Discussion in 'Civ5 - Creation & Customization' started by Rhye, Jan 21, 2011.
city renaming is already been made. Same about city states
I can help with the maps. I can start with Arabia's map.
rhye, I'm working on germany city-names map right now and using this map conversion but from the screenshot you posted there seem to be some minor differences...
so, which map should I use? thank you
science rules, please send me a mail
are you the one who asked by mail about USA and Germany? I sent you the files, that's all you need.
That map is different from the one I made for RFC, so please don't bother.
Yes, but the files you send me have the CIV5 sheet with every hex white (except for the capital) and so i can't tell where land end and sea start or where the peaks are
Ah the picture background hasn't loaded on your computer, that's why.
Speaking of which Rhye, I'm having trouble with two things:
- I wish I knew the coordinates you chose for other capital cities such as Berlin, Amsterdam (I took a guess that it is one tile East of the river like in Civ 4), Madrid and Rome (though I can see that in your screenshot). The reason is so that I can get an idea for how to set up France's names in these areas, and figure out where the "border" between say France and Germany should be (it wouldn't be too hard except that the map is quite distorted in those areas and I'm not sure where you've decided to have the "border". I've given it a go but I'm not sure if I've done it right.
- The peaks are hard to notice on the picture background - though since I'm doing France, I've been using your screenshot again
Moderator Action: Moved.
Next time PM please. It's too difficult to monitor all threads.
@topic: , nice to see something really big starting here.
Thanks, no background here. Probably not supported by openoffice but i'm working on it.
Rhye, this is hard as no more 4-cell boxes with the same city name are possible, the max is now 3-hex
Quick question for Rhye, I was wondering if you are planning to do anything more interesting with City-States, perhaps along the line of what I was thinking which is to have several classes of 'civ' below the 'major civs'.
My idea is to have for instance say, at the bottom "Tribal settlements" that would bear the indigenous settlement same on-map and the tribe's name on the diplo window- these would be easily flippable (if such a mechanic is to be re-introduced in this version) or otherwise conquered fairly easily without diplomatic repercussions.
Above that you would have the regular city states working as they currently do, along with 'small nation-states' that are functionally the same but bear the name of the nation in the diplo screen (say ireland, belgium, finland or places like that, best off represented by a single city).
And above that what I think is a more interesting idea to develop, 'minor civilizations' which start off functionally the same as standard city-states, but following some kind of predetermined condition (collapse of a major civ etc.) become semi-aggressive and expand but *only* in order to occupy their (ideally small) historical territory. This might involve capturing other city states or if they are suitably positioned to, war against a major civ (if they happen to be weak enough) they would not attempt to expand further than this. Examples might be the republic of venice, carthage (if it is never added to the main game), israel, etc etc.
Just thought it is an interesting idea, and would add more to the sense of 'living history' without the tedious prospect of adding any more actual civilizations to the game. Are there any plans for something similar to this, or would it be possible do you think?
Wonderful. Simply Wonderful.
Will this use modular civs to fill in the gaps of BTS? If they are added, will the Byzatines be playable again?
Here is a draft for the germany city-names.
I've tried to be coherent with the old map but it is not always possible.
In addiction, i've converted the color encodings too (don't know if it was necessary, so there are two version in the zip file - one with only the names and one color encoded)
scandinavia is bigger but i don't know historical cities in the region
as a temporal solution city-names area have been enlarged (there is the possibility of two cities sharing the same name!)
i've been somewhat forced to add both "Turin" and "Ancona" in Italy, hope it's ok
i've not touched the starting point color encoding cause it is different from "gray 150" (don't know if this is intentional or not)
Your addicted to colour encodings?
(Colour is not a typo)
Have you managed to make certain civilizations start at different dates?
I'll attempt to do Spain and Inca?
killerkebab -> you can see starting locations because there's a white circle on them.
Psycadelic_Magi -> a kind of. There will be minor civs, but this aspect of the mod is still very broken or not yet done.
Inca and Spain done
If your happy with my work i'd be glad to do another civ if you need it
Hey, I'm having the same problem as n0thing. - that is, I went to find my copy of office 2007 to discover my little sisters taken it to university with her¬_¬ I tried open office, but as reported it doesn't load the image, making the job fairly impossible! Is there a way to make open office load the image? Otherwise I might have to withdraw, which is disapointing I was assigned China, for reference.
Heres the full version of spain sorry for before.
Hey Rhye! Firstly I'd just like to say that you can't imagine how excited this makes me, seeing as RFC is the reason I'm still playing cIV more than ciV.
Just a small question however: Seeing as you obviously take the effort and research to have the historically correct city names, is there any chance that a similar approach could be added to some other places where the current naming system is very historically inaccurate?
The particular examples that occur to me are:
- The Aztec civilization should be called the Mexica. This was how they identified themselves, and the name Aztec was only applied to them by the Spanish after colonization. Indeed I've noticed in museums around Mexico city that there is a current push to correct most references to them by changing 'Aztecs' to 'Mexicas'.
- On a related note, the correct pronunciation of their leaders name is more closely written in English as Motecuhzoma.
- Similarly, the name of the 'Inca' civilization was also an invention of the Spanish. 'Inca' was the title given to their monarch, similar to the English King, Japanese Shogun, etc. Therefore there was only ever one Inca at any given time, and it was not a word used to identify the Quechua people as a nation. The correct name of their empire was 'Tawantinsuyu', and they referred to themselves as the Quechua people.
I guess these kind of things don't really make much of a difference, but for someone with an interest in these precolumbian cultures, I guess I've always just wished that they were a little more accurate.
Separate names with a comma.