RFC Europe map development thread

[jessiecat]

Done



¡Ay caramba! What don't you like about Dijon? I think you should keep Dijon and have Lyon flip! Why, Lyon has never been a part of Burgundy, let alone her capital! Then again, I say this only because Dijon is all I've ever known as opposed to because it is or is not strategically better.


Indeed no!

Just had a look at your Ireland map again. Unfortunately there may be a couple of names which are too modern. And I believe that Shannon is not a town but more the name of the airport. So, if you don't mind, I've had a go at it. This is my version. What do you think?

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

Voilà mappa d'Italia completata!

Yes, I believe this is the latest version!

I want to help with the italian stuff ...
I'll check that one then and post feedback.

Good!

edit2: question, in the excel map is Sicily updated with the 2 tiles west ?

Probably not. It did not have the "Jade Bay" or whatever north of Bremen.

Just had a look at your Ireland map again. Unfortunately there may be a couple of names which are too modern. And I believe that Shannon is not
a town but more the name of the airport. So, if you don't mind, I've had a
go at it. This is my version. What do you think?

I'm eager to see it
I'll admit I didn't give Ireland as much thought as I could have... I'll have to review it later today.

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

I'll have to review it later today.

I've looked at it, and although I may seem to have taken thy suggestions with a grain of salt, I really did not. I really considered all of thy options, it is just that several did not win in the end
The map's been totally redone much for the better, and I tried to be as historical as possible. (Not that anyone ever tries anything else ) And I think you'll really like it (and I don't just mean jessiecat! This is not a dialog! This is a polylog! Please contribute! [not to devaluate Mr. J.C. He's super cool])

Anyway, please see the attachment(s)! It's just one big .zip file!

¡Viva Irlandia!

 

[onedreamer]

I have redone the italian city map but in my own format since I didn't like the worldbuilder save or the excel file. Attached are the screenshots of Italy (north, south, islands).
I also changed some tiles on the map:
- modified Alpes in the north west to reflect the real historical passes (several tiles involved, see screenshot).
- added Venice tile as proposed by Disenfranchised.
- added marsh north of Ravenna.
- converted an ocean tile into a plains tile at Pisa, Foggia, Trapani and Marsala.
- converted mountain to hill at Melfi.

Proposed changes are:
- make Campania (the region of Napoli and Benevento) bigger by adding one plains tile and moving the Vesuvio as indicated by red signs on the South Italy screenshot.
- turn a grassland tile into mountain in Sardinia as indicated by the red sign in the Islands screenshot. That tile is actually home to the highest mounts in Sardinia (Gennargentu)

I have not covered Dalmatia, Greece, Aegean sea, Cyprus and Crimea since I probably know as much as anyone else here about those places, but if need be I can do it.


on Sicily:

Sicily has been ruled by Byzantines, Arabs, Normans, Germany/Swabia and Aragonese in the order. Plus it was a conquest goal for Pisa and Genoa. Will the control of Sicily be included into UHVs of those civs ? Here is a toponymy for Sicily and southern Calabria:

Greek::Roman::Arab::Norman::Modern

Drepanon:: Drepanum::Itrabinis::Tarabanis::Trapani
Lilybaion::Lilybaeum::Marsa'Ali::??:Marsala
Panormos:anormus::Balarm::Balermus:alermo
Akragas::Agrigentum::Kerkent::Girgenti::Agrigento
Mylai::Mylae::Melaz::??::Milazzo
Messene::Messana::??::Messina::Messina
Henna::Henna::Qasr Yani:: (Castro Janni ?) ::Enna (Castrogiovanni)
Syracoussai::Syracusae::??::??::Siracusa
Hybla Heraea::Hereusium(Biz:Rogos)::Rakkusa::Ragusia::Ragusa

