsmen, 1 trireme, 2 galleys, 2 work boats, 2 settlers;
remove: metal casting, alphabet, masonry, wheel, pottery, priesthood;
add: agriculture;
5. Rome – 9 Praetorian 3 settlers;
remove: metal casting, alphabet, hunting, sailing, priesthood, pottery;
add: agriculture;
6. Japan – 11 Swordsmen 2 settlers;
remove: monarchy, monotheism, priesthood, polytheism, mysticism, metal casting, wheel, writing, masonry, pottery; so they don’t found Islam before Arabs;
add: Iron Working;
7. Kilwa (Ethiopia) – 8 Impi, 3 settlers, 1 work boat;
remove: monarchy, monotheist, wheel, masonry, writing, priesthood;
add: agriculture;
Kilwa is the start point, Mombasa and Quelimane flip;
8. Maya – units OK,
remove: wheel, pottery, masonry, mining;
Tikal and Chichen Itza only flip initially;
9. France – 10 gallic warriors, 6 crossbowmen, 3 horse archers, 1 knight, 3 settlers;
Should start 480 AD, from Clovis Merovingian, with the following techs:
mysticism, polytheism, priesthood, monotheism, theology, agriculture, wheel, animal husbandry, hunting, horseback riding, archery, monarchy, fishing, sailing, pottery, writing, masonry, mining, bronze working, iron working, metal casting, feudalism, currency, alphabet;
10. Arabia – 12 Camel Archer, 4 settlers, 6 Islamic Missionaries, 1 Great Prophet – Muhammad;
remove: mathematics; construction;
11. Khmer – 4 ballista elephants, 4 horse archers, 3 spearmen, 3 swordsmen, 3 settlers, 1 galley, 3 Buddhist missionaries;
remove: machinery, monotheism, metal casting, code of laws, monarchy, pottery, iron working;
12. Vikings – 10 berserkers (6 loaded in galleys), 4 horse archers, 4 swordsmen, 3 galley, 3 settlers;
remove: alphabet, currency, mathematics, masonry, construction, code of laws, machinery, metal casting, pottery, wheel, agriculture, priesthood, monarchy, feudalism, writing,
add: civil service, horseback riding,
Vikings should start 700 AD with tech civil service to make berserkers but without currency tech to slow down so they are berserks still in 1100 AD;
13. England – 8 longbowmen, 2 swordsmen, 2 axemen, 3 horse archers, 1 knight, 3 settlers, 2 galleys, 2 workboats;
Add: Engineering tech, Divine Right;
14. Holy Roman Empire / Germany – 6 landsknechts, 3 swordsmen, 3 crossbowmen, 3 horse archers, 1 knight, 3 settlers;
remove: currency;
add: guilds;
15. Russia – 3 spearmen, 3 axemen, 3 swordsmen, 7 horse archer, 4 settlers;
remove: currency, machinery, code of laws, mathematics, construction, metal casting, theology, monotheism, masonry, pottery,
add: fishing;
16. Netherlands – 3 crossbowmen, 3 pikemen, 1 swordsman, 1 horse archer, 1 knight, 2 galley, 2 settlers;
Techs: OK;
17. Mansa Musa – 3 settlers, 6 skirmishers, 2 camel archers;
remove: metal casting, currency, alphabet, construction, mathematics;
18. Spain – 4 swordsmen, 4 crossbowmen, 4 landsknechts, 3 horse archers, 1 knights, 4 settlers;
add: Guilds, Engineering, Divine Right, Aesthetics, Literature;
Spain should start 1010 AD - because before 1010 AD pyrenean peninsula was Muslim Arabian Caliphate. Both Canarian islands flip on start;
19. Portugal – 3 crossbowmen, 4 landsknechts, 3 swordsmen, 3 knights, 3 galleys, 3 settlers;
Cape Verde and Azores islands flip on start.
