RFC Europe map development thread

[Wessel V1]

Excellent job on the map! I'm glad you fixed the river thing, it looks much better now. However, there is another river flowing in the wrong direction, the river north of the wheat near Milan (seriously). Just accidently saw it..
There is also something strange with the new Carpathian mountains. It seems that there are now hidden relics.

Apart from these very minor things, I can't see anything negative about the changes. It all gets better and better..

 

[micbic]

re: Gdansk-Konigsberg: I favor keeping Danzig over Konigsberg, since Konigsberg was founded by the Teutonic Knights at the 13th century, and was from then only known as the capital of the Teutons and then Prussia, while Gdansk has been an important trading center (and first mentioned much earlier)
Thanks for the other changes

 

[st.lucifer]

Excellent job on the map! I'm glad you fixed the river thing, it looks much better now. However, there is another river flowing in the wrong direction, the river north of the wheat near Milan (seriously). Just accidently saw it..
There is also something strange with the new Carpathian mountains. It seems that there are now hidden relics.

Apart from these very minor things, I can't see anything negative about the changes. It all gets better and better..

Grr, I thought I got them all! I'll fix it in the next update. By relics - are there resources in the mountains? I can go back and take those out. If the graphics are off, I might add some dense forest to cover things up.

re: Gdansk-Konigsberg: I favor keeping Danzig over Konigsberg, since Konigsberg was founded by the Teutonic Knights at the 13th century, and was from then only known as the capital of the Teutons and then Prussia, while Gdansk has been an important trading center (and first mentioned much earlier)

Good point. I was going from Embryodead's post in the files thread, where he made the following suggestion:

"Last minor detail: Gdansk was supposedly founded by Piasts, aka 10th c. Poles. A better town to represent baltic pagans would be Old Prussian Tvanksta, that is the original site of Koenigsberg. That, or both - either way, they would last a bit longer to harass the Poles."

I'm fine either way. I like Gdansk/Danzig being represented on the map, and there'll always be a Koenigsberg or Memel founded. The one advantage I can think of to switching to Koenigsberg is that it gives the Poles coastal access faster, as Gdansk can be difficult to take. Still, given that we're using Warzawa rather than Krakow, the historical argument for Gdansk over Koenigsberg/Tvanksta carries a lot of weight.

 

[micbic]

The thing with Polish capital constantly changing is kinda weird. Looking at wikipedia, it seems that the first Polish capital was Gniezno. Warsaw indeed didnt exist at all this time, and Krakow was one of the land gains of Mieszko I. If we are going for adopting history, we should go for Gniezno or Krakow (Gniezno did not last much). Krakow was the Polish capital for long, while Warsaw was for a long time capital of Mazovia.

Anyway, this debate reminds me of deciding the Spanish start. Given that Leon was the final choice, we should, in similar fashion, go for Krakow.

And I am okay with Tvanksta.

BTW...umm... Burgundy and France still have doubled units, and, at the choose civ ''window'' the civs appear with their full names.

 

[st.lucifer]

The thing with Polish capital constantly changing is kinda weird. Looking at wikipedia, it seems that the first Polish capital was Gniezno. Warsaw indeed didnt exist at all this time, and Krakow was one of the land gains of Mieszko I. If we are going for adopting history, we should go for Gniezno or Krakow (Gniezno did not last much). Krakow was the Polish capital for long, while Warsaw was for a long time capital of Mazovia.

Anyway, this debate reminds me of deciding the Spanish start. Given that Leon was the final choice, we should, in similar fashion, go for Krakow.

And I am okay with Tvanksta.

BTW...umm... Burgundy and France still have doubled units, and, at the choose civ ''window'' the civs appear with their full names.

Yeah, sorry about the doubled units. I don't remember how to fix that issue - if I remove all of the starting units from the map through WB and exit WB, I believe the game ends immediately with the player losing.

One of the reasons we went with Leon for the Spanish start was spacing - we figured that picking Toledo or Madrid (besides the date issue) would start them too close to Cordoba. The same sort of issue applies with Krakow vs. Warsaw - Krakow's clearly the better historical choice, while Warsaw makes much more sense in terms of spacing. I'd personally rather stick with Warsaw, but I could do some work to make the area aroud Krakow a more attractive city site.

 

[micbic]

Perhaps it can be solved, by editing the WB file via Notepad. I will give it a try tomorrow morning.
Tvanksta will be definetely in.

 

[embryodead]

Changes look good, I'll be starting a new game soon and will look more thoroughly then.

The thing with Polish capital constantly changing is kinda weird. Looking at wikipedia, it seems that the first Polish capital was Gniezno. Warsaw indeed didnt exist at all this time, and Krakow was one of the land gains of Mieszko I. If we are going for adopting history, we should go for Gniezno or Krakow (Gniezno did not last much). Krakow was the Polish capital for long, while Warsaw was for a long time capital of Mazovia.

