New map project

[AbsintheRed]

Yes I think that this new bigger map will make it possible to correct all the little map problems of the current one, including the placement of Scandinavia, the useless Egypt (it was quite a powerhouse during most of the mod's timescale), and important cities sometimes too close to each other (Madrid-Toledo or Vienna-Pressburg).

The main goal is to make room for the RFCE++ civs. Most of them were left out of RFCE because we considered there isn't enough room for them.
But yeah, those are important factors too

it might be possible to change later if it appears too small or too big

Actually no.
We have to choose the size and borders of the map very carefully
After an initial version of RFCE II is up and running, we won't change these things
It's just way too much work

but this new expansion of the map to the east (and to the north) has the disadvantage of limiting the actual size shift of the map (only 10-15 tiles north and east really added to the current map).

It's easiest to imagine how the new map should look, if we put a few columns and rows of tiles to the north, south and east of the existing map
That's why I said it would be around 80*106 - this is the old tile grid expanded to the size we wish for
Then we can replace the old tile grid with a new one (100*130 in this example)

So you are wrong in this, I counted those extra tiles too
With 100*130 you would have about 5/4 as much tiles everywhere - both horizontically and vertically - as I said in my last post
If we would use the current RFCE map with 73*100, and increase that to 100*130, there would be about 4/3 as many tiles in a given area both horizontically and vertically

 

[Michael Vick]

Remember that we already have a working version of RFCEurope that is limited in certain ways so as to accommodate those with slower computers. We've also yet to know for sure the full effect of K-MOD on RFCE, so let's explore that before a final decision is made. Remember also that by the time RFCE2 is completed, (some to most) of those with computers that slow will have upgraded as technology gets better and cheaper.

I would love to see a Georgia civ, maybe even Baghdad, Tsaritsyn(Volgograd), Nizhny Novgorod, that's actually what I would probably define as the edge of Europe.

I don't see why not to get into Western Mesopotamia. Of course we don't need any more civs there, there are no other civs to speak of even in real history. We already have an "Arabia" that represents the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids... we already have the Mamluks from RFCE++, and then the Ottomans. I just listed all the significant civs that ruled Baghdad in our time period. (with the exception of the Persians that held Baghdad for 23 years, but this is negligible; the Kingdom of Naples ruled Naples for quite a bit more than that yet we have no Naples, not that we need one). The various Turko-Mongol entities that attacked Baghdad now and then can be represented by Barbarians.

If so much of this added territory is going to be desert, tundra, and dense forest, then we need not really worry about slow speed from a lot of cities, right? The only civ we would need to add is Georgia, and you're already suggesting including the Eastern Coast of the black sea, so.. you get my point.

I know that the object is to make a roomier RFCE++, but there is already so much work immediately implied by just stretching tiles to the extent that you suggest, why not add something significant to show for all the work? I'll obviously support whatever decision is made and continue to contribute to the mod no matter what, but I think most people think Baghdad and a Georgia civ would be very cool.

 

[The Turk]

I know I'm late for this thread, but if this hasn't be mentioned the two top regions IMO that need grave attention are:

1. Middle East/Egypt
Currently it looks terrible, and really needs a facelift in a number of directions, but especially city placement names and resources management

2. Spain

 

[AbsintheRed]

I know I'm late for this thread, but if this hasn't be mentioned the two top regions IMO that need grave attention are:

1. Middle East/Egypt
Currently it looks terrible, and really needs a facelift in a number of directions, but especially city placement names and resources management

2. Spain

First: this thread is about a totally new map, for RFCE II
You are talking about the current map, used in RFCE 1.0

Second: Check this thread, it was exactly about suggestions like this: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=449137&page=8
My last post is about my planned changes on Egypt, Levant and Anatolia for the current RFCE 1.0 map
Not sure if those will be included though, RFCE 1.0 seems more or less balanced right now
Anyway, feedback on that planned map is greatly appreciated
Michael Vick, could you check it too?
I'm really hesitating whether I should continue improving it, or just stick to the current balance in that area for RFCE 1.0

Third: What's your problem with Spain?
A couple months ago all of North Africa, Iberia, Scandinavia, British Islands, all the small Atlantic and Mediterranean islands, and small parts of mainland Western Europe were redesigned
You missed those improvements, or have some issues with the new version?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Remember that we already have a working version of RFCEurope that is limited in certain ways so as to accommodate those with slower computers. We've also yet to know for sure the full effect of K-MOD on RFCE, so let's explore that before a final decision is made. Remember also that by the time RFCE2 is completed, (some to most) of those with computers that slow will have upgraded as technology gets better and cheaper.

