...if only
Mechanics discussion in Latin America / South America
- Thread starter Cacaso
- Start date
Nobody cares what kind of civs you want removed. Kindly shut up about it forever.
KeeperOT7Keys
did nothing wrong
seriously though sadly I think Pinochet would be more appropriate, and beacon of liberalism achievement can become the beacon of neoliberalism uhv where you sell copper. for the UP why not just give +2 commerce for mines or st like that?
Krieger-FS
Warlord
Leaving available art assets aside, both Alessandri and Pinochet are historically speaking more appropriate, though I'd stick with the former because he was a key figure to modern Chilean history and many of our modern LHs are from the first half of 20th century.
About the UP, I think it would be good to also give a minor production bonus, since Chilean territory is compressed by the Pacific and the Andean mountains and they certaintly would benefit from it.
Also, I've looked here in the forums to find if there are any art assets. Surprisingly, I did find out that CivGold mod has the Chilean civ, which also includes a Pinochet LH. The art is not that good, but can help us here (the UB is an uninspiring copperworks factory, while the UU is the police/gendarmery force of the Carabineros replacing the machine gun unit).
If we want a naval UU like the one I've proposed (the Esmeralda protected cruiser), I'd like to suggest looking to MatteM's (though unreleased) units here. The various protected cruisers here look great in my opinion.
About the UP, I think it would be good to also give a minor production bonus, since Chilean territory is compressed by the Pacific and the Andean mountains and they certaintly would benefit from it.
Also, I've looked here in the forums to find if there are any art assets. Surprisingly, I did find out that CivGold mod has the Chilean civ, which also includes a Pinochet LH. The art is not that good, but can help us here (the UB is an uninspiring copperworks factory, while the UU is the police/gendarmery force of the Carabineros replacing the machine gun unit).
Spoiler :
If we want a naval UU like the one I've proposed (the Esmeralda protected cruiser), I'd like to suggest looking to MatteM's (though unreleased) units here. The various protected cruisers here look great in my opinion.
phoenixfire7
Warlord
- Joined
- May 17, 2020
- Messages
- 132
I think it was a joke
Cacaso
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2020
- Messages
- 186
I made these screenshots to discuss dynamic resources/city sites, in the region of Latin Ameria/South America region, focusing on the scenario with CIVs spwan/start of Mexico(start 1810)-GranColombia(start 1814)-Peru(start 1821 or 1824)-Argentina(start 1810)-Brazil(start 1822)
I used the Settler maps (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...KJO9o5RM84sP5JcXc2O0cW_PQ/edit#gid=1681468820) from SpainCIV and PortugalCIV to mark on the map the cities that had priority 20 in their respective settlermaps, since these they will most likely be the canonical cities that we will see in practically all plays, when the player chooses to start with one of these civs. In other words, this is a scenario more or less based on what could be seen in 1810. The cities that had priority 10 were marked with their names written in the landmark.
I disregarded the city placement in Caribe, Florida and Central America, as it should stick with cities left over from European powers such as Spain, France, Holland or England.
I considered that there will not be a ChileCIV and therefore Satiago and other cities/tiles would be from Argentina.
I didn't consider resource spawns that occur at 1850 or later
First, I would like to discuss with you City placement/location resources.
MEXICO CIV -
As you can see the cities that are marked with priority 20 on the SpainCIV settler map are, Mexico City / Tenochtitlan - Veracruz - Acapulco - Mérida - Guatemala City - San Francisco - Santa Barbara - Santa Fe.
Note that Mexico City, Acapulco, Veracruz and also Guadalajara, are very close to each other and this is a hilly area with few food resources, so don't get too cramped. I would suggest that the settle value of Acapulco is reduced, and that only the other 3 appear both at the time of Spanish colonization and later with mexicoCIV. I would also suggest that Veracruz is also not settleable, but as it is the most important port city in Mexico historically maybe it really has to be settled.
Looking at the MexicoCIV settlement map, the cities that will likely be settled will be Ciudad de Mexico, Veracruz, Mérida, Ciudad Guatemala, canonically. and also some further north in the area that is later targeted by AmericaCIV expansion, which are Santa Fe, San Francisco and Santa Barbara, also canonical.