Rhègion::Rhègium::Rivàh::Rìsa::Reggio(Napoli)::Reggio di Calabria
Katantzarion::Cathacium(Biz:Katantzarios):: Qatansar ::Cathacem::Cathanzario(Napoli)::Catanzaro
Hipponion::Vibo Valentia::destroyed:: (rebuilt by Swabians as Monteleone) ::Vibo Valentia
not greek::Consentia(Biz:Constantia)::Arabs stopped here::??::Cosenza

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

I really must go to Spanish class at the moment, and thus I cannot fully review your perspective contribution, however I will give a few reminders before I leave for you to consider.
First off, remember that the peaks/mountains are shifting so we need city names for those squares as well.
Second, remember that we are not including any cities that gained importance in the Modern eras, and only Renaissance centers are acceptable.
Third, changes in the actual map are out of my domain, so we must wait for the word of a higher authority before any such considerations can be taken into account.
Fourth, remember to favor significant locales with larger squares as opposed to specifically naming each tile. We do not want small villages growing into metropoles merely because the real metropolis was more acurrately placed one tile north!
Finally, it is good for you to be contributing! I will warn you I am very proud and stubburn and will defend my version to the end, but if your placements are solid and historical there is nothing to fear!

A worldbuilder really would be all that much easier to visualize, so unless it'd be too much trouble...

Havu bonan sxancon!

 

[st.lucifer]

No objections to most of these changes, although I'd like to keep Foggia the way it was.
Thanks for updating the passes, the mountains, and Sicily.
The marsh N of Ravenna, while geographically accurate, makes Venice's food production that much more dependent on a couple of tiles. This may be appropriate. Also, while we can all agree on the historical importance of Ravenna, the spacing challenges that including it presents make it tough to justify. I'd rather include Pisa (on the new tile that you inserted in Tuscany) and move Florence/Firenze to the Bologna tile 1 S of the current Ravenna placement. This way, both Venice and Genoa will have a powerful incentive to go after those cities - they'll be competing culturally for the same land. It also means that both Pisa and Florence will be strong cities, whereas if we put them 1 tile apart they'll be weaker.

If you'd like to propose changes to Dalmatia/Greece/Cyprus/Crimea, I'd like to see your suggestions - the one thing that I'd ask is that we not go overboard with islands, particularly in the Adriatic. There's room for Corcyra, but beyond that we're cluttering things.

I have to say that I find your screenshot/text method to be quite easy to work with, as well. Very easy to cycle through the pictures, although it would be good to include a 'before' shot so that the changes are more evident.

Nice work!

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

I have given your map a good look and, let us review some of those silly points of mine. Just for fun, shall we?

remember that the peaks/mountains are shifting so we need city names for those squares as well.

Remember, remember, the city of Ember!

Second, remember that we are not including any cities that gained importance in the Modern eras, and only Renaissance centers are acceptable.

This doesn't seem to be an issue

Third, changes in the actual map are out of my domain, so we must wait for the word of a higher authority before any such considerations can be taken into account.

It looks like we've got that taken care of! Although I think that Venice Island thing is nonesense, personally...
However, I adore the new Sicily, and don't dislike Pisa.

Fourth, remember to favor significant locales with larger squares as opposed to specifically naming each tile. We do not want small villages growing into metropoles merely because the real metropolis was more acurrately placed one tile north!

I think you've done enough to further this, and most of the important cities sound as though they'll be spawning by theirselves, no?

A worldbuilder really would be all that much easier to visualize, so unless it'd be too much trouble...

Now this I still believe. You may have the amazing powers required, but I personally cannot convert it to the code without a worldbuilder file. It is also impossible to edit your graphics, as an excel or worldbuilder would easily allow.
Of course, st. lucifer likes it, so that has some weight.
Anyway, if you would like me to convert it to worldbuilder/excel/code I can certainly do so (although I still have Arabia's & the Ottomans' to compile) and if you wouldn't then I wish you luck!

That's right, Good luck! All of you! Everyone!

edit: à Marat, er, I mean à st. lucifer, 256 posts! That's such a cool number!