Forcing Gniezno would be like forcing Winchester for England and Guimaraes for Portugal. Ideally I'd go with Poznan as it also lasted as a major city. Polish historians still argue whether the title should go to Gniezno, the coronation site, Poznan, the largest city and actual center of administration, or one of the pre-Christianization sites...

Capitals of Poland:

Giecz - regarded as the capital of Piasts in 10th c., before Christianization
Gniezno - regarded as the first capital, but in reality it was much like Aachen or Rheims - a ceremonial site
Poznan (alongside Gniezno) - the most important city, first cathedral, seat and burial site of kings
Krakow - moved here in 11th c.
Plock - moved again in 11th c.; just slightly west of Warsaw, I suggested this name but given the mod's timeline it's a bit too shortlived
Krakow - 12-16th c.
Warszawa - from 16th c.

The first three - Giecz, Gniezno and Poznan are located in the same area, left of Warsaw, above Wroclaw. If you want to be historically correct and use this location, you'd have to move Wroclaw further south or something, because it's too close. Anyway, you have a list to choose from in case Warsaw is out, but after playing till 16th c. personally I don't mind it anymore.

There's a some imbalance in food, however. Warsaw skyrockets early and can easily sustain pop of 25+ while Krakow grows very slowly and can sustain from 10 to 14 (if you build windmills & take over all the shared tiles) with nothing but iron to make up for it. Pigs or apples could be moved from Warsaw to Krakow to balance it.

 

[st.lucifer]

Changes look good, I'll be starting a new game soon and will look more thoroughly then.



Forcing Gniezno would be like forcing Winchester for England and Guimaraes for Portugal. Ideally I'd go with Poznan as it also lasted as a major city. Polish historians still argue whether the title should go to Gniezno, the coronation site, Poznan, the largest city and actual center of administration, or one of the pre-Christianization sites...

Capitals of Poland:

Giecz - regarded as the capital of Piasts in 10th c., before Christianization
Gniezno - regarded as the first capital, but in reality it was much like Aachen or Rheims - a ceremonial site
Poznan (alongside Gniezno) - the most important city, first cathedral, seat and burial site of kings
Krakow - moved here in 11th c.
Plock - moved again in 11th c.; just slightly west of Warsaw, I suggested this name but given the mod's timeline it's a bit too shortlived
Krakow - 12-16th c.
Warszawa - from 16th c.

The first three - Giecz, Gniezno and Poznan are located in the same area, left of Warsaw, above Wroclaw. If you want to be historically correct and use this location, you'd have to move Wroclaw further south or something, because it's too close. Anyway, you have a list to choose from in case Warsaw is out, but after playing till 16th c. personally I don't mind it anymore.

There's a some imbalance in food, however. Warsaw skyrockets early and can easily sustain pop of 25+ while Krakow grows very slowly and can sustain from 10 to 14 (if you build windmills & take over all the shared tiles) with nothing but iron to make up for it. Pigs or apples could be moved from Warsaw to Krakow to balance it.

If I can see a screenshot of where you'd put Poznan and Krakow, and where Wroclaw and Warsaw currently spawn, I can move resources around to balance things a little better. Generally speaking, the area around Warsaw and Lodz is more fertile than the area around Krakow and Wroclaw, right?

We could also consider dropping Wroclaw if we're starting Poland at Poznan, and adding Krakow as an independent which flips.

Thanks for the explanation of the old capitals.

 

[merijn_v1]

@ st. Lucifer

Sorry I have to say this, but with your map-patch I have the problems I posted in the playtesting threat. (France declared war to France etc.) When I installed the old map, I didn't have the problem. And with micbic's version is nothing wrong.

 

[micbic]

Well, it is afternoon (and a rainy one!) and not morning, but the WB is fixed, at least I hope so. No more double units, civs appear with short names at civ selection screen, but I am not sure about the self DOWing bug.

 

[merijn_v1]

Well, it is afternoon (and a rainy one!) and not morning, but the WB is fixed, at least I hope so. No more double units, civs appear with short names at civ selection screen, but I am not sure about the self DOWing bug.

Nice, but why there are razed cities near Hungary. And a pre-build fort on the Silver hill near Budapest?

 

[st.lucifer]

Excellent job on the map! I'm glad you fixed the river thing, it looks much better now. However, there is another river flowing in the wrong direction, the river north of the wheat near Milan (seriously). Just accidently saw it..

There are a few rivers like this which flow into lakes (and in many cases, also flow out to the sea). While awkward, the reasoning behind this is that there's no graphic to show a river starting in a lake - instead, there's a weird division between the river and the lake tile. So, there are a few awkward situations where a river's flowing in two directions, but it looks better than the alternative.

Well, it is afternoon (and a rainy one!) and not morning, but the WB is fixed, at least I hope so. No more double units, civs appear with short names at civ selection screen, but I am not sure about the self DOWing bug.