The other cities with 10 priority for Spain/Mexico settle map, are Tijuana, Tucson, Hermosillo, Ciudad Juárez, San Antonio, La Paz de california, Culiacan, Monterey, Guadalajara. Of these I think Tucson and Ciudad Juárez are a NO GO, as it is a desert area with very little food so the cities would be almost useless. Tijuana would be glued with los angeles, so it's one or the other. San Antonio should have its settle value lowered so that Spain/Mexico CIV can worry about founding other cities before this one. Hermosillo, La Paz de california, Culiacan/Guadalajara, Monterrey, are cities that should appear in a lot of games.
The Santa barbara tile which is marked with priority 20 instead of the los angeles tile, I think there was an error and should move 1SE, to make Los angeles canonical there.
Although it would be in an unsuitable geographical location, it might be good for Guadalajara tile to be changed to 1W in order to become a coastal city, to be able to build the harbor and then give +1food to the coast tiles, and move this city a little further from Mexico City/Monterrey.
In general MexicoCIV cities will have problems of lack of food, as there are few tiles that manage to produce more than 2 food, which was expected since it is an arid place. However in the case of Ciudad de mexico this will need to be reviewed, as this city only has the two corn tiles that produce an amount of +6food and one of spices that produces +3food, the rest is anything less than 2. so I think that Ciududad de mexico will hardly be able to reach a large population as it happens in reality, so Leoreth, I think maybe this city needs more food. As a first measure I suggest changing the tile of the fish resource that is 3S of MexicoCity to 1NW so that the city can work it.
Ciudad Guatemala's tile has a banana resource spawn on it, the resource should move 1N.
GRAN COLOMBIA CIV -
As you can see the cities that are marked with priority 20 on the SpainCIV settler map are, Bogotá, Caracas, Quito, Cartagena de Indias. These will be the canonical cities that will appear in almost every game.
Cities with priority 10 are Maracaibo and PanamaCity.
In the case of Gran colombia CIV, city placement is perfect. I think there is nothing more to be discussed. The only thing that I think could be improved is changing the Panama City tile to 1SW, so that the city becomes a hill tile and thus closer to reality because currently it is on a flat tile, and the Panama Canal was built with level locks to avoid huge excavations. and the current panama city tile could be covered with jungle to prevent this city from being founded too early and working as a Canal too early.
Note that the tiles with the resources Chocolate, banana, coffee, gems, rubber, coffee in Bogotá and dyes in Quito are covered with jungle and therefore cannot be worked on until you discover the microbiology tech, is this intentional or should it be changed to rainforest when the colombiaCIV spawn? Caracas' Potatoes resource is covered with rainforest and cannot be improved with farm until the tech microbiology, I think you should switch to savanna feature to be able to fix that.
Quito has only one food resource, maybe you could add some more. I will suggest add potatoes 1SW.
Bogotá has little food available, so I suggest turning the marsh tile 2E of bogotá into savanna/savanna so that it can later be turned into a farm.
I used the Settler maps (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...KJO9o5RM84sP5JcXc2O0cW_PQ/edit#gid=1681468820) from SpainCIV and PortugalCIV to mark on the map the cities that had priority 20 in their respective settlermaps, since these they will most likely be the canonical cities that we will see in practically all plays, when the player chooses to start with one of these civs. In other words, this is a scenario more or less based on what could be seen in 1810. The cities that had priority 10 were marked with their names written in the landmark.
I disregarded the city placement in Caribe, Florida and Central America, as it should stick with cities left over from European powers such as Spain, France, Holland or England.
I considered that there will not be a ChileCIV and therefore Satiago and other cities/tiles would be from Argentina.
I didn't consider resource spawns that occur at 1850 or later
Spoiler :
First, I would like to discuss with you City placement/location resources.
MEXICO CIV -
As you can see the cities that are marked with priority 20 on the SpainCIV settler map are, Mexico City / Tenochtitlan - Veracruz - Acapulco - Mérida - Guatemala City - San Francisco - Santa Barbara - Santa Fe.
