Greenland and Iceland

[Spearthrower]

And then we encourage the AI to build useless cities on those two spots of Tundra? Why should we simulate this?

Agreed.

Iceland is good - historically and strategically of significant importance, especially for the vikings (get them to found a city there rather than leaping into Britain every game).

Greenland no. Historically settlements there haven't been very successful and even today there's a very small population. Further to that, and more importantly for the game... we dont want to encourage Viking expansion to get hooked up on taking rubbish lands just for the sake of it. It would be infinitely preferable if the AI Vikings made a more concerted effort to be the first to settle the Americas via Vinland, thereby developing their UHV potential.

 

[McA123]

Well I always thought Iceland was plenty good. Deer, fish and hills makes for a nice spot for a city. I'm also not opposed to Greenland remaining all ice, but it seemed like everyone wanted Greenland to be improved and putting 1 or 2 spots of tundra seems like a much better solution than making Greenland... "good."

 

[Magma]

And then we encourage the AI to build useless cities on those two spots of Tundra? Why should we simulate this?

Well.. I'd say: Why not? The colony on Greenland was important in order for the Vikings to settle Vinland. In other words, if they hadn't settled Greenland they hadn't settled Vinland.

 

[Spearthrower]

Well.. I'd say: Why not? The colony on Greenland was important in order for the Vikings to settle Vinland. In other words, if they hadn't settled Greenland they hadn't settled Vinland.

Because quite simply, when looked at from a game perspective, the Vikings have got enough on their hands already.

Not only do they need to be the first to colonise the Americas, but they have to also eventually deal with an aggressive Germany and Russia back home, while trying to maintain a large sum of money. Forcing them to settle poor cities in order to perfectly emulate history makes this a simulation, not a game.

Anyway, from a historical perspective:

Iceland is an integral part of Viking/Scandinavian/Danish history and maintains and important role today.

Greenland's Scandinavian colonies failed initially and were later isolated continually from the world until after the second world war. Greenland's entire population today (50,000 +) is barely as large as many of the ancient cities we play with in Egypt/Mesopotamia etc.

There is simply no justification to push this requirement onto RFC. There are countless (and I really do mean countless) other countries who could also lay claim to such tiny additions based upon historical situations.... they can't all go in the game. We can't build the map to ensure that every civ gets the exact same cities in the exact same places at exactly the right time, or we wouldn't have a game - just a simulation.

Finally, there is absolutely no proof of your statement. The only way that Vinland has any connection to Greenland is that potentially, people were trying to sail from Iceland to Greenland, got blown off course and ended up settling Vinland..... that hardly constitutes being an integral part of the settlement of the Americas!

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Whatever the real life situation, having the AI settle Greenland would slow their colonization of America, not help it, since it would just mean more settlers and more maintenance.

I say Iceland yes, Greenland no.

 

[Magma]

Because quite simply, when looked at from a game perspective, the Vikings have got enough on their hands already.

Not only do they need to be the first to colonise the Americas, but they have to also eventually deal with an aggressive Germany and Russia back home, while trying to maintain a large sum of money. Forcing them to settle poor cities in order to perfectly emulate history makes this a simulation, not a game.

Point taken. Though I often see Germany take Denmark, which shouldn't happened, maybe giving the Vikings a free city there will "lower" the pressure.

Anyway, from a historical perspective:

Iceland is an integral part of Viking/Scandinavian/Danish history and maintains and important role today.

Indeed.

Greenland's Scandinavian colonies failed initially and were later isolated continually from the world until after the second world war.

If they were isolated from WWII to now, then where do they get their beer? Greenland still fall under the Dansih crown, yet they have an idenpendant government. I would not call them isolated.

Greenland's entire population today (50,000 +) is barely as large as many of the ancient cities we play with in Egypt/Mesopotamia etc.

Thats why they should only get two(or one) tundra squares which is geografically correct.

There is simply no justification to push this requirement onto RFC. There are countless (and I really do mean countless) other countries who could also lay claim to such tiny additions based upon historical situations.... they can't all go in the game. We can't build the map to ensure that every civ gets the exact same cities in the exact same places at exactly the right time, or we wouldn't have a game - just a simulation.

So if we get two(or one) tundra squares it would make it to a simulation? Besides most of those countries already got theirs, or else it is too small to place on the map; Greenland on the other hand is far greater then for an example Ireland.

Finally, there is absolutely no proof of your statement. The only way that Vinland has any connection to Greenland is that potentially, people were trying to sail from Iceland to Greenland, got blown off course and ended up settling Vinland..... that hardly constitutes being an integral part of the settlement of the Americas!

Wrong, it was people who lived on Greenland who first "discovered" Vinland, and later also those who settled it.

 

[Phallus]

Thats why they should only get two(or one) tundra squares which is geografically correct.

We don't place cities on every single tile (including mountains and snow), but if we were going for accuracy then this is what should be done.

Oh and no, that isn't geographically correct. Greenland is not 2% tundra and 98% snow. Trying to represent the real world in this instance is futile.

So if we get two(or one) tundra squares it would make it to a simulation?

It would certainly be a step towards a simulation, as no one in their right mind (not even the AI) would settle two squares of tundra to represent a small and - apart from at the height of the Viking era - an insignificant colony. You would have to script it, and it would simply be a drag on the Viking economy.

Besides most of those countries already got theirs, or else it is too small to place on the map; Greenland on the other hand is far greater then for an example Ireland.

