1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Map and province improvements for 1.4

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall: Europe' started by AbsintheRed, Mar 16, 2016.

  1. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    As some parts of it already came up, I will start the conversation a little prematurely
    1.3 will be released on friday, according to my current plans, so it's not that bad :)

    So, for 1.4 I planned to have a couple map improvements.
    Don't want to do huge overhauls to the general shape, I'm more or less statisfied with most areas, but minor/medium changes will be made.
    Apart from some balance reasons, the city name maps are tedious to update, so the map mustn't change constantly if we want to have a well-working mod.

    The only exceptions are around Tunesia (don't really like the current shape of the African coast there), and the map in Russia (it was never properly made before)
    We can revise some of the swamp areas around Kiev for example, I consider stuff like that minor

    Islands and semidesert will also make they way to the mod, thus the coastline will have some minor changes, especially in the Mediterranean and near the British Islands
    Resource placement suggestions are also welcome, if they have a valid reason other than personal preference.

    About province updates, I have a couple I'm already sure about, while some others are still up to debate.
    Sahara will get it's own province from the unassigned plots in Africa, for gameplay reasons
    Norway might be split into Trondelag and Bergenhus
    Languedoc as a new province in southern France
    Lusitania split into half, new Algarve province
    revised Hungarian provinces (Partium, Vajdasag, etc)
    Courland as a separate province
    Pskov as a separate province
    Sous province south of Morocco
    Arkhangelsk province

    I would love to hear as many opinions and suggestions as possible about all these things.
    We can start with discussing the exact islands placements and the connected coast changes for example
    But feel free to post on everything else too
     
  2. merijn_v1

    merijn_v1 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,651
    Location:
    The city of the original vlaai
    Please don't start any updates until I uploaded the initial 1200 AD map, so the maps will be keep in sync. The scenario file is almost done and I don't want to do everything over because the map is severely changed.
     
  3. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Don't worry, this is a brainstorming thread, I didn't forget about the scenario :)
     
  4. Baron03

    Baron03 Baron

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Messages:
    216
    I never like to pass up a civ suggestion... But this discussion should wait after your planned changes.

    I'm surprised to here about the island and semi desert, but I like both additions. The Aegean, Baltic, Adriatic, and Scotland will look different. How would you change Tunisia? The land placement seems ok to me.

    As far as other map changes: I didn't know there was honey, dye, and iron in Ireland... Then again my resource is an encyclopedia from the seventies. Maybe Remove dye and iron? Add copper 1 west of iron, add cow two north and one west of dye, add one coal west of new copper resource, add one cow south of wheat? I am Not sure if they were big on using cattle like today on those plots.
     
  5. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    I would like to keep this thread to map-related stuff.
    But yeah, I remember that there were a couple suggestions for those civs too. See other thread, just posted about potential civs today.

    On Tunesia: It's not really the shape of the land, rather that it's far too north, leaving the western part of the Mediterranean Sea too narrow. I guess that's what I dislike the most.
    The point is that this is something we could easily improve, and with little effort.

    A little rant about the map:
    Spoiler :
    Sure, the RFCE map is not perfect. British Islands too big (intentionally, to be able to hold 2 civs), the size of Scandinavia, Finland and northern Russia is inaccurate (because of the map projection I used, but I don't think it can be made much better in Civ IV terms. and it's still much better than the map in EU4 for example with their giant Scandinavia and other northernmost parts).

    Projection is always an important question when making maps. Even if it is for Europe only, not the whole world, either the size or the shape will be strange. Not to even mention the longitudes, which everyone would like to naturally use as parallel lines with the north-south direction across all parts of the map.
    I modified the projection I used wherever I felt it was necessary, so the map in RFCE is already specifically made for Civ IV and the mod itself.

    Nevertheless I'm quite statisfied with the general shape of the map we use other than those 2 things above. Actually I'm quite statisfied with it even with those 2 things included :)
    I think I made an overhaul for all parts of the map during the past years, apart from Russia. I don't even want to know how much time it took in total, especially if we include all the consequences of those map changes too :crazyeye:


    On Ireland: Yeah, it's too fertile at the moment, with a big variety of resources.
    It shouldn't become this fertile until the potatoes appear there.
     
