Map and province improvements for 1.4

[AtlantaMarty]

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.

I like it!
The one issue I have with it is that currently plains are lighter than semidesert, which is kind of confusing. Maybe taking SoI's plains and importing them would solve the problem?

PS: I especially like the rocky island graphics

Keep up the great work

 

[Force44]

I saw plenty of dangerous Cliffs on the atlantic coast of Spain (the part above Portugal) when went there.

I never knew the Dogger Bank to be that dangerous. I always figured the shipwrecks there were mostly due to storms. Most of the coast of the Netherlands is very shipfriendly. On a low tide you can walk to the isles, but the sandbanks, being composed of soft sand and mud, won't damage the ships, (falling dry is pastime in the Wadden Sea) and you will be able to continue sailing when the tide rises again.

Now if you get smacked on them with great force, during a storm, that would be a different story.

Does this make the coasts dangerous or the storms dangerous. I am undecided yet.

(If the dutch coast does receive sandbanks on the map (either through Cliffs or Islands) it opens up the possibility for a nice unique unit/unique power. The Dutch built ships with particular low draft so they could sail through the (often) shallow waters unimpeded.)

 

[Publicola]

Given that we're using 'reefs' to represent reefs, rocks, sandbacks, cliffs, etc., couldn't we expand its usage to include other hazards as well? I'm thinking specifically of weather hazards -- there are no tile features to include the presence of regular storms, drastic tides, or turbulent surf, even though all of those are known for causing quite a bit of damage to ships historically.

I'd suggest, if there's a tile or region known for causing damage to ships, we should include a 'reef' feature in that area, regardless of how that damage occurs.

Also, I know that the 'islands' feature periodically has animation of birds flying away. Would it be possible to do animation on the 'reefs' feature showing crashing waves, or sudden fog, or severe rain? That'd make it clear that it represents any sort of maritime danger...

 

[AbsintheRed]

It's great that even reefs induced this much feedback, thanks everyone
I thought Islands will be the most popular map improvements

 

[AbsintheRed]

Given that we're using 'reefs' to represent reefs, rocks, sandbacks, cliffs, etc., couldn't we expand its usage to include other hazards as well? I'm thinking specifically of weather hazards -- there are no tile features to include the presence of regular storms, drastic tides, or turbulent surf, even though all of those are known for causing quite a bit of damage to ships historically.

I'd suggest, if there's a tile or region known for causing damage to ships, we should include a 'reef' feature in that area, regardless of how that damage occurs.

Also, I know that the 'islands' feature periodically has animation of birds flying away. Would it be possible to do animation on the 'reefs' feature showing crashing waves, or sudden fog, or severe rain? That'd make it clear that it represents any sort of maritime danger...

Actually there is a storm feature in Religion and Revolution (a great mod for Civ IV: Colonization)
Storms and favourable winds are moving around the map. adding extra movement or taking away some, with severe stroms also damaging the ship.

This won't work in RFCE though, as here turns represent years, while in Colonization days or weeks.
So I agree, we can represent weather hazards with the reef feature.

I never really experimented with animations before, only some very basic stuff for leaderheads.
The animation on islands is only a slightly modified one from the birds flying from forests. New graphics for the birds, but the animation is mostly unchanged.
I'm not really sure how much time would it take to make an entirely new animation for reefs, and don't want to spend too much on it. Do you know something similar for other features?

 

[AbsintheRed]

How would you feel about expanding the Dead Sea and including the Sea of Galilee?
Is it important enough for inclusion? It might be too small though.

 

[Swarbs]

How would you feel about expanding the Dead Sea and including the Sea of Galilee?
Is it important enough for inclusion? It might be too small though.

It seems a bit too small for me. Ladoga is around 18,000km2 and takes up eight tiles, so I can't see a need to give a tile to the 166km2 Galilee, or two tiles to the 600km2 Dead Sea. We don't currently have the Iron Gates on the Danube, and most similarly sized lakes are one tile (except Balaton but we'll let you have that one for national pride ) so I don't think we need that much water in what is quite an arid area.

Extending the river up to the horse seems fine to me though - the Jordan is big enough to justify it, and the Sea of Galilee will then be represented by the river.

 

[AbsintheRed]

It seems a bit too small for me. Ladoga is around 18,000km2 and takes up eight tiles, so I can't see a need to give a tile to the 166km2 Galilee, or two tiles to the 600km2 Dead Sea. We don't currently have the Iron Gates on the Danube, and most similarly sized lakes are one tile (except Balaton but we'll let you have that one for national pride ) so I don't think we need that much water in what is quite an arid area.

Extending the river up to the horse seems fine to me though - the Jordan is big enough to justify it, and the Sea of Galilee will then be represented by the river.

Actually the Balaton is represented that way only because it's shape, I would prefer it with 1 tile otherwise. Lakes are not that useful after all, at least if they are far away from the coast.
You are probably right on both Galilee and the Dead Sea, though still inclined to extend the Dead Sea to 2 tiles.

