Map Changes

ozqar

King
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
734
Location
The Netherlands
New thread for easy reference. Will perhaps upload changes in some other areas of the world

I'd like to propose the following map changes, they're mostly about giving more land area to certain civs and to a minor extent to improve the shape of landmasses.

I moved resources to adjacent tiles when their previous location became unavailable due to moving mountains or coastlines. I hope I counted correctly the number of tiles added/removed.

1) The Balkans
One of two regions that I think most needs these changes. Southeastern Europe is tiny in comparison with Western and Northern Europe, and this area has several civs that could use the space, Greeks/Byzantines/Turks, Austrians, Poles, Russians, even the Romans could be benefited.
- I expanded the Balkans west and east, adding two tiles in the Adriatic and four in the Black Sea. The Carpathians were expanded by one peak southwest to better shape the Transylvanian plateau. The Danube was reshaped a little.
- I put hills all along the Adriatic (the Dinaric Alps) and on the southern side of the Danube, and put plains in the Pannonian plain (Hungary) and on the northern side of the Danube. Byzantion/Constantinople/Istanbul moves one tile south.
- Greece loses two land tiles because it's ginormous at the time - the Sparta tile and 1N of Athens. While I appreciate the magnitude of ancient Greek history and why Greece was swollen to give more playing space, these two tiles offer little to the player (unless they move their capital to Corinth, but I don't think that's the point of it). Removing Mt. Olympus compensates for one of these tiles, and I added more island features in the Aegean to compensate for production.
- The one thing I still would like is to expand Anatolia one tile west, but I think that might be too much now.
Net land changes: +6 usable land tiles


2) South East Asia
The other region where I think these changes are most needed. All other East and South Asian regions are way oversized in comparison to SEA at the moment, making the continent look very disproportioned and leaving the Khmer, Thai and Indonesians with a very, very tight space that doesn't give room for much, nor can accommodate the vast populations that have always lived in this region.
- Expanded the Malay Peninsula one tile South (added one tile in total, pushing Sumatra one tile South in turn), Myanmar was also expanded with two tiles on the southern coast. The whole Vietnamese coast was expanded east and the Cambodian coast expanded South, adding in total 7 land tiles in the area. Can't remember if there were any mountains there, but I would suggest to avoid them altogether and use only hills.
- I had to remove Hainan to make room for this, and changed it for an island feature instead. Hainan wasn't really populated until late in the 20th Century, so I don't think it's as relevant as the area in SEA.
- Removed one peak each from Sumatra and Java, to give Indonesia more room, plus added some island features for Indonesia - the Riau and along the Maluku archipelago.
Net land changes: +13 usable land tiles
I would also move the Philippines one tile east, along with the Celebes and Papua (and possible reshape the Philippines, but I didn't get to this). Borneo is tiny compared to real life, and Sumatra could also be a bit bigger and be better in proportion. However, the real problem in Indonesia is lack of production and land for agriculture, part of this could be solved if the rainforests there became more productive and didn't have a food malus (as I was suggesting in a previous thread about ecosystems).


3) China
- Expanded the whole coastline one tile west - removed the Dalian peninsula, it's now just part of the mainland, to fit. Removed one tile from Taiwan - it's now closer to its correct size, but it could still have the two tiles if wanted, if the island moves east as well. Removed Okinawa as an island tile and changed it to an island feature. I didn't spend any time thinking about the exact shape of the country, because I know there's a group of Chinese players who already spent a lot of time redesigning this.


4) Iran
- Shifted the mountains in the center of the territory to the South, to their correct position as the Zagros Mountains. I also added two land tiles on the Persian gulf.
Net land changes: +2 usable land tiles


5) Mexico and Central America
- Removed two land tiles from the southern Pacific coast, but compensated for the land loss removing the three mountains that were around Guatemala - the region is hilly and there are indeed some peaks, but nothing even close to justify having three land tiles wasted as mountains.
- Moved one land tile west in the Gulf of Mexico. Added a land tile in the Gulf of California (in Sinaloa), but compensated expanding the Sierra Madre one tile South. Removed the three peaks in Central Mexico, as with Central America, the region is hilly and has peaks, but nothing to justify using land tiles as mountains, the whole area is very populated in real life.
Now the area looks way better.
Net land changes: +4 land tiles.
A dream request? Could it possible to move Tenochtitlan/Mexico City to the marked tile and to somehow remove sea access from the city? The tile I marked is the correct location of the city, the current one is far too north.


6) Argentina and Chile
- Moved the Patagonia one tile South (removed the ice to make room), I extended the Pampas region in central Argentina with the land gained.
- In Northern Argentina, I removed one tile of the Andes all the way from the copper in Chile to the eastern part of Bolivia. This gives the northern provinces of Argentina more room. The core area of Argentina should also be expanded North, currently it's marked only as Buenos Aires and south of that. To put this into perspective, Central Argentina (which in the map would be the row of Buenos Aires and two rows south) and Northern Argentina (the space north of BA) comprise 80% of the country's territory and 98% of its population in real life.
- Made Chile much more fertile (changed plains to grasslands) and removed a peak to give access to the northern region of the country (although I think this last thing is a scripted change anyway, I saw there were a couple of mountain tiles that had city names). Changed two mountain tiles to hills in the South.
Net land changes: +3 land tiles in Chile, + 7 or 8 in Argentina, +2 or so in Bolivia (not shown in the picture).
 
I propose to add horses and stone(?) in Korea, and revamp the Philippine islands. It doesn't look good that Korea cannot have access to horses unless they conquer Shenyang, when in fact in the last thousand years of Korean monarchy they were able to mount cavalry forces without holding territory outside the Korean Peninsula. I also relocated the iron near Hanseong/Seoul since I think it needs a bump in production.

Also, the resource placement in the Philippine archipelago does not look too accurate, and the location of Manila should be 1 NW of where it is right now (the current position must be Naga or some other big city in Bicol or CALABARZON). I aalso added a river along Chang'an, patterned to the rivers in RFCA. I researched on Chang'an/Xi'an and it said it's located on a river. Here are screenshots of what I did.

[EDIT: I forgot to add a river east of the new location of Manila. I don't know if it looks geographically appropriate (well, there's the Pasig River but it's too short???) but I wanted to irrigate the rice I placed on the island; it represents the famous Banaue Rice Terraces. Well we can add a river along that plot to represent the Cagayan River, the longest river in the Philippines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagayan_River) for more accuracy.

Spoiler :
Civ4ScreenShot0095.JPG


Civ4ScreenShot0097.JPG


Civ4ScreenShot0098.JPG

 
Horse is in Shenyang so that both China and Korea should fight for them.
Cotton in Philipines ease Indonesian goal and Spain. Meybe replace it with silk?
 
Horse is in Shenyang so that both China and Korea should fight for them.

Yes, but usually Korea doesn't go to war against China (maybe especially in the later game). The result of this would be either only China or only Korea will get access to horses. I think both should have access at the same time.

Cotton in Philipines ease Indonesian goal and Spain. Meybe replace it with silk?

Oh, right. I just checked the Indonesian UHV, I'm sorry. Well, the main reason why I removed silk is that it is not normally grown in the Philippines afaik. Cotton here is a native staple, especially in the Central Luzon area (somewhere on the tile I put the cotton). This also represents the more abundant cloth fibers used since pre-Spanish Philippines, abaca and hemp. I suggest if this resource arrangement would be implemented accounting UHV difficulties, the Indonesian UHV should be altered to compensate for the added cotton.

By the way, in modifying the Philippine area I took into account the resource that I know the regions most accurately represented in the tile produces in abundance. About the fish, though, I put two (one south of the bananas, General Santos City is known for its tuna; one NE of Manila, representing Dagupan, Zambales). If it's better we can choose only one between the two.
 
I'd like to see Tibet quite changed, actually. Recent archaeological evidence shows that a branch of the silk road went through Tibet.
Geographically speaking, Tibet, especially to the Northwest, is covered in lakes and rivers, and certainly this is not represented in the map.
 
I like Balkans but there is no anymore bottleneck Constantinople which is a major flaw.
 
What do you mean?

He means that you can transverse the Bosporus strait with having to pass through Constantinopolis. In current map Europe and Asia are connected only through the Constantinopolis tile.
However, in the proposed map you can pass diagonilly from 1N of Constantinopolis to 1E, from Europe to Asia.
 
But with bottleneck you mean a single tile that must be passed through to get from the Balkans to Anatolia?

Because what I was proposing is to move Istanbul one tile south from its current place (so to put it west of the sheep) - which is still a bottleneck, isn't it?

Edit: Never mind, I just saw that it isn't.

Well, If there must be a bottleneck, then I would remove the tile north of the proposed city location (which is the city's current location).
 
You have to make Turkey or Bulgaria a bit smaller. My opinion is that remove two tiles from Izmit, they are not very relevant. And you can add some islands there!
 
Turkey is small enough as it is already.
 
Well, to put things into perspective with Bulgaria and the Aegean islands, with the mini expansion I suggested in the Balkans, Bulgaria is now two tiles big (before it was like one or half a tile big?), Crete is two tiles big at the moment.

In real life, Crete is 8.3 thousand km2, while Bulgaria is 110 thousand km2. Hence my recommendation to change the aegean islands to island features and to expand the Balkans (I can look up the size information, but all of these countries are too small at the moment, even with the proposed expansion).
 
It's clear that Crete is too big, that's not really an argument. Some parts of the map will always be exaggerated in comparison to others. I prefer Anatolia to the Balkans because the former has 1-2 native civs depending on how you count.
 
Well, to put things into perspective with Bulgaria and the Aegean islands, with the mini expansion I suggested in the Balkans, Bulgaria is now two tiles big (before it was like one or half a tile big?), Crete is two tiles big at the moment.

In real life, Crete is 8.3 thousand km2, while Bulgaria is 110 thousand km2. Hence my recommendation to change the aegean islands to island features and to expand the Balkans (I can look up the size information, but all of these countries are too small at the moment, even with the proposed expansion).

From geographical point of view Greece has large variation in its horizontal dismemberment, thus it is unavoidable to have either wrong shape or large Greece.
 
It's clear that Crete is too big, that's not really an argument. Some parts of the map will always be exaggerated in comparison to others. I prefer Anatolia to the Balkans because the former has 1-2 native civs depending on how you count.

Actually, my point wasn't to make Crete smaller - there's no gain there. I would consider that an interesting option only if it would help to enlarge Anatolia.

My point was simply to say that we shouldn't prioritize islands over mainland, regardless of whether that's in Bulgaria or in Turkey, because the islands in the Aegean are too small to justify it. I used the example of Crete because that's the largest island in the area, not to imply that it should be made smaller.

And for the record, my thinking of making the Balkans larger (game-wise) is mainly to support the Byzantines and the Ottomans, who would normally occupy the area.
 
Back
Top Bottom