Note that Mexico City, Acapulco, Veracruz and also Guadalajara, are very close to each other and this is a hilly area with few food resources, so don't get too cramped. I would suggest that the settle value of Acapulco is reduced, and that only the other 3 appear both at the time of Spanish colonization and later with mexicoCIV. I would also suggest that Veracruz is also not settleable, but as it is the most important port city in Mexico historically maybe it really has to be settled.
Looking at the MexicoCIV settlement map, the cities that will likely be settled will be Ciudad de Mexico, Veracruz, Mérida, Ciudad Guatemala, canonically. and also some further north in the area that is later targeted by AmericaCIV expansion, which are Santa Fe, San Francisco and Santa Barbara, also canonical.
The other cities with 10 priority for Spain/Mexico settle map, are Tijuana, Tucson, Hermosillo, Ciudad Juárez, San Antonio, La Paz de california, Culiacan, Monterey, Guadalajara. Of these I think Tucson and Ciudad Juárez are a NO GO, as it is a desert area with very little food so the cities would be almost useless. Tijuana would be glued with los angeles, so it's one or the other. San Antonio should have its settle value lowered so that Spain/Mexico CIV can worry about founding other cities before this one. Hermosillo, La Paz de california, Culiacan/Guadalajara, Monterrey, are cities that should appear in a lot of games.
The Santa barbara tile which is marked with priority 20 instead of the los angeles tile, I think there was an error and should move 1SE, to make Los angeles canonical there.
Although it would be in an unsuitable geographical location, it might be good for Guadalajara tile to be changed to 1W in order to become a coastal city, to be able to build the harbor and then give +1food to the coast tiles, and move this city a little further from Mexico City/Monterrey.
In general MexicoCIV cities will have problems of lack of food, as there are few tiles that manage to produce more than 2 food, which was expected since it is an arid place. However in the case of Ciudad de mexico this will need to be reviewed, as this city only has the two corn tiles that produce an amount of +6food and one of spices that produces +3food, the rest is anything less than 2. so I think that Ciududad de mexico will hardly be able to reach a large population as it happens in reality, so Leoreth, I think maybe this city needs more food. As a first measure I suggest changing the tile of the fish resource that is 3S of MexicoCity to 1NW so that the city can work it.
Ciudad Guatemala's tile has a banana resource spawn on it, the resource should move 1N.
GRAN COLOMBIA CIV -
As you can see the cities that are marked with priority 20 on the SpainCIV settler map are, Bogotá, Caracas, Quito, Cartagena de Indias. These will be the canonical cities that will appear in almost every game.
Cities with priority 10 are Maracaibo and PanamaCity.
In the case of Gran colombia CIV, city placement is perfect. I think there is nothing more to be discussed. The only thing that I think could be improved is changing the Panama City tile to 1SW, so that the city becomes a hill tile and thus closer to reality because currently it is on a flat tile, and the Panama Canal was built with level locks to avoid huge excavations. and the current panama city tile could be covered with jungle to prevent this city from being founded too early and working as a Canal too early.
Note that the tiles with the resources Chocolate, banana, coffee, gems, rubber, coffee in Bogotá and dyes in Quito are covered with jungle and therefore cannot be worked on until you discover the microbiology tech, is this intentional or should it be changed to rainforest when the colombiaCIV spawn? Caracas' Potatoes resource is covered with rainforest and cannot be improved with farm until the tech microbiology, I think you should switch to savanna feature to be able to fix that.
Quito has only one food resource, maybe you could add some more. I will suggest add potatoes 1SW.
Bogotá has little food available, so I suggest turning the marsh tile 2E of bogotá into savanna/savanna so that it can later be turned into a farm.
Last edited:
Cacaso
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2020
- Messages
- 186
PERU CIV -
Peru CIV doesn't have a settle map yet but looking at the settle map of spainCIV we have that the canonical cities will be Lima, Cusco, La Paz.
