Master Map Change Thread

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

So again, I can't remember if I eloquently said this, look at what we have decided on, see what you like what you don't like and what we should change, and we'll argue it out until we die of heart attacks. Very informal and all.

All the parts of the Maghreb that were turned to grassland actually are that green
if you look at a photo from space though.

I agree with you that using rivers to separate islands is displeasing though.

 

[Mouthwash]

You blocked off Sirajis with a mountain?

Sure. Iran was never a sea power, it's a mountain country. I feel that they should have to capture other cities on the Persian gulf if they want to make a real navy.

Looked at the map, and was very surprised to see very little actually changed. You made it seem like you changed a quarter of the map! When you get SVN, you will be glad to see we added about a quarter of your relative suggestions already. However, a lot of them I feel are unbalancing, or (mostly) an aesthetic eyesore.

You realize this was made with the latest SVN? I downloaded it at your request before realizing that you had provided the 1700 scenario, not the 3000 BC one. Every marker (I hope I haven't forgotten any) indicates a change that I myself made.

A separation of islands is not a call for a river.

Not always; you're right. I can understand why Sakhalin and New Zealand might not look good, but with Sicily and Hokkaido, it looks very aesthetically pleasing to me. I mean, my Carthaginian mercenary army isn't landing on the weird hilly boot-shaped protrusion of southern Italy, they're landing on Sicily, an island that can be occupied and defended from attacks by the mainland.

Grassland next to a desert also hurts my eyes. I also think a lot of regions you overestimate. I wouldn't call Morocco grasslands, nor would I say that most of the Sahara is roads.

Where did I put grassland next to desert? I put a buffer of plains in between. Morocco is pretty fertile. To be honest, I also think that a floodplain by Tunisia wouldn't hurt (because that area was one of the most fertile in antiquity), but one that would disappear later when the Maghreb became less fertile. I think that Leoreth can do that with floodplains, but not with grassland or plains yet.

The roads should only spawn with the Mandinka. They're supposed to be the trans-Saharan trade routes. If it's too much, they can still be toned down.

I looked at all the changes and considered the ones that were not already a part of the thread. However I don't think any new aspect came out of it.

You haven't commented on the biggest changes, like Xinjiang or Iran. Iran (aside from that mountain in Sirajis) probably won't be controversial though.

So again, I can't remember if I eloquently said this, look at what we have decided on, see what you like what you don't like and what we should change, and we'll argue it out until we die of heart attacks. Very informal and all.

I can't read all of it. I'll skim through it. Just tell me if I'm arguing something that has already been buried.

 

[Oregon Lee]

Wait... so did you see the 1700 map?

Well, you didn't bring up old ideas. Xinjiang and Iran need comparison pictures and information to back it up, since it's really hard to see the difference.
A lot of the world appears to be grassland, but if you study Morocco you can more easily put it into a plains category than grassland.
When I say look what we decided on, I just mean the 1700 map.

 

[BenZL43]

Honestly, I don't agree with you on removing the islands... Okay Easter Is. and Helena Is. is rarely settled. However, I don't think it should be removed anyway because it's part of world. It actually existed. I'd rather have it like it is now, decoration. Just to make the world realistic. Removing the islands won't make the game run faster anyway..... using this logic, you might want to remove all the islands in Pacific islands, Timor, Maldives, French Antarctic territories, etc because it is never settled. Just my two cents.

 

[Oregon Lee]

Island size. The islands I took out never had -cities- on them. They have no resources. They are used for shipping stops, which would make more sense as coast tiles since you get a defensive bonus. However, that is miniscule and I'm willing to re-add them, but I think they should be completely surrounded by ocean.

 

[BenZL43]

I think it's better to leave them as it is now in-game. Imo it's already fine as it is.

 

[Oregon Lee]

That seems to be a standard fall back when people stop discussing a topic, but I insist that saying something is fine is not good enough.
Aesthetically, it looks better as an island surrounded by ocean (Helena at least). Practically, it should be a sea tile. The way it is now, makes it viable for city building, and event takes up a large portion of the ocean with sea tiles.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Sure. Iran was never a sea power, it's a mountain country. I feel that they should have to capture other cities on the Persian gulf if they want to make a real navy.

First and foremost, the AI doesn't habitually build cities on the Persian Gulf.
Muscat is the closest and it's on the Gulf of Oman. If only because of Portugal's TC Event.
And for the following reasons, both the mountains and the hills need to be toned down:

Gameplay:
1) The spot isn't good enough to be hit with the nerfbat.
It's very food poor and it even with Biology, only manages to become an average city.
2) There aren't any potentially imbalancing issues with allowing the player to settle Sirajis.
So you gain coastal trade routes (from the only viable port in Persia)
and sea access to East Asia. I don't see anything broken about that.
3a) The Romans sometimes do it, the Greeks less so, but your proposed Persian terrain changes will lessen the chance of their respective conqueror events being successful.
3b) This is assuming the flipside doesn't happen and Persia doesn't become weak via Workers losing worker turns from traversing too many hills.
This is an either/or issue.

Realism:
1) There is no mountain corresponding to the Sirajis site that isn't better represented with Hills as you appear to have used for the Zagros.

 

[citis]

I like all new changes, except form the river separation. Adding a new river-like characteristic, the strait with new graphics and abilities (seem like a strait, can't get bridged, requires sailing to cross) would be better. The jordan river is a must.
(Venice should be straited and not rivered.)

