Kruelgor's Huge Earth (almost complete)

[Kruelgor]

Should be done within a couple of days.

Europe is enlarged. By stretching Europe I'm also stretching Africa so to retain the Mediterranean's destinct look and for accurate North African crossings.

I used a graph system to copy the world map so it's highly accurate. The Pacific has been shrunken though. I cut off the ice caps since they're pretty much irrelevant.

Capital cities already established in their historical location.

I've placed down realistic resources based on world export statistics and resource maps, and it's damn amazing how South Africa is loaded with jewels and silver, truly amazing what they have there.

I'm renaming the minor civs to national names instead of cities. Lots of minor nations including Phillipines, Congo, Morocco, Tunisia, Spain, Israel, and many more.

Alexander is leader of Macedonia, not greece.

Iroquois have been removed and replaced with loads of Barbarian archers on the north american continent.

Lots of pacific islands with tons of fish and pearls to encourage colonization. Japan's ring of fire a possibility here.

 

[Omega124]

Should be done within a couple of days.

Europe is enlarged. By stretching Europe I'm also stretching Africa so to retain the Mediterranean's destinct look and for accurate North African crossings.

I used a graph system to copy the world map so it's highly accurate. The Pacific has been shrunken though. I cut off the ice caps since they're pretty much irrelevant.

Capital cities already established in their historical location.

I've placed down realistic resources based on world export statistics and resource maps, and it's damn amazing how South Africa is loaded with jewels and silver, truly amazing what they have there.

Great changes. Nothing to complain about.

I'm renaming the minor civs to national names instead of cities. Lots of minor nations including Phillipines, Congo, Morocco, Tunisia, Spain, Israel, and many more.

That's great, but what about actual city states (I'm looking at you, Italian cities.)? Are they still in, because I want some Italian Unification!

Alexander is leader of Macedonia, not greece.

I don't see the logic behind this. Sure, Alex is Macedonian, and I to cringe when I see him called Greek. However, the cities are Greek, the UU is half Greek half Macedonian (Companions are Macedonian, I'll give you that), and the UA is Greek. Simply, its a Greek civ, not a Macedonian one.

Iroquois have been removed and replaced with loads of Barbarian archers on the north american continent.

Erm, wut?

Why did you remove the Iroquois? Are they any less of a civilization than the other ones? They're just a "tribe", and don't deserve to play with the big guys? I don't see /any/ justification for this move at all. At least Shrigg had a valid reason when he removed Greece (Oh, I'm sorry, Macedonia) from his map; there wasn't any room for them. But I'm sure as the day is long that there's room for the Iroquois, so I don't see any reason for this.

Lots of pacific islands with tons of fish and pearls to encourage colonization. Japan's ring of fire a possibility here.

I like this change, though.

 

[Zen Blade]

which map projection are you using?
PETERS?

or what we normally see, which makes the northern hemisphere WAY too large relative to the southern hemisphere?

This one is way more accurate (in my opinion).
http://www.petersmap.com/index.html

 

[Lord Shadow]

I'm renaming the minor civs to national names instead of cities. Lots of minor nations including Phillipines, Congo, Morocco, Tunisia, Spain, Israel, and many more.

Personally, I'd name the city-state itself after the capital of the minor nation, and adapt its cultural borders to those of said country. It'd be odd to have cities with national names.

And I'm with Omega124 on Alexander and the Iroquois. About the former, I'd suggest you keep civilizations the way they work in the vanilla game, as you're supposedly making a fairly standard map/scenario.

And about the latter, I don't see the need to remove their civ. In fact, I actually see a need for their presence: unlike many other civs, the Americans have little competition nearby. Just Montezuma to the south and the Iroquois presumably to the west. I don't see why they (or the Aztecs, for that matter) should have it even easier with an absent Hiawatha.

 

[Kruelgor]

which map projection are you using?
PETERS?

I created my own earth map. I didn't take anyone elses.

 

[Kruelgor]

Thanks for the feedback.

To have the Iroquois on the map as a standard civilization would put them on the same level as the United States or any of the other great civilizations on the planet, and that they were not. Their population was only in the tens of thousands. It's far more realistic to have the young United States battling it out with barbarian archers for supremacy of the continent.