Chiclayo/Trujillo(4N1W/3N1W from Lima), Iquitos (5N2E from Lima), Arequipa (2S from Cusco) and Iquique (3S1W from Lima) should be priority cities of 5/8/10 in PeruCIV, to ensure that are cities to be founded.
La Paz' Potatoes resource is covered with rainforest and cannot be improved with farm until the tech microbiology, I think you should switch to savanna feature to be able to fix that.
ARGENTINA CIV -
As you can see the cities that are marked with priority 20 on the SpainCIV settler map are, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Santiago de Chile. these will be the canonical cities. As there won't be a ChileCIV these tiles/cities should be on the ArgentinaCIV settle/war map.
Note that in the case of Assunción (capital of Paraguay) its tile is marked with priority 10 on the spain map, I think it should be changed to 20, as the city of Asuncion was one of the first to be founded, in the basin region watershed of the Rio de la Plata, and during the colonization process it was the starting point for numerous processes of city expansion throughout the region, which is why it is called "La madre de las ciudades" (the mother of cities). So I believe it should be canonical in all plays, because now the map is big enough.
Another point is that the tile of the city of Córdoba in the Settle map of Spain is incorrect, it should be 1N to match the settle map of Argentina, and be in a geographically correct position.
The other cities with 10/8 priority for Spain/Argentina settle map, are Córdoba, Salta/Tucumán, Viedma, Neuquén, Rio Gallegos, Malvinas. I think Concepcion (3S1W from Santiago) should be add on argentina's settle map with priority 10. The Corrientes tile is next to Assuncion, as the area there already has the cities of Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Assuncion and Porto Alegre, I think Assuncion should be prioritized, or else move the corrientes tile 1S but if it settles there it goes get very cramped. The tile of malvinas should have settle priority of 20 for argentinaCIV because if not rarely it will be founded.
Viedma's tile has a cow resource on it, the resource should move 1NW.
Montevideo, because it is very close to Buenos Aires, has little food resource (it only has 1 sheep) maybe you could put the resource 1 Deer there, because the pampas deer, and other types of deer are common in the region and were introduced for hunting. Or add a fish/cow resource.
I suggest that the resource fish and whale near concepcion be switched, so that the city can work the fish that produce much more food than the whales
BRAZIL CIV -
As you can see the cities that are marked with priority 20 on the Portugal CIV settler map are, Porto Alegre, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Recife, Fortaleza, Belém. these will be the canonical cities that appear in all plays.
The other cities with 10 priority for Portugal/brazil settle map, are Salvador, Ouro Preto/Belo Horizonte, São Luís, Curitiba.
The city of Salvador has a 10 settler priority, but historically it is one of the most important cities in Brazil, especially during the colonial period, being the capital of colonial Brazil from 1549 to 1763, so I believe that the city should have a priority of 20 for PortugalCIV .
The city of Ouro Preto/Belo Horizonte is just 1 tile away from Rio, and 2 tiles away from São Paulo, and yet 2S1E from Brasilia which will be an important city for BrazilCIV in the future as it is its capital, in a region it is very hilled, so I think that even though it has historical relevance I think that for the reality of the game, it should not be settled because it would make the region very cramped, and there would not be enough tiles to be worked by Rio and são paulo cities that are the biggest in Brazil.
The city of São Paulo was only 1 tile away from Rio, I think it would be better for the gameplay if the São Paulo city tile was moved 1W, so that there is not such a huge overlap of tiles between Rio and São Paulo and so on allow both cities to have large populations.
Note that the tiles with the resources spices in Belém, citrus in Porto Alegre, and Tea 4W of São Paulo are covered with jungle and therefore cannot be worked on until you discover the microbiology tech, is this intentional or should it be changed to rainforest when the BrazilCIV spawn? Belém' Potatoes resource is covered with rainforest and cannot be improved with farm until the tech microbiology, I think you should move 1S the resource and thus put it on a tile with Savanna and preserve the tile with the rainforest feature.