EDIT: btw, didn't the Iron Gates become available for shipping (even that was way too dangerous) only after the Hungarian river regulations in the 19th century?
And parts of it only became closer to a lake only with the hydroelectric stations in the 20th century?

 

[Force44]

Actually the Balaton is represented that way only because it's shape, I would prefer it with 1 tile otherwise. Lakes are not that useful after all, at least if they are far away from the coast.
You are probably right on both Galilee and the Dead Sea, though still inclined to extend the Dead Sea to 2 tiles.

I think it looks really good this way. A lot like I remember my history/religious books.

I for one can sure live with another small deformation on the map to emphasize the importance of the features of the Holy land.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Lough Neagh, Ireland - 392 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Balaton, Hungary - 592 km2 - 2 tiles (because of it's shape), should be changed to 1?
Lake Ferto / Neusiedlersee, Hungary - 315 km2 - not present
Dead Sea, Levant - 600 km2 - 1 tile currently, change it to 2? (if Balaton remains 2)
Galilee Sea, Levant - 166 km2 - probably it's better to leave it out
Lake Tuz, Anatolia - 1600 km2 - 1 tile, should be more probably
Lake Egirdir, Anatolia - 482 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Beysehir, Anatolia - 650 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Garda, Italy - 370 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Geneva, Switzerland/France - 581 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Constance / Bodensee, Switzerland/Austria - 541 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Scutari / Skadar, Balkans - 370-530 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Ohrid - 358 km2, Balkans - 1 tile, represented together with Prespa
Lake Prespa - 259 km2, Balkans - represented together with Ohrid
Lake Vattern - 1912 km2, Sweden - 2 tiles
Lake Vanern - 5650 km2, Sweden - 3 tiles
Lake Malaren - 1140 km2, Sweden - 2 tiles
Lake Hjalmaren - 483 km2, Sweden - represented together with Malaren
Lake Storsjon - 464 km2, Sweden - 1 tile
Lake Peipus - 3555 km2, Estonia/Novgorod - 3 tiles
Lake Onega - 9700 km2, Russia - 4 tiles
Lake Ilmen - 982 km2, Novgorod - 1 tile
Lake Beloye - 1130 km2, Russia - 1 tile
Lake Ladoga - 17700 km2, Russia - 8 tiles
Lake Saimaa - 4400 km2, Finland - currently represented by a series of lakes (because of it's shape)
Lake Paijanne - 1080 km2, Finland - currently represented by multiple lakes
Limfjord in Denmark - not actually a lake, will be changed to salt lake or coast

There are a couple other lakes in Finland and Russia not mentioned here.
Swarbs is right, Sea of Galilee is much smaller than any of the other lakes we currently have.
I also don't think a lake should be represented if it's much less than 4-500 km2.

 

[Swarbs]

Actually the Balaton is represented that way only because it's shape, I would prefer it with 1 tile otherwise. Lakes are not that useful after all, at least if they are far away from the coast.
You are probably right on both Galilee and the Dead Sea, though still inclined to extend the Dead Sea to 2 tiles.

EDIT: btw, didn't the Iron Gates become available for shipping (even that was way too dangerous) only after the Hungarian river regulations in the 19th century?
And parts of it only became closer to a lake only with the hydroelectric stations in the 20th century?

No, I know about the Balaton being so long and thin - if you don't have it over two tiles it would probably have to be represented just by a river to be accurate. Not so sure about the Dead Sea though - I thought we had estimated the size of a tile to be 50km x 50km. In which case the Dead Sea is only 50km long so ergo should only be one tile.

You may be right about the Iron Gates, it definitely increased in depth and size after the dams, not sure how large the about of standing water was before that. Although I thought Hungary widened the river and removed some of the cataracts in the 19th century, so that might have reduced the size of the original lakes a bit?

 

[El Bogus]

How would you feel about expanding the Dead Sea and including the Sea of Galilee?
Is it important enough for inclusion? It might be too small though.

I also think that this looks very good. I agree completely with Force44 here.
Edit: The lake is also religiously important. Religion is a major factor in the gameplay of RFCE, so imo we shouldn't be too small-minded when it comes to topographical accuracy.

 

[Publicola]

There's also the fact that Lake Ladoga just isn't that important, or at least not important enough to warrant more than 8 tiles in the current set-up. There's quite a bit of variance in how many square kilometers are represented by a single tile. For instance, Lake Garda has 370:1, while Lake Beloye has 1130:1, even though Lake Paijanne represents 1080 sq km with multiple water tiles, and that's not even accounting for multi-tile lakes like Onega, that has a 9700:4 ratio, which works out to 2425 sq km to a single tile.

Basically, size doesn't matter for the map. Importance matters, and I'd say the Sea of Galilee is pretty darn important to the geography of the Holy Land. Personally, I like your proposed set up (with the Sea and an expanded Jordan River) quite a bit more than the current map.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I also think that this looks very good. I agree completely with Force44 here.
Edit: The lake is also religiously important. Religion is a major factor in the gameplay of RFCE, so imo we shouldn't be too small-minded when it comes to topographical accuracy.