I would love to see a Georgia civ, maybe even Baghdad, Tsaritsyn(Volgograd), Nizhny Novgorod, that's actually what I would probably define as the edge of Europe.

I don't see why not to get into Western Mesopotamia. Of course we don't need any more civs there, there are no other civs to speak of even in real history. We already have an "Arabia" that represents the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids... we already have the Mamluks from RFCE++, and then the Ottomans. I just listed all the significant civs that ruled Baghdad in our time period. (with the exception of the Persians that held Baghdad for 23 years, but this is negligible; the Kingdom of Naples ruled Naples for quite a bit more than that yet we have no Naples, not that we need one). The various Turko-Mongol entities that attacked Baghdad now and then can be represented by Barbarians.

If so much of this added territory is going to be desert, tundra, and dense forest, then we need not really worry about slow speed from a lot of cities, right? The only civ we would need to add is Georgia, and you're already suggesting including the Eastern Coast of the black sea, so.. you get my point.

I know that the object is to make a roomier RFCE++, but there is already so much work immediately implied by just stretching tiles to the extent that you suggest, why not add something significant to show for all the work? I'll obviously support whatever decision is made and continue to contribute to the mod no matter what, but I think most people think Baghdad and a Georgia civ would be very cool.

As I said, I am against this
If we want to add Georgia, then it sort of implies Armenia and then maybe Cilicia too
Where would be the end of our map, at the Caspian see? It's way too far IMO

And more importantly, where would this stop??
Even then there would be more suggestion coming, to just stretch it a little more, and then a little more...
SoI perfectly represent that area, but I don't feel it's in the scope of RFCE

Also, we would somehow have to stop NE European civs from getting unstoppable with all those additional territory
And it seems very unrealistic to make such huge habitable areas inhabitable for the sake of gameplay.
I would rather avoid this issue by limiting the map itself

Anyway, I want to hear all the other modders opinion on this
3Miro, Morholt, Merijn, any thoughts?

 

[yogiebere]

I think the current map is very adequate for the mod. If we make it any larger, it just adds useless arctic, desert, or extra tiles for Arabia/Ottomans/Russia (south, north, east respectively).

I think some small map changes, like adding a fish, flattening a mountain, or draining a marsh are perfectly fine if it is necessary to make a minor civ start better.

Spain is fine. Maybe some tile and resource rearrangement could be in order, but nothing huge.

 

[Morholt]

I actually like the idea of putting in Georgia, Armenia (Cilicia would be a respawn), and Khazaria (which were too far north to be put in SoI).

And there is a way to avoid getting too much useless terrain.


Enter the tilted map. This is a random Europe map from google, let's not care about the projection. The point is that it is tilted 15 degrees to the left which neatly cuts out most of the useless terrain.

However it might look "weird" to some. Any thoughts on this?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Hmm, this is certainly something to consider
Exactly on what google application did you base this map?
Can you post a link? Or is it simply from google maps/earth?

 

[Michael Vick]

I actually like the idea of putting in Georgia, Armenia (Cilicia would be a respawn), and Khazaria (which were too far north to be put in SoI).

And there is a way to avoid getting too much useless terrain.

View attachment 315118
Enter the tilted map. This is a random Europe map from google, let's not care about the projection. The point is that it is tilted 15 degrees to the left which neatly cuts out most of the useless terrain.

However it might look "weird" to some. Any thoughts on this?

I've personally never liked tilts in representations of real geography. I also don't think I'd mind the 'useless' terrain. Following the logic that some land is 'useless' therefore we must tilt the map to cut it out, RFCE 1.0 should have been tilted to cut out the Sahara and have more Scandinavia. I'm really glad that didn't happen because the oases and Moroccan UP in ++ actually make an interesting Moroccan game. (I would just add more barbs coming up the bottom of the map there)

This tilt cuts out decently sized and important cities Arkhangelsk and Murmansk. The current area of land on the map that Muscovy has all to itself is about the size of France, that's not as synonymous with the whole "Endless Land" UP and UHV as it could be. A vast area of tundra and forests with a few good city spots would just be accurately representing Russia, this mod will surely eventually find a way to involve all that land somehow, just like RFCE++ did with Morocco and the Sahara.