I think you should move the resources 1 Cow and 1 Coffe from Ouro Preto/Belo Horizonte tile 1E so that they are in tiles that would be equivalent to areas of the state of minas Gerais as this would be more suitable geographically, and culturally the state of Minas Gerais is known for producing milk and coffee, so it would be more culturally appropriate. I also suggest that the tile that will be with the cow resource becomes grassland, because the "Zona da mata mineira" is a wet zone in the state of Minas Gerais.
The following Sao Paulo resources should move. Sugar moves 1NW, corn moves 1 NE, Banana moves 1 E. to be in a more suitable position. So, if OuroPreto/BeloHorizonte are founded, these resources can be shared, and the interior region of the state of São Paulo is traditional in fruit production. so I think the resources are culturally allocated in a better way.
Belém has many tiles occupied with jungle I think there should be a 1Crab resource spawn there, as the collection of crabs in the mangroves at the mouth of the Amazon river is a source of cultural food for the area of Belém and the state of Pará.
I think that Rio's fish resource should move 1S, because Rio's cuisine, due to Portuguese influence, has the consumption of dishes related to oceanic fish such as cod, sardines, "Corvina" among others, so the fish resource would be improved with the ocean fishery and would release 1 more coast tile to be worked on.
I add the save with the map if you want to take a look, Leoreth I don't know which version I'm using, but it was downloaded the day you sent me the authorization to access the private branch of the map, on Github.
I hope these messages are useful for moving some resources around. think about adding others. fix some bugs in the settle map and more ....
Peru CIV doesn't have a settle map yet but looking at the settle map of spainCIV we have that the canonical cities will be Lima, Cusco, La Paz.
Chiclayo/Trujillo(4N1W/3N1W from Lima), Iquitos (5N2E from Lima), Arequipa (2S from Cusco) and Iquique (3S1W from Lima) should be priority cities of 5/8/10 in PeruCIV, to ensure that are cities to be founded.
La Paz' Potatoes resource is covered with rainforest and cannot be improved with farm until the tech microbiology, I think you should switch to savanna feature to be able to fix that.
ARGENTINA CIV -
As you can see the cities that are marked with priority 20 on the SpainCIV settler map are, Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Santiago de Chile. these will be the canonical cities. As there won't be a ChileCIV these tiles/cities should be on the ArgentinaCIV settle/war map.
Note that in the case of Assunción (capital of Paraguay) its tile is marked with priority 10 on the spain map, I think it should be changed to 20, as the city of Asuncion was one of the first to be founded, in the basin region watershed of the Rio de la Plata, and during the colonization process it was the starting point for numerous processes of city expansion throughout the region, which is why it is called "La madre de las ciudades" (the mother of cities). So I believe it should be canonical in all plays, because now the map is big enough.
Another point is that the tile of the city of Córdoba in the Settle map of Spain is incorrect, it should be 1N to match the settle map of Argentina, and be in a geographically correct position.
The other cities with 10/8 priority for Spain/Argentina settle map, are Córdoba, Salta/Tucumán, Viedma, Neuquén, Rio Gallegos, Malvinas. I think Concepcion (3S1W from Santiago) should be add on argentina's settle map with priority 10. The Corrientes tile is next to Assuncion, as the area there already has the cities of Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Assuncion and Porto Alegre, I think Assuncion should be prioritized, or else move the corrientes tile 1S but if it settles there it goes get very cramped. The tile of malvinas should have settle priority of 20 for argentinaCIV because if not rarely it will be founded.
Viedma's tile has a cow resource on it, the resource should move 1NW.
Montevideo, because it is very close to Buenos Aires, has little food resource (it only has 1 sheep) maybe you could put the resource 1 Deer there, because the pampas deer, and other types of deer are common in the region and were introduced for hunting. Or add a fish/cow resource.
I suggest that the resource fish and whale near concepcion be switched, so that the city can work the fish that produce much more food than the whales
BRAZIL CIV -
As you can see the cities that are marked with priority 20 on the Portugal CIV settler map are, Porto Alegre, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Recife, Fortaleza, Belém. these will be the canonical cities that appear in all plays.
The other cities with 10 priority for Portugal/brazil settle map, are Salvador, Ouro Preto/Belo Horizonte, São Luís, Curitiba.