 

[onedreamer]

No objections to most of these changes, although I'd like to keep Foggia the way it was.

well, fine by me. The reason why I added that plains and I suggest one more at Naples is that that part of Italy is quite squeezed if we think it is home for big medieval cities. If we remove that plains then the northern Taranto should become Bari.

One more thing I forgot to mention which is not evident from the map: I changed the main Rome tile to a hill.

Thanks for updating the passes, the mountains, and Sicily.
The marsh N of Ravenna, while geographically accurate, makes Venice's food production that much more dependent on a couple of tiles. This may be appropriate.

Well, I actually don't know what you intend to do with marshes. The bonification of that marsh started in the 18th century from the Papal States, hence quite late in the mod. If you intend to make it possible to clear marshes, when were you thinking to do it ?

Also, while we can all agree on the historical importance of Ravenna, the spacing challenges that including it presents make it tough to justify.

Ok, I forgot to speak about the barbarian cities I placed
It was a proposal for the indipendents present on the map at start. It is just a proposal as my idea was to add 2 minors: Langobards with Milan and Naples and Exarchate of Italy with Roma and Ravenna; at war with each other. Ravenna can be moved in the tile south which I also named Ravenna, if the problem is the proximity with Venice.

I'd rather include Pisa (on the new tile that you inserted in Tuscany) and move Florence/Firenze to the Bologna tile 1 S of the current Ravenna placement.

I thought that we could have Genoa, Pisa, Florence, Ravenna if we place Pisa in the new tile and Florence on the river. This sort of close city placement is not uncommon in RFC but I must say that on this map, resources are much rarer than RFC, so we probably need to scrap Ravenna as you say (or add resources ).

But I am against your proposal for Florence because that would make it a port on the Adriatic... a bit too far from history. I accurately made so that Florence isn't a port.

This way, both Venice and Genoa will have a powerful incentive to go after those cities - they'll be competing culturally for the same land. It also means that both Pisa and Florence will be strong cities, whereas if we put them 1 tile apart they'll be weaker.

They would be 2 tiles apart, Florence on the river. Pisa will compete with Genoa on the sea and with Florence on the land, isn't it good ? Pisa and Florence will have room to be good cities if we scrap Ravenna. Note that I moved Genoa start one tile west to make this all easier.

If you'd like to propose changes to Dalmatia/Greece/Cyprus/Crimea, I'd like to see your suggestions - the one thing that I'd ask is that we not go overboard with islands, particularly in the Adriatic. There's room for Corcyra, but beyond that we're cluttering things.

I think the only island we need for Venice is Corfù. Btw speaking of Adriatic islands, Ragusa (Dubrovnik) was located similarly to Venice on piece of land separated from the coast, and its creation is also similar to Venice (mainland refugees escaping barbarian razing). Mabye we want to do the same with Ragusa as with Venice ?

Nice work!

thanks. Took me quite some time to research which towns were capital of counties and dukies ^^ And to answer Zavoevatell, almost no city was really big until Industrialism, when people moved from countriside/mountains to industrial cities. The only big cities are those for which I reserved more than one tile, pretty few.

About toponymy, that's actually the most time-consuming research. Do you also need toponymy for north Italy (French and German names) ?

 

[onedreamer]

Now this I still believe. You may have the amazing powers required, but I personally cannot convert it to the code without a worldbuilder file. It is also impossible to edit your graphics, as an excel or worldbuilder would easily allow.
Of course, st. lucifer likes it, so that has some weight.

It wasn't my intetion to produce something final/usable since I wanted to introduce many changes and not just compile a city list, and changes should be subject to comments . The excel and worldbuilder cluttered with cities would not allow me to see the geography of the map. Once we got the last details polished I can produce something usable

 

[st.lucifer]

well, fine by me. The reason why I added that plains and I suggest one more at Naples is that that part of Italy is quite squeezed if we think it is home for big medieval cities. If we remove that plains then the northern Taranto should become Bari.