In terms of population AND historical significance, Ireland is vastly underrepresented on this map. There were sheep, pigs, wheat, fur, cows, and more in Ireland, but nobody's calling for Ireland to be expanded to accomodate all these materials and its historical population. We'd probably need a triple size map just to make the UK accurate.

If they were isolated from WWII to now, then where do they get their beer?

I doubt Spearthrower meant complete isolation. That rarely happened anywhere.

 

[Spearthrower]

If they were isolated from WWII to now, then where do they get their beer? Greenland still fall under the Dansih crown, yet they have an idenpendant government. I would not call them isolated.

I said that they were isolated *until* World War 2. So they have effectively been out of isolation for 60 years..... not many turns in game!

Thats why they should only get two(or one) tundra squares which is geografically correct.

Can I just impress upon you that if we applied this logic to all civs, the map would become a crazy place. What about all potential British colonies? There are countless places that Britain settled at the height of her power that aren't even viewable on the world map. Shall we distort the map geographically to meet historical accuracy? I personally don't think it's worth it.

So if we get two(or one) tundra squares it would make it to a simulation? Besides most of those countries already got theirs, or else it is too small to place on the map; Greenland on the other hand is far greater then for an example Ireland.

There are about 7 million people living on the Irish isle... that's 140 times more people than live on Greenland.

Wrong, it was people who lived on Greenland who first "discovered" Vinland, and later also those who settled it.

Well, that's not the story that I have read many times. I have repeatedly seen it written that (had to go look up the name) Bjarni Herjólfsson was sailing from Iceland to Greenland and got blown off course, thereby accidentally discovering Vinland. Later, Leifr Eiríksson of Iceland returned to colonise the area. Given that the discovery of Vinland was only 2 years after the settlement of Greenland... I wouldn't really consider "Greenlanders" to be requisites for the discovery - they'd barely been there 5 minutes themselves. It's like saying that people from Tahiti discovered Australia because Captain Cook had been based there prior to continuing his voyage.

 

[CyberChrist]

Greenland could easily be represented as a minor liveable area by changing 1 tile from ice to tundra and placing 1 source of Crabs, Coal and Stone(Cryolite) nearby.

If people are worried about a Megapolis on Greenland then the Tundra could be added quite late (around AD1900+ or so) - and/or it could be done by denying the city there to be able to build a Lighthouse/Trading Post.


If we assume Greenland is part of the 'Viking areas' then it would also expand their available resources quite reasonably.

 

[ecv]

Abut Iceland. I think some of the suggested changes would create more potential food on Iceland, than on the areas representing fx. Holland and Denmark. I dont think its realistic that Icelands can suppase those contries in food production.
About Greenland, i think its a good idea to atleast make it possible to create a settlement, but this settlement should never be able to become very good.

 

[CyberChrist]

Regarding Iceland then placing a single source of Whale within workable reach would be a both sufficient and realistic upgrade imho.

 

[Magma]

I said that they were isolated *until* World War 2. So they have effectively been out of isolation for 60 years..... not many turns in game!

Oh sorry I misread

Can I just impress upon you that if we applied this logic to all civs, the map would become a crazy place. What about all potential British colonies? There are countless places that Britain settled at the height of her power that aren't even viewable on the world map. Shall we distort the map geographically to meet historical accuracy? I personally don't think it's worth it.

As long the areas are in the map then I can't possibly see the problem of replacing two ice sqaures with two tundra.

There are about 7 million people living on the Irish isle... that's 140 times more people than live on Greenland.

I guess you misunderstood what I meant. This is not about population it is about size. There may have been many colonies around the world on small islands, too small for the map, yet Greenland is so big that it can easily afford a colony.

Well, that's not the story that I have read many times. I have repeatedly seen it written that (had to go look up the name) Bjarni Herjólfsson was sailing from Iceland to Greenland and got blown off course, thereby accidentally discovering Vinland. Later, Leifr Eiríksson of Iceland returned to colonise the area. Given that the discovery of Vinland was only 2 years after the settlement of Greenland... I wouldn't really consider "Greenlanders" to be requisites for the discovery - they'd barely been there 5 minutes themselves. It's like saying that people from Tahiti discovered Australia because Captain Cook had been based there prior to continuing his voyage.

Well if he hadn't known Greenland then he wouldn't have set sails for it now would he?

 

[Magma]

We don't place cities on every single tile (including mountains and snow), but if we were going for accuracy then this is what should be done.

Cities represent areas, thus a city in Greenland would represent all the colonies.

Oh and no, that isn't geographically correct. Greenland is not 2% tundra and 98% snow. Trying to represent the real world in this instance is futile.

No there's ice on Greenland too.

Jokes aside, by geografically correct then I meant that the southern part of Greenland is indeed tundra, I did not intent to put into % that would be just silly.

It would certainly be a step towards a simulation, as no one in their right mind (not even the AI) would settle two squares of tundra to represent a small and - apart from at the height of the Viking era - an insignificant colony. You would have to script it, and it would simply be a drag on the Viking economy.

Really.. Water gives a good deal of money, so does resources if you know how to trade them. It evens up in the end trust me.

In terms of population AND historical significance, Ireland is vastly underrepresented on this map. There were sheep, pigs, wheat, fur, cows, and more in Ireland, but nobody's calling for Ireland to be expanded to accomodate all these materials and its historical population. We'd probably need a triple size map just to make the UK accurate.

And sheeps, pigs, wheat, fur and cows got anything to do with the size of Greenland?