The current Muscovy UHV is a flat 50% discount on maintenance costs. That's boring, isn't it? If we increased the map, much better would be a percentage discount that grows with the number of cities, as well as productivity boosts to tundra and dense forest. (Like Morocco gets for oases, but not so strong).

 

[Morholt]

Hmm, this is certainly something to consider
Exactly on what google application did you base this map?
Can you post a link? Or is it simply from google maps/earth?

I googled "Europe map", took the first half-decent one (this one, it does not name the projection but it looks similar to the original RFCE map), and rotated it 15 degrees in GIMP. I'm not advocating this projection but rather the idea of a tilted map.

I've personally never liked tilts in representations of real geography. I also don't think I'd mind the 'useless' terrain. Following the logic that some land is 'useless' therefore we must tilt the map to cut it out, RFCE 1.0 should have been tilted to cut out the Sahara and have more Scandinavia. I'm really glad that didn't happen because the oases and Moroccan UP in ++ actually make an interesting Moroccan game. (I would just add more barbs coming up the bottom of the map there)

This tilt cuts out decently sized and important cities Arkhangelsk and Murmansk. The current area of land on the map that Muscovy has all to itself is about the size of France, that's not as synonymous with the whole "Endless Land" UP and UHV as it could be. A vast area of tundra and forests with a few good city spots would just be accurately representing Russia, this mod will surely eventually find a way to involve all that land somehow, just like RFCE++ did with Morocco and the Sahara.

The current Muscovy UHV is a flat 50% discount on maintenance costs. That's boring, isn't it? If we increased the map, much better would be a percentage discount that grows with the number of cities, as well as productivity boosts to tundra and dense forest. (Like Morocco gets for oases, but not so strong).

Arkhangelsk not "really" on the old RFCE map, the map was distorted in that area to fit it in, and going all the way up to Murmansk seems unnecessary. This map does however contain Kazan and Sarai which are IMO more important cities to Russia historically.

Muscovy proper is not that endless but for example 1700AD Russia on this map would be as large as all of Western Europe combined. 1800's Russia would cover half of the European continent.

The reason why "useless" tiles are bad is that the AI will still be pathfinding over them, checking city spots on them, and so on which slows down the game.

I'm not completely sold on this idea myself, but I thought it might be an elegant way to extend the map into Egypt and the Caucasus.

 

[Thor Macklin]

Although I am not a modder I would like to add my 10 cents for the issue.

UnCopain's Map
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=156846

Personally with the recent change my qualms with the map were entirely satisfied. And as such I think that it should be kept pretty much the same.

NOW, if a COMPLETE map overhaul were required I believe that a Europe taken from the Robinsons projection would be the easiest to work with. Simply using Google Maps would provide most of the city names. Granted maps of europe itself almost NEVER use this projection and as such would require abit more digging for older cities.

Now I am not suggesting using UnCopain's map. Merely the projection and angling.

 

[Morholt]

Here's another proposal. It's a cutout of Wikipedia's Albers Projection, so it's equal area. Projections like Robinson are made for whole world maps, since we're only doing Europe conical projections might be sensible (most of the distortion is outside the map).

 

[Thor Macklin]

Not to disagree, as the Alber's projection would work very nicely. I don't see why using the Robinson's projection would be a bad thing. Being as there is zero distortion whatsoever. Now of course it is up to the designers. As I said I wanted to toss in my 10 cents.

 

[Morholt]

The Robinson projection has plenty of distortion though? It is impossible to create a non-distorted map because the world is not flat. Robinson was created to make world maps look "good" which we don't care about since we're not making a world map, and in doing so sacrifices area and angle correctness which we might care about.

 

[Michael Vick]

...maps look "good" which we don't care about since we're not making a world map, and in doing so sacrifices area and angle correctness which we might care about.

