1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

New map project

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall: Europe' started by AbsintheRed, Dec 11, 2011.

  1. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,909
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Robinson projection is easy to work with, but I agree with Morholt that a couple more projections would be more accurate
    The Albers map you posted here look very nice

    Altough I agree with this too, Iberia does look a little stretched
    I will probably mess around a little with Albers projections a little, will post if some of the results look good enough
     
  2. Michael Vick

    Michael Vick #1

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    712
    Location:
    Cádiz
    The correct coordinates are 36, 24. I would also consider moving the rice spawn in Italy to under Milan. Right now it spawns right next to Venice and a wheat resource, Milan needs it more IMO. The AA outside Seville is also still missing.
     
  3. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,142
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    I have to disagree, great cities were founded in places where there was a lot of food, and other resources in its vicinity. Frankly the human player can build cities wherever they want to, but a few cities for each civilization, should be built more often. Such as for the Al-Andalusians, Cordoba (naturally), Granada, Seville, Toledo (to name a couple off the top of my head). That way you have much more stable and better looking civilizations by the end of the day.
     
  4. Morholt

    Morholt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Swedish Empire
    There's another conical projection called Lamberts which preserves shape over area. Apparently it's recommended specifically for Europe maps by the EEA so the that's something I guess.

    I found a mapping program that can generate high resolution maps of pretty much any projection, haven't figured out how to get topographical maps yet though.

    Lamberts, centered on 10 degrees east. I moved Iceland SW a bit, it would have been outside the map otherwise.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. 3Miro

    3Miro Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Knoxville USA
    Is it just me, or is this pretty close to what we had originally for RFCE? Especially Iberia.

    Anyway, Iceland and the Atlantic islands will be outside of the map in all cases. It is best to put them on the edge and make sure they are divided by Ocean.
     
  6. Michael Vick

    Michael Vick #1

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    712
    Location:
    Cádiz
    I agree, Iberia and Anatolia are a bit too tilted for my taste.
     
  7. Thor Macklin

    Thor Macklin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    273
    Location:
    The state of Denial
    I must honestly say I DESPISE the Lamberts Projection. It's difficult to work with in maps as only europe maps using it's projection are combatible and would be thoroughly confusing for playing a game based on memory.
     
  8. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,909
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    @Morholt: I also thought that tilting the map 15 degrees is a little much. I was experimenting with 8-10 degrees and mostly on Albers projections, and the results was more or less ok

    @3Miro and Michael Vick: The tilt in Iberia is similar, I agree. But otherwise there are pretty significant differences.
    As I said, the old map wasn't really fitting for any of the projections I know of, and had pretty huge mistakes IMO

    @Thor Macklin: I don't think the Lamberts projection would be that bad, but I also prefer the Albers maps
     
  9. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,909
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    2 versions I like with Albers projection (both are 8% tilted):
    Spoiler :


    The first one has a grid of 100*130
    Looks pretty great, but the main disadvantage is that it has much larger unusable areas than we would like to see
    Also, we don't get as many extra tiles in the crowded areas - which was the main goal of making this new map

    The second is 100*140, and a much similar representation to the one we currently have in RFCE.
    Cut out 1-2 tiles on the south and east, and at least 6-7 tiles on the north edge
    Iceland have to be moved SW liked Morholt did it on his Lambert map
    Because the vertical/horizontical rate is changed, the 100*130 grid is no longer valid
    If 100*140 is too much we can always reduce it a little, maybe somewhere around 90*130
    I do like the the way mainland Europe can be represented with 100*140 though
     

    Attached Files:

  10. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,909
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    I played around a little more with projections, and so far this is the one I liked the most
    (Iberia and the southern parts are slightly different)
    The grid on the first one is 90*135, on the second 100*150
    It should probably be somewhere between these values
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Morholt

    Morholt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Swedish Empire
    Very nice, looks good and catches all the relevant areas. I think Baghdad is slightly off the map though, were you planning to "fake" it in or leave it out?
     
  12. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,909
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    I'm not really sure about Baghdad, but I'm closer to leave it out
    Wouldn't it cause too much "trouble" if we have it on the map?
    I cannot imagine it having as a barb or indy city - it's far too important for that
    Also not sure if we can correctly represent it with only Arabia as an islamic civ in the area - and I really don't want to add civs in the Mesopotamian area.
    Or do you think we can somewhat solve this with barbs/indies?
     
  13. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,909
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Also, if you do like the latest map suggestion
    What do you think about the exact grid size?
    I never tested K-mod, do you think those speed tweaks are significant enough?
    Should we stay closer to 90*135 or can we go somewhere around 100*150?
     
  14. J. pride

    J. pride Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    788
    The inclusion of Baghdad largely depends on if you plan on adding Egypt and the Almoravids (like RFCE++). If you do then Arabia's role becomes much more limited to the Middle East (like historically with the Abbasids) and adding Baghdad would make sense in that scinerio. On the other hand if Arabia is supposed to represent every civilization between Syria and Morocco, then It wouldn't make sense to add yet another city.
     
  15. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,909
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    According to the current plans Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt will all be included, more or less the same way they were in RFCE++
     
  16. Morholt

    Morholt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Swedish Empire
    Speed is better but not twice of what it was, so with a 100*150 map it will probably be slower than RFCE++ is now.
     
  17. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,909
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    I just checked, the Iberian rice already spawns on 36,24
    And the resources.py wasn't touched for at least 50 revisions (last time somewhere around early january), so it was probably a mistake on your end
     
  18. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,909
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Yeah, I'm a little afraid of a 150*100 map
    The current 7300 tiles compared to 15000 there
    Probably we shouldn't go over 13-14000 tiles
     
  19. Michael Vick

    Michael Vick #1

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    712
    Location:
    Cádiz
    My mistake, the incorrect coordinates I mentioned were from RFCE++.

    I already researched and addressed this.

    There would be no "trouble", we already have all the civs we need, just a few barbarian spawns North/Northeast of Baghdad are in order.
     
  20. urban

    urban Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    What is the current feeling on Germany/HRE? Are we taking from RFCE++? As I just posted in that forum, I think Germany should be city states, that are conquerable, or perhaps have a mechanism where unions can happen between these indies and civs in the HRE, perhaps most likely with Prussia and Austria. Or just those two, and have it be a UP.

    Along the same lines, are people thinking of including unions? I love that mechanism in RFCE++.

    Or should this be in another thread, and this just be map-related?
     

Share This Page