While Naples was quite large, were either Bari or Taranto big enough that we should make room to include both? I'm fine with switching out the mountain and giving Naples more room, but giving Campania another tile in that spot may mean that we end up with a Bari and a Lecce rather than a Taranto or Brindisi. If I'm remembering right, the second set of cities is more historically important and/or older. I'm not saying that we should script every city placement in, but it's a struggle to keep the AI from building impractical cities and the newly added tile may prove irresistible. No objections to Rome being on a hill.

Well, I actually don't know what you intend to do with marshes. The bonification of that marsh started in the 18th century from the Papal States, hence quite late in the mod. If you intend to make it possible to clear marshes, when were you thinking to do it ?

I was thinking that the skill to clear marshes should appear late - probably with the same tech as windmills (which I feel should be late.) Even then, I'd make it a slog - to clear a marsh/swamp, a worker will have to build a windmill in the marsh, which gives no hammers/food/commerce bonus as long as the area's marsh, and then the city must work the marsh tile for 10-15 turns before it's cleared into grassland (upon which time the windmill gives normal bonuses.)

Ok, I forgot to speak about the barbarian cities I placed
It was a proposal for the indipendents present on the map at start. It is just a proposal as my idea was to add 2 minors: Langobards with Milan and Naples and Exarchate of Italy with Roma and Ravenna; at war with each other. Ravenna can be moved in the tile south which I also named Ravenna, if the problem is the proximity with Venice.

I thought that we could have Genoa, Pisa, Florence, Ravenna if we place Pisa in the new tile and Florence on the river. This sort of close city placement is not uncommon in RFC but I must say that on this map, resources are much rarer than RFC, so we probably need to scrap Ravenna as you say (or add resources ).

But I am against your proposal for Florence because that would make it a port on the Adriatic... a bit too far from history. I accurately made so that Florence isn't a port.

They would be 2 tiles apart, Florence on the river. Pisa will compete with Genoa on the sea and with Florence on the land, isn't it good ? Pisa and Florence will have room to be good cities if we scrap Ravenna. Note that I moved Genoa start one tile west to make this all easier.

Milan and Naples should definitely be in. Ravenna probably should too, but just in terms of the space involved I think we'll have to leave it out. Your point about Florence needing to be landlocked is well taken - and more resources will be added. I didn't realize you had moved Genoa W, but it's a good move - provides more space for Milan, Pisa, etc.

I think the only island we need for Venice is Corfù. Btw speaking of Adriatic islands, Ragusa (Dubrovnik) was located similarly to Venice on piece of land separated from the coast, and its creation is also similar to Venice (mainland refugees escaping barbarian razing). Mabye we want to do the same with Ragusa as with Venice ?

Ragusa should be more accessible than Venice, so if we're putting it out on an island, we should extend the island up or down the coast a tile so it's attached in more than one place (with a saltwater lake in the middle of the diamond created by the two island tiles.) That might be a good way to represent the Adriatic islands without filling the whole sea.

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

It wasn't my intetion to produce something final/usable since I wanted to introduce many changes and not just compile a city list, and changes should be subject to comments . The excel and worldbuilder cluttered with cities would not allow me to see the geography of the map. Once we got the last details polished I can produce something usable

That is all very logical, I assure you. You can imagine, though, my worry. The majority of passers-by 'round here seem to simply drop a fancy image and skidaddle. If you can change the image, alright by me!

As for the French and German names, we are not yet at that stage. We are doing settlermaps, which only change names when cities are founded. We have yet to even attempt the files which change city names upon conquest! Then again, if you're feeling spry, we will get to it sooner or later, and if you want to compose an excel like the one on page 11/12?? that'd be helpful.

I don't mean to offend people, but I personally don't like Italy at all and consequently don't know much about it. I'm glad someone else has come to relieve me of that burden!

edit: Unfortunately the file on page 11 is no longer downloadable. I guess that means we're back at square one

 

[3Miro]

Here are the Balkan Maps for Bulgaria and Byzantium.

Byzantium - only Balkan cities were changes from Jessiecat's version. Names were updated to match historical names and cities were realigned. New cities were added to fill in the gaps. Nothing outside the Balkan Peninsula was changed. Byzantine Empire never had anything north of the Danube river, however, some names appear on the map. Those are the corresponding Bulgarian/Slavic names.