  6. Publicola

    Publicola Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2014
    Messages:
    313
    Did you see my map suggestion in the 'RFCEurope 1.3' thread?

    This can either be a self-standing change (just make the whole map smaller), or can be tied to another proposal I've made, to expand the map eastward.

    The primary reason for this would be to provide Arabia a broader base of support in the Middle East. Baghdad was the crown jewel of the Muslim Golden Age, and providing every a fraction of Mesopotamia would make it much more feasible to play a full game as Arabia -- they wouldn't lose their core to the Crusades, but would be in a position to eventually recapture those cities. A scripted Mongol razing of Baghdad and conquest of the Middle East would ensure Arabia's collapse, making the Middle East a frontier region for later Muslim civs that would divert some of their resources away from the conquest of Christian Europe.

    An additional benefit of expanding the map eastward would be that it'd provide space for including the Volga river and potentially even the coastline of the Caspian Sea. This would allow a base of support for a potential Golden Horde civ (not to mention a possible Caucasus civ, like Georgia), and give additional opportunities and challenges to the Russian civs.

    Finally, even a small eastward expansion would still leave the map smaller than it currently is. Cutting out the Atlantic would remove between 19-21 columns of tiles -- I doubt expanding the map east to Baghdad + Sarai would require more than 10 columns, and most likely less than that.
     
  7. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Yes, I saw your post.
    While I cannot say that I don't agree with the idea behind it, this is absolutely out of the question, sry
    Map size is not something you can just change in most RFC-style mods (or in most scenario based mods)
    Lots of important values depend on map coordinates both in the .dll and in python (and by lots I really mean a big number which was built up during the long life of the mod, in way more places that I can keep track of), not to mention various tedious text stuff like city name maps and similar things, which would all have to be redone if the map's western borders were changed.

    Adding some columns in the east is a much more friendly thing, as all previous coordinates would remain the same. Still a huge amount work, even without messing with coordinates, which I don't think would worth the modding time spent on it for the inclusion of Baghdad and a somewhat better representation of the Arabs.
    There are probably much less time-consuming options to make the Arab gameplay better both when playing with and when playing against them.
    Also, the biggest reason against it is that since cutting the western part is out of the question, every column we add would result in a bigger map, which I want to avoid for the RFCE 1.x series.
     
  8. Publicola

    Publicola Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2014
    Messages:
    313
    Huh. Darn, I hadn't considered that sort of difficulty. Two follow-up questions:

    1) Since we're apparently keeping the ocean, would it be possible to add an 'Atlantic Access' resource to the Canaries? This would allow a human playing a Mediterranean civ to potentially access the various overseas colonial projects, if they're willing to put in the effort. Considering that the Canaries were the last port of call for all four of Columbus' voyages, it seems reasonable to give them Atlantic access.

    2) For a more long-term project, would it be possible to describe the sort of entries (dll, python scripts, all the rest) that would need to be changed in order to remove the leftmost portion of the map? It seems like far too big a project for a single developer, or at least for one person to do in a short time, but it might be workable if done collaboratively. Project management is not my specialty, but it might be a long-term group effort to prepare the way for RFCE 2.0....

    Makes sense, and I can understand the decision to avoid expanding the map for the moment. Your mention of "RFCE 1.x series" tells me you'd be more willing to incorporate this in a future "RFCE 2.0", though?

    In the meanwhile, I'd recommend adding Egypt to RFCE 1.4. The big difficulty for the Arabs is that the Crusades are chaos -- they're supposed to arrive, conquer most of the Arab core, then vanish in time to allow Arabia to reclaim Jerusalem and the other cities. That is difficult to script, especially if the Crusade mechanic is expanded as I've suggested.

    The alternative would be to simply let Arabia collapse under the Crusader onslaught, then script an Egyptian (Fatimid/Abbuyid) spawn with sufficient strength to drive the Crusaders away and reconquer the Arab core from an Egyptian center of government. Much easier to script, much more historical, and less worries about imbalance if/when the Crusade mechanic is changed.