The city of Salvador has a 10 settler priority, but historically it is one of the most important cities in Brazil, especially during the colonial period, being the capital of colonial Brazil from 1549 to 1763, so I believe that the city should have a priority of 20 for PortugalCIV .
The city of Ouro Preto/Belo Horizonte is just 1 tile away from Rio, and 2 tiles away from São Paulo, and yet 2S1E from Brasilia which will be an important city for BrazilCIV in the future as it is its capital, in a region it is very hilled, so I think that even though it has historical relevance I think that for the reality of the game, it should not be settled because it would make the region very cramped, and there would not be enough tiles to be worked by Rio and são paulo cities that are the biggest in Brazil.
The city of São Paulo was only 1 tile away from Rio, I think it would be better for the gameplay if the São Paulo city tile was moved 1W, so that there is not such a huge overlap of tiles between Rio and São Paulo and so on allow both cities to have large populations.
Note that the tiles with the resources spices in Belém, citrus in Porto Alegre, and Tea 4W of São Paulo are covered with jungle and therefore cannot be worked on until you discover the microbiology tech, is this intentional or should it be changed to rainforest when the BrazilCIV spawn? Belém' Potatoes resource is covered with rainforest and cannot be improved with farm until the tech microbiology, I think you should move 1S the resource and thus put it on a tile with Savanna and preserve the tile with the rainforest feature.
I think you should move the resources 1 Cow and 1 Coffe from Ouro Preto/Belo Horizonte tile 1E so that they are in tiles that would be equivalent to areas of the state of minas Gerais as this would be more suitable geographically, and culturally the state of Minas Gerais is known for producing milk and coffee, so it would be more culturally appropriate. I also suggest that the tile that will be with the cow resource becomes grassland, because the "Zona da mata mineira" is a wet zone in the state of Minas Gerais.
The following Sao Paulo resources should move. Sugar moves 1NW, corn moves 1 NE, Banana moves 1 E. to be in a more suitable position. So, if OuroPreto/BeloHorizonte are founded, these resources can be shared, and the interior region of the state of São Paulo is traditional in fruit production. so I think the resources are culturally allocated in a better way.
Belém has many tiles occupied with jungle I think there should be a 1Crab resource spawn there, as the collection of crabs in the mangroves at the mouth of the Amazon river is a source of cultural food for the area of Belém and the state of Pará.
I think that Rio's fish resource should move 1S, because Rio's cuisine, due to Portuguese influence, has the consumption of dishes related to oceanic fish such as cod, sardines, "Corvina" among others, so the fish resource would be improved with the ocean fishery and would release 1 more coast tile to be worked on.
I add the save with the map if you want to take a look, Leoreth I don't know which version I'm using, but it was downloaded the day you sent me the authorization to access the private branch of the map, on Github.
I hope these messages are useful for moving some resources around. think about adding others. fix some bugs in the settle map and more ....
Last edited:
Cacaso
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2020
- Messages
- 186
Looking at the amazon area map, I noticed that the positioning of marsh tiles could be a bit better. Since some places had a very large concentration of marsh while other very inaccessible places are without any marsh. I did a study on this and so I would like to share it here, so that eventually there would be the addition, displacement of marsh tiles to locations that were more suitable both in terms of geography (valleys and depressions that form more flooded areas in the Amazon region) and socio -geographic (areas of difficult access that throughout history ended up not being developed, areas of representative native occupation that ended up being transformed into reserves and therefore left untouched or at least much less anthropized than areas around them) in a more simplified way that it was gameplaywise and could be implemented in the new big map, in addition to trying to respect the current layout of marshs in the bigmap so that it would not be so different from what is already there.
The marsh locations in the Pantanal (located between Brazil and Bolivia) and the marsh tiles in the Paraguayan Chaco/Argentine EntreRios (both near Asuncion on the map) are in the locations that I consider appropriate and therefore would not need to be changed.
