RFC Europe map development thread

That's definitely the right way to do it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

so I get it that a ventian dalmatian map is not needed now, right ?

 

As the Venetians and Genoans estab. colonies all over the eastern Med and the Black Sea, it would make sense to have a joint settler map for them covering all those likely areas, using latin or italian or just local names for them, whichever you think is apropriate.
So maybe Dalmatia could be added to the settler map youve done. IMHO anyway.

 

Well! Quite some conversation here.
As for worldbuilders, jessiecat was right. I had forgotten that excels convert well to code so they aren't really necessary.
I do still intend to convert these to code eventually, and I'm hoping to do some this weekend. However, next week being finals week, I don't know if I'll get much done.
Each civ has a different settler map, so specific names for cities that may be founded are necessary. However, the conquest maps (when a civ conquers a city changing its name) are separate and are more code. Obviously, different civs found different cities in the same squares (not just different names) so the conquest name-changing is, I believe, a code largely independent of map coordinates. I don't really know though, although I hope this answers questions.

Anyway, we should send out invitations to fans of Northern Europe because that is largely undeveloped.

As for adding the extra-Italian cities of Venice and Genoa, I think that my Italian map had pretty good ones unless people disagree with them.

 

I'm sure we're all glad you've appreciated the cut and thrust of our discussions so far.
And thanks for the acknowledgement too. It's nice to be right, however rarely.
As the immortal Mae West once said,
"I don't care what they call me, as long as they call me."

You're right about Northern Europe. Where are our German ,Austrian, Czech, Swedish
or Polish friends when we really need them? We've done the donut guys. What about
filling the hole in the middle?

Anyway, good luck on your finals. Uni is it? What major? Unless it's H.S?
No, tell me. Shatter all my illusions. You're really 17, right? Just kidding of course.

 

It's lovely to have some humor every once in a while!

As for Germany, and especially Poland, I'm really hoping someone shows up since those are such daunting tasks.
The donut metaphor was droll, I'll admit, and I think it's made me hungry, but I think that once we iron out the southeast and Italy it'll only be a matter of time before someone finds time for the Netherlands (which really isn't a big project) and that will lead into Germany which will lead into Austria and Poland which will (I hope you catch my drift). In short, I'm not really worried

Now get ready! 'Cause you weren't far from right! I may not be 17, but I am 16! High school it is!
Thanks for the luck! I'll need it for some of these Bible verses I've got to memorize...

Edit: Looking at the Arabia map, should we keep these names for Spain or use the ones from the Spain map? I haven't really checked them for being especially Arabic, but at first glance they don't seem so

 

Yes, a little humour goes a long way. Though your allusion to Germany "leading" into Austria and Poland invokes unfortunate images best not ellaborated on. As far as joking about your age, I meant no disrespect. I wish my oldest grandchild (16) had half your wit and intelligence. Again, best wishes and good luck.

BTW My Arab/Al Andalus map lacks equivalent Arabic names for Spain because I found it difficult
to find some of them. Most modern names reflect the original Arabic so Al Meria is now Almeria,
for example. Or Algeciras was originally Al Gethiras. But elsewhere I've opted for local Spanish
names which are recognizable, and usually based on the Arabic equivalent. A good example would
be Zaragoza. Or should it be Zaragossa? Or even Saragossa as the Spanish sometimes called it?
What I've tried to avoid is overtly Christian names unless they were the original Visigothic names
in 711. Like Toledo was still called Toledo. So even though the Arabs did call Cordoba "Cartuba"
or even "Qartuba" would it help if we used them? I could rework some of them if you prefer, but
would it make much difference to the game? And as they apply only to the 2 Arab civs as
settlement names why change them?

 

Oh my! It's hard to believe, but that was entirely unintended!

I'm afraid I may grow fat on your flattery!

Anyway, to more serious exploits, did you ever take a look at the updated Ireland? I wasn't entirely certain about all of my city placements, and I was hoping someone'd either verify or rectify them.

Edit: And as for Spain, I really don't think it matters at all. I just wondering what you thought about it =) I am thinking, though, that the Sicilian names suggested by onedreamer should be added.

 

My computer is back, and I have finally settled (school's out, settled into my new job, etc.) a little bit, so I will do Northern Europe, as I was supposed to a couple months ago. I'll start on it today, and hopefully have something for you by next week. Sound good?

