Map and province improvements for 1.4

[merijn_v1]

Don't get me wrong, I do really like the larger map proposal. I gives a lot of new opportunities. But adding only a few columns to the current map just for Arabia isn't worth the effort.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Sorry I don't see a better place for this. Any support for moving the English city from Exeter to Bristol in the 1200 scenario? Makes the naval game a bit more challenging.

There is a development thread for the scenario: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=551187
Not that I care too much about not posting in the perfect thread, but this is tipically something which will get forgotten if not goes there.
I imagine there will be lots of changes on multiple times on the scenario till it reaches a more final form.

I am very excited for 2.0, and a larger map.

Until then, I think the game would be improved by expanding the map 5-10 tiles to the east, as this would make more room for the Arabs, and make Trebizond viable. Expanding to the east is easy, compared to expanding to the west, which would require all coordinates to shift.

What do you think?

I see your point about Arabia, but personally I would like to see the map expand to include all of Eastern Europe, up to the Urals and the west edge of the Caspian. That would also have the advantage of including Baghdad, Mosul, Trebizond and other cities which were not part of Europe, but did play an important role in the region as a whole.

That would help make the AI Arabs more threatening and viable than they are at the moment, and would avoid the need for excessive revolt mechanics in Jerusalem, as the Arabs could respond to Crusades with their own armies built on a much stronger economic base. It would also make the Seljuks and Mongols more threatening, as rather than spawn a few units at a time in Anatolia and European Russia they could spawn en masse in Iran and the Ural passes and sweep west

Also in the long term we could add Georgia which was an important influence on Eastern Europe at the time and possibly the Golden Horde and Seljuks as playable civs.

Of course I understand this is going to be a lot of work (and I won't be able to do it!) so happy to wait until you guys feel you are in a position to make such a major addition.

I agree generally, that was one of the main reasons for my 2.0 project.
Still, I don't want to start such huge changes on the main mod.
If I ever get into it, it will be for the RFCE 2.x series, with a much more carefully planned map from the start.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

I agree generally, that was one of the main reasons for my 2.0 project.
Still, I don't want to start such huge changes on the main mod.
If I ever get into it, it will be for the RFCE 2.x series, with a much more carefully planned map from the start.

Is there any chance that 2.0's map could include the entirety of Scandinavia? Please?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Is there any chance that 2.0's map could include the entirety of Scandinavia? Please?

Not too much.
The shape is more or less given.
Also, there is no real need for those territories, there was little to no populace there during the timeline of the mod.
And most importantly, the further we go north, the harder it is to make any map-projection appealing enough.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

Not too much.
The shape is more or less given.
Also, there is no real need for those territories, there was little to no populace there during the timeline of the mod.
And most importantly, the further we go north, the harder it is to make any map-projection appealing enough.

Most good new computers could easily handle a xtra-large map. Mine could probably handle 250X300, but I digress.

Would the 2.0 map at least go a little farther north?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Most good new computers could easily handle a xtra-large map. Mine could probably handle 250X300, but I digress.

Would the 2.0 map at least go a little farther north?

First of all: Why do you want to go further north?
What do you want to represent there from the medieval history of Europe?

Also how do you balance those territories' shape and size? (and again, this is the most important thing)
If you go up that north, either the shape or the size will be way too much distorted IMO, no matter what projection you use.

 

[Swarbs]

Most good new computers could easily handle a xtra-large map. Mine could probably handle 250X300, but I digress.

Would the 2.0 map at least go a little farther north?

AbsintheRed isn't talking about computer power, he's talking about the distortion at high latitudes if you try and model a spherical world as a flat 2d map. The current Scandinavia is already distorted by virtue of being twice as large if stretched to fill a rectangular map, any further north will just be ridiculous and, as was pointed out, not much value for gameplay given how little importance it had in Europe.

This explains the projection issues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equirectangular_projection

 

[AtlantaMarty]

First of all: Why do you want to go further north?
What do you want to represent there from the medieval history of Europe?