Add: Compass tech, Aesthetics, Literature;
20. Tawantinsuyu Incas – 12 Quechuas, 4 holkans, 4 settlers;
Techs OK;
21. Mongolia – 12 Keshiks, 21 Horse Archers, 5 settlers;
remove: currency, code of laws, mathematics, construction, masonry, tech so they don’t accelerate too fast. Mongols were nomadic, and had only cavalry initially, if they have smaller starting army – they won't beat China and Russia;
22. Aztec – 7 Jaguar, 3 settlers;
Techs OK;
23. Turkey – 10 horse archers, 8 swordsmen, 3 trebuchet, 3 longbowmen, 3 spearmen, 2 crossbowmen, 1 axeman, 3 galleys, 3 settlers;
In 1280, the Osmans might have discovered gunpowder, but haven't time to build gunpowder units yet in non-negligible amounts – their armies were numerous but not best equipped at the beginning, famous giant cannons were built couple centuries later;
24. USA – 12 Cavalry, 4 riflemen, 4 settlers, 3 christian missionary, 1 Frigate;
remove: Chemistry tech;
And one more thing I would highlight – the mode too much slows down and destabilized big Civs. All European empires that were rich and powerful – were big all over the world. In isolation, without exploiting overseas colonies – they would never achieve what they achieved. I would suggest to less slow down destabilize and discriminate big empires.
And the game speed should be marathon – just not enough time for units to walk to model rise and fall of many empires, epochs and empires last just a few dozens turns…
And how to turn off the dynamic resources module? I have put all the resources in place already, horses are far from native american civs starting positions.
Inflation should appear only after any civ discovers banking technology – because BEFORE banking there was golden standard limiting money supply, nobody printed money like today, thus inflation before banking was negligible! And Federal Reserve System DOES NOT decrease inflation – in fact, no matter how you print money unsupported by goods, you still get inflation! This event should be like: if you agree to make FRS – you will have +10% inflation, but all other civs will have +30% inflation, I am not sure about exact numbers but something like this.
Also, the game art-styles look very racist – why do Zululand, Ethiopia, Mali have most units white skin? Even Native Americans have own units art-style, but why are Blacks drawn white/brown, like Black people don’t exist in the game except 3 special units? At least settlers, workers, warriors, spearmen, axemen, swordsmen, archers, horse archers, war elephants, etc. of African Civilizations – must be Black skin color!
Also, I would argue about some units strength, and suggest to introduce one more mounted horse cavalry unit – Lancers, early light cavalry, recon cavalry, armed with spears / lances / pikes but no heavy armor which differs them from knights. Lancers should have 6 strength and +100% against siege weapons because light cavalry can gallop very fast, faster then knights, thus with less losses pass distance from max shoot range till melee, more of them survive till melee & defeat siege weapons including cannons & artillery easier. Lancers require “Horseback Riding” and “Hunting” techs, and “horses” resource – no metal required. Lancers and Horse Archers when those tech researched, make chariots obsolete (not in parallel but completely obsolete) – that is why Native Americans, Africans, and most civs except most ancient, never ever used chariots, but only horseback riding – chariots were very short period of civilizations, Persians even did NOT use chariots at all but had Immortals riding horse backs, because it is much more maneuverable and efficient (disadvantage of immortal is lack of stirrups compared to lancers), and chariot production should cost almost same hammers as Lancers and a bit more expensive horse archers, maybe even more than each – you have to build whole cart and spears for a chariot, but only a spear / bow & stirrups for Lancers and Horse Archers. Carthagian Numidian Cavalry replace Lancers with additional +50% against melee units, while Mongolian Keshiks replace knights – Mongols never had heavy plate armor due to scarcity of metals, but Keshiks were extremely efficient, like knights – horse archers & lancers are separate units for Mongols. Horse archers were very powerful units very widely used by all civs especially nomadic, no unit should ever replace this most common globally ubiquitous units, from Persians and Mongolians to Native Americans and Africans… Horse Archers used hit-and-run tactics against melee units, evading melee combat because horses are much faster then footmen, thus horse archers must have 7 basic strength and +50% attack against melee units – only attack, as they don’t have this advantage when they are stuck in a city defense, forest, or other tight place. Mounted units are strongest in open fields, cavalry should be king of fields and infantry – king of trenches. Numidian Cavalry are lancers with extra +50% against melee units, and normal +100% against siege weapons. Horse archers are the most Mongolian units ever, Keshiks are heavy cavalry equal to knights, but much cheaper to produce. Knights might be available for production simultaneously with lancers & horse archers, because knights are very strong but very expensive to manufacture, while lancers & horse archers are cheap cavalry, that historically were used simultaneously a lot – knights were nobles while light cavalry were