Bulgaria - cities, names, spelling and all that was updated. The two maps match in the Balkan part. Bulgaria never had any territory outside Europe, however, on the map cities appear in Asia Minor and North Africa (Egypt). Those are just the Byzantine cities (I used copy/paste then edit the Jessiecat's map). Cities north of Danube were added (some of them).

I am currently aligning the Ottoman map (Balkan part only).

 

[st.lucifer]

Here are the Balkan Maps for Bulgaria and Byzantium.

Byzantium - only Balkan cities were changes from Jessiecat's version. Names were updated to match historical names and cities were realigned. New cities were added to fill in the gaps. Nothing outside the Balkan Peninsula was changed. Byzantine Empire never had anything north of the Danube river, however, some names appear on the map. Those are the corresponding Bulgarian/Slavic names.

Bulgaria - cities, names, spelling and all that was updated. The two maps match in the Balkan part. Bulgaria never had any territory outside Europe, however, on the map cities appear in Asia Minor and North Africa (Egypt). Those are just the Byzantine cities (I used copy/paste then edit the Jessiecat's map). Cities north of Danube were added (some of them).

I am currently aligning the Ottoman map (Balkan part only).

Thanks.

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

Here are the Balkan Maps for Bulgaria and Byzantium.

Yes, yes! Bravo! Bravísimo! Encore, encore!

 

[jessiecat]

Here are the Balkan Maps for Bulgaria and Byzantium.

Byzantium - only Balkan cities were changes from Jessiecat's version. Names were updated to match historical names and cities were realigned. New cities were added to fill in the gaps. Nothing outside the Balkan Peninsula was changed. Byzantine Empire never had anything north of the Danube river, however, some names appear on the map. Those are the corresponding Bulgarian/Slavic names.

Bulgaria - cities, names, spelling and all that was updated. The two maps match in the Balkan part. Bulgaria never had any territory outside Europe, however, on the map cities appear in Asia Minor and North Africa (Egypt). Those are just the Byzantine cities (I used copy/paste then edit the Jessiecat's map). Cities north of Danube were added (some of them).

I am currently aligning the Ottoman map (Balkan part only).

Thanks for all your work. A big improvement in the Balkans. Cheers!

 

[onedreamer]

While Naples was quite large, were either Bari or Taranto big enough that we should make room to include both?

No no, we shouldn't. That's why it's fine by me if we don't add that tile. But the reason why I said that then the second Taranto should become second Bari is that I think Bari was more important in the Middle Age. But I have to double check since I'm not an expert of the Kingdom of Naples / 2 Sicilies. What's for sure though is that Tarentum and Brundisium lost their clear predominance on the region after the fall of the Roman Empire, and our mod starts after that.

I was thinking that the skill to clear marshes should appear late - probably with the same tech as windmills (which I feel should be late.) Even then, I'd make it a slog - to clear a marsh/swamp, a worker will have to build a windmill in the marsh, which gives no hammers/food/commerce bonus as long as the area's marsh, and then the city must work the marsh tile for 10-15 turns before it's cleared into grassland (upon which time the windmill gives normal bonuses.)

I'm not sure windmills is the best tech, if I'm not wrong these bonifications were done by modifying the course of rivers/streams.

Ragusa should be more accessible than Venice, so if we're putting it out on an island, we should extend the island up or down the coast a tile so it's attached in more than one place (with a saltwater lake in the middle of the diamond created by the two island tiles.) That might be a good way to represent the Adriatic islands without filling the whole sea.

perfect idea

 

[st.lucifer]

No no, we shouldn't. That's why it's fine by me if we don't add that tile. But the reason why I said that then the second Taranto should become second Bari is that I think Bari was more important in the Middle Age. But I have to double check since I'm not an expert of the Kingdom of Naples / 2 Sicilies. What's for sure though is that Tarentum and Brundisium lost their clear predominance on the region after the fall of the Roman Empire, and our mod starts after that.