Also how do you balance those territories' shape and size? (and again, this is the most important thing)
If you go up that north, either the shape or the size will be way too much distorted IMO, no matter what projection you use.

Because going enough north for a land bridge from Scandinavia to Finland means better gameplay.


Even a little more of Scandinavia would enhance playing as those civs.


Also,

If I wanted to make a modmodmod of RFCE that uses SoI/Blue Marble Terrain Graphics, how could I do this?

 

[merijn_v1]

In a previous version, we had a land bridge between Sweden and Finland on the current map. But it didn't have the intended effect. I expect it will behave the same on a larger map, so a land bridge will not work as we want.

 

[AbsintheRed]

When I removed AI regions for RFCE 1.1 (which was a very bad idea from 3Miro), and added some minor AI improvements (mostly from other mods), all AI civs got way more capable of doing sea attacks/conquests/settling.
I find the Swedish AI performing reasonably well in Finland, even without the land bridge.

Naval AI in Civ IV will never will be perfect (or even particularly good), but I find it good enough for the tasks it have to do in the mod.
Not only in Sweden-Finland, but also with the Iberian civs, Norway, Venice, etc.
IMO all those civs perform reasonable well in expanding through the seas.

 

[El Bogus]

I've experienced that as well. Norway even settles Scotland when I played England and killed off the Scottish.
Norway never goes for Iceland, though. Maybe an automatic spawn of a settler somewhere in between the years of 960 and 1060 would help. That would also prevent the exploit of a non-Viking human building Vinland because I presume Norway would build it sooner or later then.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I've experienced that as well. Norway even settles Scotland when I played England and killed off the Scottish.
Norway never goes for Iceland, though. Maybe an automatic spawn of a settler somewhere in between the years of 960 and 1060 would help. That would also prevent the exploit of a non-Viking human building Vinland because I presume Norway would build it sooner or later then.

Getting there requires ships which are able to enter ocean tiles
This comes at a later tech IIRC, or with the Norwegian UP

EDIT: Yeah, the first transport with it is Galleon, which comes much later
Aragon has a special promotion from their UB which can add +1 cargo space to all their ships, but they also spawn too close to the deadline for Vinland to cause some issues (the North Atlantic Access which enables it is removed in 1263, right after the UHV date for Norway)

 

[citis]

I noticed that the Andalusia province is almost 50% of Iberia. Maybe break down the province into 3 peaces.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I noticed that the Andalusia province is almost 50% of Iberia. Maybe break down the province into 3 peaces.

Will probably add some more provinces in Iberia, yeah

 

[AbsintheRed]

Some new terrains and features are up.
Most importantly the 2 types of Islands.
You can start experimenting with them, waiting for suggestions through the map where to put them.

 

[Publicola]

There should obviously be a salt lake near Jerusalem, to represent the Dead Sea.

There are also two major salt lakes in eastern Spain, near Torrevieja & La Mata.

I also found a endorheic/salt lake in eastern Turkey (Lake Van), but I don't think that'd fit on the map. The same applies to the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea, neither of which appear in the map area.

No idea where to put fresh water lakes -- frankly, I'd suggest replacing any one-tile seas in the current map with fresh water lakes, unless there's a good reason why a specific tile should't be replaced.

<><><><><><>

For reefs, there should be one or two in the Skerki Channel between Sicily and Tunisia, as well as one northwest of Tunisia to represent the Sorelle Rocks. There's also the Sha'b Abu Nuhas reef in the northern part of the Red Sea.

Per Wikipedia, there's also coral reefs in the North Sea, a bit northeast of Scotland, as well as another west of North Africa (either in the far southwestern corner of the map or outside the map area entirely).

I'm not entirely pleased by this, because every resource I could find seemed to be focusing on coral reefs as ecological habitats, rather than as naval hazards that we're looking for.

<><><><><><>

For islands, this gets a bit trickier. As I mentioned earlier in this thread:

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.