cheaper recruits. War elephants were much stronger units, normally carrying more than one person onboard – they had usually towers on their back with at least 1 spearman and 2 archers in the tower on top of their back, and they must have at least 9 or more basic strength. How a macemen regiment can beat a war elephant regiment, even if there are 2000 macemen and 100 elephants in a regiment? Elephants crushed may times outnumbering Roman Praetorian regiments. Macemen should have 7 strength, its only advantage against a horse archer is in defense in city, forest, hills, or other terrains where macemen don’t have to run long distance under rain of arrows. Elephants must be much stronger then macemen – each War Elephant has many people in tower on top of its back, with several archers and one or more spearmen with long spear alowing to impale any melee unit before he approaches close, long tusks, it is NOT easy to hit an elephant, and even once you hit it – elephant is not going to fall because of just one hit with a mace, it has much stronger bones then a human... Knight should have 11 strength +25% against archery units, Cuirassier 13 strength + 25% against melee units, Cavalry 16 strength +10% against siege weapons. Either Lancers 6 strength + 100% against siege weapons (Lancer is stronger against a machine gun or cannon because it runs faster then heavy knight, siege weapons are awfully mortal at significant distance, but once cavalry reached melee – Lancers & other cavalry can kill siege weapons almost punishlessly in a melee) or Horse Archers 7 strength or both make chariots obsolete not produceable anymore, also Lancers & Horse Archers are cheaper to produce than chariots because no cart less manufacturing, but Knights might replace only Lancers (or, Lancers still replace Knights with Guilds if no Iron available, or lancers & horse archers & knights produceable simultaneously)) while still allow to produce Horse Archers in parallel, as Horse Arches are very much cheaper to produce then knights, but almost same attack efficiency against melee units – knights only way outperform horse archers against archery units & mounted units. Also, almost any mounted unit from chariots to knights have pike as main primary weapon because who strikes first wins, & sword as secondary after losing a spear stuck in enemy body.
Knights become less efficient from arrows – longbow arrow carry a lot of momentum, and can break bones even if they did not penetrate the plate armor, thus no immunity from first strikes! Crossbowmen were like medieval snipers and should have additionally +50% city attack +1 first strike, while longbowmen should have additionally +25% against crossbowmen +2 first strikes. Melee units were cheap but weak, mounted units were strong but expensive, which lead to the emergence of the whole nobility class & feudalism formation – the whole purpose of feudalism was to make cavalry pay for their own maintenance. Production of ship should be *4 hammers of same epoch melee / archery / infantry unit, production of tank *3 hammers of production of marine or infantry, production of air units should be *2 hammers of corresponding epoch land units, production of mounted cavalry units should be *1.5 hammers of corresponding epoch melee / archery / musketeer units, production of siege weapons should be *2 hammers of corresponding epoch melee / archery / gunpowder units. Thus, poor civilizations build cheap melee / archery / infantry units militias thus incur higher losses, while wealthier more industrious civilizations have more professional armies with more cavalry, ships, and other heavier units – which cost more both to produce & upgrade, but are more efficient in combat, allows to win with less losses.
Also, I would argue about siege weapons concepts – siege weapons are the more efficient the more concentrated the enemy is, but if enemy dissipated in an open field on widest surface surrounding a single canon regiment caught without infantry or cavalry to protect it in open field, or catapults even less efficient – in open field, lets say 100 canons surrounded by 2000 macemen or musketmen, then one shot of canon even with grapes kills 1 enemy, in best case 2-3, compared to dozens killed and wounded from a canon shot in a dense crowd in a city, which is more collapsing buildings also kill and injure or temporarily capture people under ruins even without cannonballs hitting them directly – so, cannons and other siege weapons are extremely efficient when storming a crowded city with very high density of enemy warriors, but very low efficiency in open field if caught by enemy infantry or cavalry without support of your infantry or cavalry – thus, siege weapons must be escorted, are very efficient only in siege, but very weak in other situations. Thus, catapult should have 4 strength +100% on city attack and available with construction because it needs both mathematics and complex construction; trebuchet 3 strength +250% city attack, canon 8 strength +50% city attack +50% against war elephants +25% against knights, artillery 14 strength +50% city attack, mobile artillery 20 strength + 25% city attack.
Musketmen can have 9 strength but +50% against war elephants who have 10 strength.
Spearmen should have 5 strength and Pikemen should have 7 strength, pole weapon has an advantage of first strike in melee combat; spearmen regiment must beat a catapult in open field.