Thanks for fixing it - I'm not sure how I managed to introduce that error.

 

[st.lucifer]

Nice, but why there are razed cities near Hungary. And a pre-build fort on the Silver hill near Budapest?

Those seem to have been introduced (along with several other city ruins, villages, and a handful of forts) in the months where I was gone. I wasn't sure what their significance was, and figured it wasn't ahistorical or aesthetically disruptive to have city ruins all over Europe, so I haven't taken them out. If people feel strongly that they should be removed, I'll take them out in the next map update.

 

[jessiecat]

Those seem to have been introduced (along with several other city ruins, villages, and a handful of forts) in the months where I was gone. I wasn't sure what their significance was, and figured it wasn't ahistorical or aesthetically disruptive to have city ruins all over Europe, so I haven't taken them out. If people feel strongly that they should be removed, I'll take them out in the next map update.

They were included in some areas as a result of a suggestion by Michael Vick who pointed out that in Europe circa 500AD there would still be the remains of Roman infrastructure, at very least towns, roads and ruins. He's correct but if it hampers gameplay then nerf them. Personally, I like the ones in Iberia. Always handy for razing
if you want a bit of extra gold.

 

[st.lucifer]

They were included in some areas as a result of a suggestion by Michael Vick who pointed out that in Europe circa 500AD there would still be the remains of Roman infrastructure, at very least towns, roads and ruins. He's correct but if it hampers gameplay then nerf them. Personally, I like the ones in Iberia. Always handy for razing
if you want a bit of extra gold.

I like them. The idea that Europe was a totally blank slate in 500 is ridiculous - the presence of roads and villages and ruins makes for a more realistic map. Also, the presence of villages act as a sort of resource to consider when building towns - a tile that doesn't require 60 turns of marginal production before paying off is a valuable asset!

 

[sedna17]

I like the general idea. Certainly some roads and city ruins are a good touch. However, it seems that some of the towns are in places that will be counter-productive. London, for instance, is represented as a pre-built town on the map. When you spawn, it no longer makes sense to found London in the "correct" spot, because then you miss out on the benefit of a pre-existing town.

 

[jessiecat]

I like the general idea. Certainly some roads and city ruins are a good touch. However, it seems that some of the towns are in places that will be counter-productive. London, for instance, is represented as a pre-built town on the map. When you spawn, it no longer makes sense to found London in the "correct" spot, because then you miss out on the benefit of a pre-existing town.

I agree they shouldn't be on spawning tiles. That's counter-productive. Same with forts. Who's going to keep them on a tile that needs working? But the roads and some towns are a good idea.

BTW When can expect a new version?

 

[sedna17]

I've got most of the work other people have done (thanks guys!) merged in. This means 6.1 and the new map and the new pedia texts and one extra city name map and new reference maps. I think it'll be worth releasing a new version which is mostly just these things tied together (and a couple extra fixes I'm doing). I expect to post that on Wednesday.

 

[jessiecat]

I've got most of the work other people have done (thanks guys!) merged in. This means 6.1 and the new map and the new pedia texts and one extra city name map and new reference maps. I think it'll be worth releasing a new version which is mostly just these things tied together (and a couple extra fixes I'm doing). I expect to post that on Wednesday.

I've edited the wiki to do list to show tech descriptions and quotes as done baring a change of a few buttons. BTW Did you notice we've got a new volunteer, Flying Pig, who's handy with art modding of units and stuff? Check out his Spanish knight. See art thread. Though he might need a hand with Python from you guys.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Wow you guys have really come a long way!

While we are on the topic of resource placement I'm going to have to rather disagree with where the coal resources are:

From production that occured during the timescale of the Mod:
95%+ of the coal resources should be in Great Britain, which was really the producer and exporter right up to 1800. As to placement there should be some in South Wales, Some North of Glasgow (rather than the current central highlands location or Cumbrian location), on the Coast near Newcastle, and 2-3 in the Manchester-Midlands zone. (for 5-6 in total)

The only others for historical production should be 1-2 around the Muese, nowhere else in europe was producing during the time of the mod.

From accessible resources that weren't tapped so early but could have been:
Have the aforementioned British and Belgium ones, 1-2 on the west bank of the Rhine, 1-2 on the Elbe in Saxony and Bohemia, 1-2 at the base of the Elms in North Germany/Netherlands, that 1 already in Silesia and 2-3 around the mouth of the Donets.

All the others should be gone as they are either ahistorically placed (most of those France and Spain), or represent tiny or lignite deposits (that can't be used by technology in the Mods timescale ) like the one near moscow and all the stuff in the Balkans.

If for balance reasons its felt France and Spain should keep their coal then the one in Lyons and the old western North Spanish ones are more accurate (I noticed the most recent map has some near Bilbao, when the Gijon area was more important), and move the Anatolian one to the north coast.

On another note the iron in Scotland should be moved to the Sheffield area or south of London, both of which were much more significant metal producers.