However, in the 'Suggestions and Requests' thread, I proposed adding the following islands or island groups:

• Along the eastern coastline of the Adriatic, especially near Ragusa
• Near Nantes and the western coast of France
• Both north and west of Scotland, as well as the Isle of Man
• Along the western coastline of Norway
• Near Amsterdam and the Heligoland Bight
• Near Copenhagen and the sea between Denmark and Scandanavia
• Scattered throughout the Aegean Sea
• Between Corsica and mainland Italy

<><><><><><>

For semidesert, I'd be inclined to just add it between the plains and desert in North Africa and the Middle East, and outright replace any desert tiles in the rest of Europe with the new semideserts. Use that as your new baseline, then adjust as necessary.

 

[AbsintheRed]

There should obviously be a salt lake near Jerusalem, to represent the Dead Sea.

There are also two major salt lakes in eastern Spain, near Torrevieja & La Mata.

I also found a endorheic/salt lake in eastern Turkey (Lake Van), but I don't think that'd fit on the map. The same applies to the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea, neither of which appear in the map area.

No idea where to put fresh water lakes -- frankly, I'd suggest replacing any one-tile seas in the current map with fresh water lakes, unless there's a good reason why a specific tile should't be replaced.

I didn't add any new lakes this time, they remained the same way as I set them previously.
I only replaced the old system with the new one, with proper Fresh Water and Salt Lakes.

Having said that, I'm open to new suggestions.
Currently the only salt lakes are Lake Tuz in Anatolia, and the Dead Sea near Jerusalem.
For Fresh Water Lakes we have quite a few ones, especially in Scandinavia, Finland, and Russia.

For reefs, there should be one or two in the Skerki Channel between Sicily and Tunisia, as well as one northwest of Tunisia to represent the Sorelle Rocks. There's also the Sha'b Abu Nuhas reef in the northern part of the Red Sea.

Per Wikipedia, there's also coral reefs in the North Sea, a bit northeast of Scotland, as well as another west of North Africa (either in the far southwestern corner of the map or outside the map area entirely).

I'm not entirely pleased by this, because every resource I could find seemed to be focusing on coral reefs as ecological habitats, rather than as naval hazards that we're looking for.

No reefs are present on the map ATM.
Most of those can be added probably.
But yeah, I'm mainly looking for naval hazards, even if there are not that much around Europe.

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.

However, in the 'Suggestions and Requests' thread, I proposed adding the following islands or island groups:

• Along the eastern coastline of the Adriatic, especially near Ragusa
• Near Nantes and the western coast of France
• Both north and west of Scotland, as well as the Isle of Man
• Along the western coastline of Norway
• Near Amsterdam and the Heligoland Bight
• Near Copenhagen and the sea between Denmark and Scandanavia
• Scattered throughout the Aegean Sea
• Between Corsica and mainland Italy

True, there is no clear line. We will probably decide on a case by cases basis.
I think I will leave most of the current small islands settleable.
Malta, Rhodes should remain that way IMO.
Most islands chains can be greatly improved though with the new island features, also most of those are good examples you mentioned.

For semidesert, I'd be inclined to just add it between the plains and desert in North Africa and the Middle East, and outright replace any desert tiles in the rest of Europe with the new semideserts. Use that as your new baseline, then adjust as necessary.

Yeah, more or less that was my initial plan for it.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Btw, you can post ingame images for exact island suggestions.
Much easier to discuss them that way.
Especially if the coastline itself is also changed on some occasions.

 

[Publicola]

No reefs are present on the map ATM.
Most of those can be added probably.
But yeah, I'm mainly looking for naval hazards, even if there are not that much around Europe.

Using the Wikipedia article for "Shipwrecking" has proven a bit more helpful.

For instance, there's apparently a series of rocks and hazards in the Isles of Scilly off the coast of England (a bit southwest of Cornwall, near the English Channel) that was famous for a naval disaster in 1707. Converting to the game, this could be an island tile barely within the BFC of the westernmost tile in England, with a reef tile right next to it.