Fair enough. Let's keep the original version and simply change the grassland tile to Bari from Taranto.

I'm not sure windmills is the best tech, if I'm not wrong these bonifications were done by modifying the course of rivers/streams.

Advances in windmill technology are largely responsible for draining the marshes of the Netherlands and England, particularly for reclaiming land in the Netherlands. It may not have been the preferred method everywhere, but it's still dominant in keeping many of those areas dry. It's also a lot more work than having a worker or stack of workers hack away at a tile for a few turns.

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

If it carries any weight, I am entirely against placing Ragusa on another fausse île. It is geographically fallacious! Geography invariably dictated history, and never was the opposite true. By extension, I staunchly believe we should allow geography to dictate gameplay, and not add aggrandized islands whose inclusion would be antithetical to all realism.

Of course, I am just as wholly against Venice's fausse île, but two blows are twice as painful as one single blow in any & every respect.

Regardless, I am very excited about how Italy's coming along. Even the dullest of dunces can testify that Italy's importance during this era was momentous.

 

[st.lucifer]

If it carries any weight, I am entirely against placing Ragusa on another fausse île. It is geographically fallacious! Geography invariably dictated history, and never was the opposite true. By extension, I staunchly believe we should allow geography to dictate gameplay, and not add aggrandized islands whose inclusion would be antithetical to all realism.

Just to clarify, we're talking about Ragusa in Croatia (currently Dubrovnik), not Ragusa in Italy. While modern Dubrovnik isn't on an island, due to reclamation of a swamp/wetland, historical Ragusa was. Additionally, the 'island' we're proposing putting it on is connected to the mainland in two places, so it won't be completely isolated from invasion. While the island where Ragusa was founded isn't very big relative to other Adriatic islands, we're not putting most of the larger ones in for space/appearance considerations; this strikes me as one way to reflect the presence of many islands in the Adriatic. Looking at this again, I think I'm going to add in the Istrian peninsula, as suggested by ijnavy and Akhera a while back.

Of course, I am just as wholly against Venice's fausse île, but two blows are twice as painful as one single blow in any & every respect.

Regardless, I am very excited about how Italy's coming along. Even the dullest of dunces can testify that Italy's importance during this era was momentous.

I agree that sticking Venice out into the Adriatic on a peninsula is a bit of a forced solution, but the only other way to represent its geographical uniqueness (and defensive strength) would be to change its surrounding tiles to marsh, perpetutating a much greater evil (in terms of geographical accuracy) on the fertile Po delta and Giulia.

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

While modern Dubrovnik isn't on an island, due to reclamation of a swamp/wetland, historical Ragusa was. Additionally, the 'island' we're proposing putting it on is connected to the mainland in two places, so it won't be completely isolated from invasion. While the island where Ragusa was founded isn't very big relative to other Adriatic islands, we're not putting most of the larger ones in for space/appearance considerations; this strikes me as one way to reflect the presence of many islands in the Adriatic. Looking at this again, I think I'm going to add in the Istrian peninsula, as suggested by ijnavy and Akhera a while back.

I agree that sticking Venice out into the Adriatic on a peninsula is a bit of a forced solution, but the only other way to represent its geographical uniqueness (and defensive strength) would be to change its surrounding tiles to marsh, perpetutating a much greater evil (in terms of geographical accuracy) on the fertile Po delta and Giulia.

Ah, I very much understand your points, and furthermore I very much respect them. However, I simply feel that the "uniqueness" of Venice and Ragusa are totally insignificant on this map's scale. I realize that few agree with this, but, I cannot tell a lie , I dislike their unmerited favor. Why shouldn't they be invadable by land? Sure it wasn't historically feasible, but neither were a huge number of things that haven't been included.
In short, do what you will, and I'll support you, but I'll never really approve of it.

As for the maps of the Balkans and of Italy, I'd really love to see a worldbuilder. I know it's dreafully inconvenient, but if you have some free time...