RFC Europe map development thread

st. lucifier,
Here's the promised map 10/11th c. Poland w/ Poznan as capital. It may not be the best starting location because of proximity to historical borders (Lubusz is really the farthest Poles could go), but it's the same problem as with Krakow. Poznan + Krakow flip?

Plock 2 and Wroclaw 2 are alternative locations for those cities that are more or less correct as well (Coal would have to follow Wroclaw). I moved the river 1 tile to place Kolobrzeg correctly but it's not important.

I see that you added salt in Gdansk and Luebeck, which is not what I meant; They did not produce their own salt, instead, Hansa brought it from Lueneburg - the marsh tiles near Hamburg.

With regards to fertility, yes, the center of Poland was most fertile while Lesser Poland (Krakow) produced cattle. Other than that the food balance is nice.

Disenfrancised is probably right about coal, though at least coal mining in Poland dates back to 16th c. Anyway, the coal near Warsaw is a bad idea. That one in Silesia is enough.

 

I'm reluctant to give England all of the coal, as it's a historical resource, but I can certainly increase the percentages. I'm inclined to keep the deposits in Belgium and Silesia, especially after getting backup from Embryodead - I'll move the Spanish and Anatolian ones as you suggested, and move another to Bohemia. I haven't played a game yet in which coal was actually important (something we may want to change? I beleive we originally intended to introduce it to represent its importance in working steel), but I used the same approach with it as with other resources - available to everyone, in close-to-historical locations where possible.

Thanks for the tip on the English iron. It'll move to Sheffield in the next update.

Thanks for the map - very helpful. Questions and comments:

-Did you want the Oder moved? If it's not in the right place, I'd be happy to shift it over. Accurate river placement is probably the hardest thing about doing these maps.
-I understood your meaning on the salt origins, and I know where Lueneberg is. My reasons for moving the salt to Danzig and Lubeck were due to two factors - first, there's a salt resource in Groningen, which is pretty close to Lueneberg already, and second, marsh tiles are unimprovable, which makes the placement of salt resources in the salt marshes where they actually form impractical. I figured that it was better to give two of the most important Hanseatic states access to fish and salt (and timber, although I think that's between the two cities) to represent their trade goods. An inaccurate placement, but a historically justifiable one?


I like the Poznan and Krakow flip solution best for the Polish start, removing Wroclaw from the equation entirely. It'll still get founded (at Wroclaw 2), but actually crowds Austria less than Wroclaw does and gives Poland more of a presence in Germany. Seems like the best of all worlds, and there's still Gdansk and Minsk to conquer.

 

Maybe leave it as it is actually. It isn't necessarily more accurate, I just wanted to space it from Kolobrzeg. In reality it's better with a river, and your placement allows German Stettin on the proper side.

OK, that makes sense.

That's cool. There's also the issue I forgot about: no fresh water for Poznan, part of Warta could be added as small tributary: http://www.maritime.com.pl/inland/gfx/main.gif (I haven't figured out how to draw it in the editor )

 

That's easy enough to add. I'll make the changes, and hope that someone else will take care of the scripting.

Thanks so much for your suggestions here. If you'd like to turn your eyes to Kiev or Russia, there's much rework to be done in both of those places, and a lack of experts (self-proclaimed or otherwise).

 

I played a game as the Norse recently, and was all set to found my city in Iceland, moving a settler there long ahead of time... only to discover when the UHV trigger rolled around that my settler was sitting in Greenland. A reload and added settler in WB, and I discovered that there was a new Iceland, which I had assumed was Svalbard (not that there was any good reason to have Svalbard on the map).





Who added 'Iceland', and what was wrong with the old one, which was a lot closer to the actual location? I'm inclined to take it out in the next revision, but that makes the Norse UHV impossible.

 

We added it on my suggestion as previously Iceland was placed too far west. It should be a lot closer to Scotland than we had it before. Sort of directly NW of Ireland. Greenland is about right now but Iceland still needs to be shifted about 4-5 tiles west to be closer to it, while the Faroes should be a bit south of where we have it, closer to Scotland. I've shifted them accordingly to reflect that. (As in the screenshots below). The attached map shows what I was trying to depict.

Even that's not really right yet but you're welcome to fix it.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

The problem I have with the placement is that Iceland is 800+ miles (sorry, non-English unit-using world!) from Scotland, which is roughly the same distance from Glasgow to Munich. That's a long way. The thing on the edge of the map which has been repurposed as Greenland was intended to be Iceland - that side of Greenland was uninhabited/uninhabitable during the period of the mod.