Athens is on the map as a city state. Alexander will be directly north of Athens. I will make the two hostile towards one another which may encourage the Alexander player to take the historical approach of conquering Athens.

The culture of the city states expands so it is very believable to have these city states named after the nation itself instead of a city. As France I want to conquer SPAIN not Madrid.

 

[Omega124]

To have the Iroquois on the map as a standard civilization would put them on the same level as the United States or any of the other great civilizations on the planet, and that they were not. Their population was only in the tens of thousands. It's far more realistic to have the young United States battling it out with barbarian archers for supremacy of the continent.

You are very mistaken, Kruglor. The Iroquois were indeed on the same level as all the other civs. For one, it was the only true democracy in the New World. The confederacy, distipe its name, was the most centralized non Mesoamerican state before colonization occurred (Then again, it being a confederacy should also tell you how much it really was centralised). The " only tens of thousands" was AFTER plague and warfare, which even then they were by far the strongest native empire that hadn't collapsed, and would remain so until the post-Revolutionary War era.

This really shows some bigotry on your part, in my opinion.

Athens is on the map as a city state. Alexander will be directly north of Athens. I will make the two hostile towards one another which may encourage the Alexander player to take the historical approach of conquering Athens.

However, the Hoplite is Greek. The entire city list is Greek. The UA is Greek. A Macedonia founding Sparta, Corinth, and Knossos is really out of place, and so is Macedonian Hoplites and the Macedonian "Hellenic" (Its Greek for Greek) League. Besides Alexander, the only other Macedonian thing is Companion Calvary, which were only used by Macedonian Kings whom also ruled Greece. Apparently, to you, a Israeli army, made up of Israelis, whom's HQ is in Israel, that uses Israeli weapons and vehicles, and uses Israeli tactics, but is led by an Italian, makes it an Italian army.

 

[Zen Blade]

Since Omega decided to get a bit aggressive and flamey:
"This really shows some bigotry on your part"


Here's an interesting historical note:

"In the early seventeenth century, the Iroquois were at the height of their power, with a population of about twelve thousand people.[25] "

So... that's a city of 3? right?
But even if that number is incorrect... let's say it's off by a factor of 10. Let's say they had ~150,000 total people... that's a city of 6.

Native American populations were never that dense. In a few places they were, but there didn't exist staples in most parts of North America. Or, at least not staples that could support hundreds of thousands of people farming. The largest populations were the Aztecs and Incas at the time of discovery.

 

[Omega124]

Since Omega decided to get a bit aggressive and flamey:
"This really shows some bigotry on your part"


Here's an interesting historical note:

"In the early seventeenth century, the Iroquois were at the height of their power, with a population of about twelve thousand people.[25] "

So... that's a city of 3? right?
But even if that number is incorrect... let's say it's off by a factor of 10. Let's say they had ~150,000 total people... that's a city of 6.

Native American populations were never that dense. In a few places they were, but there didn't exist staples in most parts of North America. Or, at least not staples that could support hundreds of thousands of people farming. The largest populations were the Aztecs and Incas at the time of discovery.

Again, early 1500s still gave about 10 years of smallpox and other diseases to run rampart in America. I'd say look into 1200-1300, after Lief Erikson, but before Columbus, and there would be a higher population. and you'll see a higher amount of population. And they live in forests, in which they decided to live with instead of cutting it down like a European nation would, and a tribe on average contained less land than a nation would. So, of course, the Iroquois population wouldn't reach the size of France, but the conditions aren't the same. Also, as a whole, there were more natives than there were Europeans before Columbus.

 

[Shiggs713]

population is not the only, nor even the most important determining factor of "civilization" though.

 

[Zen Blade]

Omega,

So, your argument is that the Iroquois (who were founded sometime around 1500 AD) had a much larger population ~1200 AD or so?

So, here's some information for you: world population ~1500 AD. The size of each country is proportional to its relative population.

http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=8

I don't mind if you make some claim I have never heard before, but you should have some solid data/history to back it up.

 

[Kruelgor]

Thanks for the feedback.

The Iroquois will not be in this scenario. Not only is it unfair to the hundreds of other American tribes, it's also unrealistic to put them on the same level as the other main civilizations. It would be more realistic to have a minor civilization called 'Native Americans", but since they were historically very technologically backwards they will be portrayed in this map as barbarians.