 

Marvelous. Great.

 

Yes, I did look at your Ireland map and it's fine. If you're content with Spain on my Arab map then we can leave it for now. But if you want to switch a couple of names in Sicily that's OK too.
Bear in mind its early days yet so its important to make a start. Minor changes can come later when we're in the Alpha or testing stages. I'm sure you agree.

 

Oh I do; I entirely do.

 

Newly updated 'official' map!

Changes include:
-Thickened Pyrenees; corrected passes in Alps
-Added moorland to Baltic (thoughts? this may be too much) - remember that ice = placeholder for moorland (plains with limited agricultural production)
-Finally fixed the Pripet marshes (also added the Pripet and other rivers N/W of Kiev; fixed the location of Minsk)
-Eliminated much of the marsh on the Dniester
-Added a small marsh on the Dnieper N of Odessa
-Changed Venice and Dalmatian coast (added faux-iles, as Jeremy eloquently puts it; redid Istrian peninsula; added Corfu/Corcyra)
-Added tiles to Sicily, Pisa, Bari, and changed mountains E of Naples and in Sardinia and Greece, as suggested by Onedreamer and ijnavy
-Finally added that damn notch above Bremen
-Moved a couple of resources around - minor changes to Crimea, area around Minsk, N. Italy, Sicily, etc - don't worry about these for now, as all are subject to change at this point
-Corrected starting locations of Burgundy and the Ottomans; added a couple of cities whose locations I was reasonably confident on (Lyon, a Coruna)
-Added (and moved slightly) Pisa, Milan, and Florence. Check the locations - they're not quite accurate, but they make for much better cities. Acceptable?


This is everything I could find that I know was off/had promised to fix; if there's more to do, let me know for the next update. It's close, but obviously still not a finished product.

 

Thanks for the updated map.Your changes are fine with me.
But can I mention again the question of moorland? It's been awhile. I wish you could reconsider your view of what should represent upland areas of Britain and elsewhere.
As all the areas where you have placeholders in reality are mostly green, usually grazing areas rather than barren non-productive land we already have the solution at hand. If you replaced all of them with grassy hills and just a couple of bare hills to represent moors like Dartmoor that would solve the problem. Even the worst moorland areas should produce one food. Grassy hillls represent that accurately, I think. Most of the areas of Wales and England where you have placeholders are in fact fairly lush green uplands with small farms and sheep. Most of these upland areas in Scotland should be the same with more wooded areas as it was originally. Our art should represent that, in my view.

Here is a WB save to illustrate. I have only altered Britain. Is this not acceptable?

 

Moorland = plains which do not benefit from irrigation. 1 food. Our artwork, when we've got it put in, will not be this bleak white forbidding stuff. I realize that most of the UK is grassy hills. These will be grassy hills. They will not necessarily be green. Does grazing land in Wales compare with cropland in the Ukraine, Poland, or France for food production, even if it's green? No. That's why it's marked as moorland - because 'plains' is not appropriate, but also because it simply doesn't produce as much food as a grassland would. It's possible that there is too much 'moorland' in southern England, but the vast majority of Scotland is simply not suitable for the type of farmland that 2-food grassland represents. Again, I recognize that the current aesthetics are ugly, and I'm really sorry that there's nothing I can do about it.

Please also recognize that an England overflowing with resources and food will be invincible. This is a way of nerfing that a little.

 

a couple of comments on the map:

- I'd make bigger British isles
- isn't the Hungarian start a bit too south?
- kiev start....that's Ukraine, isn't it?

 

Kievan Rus - the predecessor of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.

 

I think it's Scotland that appears too small. If it were extended about 2 tiles North and 1 tile NW that would be more proportionate. Edinburgh then could move 1 tile North to distance it from York. IMO.

 

Why? Britain had historically a small population and not great food production compared to the continent, only surging forward in its 19th century heyday. Britain and England's strength before that came from the safety of the channel and having a vastly superior centralization and tax base compared with other European states - something to show with a powerful UP and UB rather than bigger terrain (though I do think it could do with more production)

The pre-Kingdom of Hungary Magyars migrated north to the more modern zones, and the population centre was always to the southeast of Buda and Pest

In the same way modern Italy is the Kingdom of Lombardy .

 

A MOD with Poland and Ukraine? Is there going to be a Liechtenstein too?