Galilee might become an expection.
Let's see some other opinions on this.

Lough Neagh, Ireland - 392 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Balaton, Hungary - 592 km2 - 2 tiles (because of it's shape), should be changed to 1?
Lake Ferto / Neusiedlersee, Hungary - 315 km2 - not present
Dead Sea, Levant - 600 km2 - 1 tile currently, change it to 2? (if Balaton remains 2)
Galilee Sea, Levant - 166 km2 - probably it's better to leave it out
Lake Tuz, Anatolia - 1600 km2 - 1 tile, should be more probably
Lake Egirdir, Anatolia - 482 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Beysehir, Anatolia - 650 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Garda, Italy - 370 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Geneva, Switzerland/France - 581 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Constance / Bodensee, Switzerland/Austria - 541 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Scutari / Skadar, Balkans - 370-530 km2 - 1 tile
Lake Ohrid - 358 km2, Balkans - 1 tile, represented together with Prespa
Lake Prespa - 259 km2, Balkans - represented together with Ohrid
Lake Vattern - 1912 km2, Sweden - 2 tiles
Lake Vanern - 5650 km2, Sweden - 3 tiles
Lake Malaren - 1140 km2, Sweden - 2 tiles
Lake Hjalmaren - 483 km2, Sweden - represented together with Malaren
Lake Storsjon - 464 km2, Sweden - 1 tile
Lake Peipus - 3555 km2, Estonia/Novgorod - 3 tiles
Lake Onega - 9700 km2, Russia - 4 tiles
Lake Ilmen - 982 km2, Novgorod - 1 tile
Lake Beloye - 1130 km2, Russia - 1 tile
Lake Ladoga - 17700 km2, Russia - 8 tiles
Lake Saimaa - 4400 km2, Finland - currently represented by a series of lakes (because of it's shape)
Lake Paijanne - 1080 km2, Finland - currently represented by multiple lakes
Limfjord in Denmark - not actually a lake, will be changed to salt lake or coast

There are a couple other lakes in Finland and Russia not mentioned here.
Swarbs is right, Sea of Galilee is much smaller than any of the other lakes we currently have.
I also don't think a lake should be represented if it's much less than 4-500 km2.

Generally I'm quite statisfied with it for most parts of the map.
A tile is more or less 50*50 km2, yeah
Considering that most lake tiles can also represent the surroundings of the lake, it's not that unrealistic that bigger lakes take less tiles proportionally than smaller lakes.

So IMO it's fine to represent most 500-1500 km2 lakes with 1 tile, most 1500-3000 with 2 tiles, most 3000-5000 with 3 tiles.
The shape of the lake can heavily modify this of course, in both directions.
For example I consider the Swedish lakes good enough, even though Lake Vanern is 5650 km2 with 3 tiles.
Lake Onega and Ladoga could probably use 1-2 additional tiles though.
Lake Paijanne and the rest of the lakes in Finland and Russia (the ones not mentioned in the last post) will be revised.

EDIT: other than the Levant, I'm not sure what to do with the Hungarian Lakes, and with the Salt Lake in Anatolia

 

[El Bogus]

Will the new lakes be accessable by ships?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Will the new lakes be accessable by ships?

Yeah, naval units can use all lakes the same way as before.
I don't see any gameplay reasons to forbid them to enter.

Does it bother players that much?
It would be easy to add restrictions now that lakes are entirely separate from coasts (speaking of terrain types here)
Would be applied to all lakes though, without expections.

 

[Swarbs]

Personally I don't think Galilee is large enough or important enough at the time of the mod to warrant inclusion. It declined in social and religious importance dramatically after the Muslim conquest of the Levant with most towns around the lake being abandoned.

That said, I don't think it will make much difference to the gameplay to have one or two tiles changed, so if other people are in favour then go for it. Although I would have it one tile S as the lake is further to the south of Tyre than the east - you can see the rough position on the SOI map

 

[El Bogus]

Yeah, naval units can use all lakes the same way as before.
I don't see any gameplay reasons to forbid them to enter.

Does it bother players that much?
It would be easy to add restrictions now that lakes are entirely separate from coasts (speaking of terrain types here)
Would be applied to all lakes though, without expections.

I can only think of spreading the Hanse through lakes, which I really like. It feels a bit like an exploit, though. But when the new Company system is incorporated this argument will be moot.
Except the above, I only know that cogs were not able able to access rivers. So maybe, it would be more realistic to forbid ships to enter lakes. Or just allow early ships to enter lakes to show different flotation depths.

 

[gilgames]

I had a game with sweden and i built my capitol 1W to iron on lakeside. I could not built harbour or ships but ships could came in. I would say delete this inconsistency in any direction will do.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I had a game with sweden and i built my capitol 1W to iron on lakeside. I could not built harbour or ships but ships could came in. I would say delete this inconsistency in any direction will do.

That's a good point.
Btw, it's the same with forts IIRC.
You can enter a city through forts to a non-coastal city, which of cource can't build any naval buildings or units.