Also, I see completely misunderstood concepts of modern fleets: missile cruiser has way much wider range then any battleship and can sink a battleship way before it comes close enough to even fire a shot – that is why modern fleets stopped producing battleships, because rockets have way way beyond range compared to barrel artillery! Thus, missile cruiser should have 4 first strikes! Missile cruiser is weaker then WW2 battleship in near combat – if battleship pops out of nowhere near missile cruiser, for example gets out of well defended port or cave right in front of missile cruiser – battleship would probably win. So, missile cruiser might have 36 strength compared to 40 for battleship. But in reality, missile cruiser will sink a battleship with rockets way before battleship comes close enough to make even a single shot! That is why 4 first strikes – modern naval warfare is mainly about the range, as we can beat any armor – it became more efficient to produce many lighter ships that just carry rockets, then big ships with thick walls, as rockets will sink them anyhow! Missile cruiser will basically sink most WW2 & earlier ships almost flawlessly by 4 first strikes. Only submarines should be immune to first strikes, but no other unit on land, sea, air, etc.! Also, WW2 Submarine can NOT carry nukes – it is too small and there were no nukes at that time, 24 strength earliest Submarine should carry only 1 cargo space of scouts, explorers, missionaries, spies, great people, or maybe on footmen unit without machines (melee, archery, or gunpowder except mechanized infantry – no tank or artillery as they won’t fit it, but USSR transported a lot infantry in WW2 submarines into Sevastopol during its defense) – that is all it can carry, it is like underwater caravel! But WW3 30 strength Attack Submarines – they do carry nukes only, 3 cargo spaces – the authors confused old and modern submarines cargo functions completely, need to do cargo for submarine types vice versa to correct! And also, the Ironclad should look NOT like those ugly malfunctional weak first ever ironclads, but like the famous symbol of the Great October Revolution, the Aurora Cruiser – that is how most steam ships ever produced looked, during WW1! And Dreadnought type WW2 oil based ships became MUCH stronger because instead of many small canons, they used a few long barrel long range huge caliper cannons with cumulative warheads, which sank enemy ships far away before they even came close enough to fire a shot from their let it be numerous but shorter range canons – modern naval warfare is mainly about maximizing the range, it is about whose missiles reach enemy first, who has longest range wins!
Also, we can introduce the concept of cover: archers can give one free strike on enemy attacking a melee unit on same tile before regular combat, siege weapons can give one free strike on enemy attacking a human (non-machine) (melee / archery / gunpowder / mounted) unit on same tile, it is one hit before regular combat begins – but this is not important.
Also, regarding the technologies. You can’t have Drama without Literature – because without Literature, there is nothing important in the theater! While Literature is an extremely civilizationally important technology – there should be no way to bypass it for Drama and Music, while Literature should give more, maybe extra +2 culture per library... Aesthetics is NOT a civilizationally significant technology – you can do anything including landing humans on Mars without it! I would suggest to remove Aesthetics from tech tree at all, because many many much more civilizationally important technologies are missing. For example, “Canvas” tech – might be necessary for sailing because what will you make sales from, and before Canvas all people are naked thus no unit can enter snow ice and tundra before the discovery of Canvas (I mean any kind of textile fabric and ropes) tech. Canvas can be researched only after discovering Agriculture tech first as basic requirement, and might be necessary for sailing and entering snow and tundra. Maths has many levels – “Calculus” tech (Higher Maths) should be required for Physics, and it requires Mathematics to be discovered. Plastic is not that important as “Semiconductors” – “Semiconductors” technology must come from Radio and required for Computers. “Semiconductors” technology should lead to “Computers”, “Superconductors”, “Composites”, “Laser”, & “Photovoltaics” technology, that allows to build Solar Power plant farm improvement giving +1 hammer + 1 coin (+2 with environmentalism, +1 food with State Property), which consumes 1 land tile no matter what terrain even desert or mountain even far from water, provides electricity to any city factory without resources, but can be build only between 60 & - 60 latitudes, no bonus of anything (hammer, commerce, food) if farther then 45 to – 45 latitude. “Photovoltaic” technology leads to “Ion Thrusters” technology, which allows interplanetary missions, and leads to “Superconductors” technology. Mathematics and Philosophy are both required and lead to “Logic” technology. “Logic” technology is required for Scientific Method, Education, and “Algorithmization” technologies. Logic leads to “Algorithmization” technology, while “Algorythmization” is required for Assembly Line, Rocketry and Computers. Thus, we probably should remove “aestetics”, and add “Canvas”, “Logic”, “Calculus”, “Algorithmization”, “Semiconductors”, “Photovoltaics”, “Ion Thrusters” to the tech tree.
Please help me to make Civs appear in correct positions and flip with correct territories and continent sizes, so that the new map is fully playable without need to go to WorldBuilder every time a Civ appear, to put it into correct place?
And also I would appreciate if somebody can help me fix the mode so it will run correctly till the end of the game with map that has widths more then twice heights, to make proportions correct.
Thank you.
Attachments
Last edited:
