Master Map Change Thread

[BenZL43]

I always think that the Nile needs to be redrawn more realistically, and perhaps Egypt spawning spot and necessary resources should be moved 1S to allow more spaces for Mn.nfr (Memphis, later under Arab can renamed to Cairo) built instead of building Pi-Ramesses (that later become the awkward named Tell el-Daba). In fact, al-Uqsur (niwtrst) in 600 AD is 1S of al-Uqsur in 3000 BC.

 

[Manco Capac]

Egyptian UB buff?

Nah.
Because Sumerians were as good as Egyptians in making canals and controlling the ebb and flood tides. I think all civilisations should get access to the canal building if settled on a flood plain. Something like +1 or +2. Depends on how it unbalances. I know FP combined with normal food resources are already killer cities. But still, we all know both AI Egypt and Babylon suck @$$ and they are mainly the sole regions with FP. Indus have some but that's about it.

Egypt is bad in the sense it gets sparse food surplus without health buildings.

 

[Manco Capac]

I always think that the Nile needs to be redrawn more realistically, and perhaps Egypt spawning spot and necessary resources should be moved 1S to allow more spaces for Mn.nfr (Memphis, later under Arab can renamed to Cairo) built instead of building Pi-Ramesses (that later become the awkward named Tell el-Daba). In fact, al-Uqsur (niwtrst) in 600 AD is 1S of al-Uqsur in 3000 BC.

Never liked the historical arguments. I think balance is more important for Egypt. It certainly falls because of Arabia, but never shines because their land is unhealthy. I don't mind the change of locations, but we should address the health problem first.

 

[Locutus_Morti]

Just looked at the first post, your suggested changes to New York makes it Philadelphia, which is quite significant and is already better than New York anyway.

 

[Oregon Lee]

I prefer it representing Manhattan.

 

[Hippo8085]

Venice: please no. No, no, no, no, no. One tile rivers with no real basis are anything but aesthetically pleasing. Venice could use a walls + castle in 600 AD scenario though. Make it a bit more difficult, though I have no problem with the HRE taking it.

East Russia: Sure, but move the gold 1W or the gems 1E to allow one city to cover all of the resources.

East Coast America: Do not mess with what works. The one tile made coast near Quebec is good, no Montreal. AI settles Washington, the moving of New York and Boston chokes it, and New York is in the right spot already with Boston shoved 1N or 1NE so that they are not neighbors. Also human taking Philadelphia as their capital is much nicer than New York.

Mexico: Was good how it was before. Better to have a passage through Central America too early than never.

Libya/Sardinia: Yes, except towns outside cultural borders are ugly, in my opinion.

Japan/Taiwan: I don't think so, except for fish near Taiwan.

Palestine: Sure, whatever. Unworkable towns on plains/hills look extremely awkward.

Greenland/Iceland: Sure, but get rid of towns. Won't make anybody settle it except for Viking UHV if you eliminate some coast. Best city there is 1NW of the fort, so it should be encouraged.

UK/Denmark: Good, I'll keep settling Aberdeen and be mad about the unreachable crab.

Caribbean: Right on. Having lived there for some time I must agree.

Bangladesh: and nobody will settle Pataliputra. No.

Southwest US: Arizona is anything but a floodplain state. More of a desert with cereal and seafood industries. No changes needed.

Alaska: pretty. Move the new oil either 1E or 1S for only needing two cities (a third would need to go on the oil to reach it).

 

[Oregon Lee]

Venice: please no. No, no, no, no, no. One tile rivers with no real basis are anything but aesthetically pleasing. Venice could use a walls + castle in 600 AD scenario though. Make it a bit more difficult, though I have no problem with the HRE taking it.

What's wrong with aesthetically pleasing? I support a castle as well.

East Coast America: Do not mess with what works. The one tile made coast near Quebec is good, no Montreal. AI settles Washington, the moving of New York and Boston chokes it, and New York is in the right spot already with Boston shoved 1N or 1NE so that they are not neighbors. Also human taking Philadelphia as their capital is much nicer than New York.

I don't think it does work. Boston is pushing into Quebec and is being choked. I always move them where I prefer them, and they do excellently. It looks better too.

Mexico: Was good how it was before. Better to have a passage through Central America too early than never.

I disagree because where's the fun in just giving away the very important Panama Canal. Looks better too.

Japan/Taiwan: I don't think so, except for fish near Taiwan.

Enlightening.

Caribbean: Right on. Having lived there for some time I must agree.

YES!

Bangladesh: and nobody will settle Pataliputra. No.

So be it, but it isn't a negative thing to still make it available like it is.

Southwest US: Arizona is anything but a floodplain state. More of a desert with cereal and seafood industries. No changes needed.

But then it is worthless early in the game where it is needed for the Statue of Liberty and for pushing back Mexican territory.

Alaska: pretty. Move the new oil either 1E or 1S for only needing two cities (a third would need to go on the oil to reach it).

Only one city expected. The silver is for British Columbia, and the oils are to be expected to be reached by high culture. To simulate the Russians thinking it was a waste of time and finding little oil.
But thanks for the compliment.

 

[Atlantic Pacf.]

Not exactly a change to the map itself, but change the name of the tile one SW of London from Southampton to Winchester. The city is in the approximate location on the map, and it was the capital of England for several centuries. (source) After all, people already make that spot their capital all the time.

As for the OP's map changes, won't the extra oil resources in the Caribbean make the American UHV too easy?

 

[Oregon Lee]

As for the OP's map changes, won't the extra oil resources in the Caribbean make the American UHV too easy?

Let me see. +2 in mainland, then +2 in alaska, then +4 in Caribbean. That leaves two more... I suppose you're right. But we can always raise it to 15 oil. After all, we do have more civilizations now

 

[Malchar]

The changes in Mexico which would eliminate the early "Panama" canal would make some gold/silver resources much harder to reach for the Spanish UHV. I believe that you can reach Manila a few turns faster if you travel through the canal. It's also much easier to settle Vancouver, Reno, and Denver if you can simply drop the settlers off on the west coast rather than having them walk through the desert. It also lets you settle those cities before you even capture Mexico City. All that said, I found the gold/silver part of the Spanish UHV to be pretty easy, so I would welcome a more historically correct map change even if it does make it more difficult.

For Japan, I would prefer if you moved the whale 1NE of it's current position. It would still be in range for Hiroshima, but this way it would also be usable by a city placed 2S of Kyouto. I like it when resources can be gotten by multiple different city placements.

I like the Caribbean changes quite a bit. Adding the resources to the islands really makes them more viable without being overpowered.

As for Arizona, I have heard that they don't have a particularly sustainable source of water, and I'm not sure whether or not having the US settle there early would be very historical, but I haven't done much research on the subject. It would be great if you could have some kind of modern tech that would allow for more sustainable desert cities. Maybe you could have food resources show up there after a certain date.

 

[Oregon Lee]

I would of liked the whale there too, but the whale clips into the land.
Perhaps you are right on Arizona. But there must be some way to properly settle the Rocky Mountains! Beyond my creativity.

 

[Malchar]

I would of liked the whale there too, but the whale clips into the land.
Perhaps you are right on Arizona. But there must be some way to properly settle the Rocky Mountains! Beyond my creativity.

Maybe the player could rely on having a corporation spread food there as in real life? It could just be a matter of not actually having a city there and pumping enough culture out of Los Angeles and Texas that it will push the Mexican border into place.

I also noticed that the uranium on the Libya map might be rather unhistorical. If you compare the civ map to a map of worldwide uranium production, you can see that the civ map already has the uranium moving pretty generously to the north. It should actually be further south from the current position. You could line it up with the cotton and stone near Timbuktu to make it simultaneously more realistic and more useful for gameplay.

While I'm on the subject, the uranium in the Congo doesn't make much sense either. It should be further south along the coast, probably near the fish if you want it to be a useful city. I'd also like to see uranium in Germany and China (I'd settle for anywhere east of the Caspian Sea) for historical reasons, although there may be some gameplay balance concerns here. If you want to be really accurate, India should also have uranium, and Turkey should not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Uranium_production_world.PNG

 

[adhiraj.bose]

What about the coal in india ? Also I'd like to see the Andaman islands and a bigger Sri Lanka. A three tile pear shaped island makes more sense and also we'd avoid settling on the Iron resource. I absolutely hate settling on resources unless forced to. It shouldn't be a norm I feel.

While we're at it, why not give a bigger India ? Now that there are 3 civs in the same area. It should be bigger imo.

 

[blizzrd]

Not sure to understand the reason of a fort. For connecting the resource?

Unnecessary, Leoreth changed the rules for certain one-tile islands already to allow their resources to be connected to trade routes.

 

[Leoreth]

Not sure to understand the reason of a fort. For connecting the resource?

A mine is sufficient to connect to copper on Cyprus.

 

[Jusos2108]

Unnecessary, Leoreth changed the rules for certain one-tile islands already to allow their resources to be connected to trade routes.

I was aware of this, but I have always been wondering are these islands listed anywere?

 

[blizzrd]

Not that I know of. Jamaica was omitted for a while, but I think is now included.

 

[Leoreth]

It affects all islands with three or less tiles and a resource on it.

 

[BenZL43]

Never liked the historical arguments. I think balance is more important for Egypt. It certainly falls because of Arabia, but never shines because their land is unhealthy. I don't mind the change of locations, but we should address the health problem first.

Both are important. I think the city placement in Egypt should be conditioned like in China, where resources are circling around the intended city spots. The intended city spot should be at Alexandria, Memphis/Heliopolis and that Thebes itself. From these city spots, then resources and healthiness adjusted to balance.

 

[borhap88]

I would like to enlarge Canada territory between Great Lakes and Hudson Bay. It's really weird to see just no tile of distance between Toronto and Fort Albany (on uranium).

I think it should be reworked just like Leoreth did with Northern Europe by adding a line of tiles.