    Re: Tunisia -- the major recommendation I'd have would be to simply flatten it. The current map has the coast of Africa curving north in a stepwise manner -- if you cut off the top two 'rows' of land, and just flatten everything out from that point until it turns a corner at Tunisia, it should fix the issue you mention.

    Another suggestion for Portugal -- I really like the idea of dividing Lusitania into two provinces, north and south, but I'd also suggest pushing the Portugese spawn further north as well. Instead of a spawn date at 1139 AD (with the Kingdom of Portugal proper), I'd suggest making them similar to the Ottomans: give them an earlier spawn date as the 'County of Portugal' (ideally in 1096 AD with the second County that succeeded in Reconquista), give them enough troops to take Lisbon, and automatically make Lisbon their capital (and the province around it Core) once conquered. This would tie in to a separate change to Andalusian/Cordoban civ, to encourage them to spread and settle in the future Portugese lands, since Lisbon won't automatically be taken away from them at a later date.


    I'd like to get the islands discussion started -- I had a list in my original proposal -- but I'm not really sure where to start. The problem is that RFCEurope has sufficient granularity where some small islands (like Malta) can be added as land tiles, while other small islands are best suited as 'features' on water tiles, and I'm not sure where the dividing line is or should be. We could simply keep all the existing island tiles and add the new feature around those, but I get the sense part of the reason for including the island feature in the first place is to get rid of all those one-tile sites that never amount to much.

    Another thought for the 'islands' feature -- perhaps it could be treated as a (bonus) resource instead? It wouldn't provide health or happiness, but making it a resource would allow workboats to improve those tiles and specialize them -- perhaps with a 'port/harbor' (commerce bonus) or 'fishing village' (food bonus) or, most daringly, a 'naval fortress' (increases defense) that upgrades to 'coastal artillery' (increases defense and causes damage to passing enemy ships). Lots of possibilities there.
     
  9. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Absolutely. IIRC it was even there at some point, not sure why was it removed.
    Makes sense to have at least one access resource around the Atlantic Islands.

    This is not an issue for a potential RFCE 2.0, since it would be on a totally new map anyway, made from scratch.
    I even made some initial drafts for it a couple years ago.
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=448645
    EDIT: I just reread it, it was fun :) There were quite a few new good proposals.
    But I see you already posted in the thread.

    The general direction was clear, all maps had more or less the same concept.
    So yeah, that was the plan all along. The question was how far would it be expanded in the east.

    There is a chance that they will make their way in eventually, but nothing more
    Egypt has a fairly high position on my potential civ list though.

    I'm not really sure what you mean, probably the same:
    "Moving" the problematic parts 2-3 tiles to the south is what I have in mind.

    These are my exact plans with Portugal :)

    I would like to keep islands simple.
    Also, why would you be able to add all those improvements with work boats, if you cannot do the same on the normal coastline?
     
  10. Publicola

    Publicola Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2014
    Messages:
    313
    It's possible my memory is mistaken -- I haven't played in a while. But I don't recall seeing that access resource there last time I pulled up RFCE.


    Thanks for the reminder -- that was a good thread. I'd post my question there, but I don't want to necro-post it twice in a row. Can you tell me where you got the various base projection maps (the Albers projection ones especially)? I'd like to see if I can't arrange a grid outline myself.

    I did take your second attempt (the 100x150 grid map) and cut off a few rows from the bottom and a bunch of columns from the Altantic and got it down to a 98x135, which fits your desired total size. I'm still not content with the vast expanse of Russia, though, so I'd like to fiddle with it and see how much that can be cut. Specifically, if you're willing to lose Nidaros/Trondheim or accept some imprecision in the Norwegian coastline, I could probably cut another 10 rows from the top. But I'll leave that for a later discussion (and presumably a later thread).



    We probably mean the same thing. If the "problematic parts" are the portion of the African coast that seems to drift northward into the Mediterranean, then moving those 2 tiles to the south should fix the issue. (This would be much easier with world builder or a map in hand, but oh well).


    :goodjob:


    Fair enough, but especially with the bigger map I like extra functionality.