According to this article, quite a few ships in the Spanish Armada were wrecked on a series of rocks and reefs that stretched along the coast of Ireland ("from Antrim in the north to Kerry in the south").

There's another set of rocks called the Eddystone Rocks due south of Cornwall, in the English Channel proper. According to the article on the Eddystone Lighthouse, the Rocks "are submerged at high spring tides and were so feared by mariners entering the English Channel that they often hugged the coast of France to avoid the danger, which thus resulted not only in shipwrecks locally, but on the rocks of the north coast of France and the Channel Islands." This implies that there are quite a few 'reefs' that we could add all along the English Channel -- which actually works pretty well historically and would add to the importance of having good port cities like Calais that allow access to the Channel.

Frankly, we could expand that concept and add rocks/reefs all over the map, along most coastlines. This would reflect the perils and hazards of ancient/medieval sailing, reinforce the importance of specific ports and port cities, and force ships to follow largely pre-determined navigation paths lest they be damaged or destroyed.

For other resources:

Here's a 'Lighthouse Directory' (scroll down for the list of "Lighthouses of Europe", as well as sections on "Africa" and "West and Central Asia")

Here's a list of major shipwrecks in Europe (mostly modern, but there are a few that date before 1800 and should point us to major hazards).

Here's a website with a whole bunch of maps of shipwrecks, though apparently it requires a paid subscription in order to get better detail.

 

[Arcangelus]

If reef is meant to represent all kind of naval hazard, keep in mind that most of them are not static. On the mostly static (and consistently dangerous) side, we have the Dogger bank.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW1Book-RN2-P01.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank

The naval maps in here http://highsea.cz/map.htm mention several "danger zones" as well as reported shipwrecks per area in the Mediterranean sea. The map covering the full sea (http://highsea.cz/map/INT310.JPG) highlights sandbanks, dangerous zones (on red circles, it seems) and important shipwrecks. Unfortunately, the disclaimer on the page its on Czech (according to google)

Spoiler :

Tato stránka je upravená podoba stránek pou&#382;ívaných v lokálním variant&#283; pro zjednodu&#353;ení práce a p&#345;ístupu k internetu v prob&#283;hu plaveb. S ohledem na toto se jedná o konglomerát on-line a off-line p&#345;ístup&#367; k jednotlivým podklad&#367;m. Aktuálnost off-line podklad&#367; m&#367;&#382;e být zatí&#382;ena dobou která uplynula od zaktualizování poklad&#367; pro danou oblast plavby.

I'll check a few more naval charts to see if there is any other obvious hazard.

EDIT: It seems that most sandbanks are deemed an hazard. For instance, in the North sea:

Spoiler :

The Dogger Bank, a vast moraine, or accumulation of unconsolidated glacial debris, rises to a mere 15 to 30 metres (50&#8211;100 ft) below the surface.[9][10] This feature has produced the finest fishing location of the North Sea.[1] The Long Forties and the Broad Fourteens are large areas with roughly uniform depth in fathoms, (forty fathoms and fourteen fathoms or 73 and 26 m deep respectively). These great banks and others make the North Sea particularly hazardous to navigate,[11] which has been alleviated by the implementation of satellite navigation systems.[12] The Devil's Hole lies 200 miles (320 km) east of Dundee, Scotland. The feature is a series of asymmetrical trenches between 20 and 30 kilometres (12 and 19 mi) long, 1 and 2 kilometres (0.62 and 1.24 mi) wide and up to 230 metres (750 ft) deep.[13]

There are mention to magnetic issues around Rockwall, but that's so out of the way that can be ignored.
The porcupine bank is west of Ireland and around 1 tile in size, but I'm not use if a tile on the Atlantic sea is worth of representation.
The English channel is deemed as the safest naval route, and contains about 1 tile of islands north of Normandy.
The Celtic Sea seems to lack any sea hazards, and contains the Isles of Scilly (in map, it would be 1 or 2 tiles west of the southwestern province in England). It may be too small for representation though.
The Bristol Channel is deemed as dangerous due to strong tides, not (directly) geographic features.