 

[Danielk676]

Thanks for the feedback.

The Iroquois will not be in this scenario. Not only is it unfair to the hundreds of other American tribes, it's also unrealistic to put them on the same level as the other main civilizations. It would be more realistic to have a minor civilization called 'Native Americans", but since they were historically very technologically backwards they will be portrayed in this map as barbarians.

Lol, if I was a Native American that'd sound like fightin' words

 

[CaptainBinky]

Fair play to you to do what you want with your own mod

But just my own tuppence on this. For me, since Civ is about alternative history I don't see why just because the Iroquois were never a huge civilisation that they should not be allowed their chance in this game to become one. If you're using historical facts for their removal then America shouldn't exist at all until the late game, which is obviously stupid.

But your mod, your prerogative. Love the basic idea behind what you're doing but for me, no Iroquois is a game-breaker cos I love 'em to bits

 

[Kruelgor]

Fair play to you to do what you want with your own mod

But just my own tuppence on this. For me, since Civ is about alternative history I don't see why just because the Iroquois were never a huge civilisation that they should not be allowed their chance in this game to become one. If you're using historical facts for their removal then America shouldn't exist at all until the late game, which is obviously stupid.

But your mod, your prerogative. Love the basic idea behind what you're doing but for me, no Iroquois is a game-breaker cos I love 'em to bits

For me, I want to give the player a sense of actually being there. If the American player is up against a more advanced Iroquois with say tanks and helicopters while the Americans are still in the Medieval era then that's just plain ********. I would much prefer to prevent that kind of retardness from happening in my maps and scenarios.

 

[CaptainBinky]

Yeah cool, I get your logic - I guess I just love the Iroquois civ too much

 

[Lord Shadow]

To have the Iroquois on the map as a standard civilization would put them on the same level as the United States or any of the other great civilizations on the planet, and that they were not. Their population was only in the tens of thousands. It's far more realistic to have the young United States battling it out with barbarian archers for supremacy of the continent.

I have to say you're quite biased there. Realism has nothing to do with this, since there was no United States in 4000 BC, when every player in Civilization starts. What's more, the first English colonists that settled the Virginia Colony were quite less than even those "tens of thousands". They started small like everyone else. Furthermore, I believe the Iroquois can be understood to represent more Native American tribes than just their namesake.

How each civilization develops depends on how each game goes. The United States' perceived greatness would have to be proven by its civ throughout the game, where you may indeed have to fight technologically superior Iroquois, Songhai or Siamese. Or are you going to get rid of those last two as well because they aren't "on the same level as the United States" either?

Sorry if that last bit sounded aggressive, but overall, I don't see why Civilization's extremely hypothetical Bronze Age America wouldn't be on the same level as any other civ in 4000 BC. Perhaps the United States will be huge by the 1800s, and the Iroquois will be tiny or even extinct by then. Or not. That'd depend on how the game progressed up until then: that's the magic of Civilization.

However, as CaptainBinky said, it's ultimately your mod and therefore your call.

 

[Xen]

Makedonians are a sub unit of Greeks in the same way that Virginia is a sub-unit of America, Normandy is a sub-unit of France, or Hunan Province is a sub unit of China - a strongly regional idendity, but still part of a larger cultural whole.

So nit pick so much that you'd change the whole civ is insane.

 

[Kruelgor]

Do you think 'deer' in Africa would be stupid for verison 1.0? I would prefer for them to be gazelle (I can mod them in a later version), but do you think the player would be fine using his imagination or should I not have any deer in Africa?

 

[Sonereal]

For me, I want to give the player a sense of actually being there. If the American player is up against a more advanced Iroquois with say tanks and helicopters while the Americans are still in the Medieval era then that's just plain ********. I would much prefer to prevent that kind of retardness from happening in my maps and scenarios.

Too bad your maps will end up like every other map of its type without modded AI, one continent will be gobbled up by a single AI while you're left on your continent wondering wth to do about it.

In a game about what-ifs, you're sure trying to take the "what-if" out of the equation. The Aztecs were relatively backwards compared to Europeans so maybe they should be replaced as well?

How does the potential of America be far behind the Iroquois is technology any different than the idea of Americans ending up far behind the Aztecs who will have free reign of South America and Central America?