    As for normal coastline, I'd argue that 'coastal' tiles are really predominantly land, and while the coastline itself would have (for example) a few scattered fishing villages, their significance would pale in comparison to how the rest of the land is utilized. Islands, on the other hand, are too small to count as land tiles, so a small fishing village would take up proportionately much more of the space and are the more significant feature. But frankly, if we're going with the RI concept of 'islands' (with +1 :hammers:, +1 :commerce: and +10% defense) I doubt that island-specific improvements to specialize further would be necessary.
     
  11. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    Two small thing.

    South west france, provance and aquitania are also way too big, needs to be cut in 3-4 new provinces

    Islands in mediterran should be a lot more forested. I.e. mallorca is fully forested even today, sardinia is less bit was.

    Ps: andalusia needs to be cut too. It is historical for aragon but too big and powerful if player take it all!
     
  12. SanJose

    SanJose Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    685
    Location:
    Moscow
    I can take part in the refinement of "Dynamic Civ Names" for Russia, the Crimea and North Caucasus
     
  13. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Great, thank you :)
    (I presume you meant city name maps in those areas)
    This is the thread for it: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=429472
    Wait for the map updates though, there is no point to do them twice in a short amount of time.
     
  14. El Bogus

    El Bogus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    369
    Location:
    Leipzig, Germany
    A few suggestions for Iceland:
    First off, I'd love if Iceland would be on the map as a whole (although it is half American geologically). Wouldn't it be more fun to choose where to settle the island? I suggest the following:
    Size: Iceland is bigger than Ireland (103.125 km² and 84.421 km² respectivley), but for the gameplay Iceland is more insignificant. So, although Ireland has 38 tiles in game (I guess it's enlarged) while the part of Iceland only has 11 tiles, I suggest leaving the size and just move one tile. Like that it could be depicted more accurately, like that: (caution: crappy image. :lol:)
    Spoiler :

    Grey represents tundra, black mountains and green plains or something like that.

    Ressources: I leave this up for consideration: 20% of Iceland were wooded when the Vikings began to settle the island. Later most of the forests were cut down to make place for sheep and horses or to use the wood for charcoal. So you could give Iceland 2 or 3 tiles of forest and maybe even sheep (on a forest tile, so it has to be chopped to be used).
    Also Iceland has a lot of rivers and lakes. One could add one or two tiny rivers.
    Fish and whale ressources are possibilities that already exist in RFC and RFCE respectively. But I get that the cities should not get too big.
     

    Attached Files:

  15. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Iceland is technically outside the map borders.
    We wanted it to be represented somehow, as a compromise only parts of it were added.

    If we decide to include it fully, it should have much more than 11 tiles.
    On the other hand, it shouldn't become too significant.

    EDIT: And yeah, the British Isles are intentionally enlarged, to be able to fit 2 civs there
     
  16. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    i like this Iceland idea, and to have a city there that can grow to size 5 rapidly and maybe later to 10 (later means ~1400) is welcome! Currently its growth is very poor.
     
  17. SanJose

    SanJose Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    685
    Location:
    Moscow
    I would choose the transformation of the island into a colony, which would have been a triad (with Grenladiey and Wineland) to Vikings
    Similarly for Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands(but it certainly would require too much processing the entire map)
     
  18. El Bogus

    El Bogus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    369
    Location:
    Leipzig, Germany
    It depends on how you like your gameplay. If Iceland actually exists on the map you have to build a settler, send him on a boat to Iceland and found a city there, which you then can improve and work with. To me, that is much more Viking-like than clicking on a button in your city and wait until the production (i.e. the colony) is finished.
     
  19. SanJose

    SanJose Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    685
    Location:
    Moscow
    i dont city like Reykjavik:sad:
     
  20. LAF1994

    LAF1994 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    27
    If/when a new map is developed, it might work to rotate the map by 45 degrees clockwise, so that the upwards direction on the map points north-east. That way, you could chop off most of the Sahara and Siberia and remove most of the unneeded ocean tiles in the west while keeping Iceland. You could then stretch the map to include Mesopotamia and the Caucasus.
     

Share This Page