I'll try to work out some sort of middle ground, but it's going to be pretty far west to accurately represent the distance.

 

Possible changes to Iberia/France. Feedback is encouraged and appreciated.

 

Seems nice. I will disagree to coastal Seville, and replace Badajoz by (more era-significant) Merida (and perhaps move Cordoba (and its river) 1N.
Anyway, this is just a template, not a playable map!
Amount of changes needed: City name and settler maps (poor me ), and starting coordinates/spawn areas for indies/Spain/Cordoba/Portugal

 

I've been looking through the civpedia and it seems coal doesn't actually do anything currently except a 5% boost to the blacksmith. I think it does need to do more considering the surge of importance for coal in the 1700s, which is well within the mod remit.

I think we should probably enable a function or two - my suggestions are:
a) have access give +25% production with each Industrial Revolution tech, thus giving an advantage to bee-lining for IR
b) Change the textile mill (currently the highest tech production building) to not requiring sheep to build, but instead needing to be on a river or having access to coal, an extra 10% production boost for coal, and given a commerce precentage bonus for Cotton, Sheep and Dye (none of which have a commerce multipler yet I think).
c) A factory building with machine tools that requires coal and gives a 25% production boost.

I think a and b are the better though .

 

Oh, the city tags are just there for markers - so you can see where some cities might be located. They're not intended as cities-to-be-added.

As you're the one who would redo most of the arrays, do you feel like this is a good idea or not? As you said, this is just a template - I can do more with it, but it's going to take a lot of work on both of our part.

 

I personally have no problem, since I am already reworking the Cordoban maps, so it is job on both cases. Of course it would be easier, if someone explained me how to convert WBS to BMP, in order to better work with the CityNameHelper

 

I'll agree with you on the need to increase the importance of coal. Here's what I think about changes:


-We kept coal as a resource for its role not just in the Industrial Revolution, but for its use in steel production.
-While it's probably unreasonable to make coal a requirement for the production of heavily armored units (knights, macemen, etc.), it does seem reasonable to make it a requirement to build some units.
-While artillery could be made of brass or cast iron, individual firearms would have to be made of steel. Charcoal is capable of burning hot enough to work steel, but coal was used in many locations (particularly those where charcoal was in short supply, or where coal was readily available) to work steel on a large scale.
-Coal wasn't an important trade commodity during the Dark Ages, but was used as a fuel (to heat public baths and homes, and for smelting purposes) during the Roman era, and in the later Medieval period. It's probably not appropriate to have coal visible from the very start of the mod, but it's also disingenuous to have it appear only as we near the industrial era.

What I'd suggest is to make coal visible with the discovery of gunpowder, or somewhere around then. While I'm not sure we'd want it as a requirement to build all gunpowder units, it makes sense to increase its importance as a historical resource by making it a prerequisite for some later units. We have timber as a requirement for large ships, and sulfur as a requirement for firearms - why not make coal a requirement for gunpowder-based artillery? Alternately, we could have it become visible with flintlock, and require it as a prerequisite for more advanced firearms.


I like suggestion b on the textile mill. Sheep have a commerce bonus with the butcher, but cotton and dye aren't tied to any specific building. We could also make textile mills require access to both sheep and coal, which would make them slightly harder to build.

 

The only way that I know of is to zoom and take a screenshot.

You may also consider editing My Games\Beyond the Sword\CivilizationIV.ini, change the line
FullScreen = 1
to
FullScreen = 0
The game now will work in windowed mode and you can very easily switch back and forth between civ and another program (and even show both of them at the same time).

 

Not exactly what I thought of, but it will be useful as well. Thanks anyway.

 

I'd rather keep the tilted version. The beauty of the current, tilted map is that it looks very realistic because it is a piece of a world map, in stead of a map with just Europe, which is IMO the thing that makes the map look more professional than other maps. It seems a little strange to me that we have to sacrifice this to make it easier to get a consensus on the settler maps, doesn't it? I think it would be much easier if someone draws the current country borders with the strategy layer.

 

Ok, we have one vote in favor of redoing Iberia and two votes in favor of keeping it the way it is. Other opinions?

 

As it seems a lot of work for what is essentially only an aesthetic gain I side with Wessel VI and vote to keep it as it is. We probably need other map changes more urgently.

 

I second that, it is not a matter of Iberia being "wrong" just a different way of right.

 

Ok. I'll keep it as is, and go with the other set of revisions I was planning to do. Depending on the aesthetics of it, this may include making the Sevilla tile coastal - we'll see what it looks like.


Can we move Cordoba 1 tile E?