I used this map of uncontacted populations, it is very interesting, because usually these areas are precisely the areas of difficult access/low anthropized
As you can see in the screenshot below, I removed all the features on the terrain and then re-added the marsh(variety3) on the tiles with marsh in the current big map, so you could see better what the current scenario is. I added this marker with the location of Manaus (tile X:37 ;Y:30) to facilitate references because this city is in the middle of amazon on the bigmap. The location can be found on the BrazilCIV settle map, the city has priority 10.
Suggested changes are summarized below.
First I marked the marsh tile 2E of Bogotá with an X because I think it should be removed or moved to the right to open up another tile to be used as a farm by Bogotá since the city has little food and already loses many tiles with the mountains , so I think it could move to the side.
I think the two separate marsh tiles that appear within the territory of PeruCIV are in a good location, as they represent Alto Purús National Park/ Matsés National Reserve well, and that areas of difficult access/little anthropized
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
2W of Manaus there is a series of 4 tiles with marsh in sequence, I think it's not very good that they have so many concentrated marsh tiles, I think they could be arranged in another way. To be more consistent with the geographic shape of Vale do Javari, one of the tiles that I marked with an X should no longer be a marsh tile, while the other 3 remain.
en.wikipedia.org
4W2N of Manaus I think it could be add 2 or 3 marsh tiles to represent the area of "Cabeça do Cachorro" which is a location well in the interior of the Amazon, at the extreme of the Brazilian territory with Colombia, this is an area very little anthropized, as it is distant and there is a large presence of native population, many of which have not even been contacted by civilization. so I think it would be interesting to represent this add marsh so that these tiles could not even be used.
en.wikipedia.org
3E2N of Manaus, I think you could add 1 marsh tile to represent the area of "Tumucumaque" which is a preservation area of the Amazon rainforest that is in the State of Amapá in Brazil, this area was delimited because this region of the Amazon rainforest it doesn't have big rivers that facilitate river access and that's why this area was little touched, so the native forest was kept almost intact, and I think it would be good to add the marsh tile so that it couldn't be improved, to simulate what happened in reality of this part of the forest being left more intact.
This area also borders (1 tile to the north) with Guiana Amazonian Park, which is a huge conservation area in the south of French Guiana (but as Cayenne has few tiles I think there should only be 1 marsh tile in that area within what would be historic area of Brazil).
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
4S3E of Manaus, you can add 1 marsh tile to represent the "Alto Xingu" this location was kept preserved as it is well upstream of the Xingu River, where waterfalls and rapids that will prevent access to the area and therefore kept with less forest devastated. later it was parked as there was a substantial native population. An interesting fact is that today the reserve is surrounded by soy farms while an island of forest remains at the source of the Xingu River.
en.wikipedia.org
2S of Manaus, there is a series of 5 marsh tiles in sequence, I find this conformation inappropriate. Because usually the areas of forests that are less devastated, or more difficult to access because they are more interiorized within dense rainforest, or marked on the map with uncontacted populations are more dispersed. So I suggest that the tile marked with X ceases to be marsh, while the marsh tile next to it is moved 1 tile to the south so that it has the marsh tiles further apart in this part of the Amazon rainforest. I think it would be a more interesting conformation than putting the 5 tiles in a row.
Summary:
-2 marsh tiles removed
- 2 marsh tiles, moved (to reduce large marsh rows)
- 5 marsh tiles, add (in locations where they were missing)
Leoreth, I hope that these suggestions/discussions help in a step of polishing the bigmap when thinking in the context of the Latin America/South America region. These were the last considerations of the studies that I was doing about the map, which I have now concluded, I had been thinking about these things for some time and with these 3 posts I was able to expose what are the changes that I find interesting to be able to make in this region from the map. I hope this survey helps.
I'm sending a save (it's the same as the previous post but with marsh's suggested changes)
The marsh locations in the Pantanal (located between Brazil and Bolivia) and the marsh tiles in the Paraguayan Chaco/Argentine EntreRios (both near Asuncion on the map) are in the locations that I consider appropriate and therefore would not need to be changed.