Grass near desert through two mountains isn't a problem.

I don't like the road spawn but I see its necessity. Maybe the Malian UP should be "desert counts as routed", so it has contact with all african cities through desert.

Great job! It should be accumulated with the other changes.

 

[Mouthwash]

First and foremost, the AI doesn't habitually build cities on the Persian Gulf.
Muscat seems to be the only exception. If only because of Portugal's TC Event.

Yes, so how do my proposed terrain changes make a difference?

And for the following reasons, both the mountains and the hills need to be toned down:

Gameplay:
1) The spot isn't good enough to be hit with the nerfbat.
It's very food poor and it even with Biology, only manages to become an average city.

Food poor? A deer, cow, sheep, crab site?

2) There aren't any potentially imbalancing issues with allowing the player to settle Sirajis.
So you gain coastal trade routes (from the only viable port in Persia)
and sea access to East Asia. I don't see anything broken about that.

That's not the point, though. I wouldn't mind if it was changed into a hill.

3a) The Romans sometimes do it, the Greeks less so, but your proposed Persian terrain changes will lessen the chance of their respective conqueror events being successful.

I don't understand what you mean by "conqueror event."

3b) This is assuming the flipside doesn't happen and Persia doesn't become weak via Workers losing worker turns from traversing too many hills.
This is an either/or issue.

We could make a special Persian worker unit that is unaffected by hilly terrain. Persia was always a mountain civilization, and the populations and big cities were in the highlands rather than the lowlands.

Realism:
1) There is no mountain corresponding to the Sirajis site that isn't better represented with Hills as you appear to have used for the Zagros.

Well, I meant "realistic" in the sense that it denied Persia a good coastal city. But I definitely think it should be a hill rather than a plain, though.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Food poor? A deer, cow, sheep, crab site?

I capped out around 16 before Biology on the Sirajis site.
For the scope of DoC, it's fairly food poor.

I don't understand what you mean by "conqueror event."

The Romans & Greeks both get scripted armies that appear instantaneously when they DoW an ancient Mediterranean/Near East civilization.

We could make a special Persian worker unit that is unaffected by hilly terrain. Persia was always a mountain civilization, and the populations and big cities were in the highlands rather than the lowlands.

Civs shouldn't have extra UUs or UBs unless all other civs have them.
What would the Persian UU Worker be called in that instance?

Well, I meant "realistic" in the sense that it denied Persia a good coastal city. But I definitely think it should be a hill rather than a plain, though.

Either will do.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well, you didn't bring up old ideas. Xinjiang and Iran need comparison pictures and information to back it up, since it's really hard to see the difference.

Iran before:

Iran after (that incense north of the sheep is a mistake):

Xinjiang before:

Xinjiang after (there really should be food sources there, but the current system just gives it bizarre food on desert tiles when the Silk Road comes through):

A lot of the world appears to be grassland, but if you study Morocco you can more easily put it into a plains category than grassland.

Alrighty, here's my editing after looking in Google Earth:

When I say look what we decided on, I just mean the 1700 map.

Oh, I thought you just meant the SVN.

I capped out around 16 before Biology on the Sirajis site.
For the scope of DoC, it's fairly food poor.

Then I abandon my mountain idea.

The Romans & Greeks both get scripted armies that appear instantaneously when they DoW an ancient Mediterranean/Near East civilization.

Right. I've never liked those, but I suppose it's easier than spending years designing a perfect AI.

Civs shouldn't have extra UUs or UBs unless all other civs have them.

Why should we follow a rule like that? I once created my own Roman workers who could build Roman roads.

What would the Persian UU Worker be called in that instance?

Iranian workers, I suppose. Maybe mountain workers.

 

[KeeperOT7Keys]

Iran before:

Why should we follow a rule like that? I once created my own Roman workers who could build Roman roads.



Iranian workers, I suppose. Maybe mountain workers.

I don't how we can get balance to this system, but I think every civilization should have an unique ''promotion'' for every unit, of an unit class
like free flank1 for Turkish cavalries
strength1 for celtic or viking melee units
cover (%25 bonus to arc.) for persian melee units
ambush (bonus to tanks) for russian gunpowder units?
barrage1 for mongolian cavalries etc.
just an idea
(like race system in ffh)

 

[Oregon Lee]

I like the Iran hills.

 

[Leoreth]

More peaks in the Zagros area looks good. Don't know about more hills because Iran is already rather food poor.

Grassland in the Maghreb isn't really necessary because of the Moorish UP.

 

[Mouthwash]

More peaks in the Zagros area looks good. Don't know about more hills because Iran is already rather food poor.

Have the apothecary give one or two extra food.

Grassland in the Maghreb isn't really necessary because of the Moorish UP.

Well, that grassland (plus those floodplains up in Spain) might give you an opportunity to replace it with something more historical or goal oriented.

 

[The Diocletian]

Just please replace the apothecary entirely. So useless and annoying for Persia in DoC.

 

[Oregon Lee]

The extra culture assimilation + a food bonus for Persian UB?

 

[Lone Wolf]

I actually agree about Xinjiang.

 

[citis]

Maybe the irani hills should be grassed. This way iran won't be so food-poor. Alternatively, iran should get one or two more goats.

The grass in Maghreb is better. There is no need to change the Moorish UP, it has effect in the plains tiles which are more than the grass ones.

Flood plains in Spain: I think it is wrong. Spanish mainland is a too hilly country, there is no ability for flood plains, which require unhilled land (and dessert).