Funny, I would argue the opposite. The Albers projections makes sense technically, but I notice immediately that Iberia looks stretched vertically. Iberia and Morocco don't look "good", per se. I assume that can be slightly edited though, that Albers projections conveniently includes Iraq, Georgia, and Armenia and leaves out the Northernmost part of Russia. I like it.

But I didn't think we were going to argue about what projection to use, 3Miro posted a map where he had divided the Europe we use into fourths, produced four conical projections from the center of each fourth, then spliced those projections together. It looked good. To make a bigger map of Europe for the purposes of RFCE2, I would suggest taking a greater number of smaller projections for more accuracy.

I don't know, I do like that map you posted.

I think what we're trying to figure out here is whether or not to involve Georgia, Iraq, parts of Russia.

 

[The Turk]

You missed those improvements, or have some issues with the new version?

Sorry for the lack of clarification, I was in a rush writing that last post; what I meant was that city placement in Spain was terrible, where you had historically powerful Andalusian cities not being built, and if they were built they were built in really crappy areas.

Also I don't know if you've tried SoI, but for some reason SoI's terrain type, looked a lot better, and more realistic looking, although I can't say for sure what the difference would be. Needless to say, I'm very excited about RFC Europe II, it has a lot of potential, that can be realized. Of course I hope the HRE will be included as well, (but I don't think this is the best place to discuss that)

 

[Wessel V1]

I find this discussion about a new map projection rather funny, because that is exactly what has changed in the latest version. Just take a look at the previous map and don't center it on Western Europe. Result: exactly what you are trying to achieve here. If anything, the projection should be as is.

 

[Michael Vick]

I meant was that city placement in Spain was terrible, where you had historically powerful Andalusian cities not being built, and if they were built they were built in really crappy areas.

At least one other person and myself agree with you on that. Zaragoza and Barcelona are the only good spots in the current version. Also for some reason, the rice spawn got moved to Zaragoza. Those coordinates might be left over from the last version though, the rice should be at Valencia. I've edited all of this stuff in the python for my own games, I play with my own Iberia map and customized settler maps. Sevilla, Toledo and Madrid are much stronger and foodier, but there is another thread for this.

I find this discussion about a new map projection rather funny, because that is exactly what has changed in the latest version. Just take a look at the previous map and don't center it on Western Europe. Result: exactly what you are trying to achieve here. If anything, the projection should be as is.

What is your opinion on including Iraq, Georgia, etc.?

 

[AbsintheRed]

I find this discussion about a new map projection rather funny, because that is exactly what has changed in the latest version. Just take a look at the previous map and don't center it on Western Europe. Result: exactly what you are trying to achieve here. If anything, the projection should be as is.

No, the old map had way too many distortions
Iberia's old tilt was strange compared to the closest parts of mainland Europe- ie: France and Italy. Changes in Iberia meant huge changes in North Africa too
The British Islands, the Atlantic Islands and Scandinavia were a mess

The reason to change them wasn't because of differences between projection types
Those areas were simply represented incorrectly in the given perspective of the map we already had

 

[AbsintheRed]

Sorry for the lack of clarification, I was in a rush writing that last post; what I meant was that city placement in Spain was terrible, where you had historically powerful Andalusian cities not being built, and if they were built they were built in really crappy areas.

At least one other person and myself agree with you on that. Zaragoza and Barcelona are the only good spots in the current version. Also for some reason, the rice spawn got moved to Zaragoza. Those coordinates might be left over from the last version though, the rice should be at Valencia. I've edited all of this stuff in the python for my own games, I play with my own Iberia map and customized settler maps. Sevilla, Toledo and Madrid are much stronger and foodier, but there is another thread for this.

Oh, okay, I wasn't sure what you are talking about
I agree that resource placement is not optimal for historical cities, but that wasn't my goal
I didn't want to have a few dominant city spots which are way better than any other spots in the area.
My intention was to give those historic only a small advantage, not a huge one
After all - throughout all the history of a given civilization - whether a city becomes dominant in an area or not is pretty much about luck, and only small advantages over other nearby settlements

You guys are probably right, and maybe some of the historic cityspots got too weak in the process
But as I said, I'm not against small changes in the resource placement, neither in Iberia nor in Britain (AFAIK those are the most debated areas currently)
Also, the rice is a small mistake in the resources.py