I used this map of uncontacted populations, it is very interesting, because usually these areas are precisely the areas of difficult access/low anthropized
As you can see in the screenshot below, I removed all the features on the terrain and then re-added the marsh(variety3) on the tiles with marsh in the current big map, so you could see better what the current scenario is. I added this marker with the location of Manaus (tile X:37 ;Y:30) to facilitate references because this city is in the middle of amazon on the bigmap. The location can be found on the BrazilCIV settle map, the city has priority 10.
Suggested changes are summarized below.
First I marked the marsh tile 2E of Bogotá with an X because I think it should be removed or moved to the right to open up another tile to be used as a farm by Bogotá since the city has little food and already loses many tiles with the mountains , so I think it could move to the side.
I think the two separate marsh tiles that appear within the territory of PeruCIV are in a good location, as they represent Alto Purús National Park/ Matsés National Reserve well, and that areas of difficult access/little anthropized
Matsés National Reserve - Wikipedia
Alto Purús National Park - Wikipedia
2W of Manaus there is a series of 4 tiles with marsh in sequence, I think it's not very good that they have so many concentrated marsh tiles, I think they could be arranged in another way. To be more consistent with the geographic shape of Vale do Javari, one of the tiles that I marked with an X should no longer be a marsh tile, while the other 3 remain.
Vale do Javari - Wikipedia
4W2N of Manaus I think it could be add 2 or 3 marsh tiles to represent the area of "Cabeça do Cachorro" which is a location well in the interior of the Amazon, at the extreme of the Brazilian territory with Colombia, this is an area very little anthropized, as it is distant and there is a large presence of native population, many of which have not even been contacted by civilization. so I think it would be interesting to represent this add marsh so that these tiles could not even be used.
Cabeça do Cachorro - Wikipedia
3E2N of Manaus, I think you could add 1 marsh tile to represent the area of "Tumucumaque" which is a preservation area of the Amazon rainforest that is in the State of Amapá in Brazil, this area was delimited because this region of the Amazon rainforest it doesn't have big rivers that facilitate river access and that's why this area was little touched, so the native forest was kept almost intact, and I think it would be good to add the marsh tile so that it couldn't be improved, to simulate what happened in reality of this part of the forest being left more intact.
This area also borders (1 tile to the north) with Guiana Amazonian Park, which is a huge conservation area in the south of French Guiana (but as Cayenne has few tiles I think there should only be 1 marsh tile in that area within what would be historic area of Brazil).
Guiana Amazonian Park - Wikipedia
Tumucumaque Mountains National Park - Wikipedia
4S3E of Manaus, you can add 1 marsh tile to represent the "Alto Xingu" this location was kept preserved as it is well upstream of the Xingu River, where waterfalls and rapids that will prevent access to the area and therefore kept with less forest devastated. later it was parked as there was a substantial native population. An interesting fact is that today the reserve is surrounded by soy farms while an island of forest remains at the source of the Xingu River.
Xingu Indigenous Park - Wikipedia
2S of Manaus, there is a series of 5 marsh tiles in sequence, I find this conformation inappropriate. Because usually the areas of forests that are less devastated, or more difficult to access because they are more interiorized within dense rainforest, or marked on the map with uncontacted populations are more dispersed. So I suggest that the tile marked with X ceases to be marsh, while the marsh tile next to it is moved 1 tile to the south so that it has the marsh tiles further apart in this part of the Amazon rainforest. I think it would be a more interesting conformation than putting the 5 tiles in a row.
Summary:
-2 marsh tiles removed
- 2 marsh tiles, moved (to reduce large marsh rows)
- 5 marsh tiles, add (in locations where they were missing)
Leoreth, I hope that these suggestions/discussions help in a step of polishing the bigmap when thinking in the context of the Latin America/South America region. These were the last considerations of the studies that I was doing about the map, which I have now concluded, I had been thinking about these things for some time and with these 3 posts I was able to expose what are the changes that I find interesting to be able to make in this region from the map. I hope this survey helps.
I'm sending a save (it's the same as the previous post but with marsh's suggested changes)
Cacaso
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2020
- Messages
- 186
Similar threads
