So since this is the map-thread, I figured this goes here.
I have looked at the map (proto-europe) and fixed around with sweden. What we imagined will be taiga is now jungle.
Okay, alright. The pics' too big and the north isn't even in it. Well. It ain't mine fault some friggin' hackers took down my uploading site because "if you have bad security, blame yourself". Dang. The north looks just the same anyway. Jungle on tundra.
What I have done is that I have added the lake Mälaren and the river that floats through Stockholm and taken away the one to the south (?), cos I'd hate it really if that river went to Vänern instead. H'anyway. I also made Gotland a real island and not just a totally worthless dot that's just there for... idonnu. Something. It's very possible that it's to big now, but I wanted it worthy of settling. I also moved the wheat north so as to make Stockholm kinda hotter (idonnu, it will probably be super-huge know, but it's just an extreme). I added a plain to the area in the southwest so as to make the landscape look less... green. Ah well. I also replaced a stone with a coal in the north. That north might need a nerf, idonnu. Couldn't clearly see all the minerals due to the forest/jungle, but it looked like ALOT. Whilst iron is realistic, alot of it is called for I think, gems isn't. Neither is stone really. Sweden is unlikely to pursue wonders due to it's late spawn.
Not also that any norse city in Scania shouldn't flip. Sweden didn't capture that til... when was it? Middle 1600th somewhere? Ah well.
I am aware of the extreme scetchyness of the rivers and so on, but this is just a idea for you guys to see what I'm about.
That's really all. Can't put up a save right now, really tired. Will do tomorrow (friday, night to saturday to americans?).
No, not really. But the question is how useful is it to place coal on the map, because if the szenario ends in 1800 there is no real industrial coal mining isnt it?
Surely there were coal diging but no real mining?
Okay had a look (won't upload a save as I lack BtS)
Major Points
1)There are far too many plains in the north, I think we need a northern plains/moorland graphic to make it more visually appealing (Scotland for one should not be orange ).
2) Not enough forests, northern europe was pretty much comprehensively covered at the begining of this period, which leads me onto point 3.
3) We really need to reduce the hammer yeild from chopping in the mod (perhaps down to only 5?)
4) Since there is a big lump of space, why not put Iceland (with whales and fish and not much else in), to give an impetus to develop astronomy.
5) Again as an impetus to astronomy there should probably be an ocean gap between the canaries and africa to prevent early gain of sugar.
The oil and uranium will be going, too. I haven't bothered to take them out yet as we haven't gotten the new resources in, but I'd really like to get the new resources in (and the old ones out) and work from there. I'd think that all of our resources are going to need re-examining, and many of them will be redone.Okay had a look (won't upload a save as I lack BtS)
Minor Points
1) You probably want to remove the oil and uranium more than the coal eh?
2) Is corn a placeholder for something?
1. That is a neat idea - I'm not sure if it's workable in the space we've got, but I like it.Okay had a look (won't upload a save as I lack BtS)Geography Minor points/ideas/quibbles
1)Wouldn't it be cool if we put venice starting on a little spur with only marsh as ajoining land tiles - making it only attackable from the sea (though armies can raze its productive region)?
2) There should be more marsh around where St.Petersburg is, Guyenne, and ireland.
3) The west coast of ireland (aka one of the wettest places in europe) being plains amuses me quite a bit, ditto plains in denmark).
4) the Carpathans should probably be thickened so they present an actual obsticle .
5) Northern germany should have more forest, marsh and the odd unchoppable forest.
6) Is making Sjaelland an actual island a bad idea? especially if the vikings get a galley when they spawn?
7)North Africa does seem really productive - those berber hordes are going to have to be nasty.
1: I'd be fine with that; I was mostly trying to simulate reduced food production, and plains fits that best. Actually, I remember Scotland as being a sort of dirty yellow/brown (and gray) color, but that might just be from tramping around the highlands looking at rocks. I'm sure that doesn't apply to everywhere.
2-3: Adding some more forest would be fine, but at the risk of historical inaccuracy, I don't think that covering 80% of N. Europe with forest is a good idea - I agree that reducing the chop bonus is a good plan, but think of the ramifications for defending armies, movement, etc. Arguably, movement should be slower in many of those areas (except river tiles - anyone want to go back to the CivII system? ) - but I'm hesitant to turn the whole area into the equivalent of Russia.
4-5: Good point on the Azores, I'll fix that. I ended up adding in Iceland (or at least, half of iceland) in the games I played with the map, and had intended to add it here.
The oil and uranium will be going, too. I haven't bothered to take them out yet as we haven't gotten the new resources in, but I'd really like to get the new resources in (and the old ones out) and work from there. I'd think that all of our resources are going to need re-examining, and many of them will be redone.
I believe I was using corn as a placeholder for barley. Certainly, corn itself has no place here.
1. That is a neat idea - I'm not sure if it's workable in the space we've got, but I like it.
2-3. I had planned to add a bunch of marsh to Karelia/Finland and some to Ireland, but wasn't sure where to put them in Germany. If you'd like to be in charge of marsh placement, go for it - I had a hard time finding terrain maps that showed me what I was looking for. Some of Ireland was changed to plains to prevent it from supporting such a large population; this can be achieved with marsh instead.
4-5: Agreed.
6: I played around with that while creating the map, and actually considered attaching it to Sweden rather than Denmark (since the strait is so much narrower on that side), but ultimately decided against it.
7: North Africa and Scandinavia are still in desperate need of nerfing. This isn't a finished product. This doesn't mean that I'm opposed to the Berber hordes being nasty- that wasn't exactly the most stable area in the world.
Resources addressed later - we're going to have to rearrange a lot of them.
The map is still great. But I still don't get the point of the huge ocean and the great chunk of desert. There is no reason to go there, to explore, to settle, nothing
Yep, unfortunately the constraints of having a square map in civ mean you have to have the spacefilling ocean and desert (the desert at least gives a place for barbarians to spawn).
@Jessiecat:
Yes but under the 'wooded hill' should not be plains tiles, but a cold grassland/moorland type of terrain. Also I'm not sure about northern germany being comprehensively cleared at the start of the mod.
But there isn't any taiga there. Seeing as these woods wouldn't be choppable until Biology, by some the future tech of the mod, at least I wouldn't want to be to generous with them. As of my own map, I see about 4 good city-placements in non-taiga Sweden. Stockholm, Malmo (ö), one rougly in Kalmars place site south of the cows on the east coast and Gothenburg 1s or 2s of the west-cows.Instead of the rather unrealistic plains, there should be some taiga forests in the middle of sweden below the lakes as well.
But there isn't any taiga there. Seeing as these woods wouldn't be choppable until Biology, by some the future tech of the mod, at least I wouldn't want to be to generous with them. As of my own map, I see about 4 good city-placements in non-taiga Sweden. Stockholm, Malmo (ö), one rougly in Kalmars place site south of the cows on the east coast and Gothenburg 1s or 2s of the west-cows.
There is no real taiga south of the lakes Vätten, Vänern and Mälaren. Believe me on this one, I have been there.
Uhm. What about cutting some tiles in the west (taking away Canarias and Azores), and place them in place of the desert (with water of course). We would not have tons of ocean and would look like the europeans map on paper with Iceland pasted closer in a square
All right, we'll keep coal. Should coal be a resource requirement for steel-based armaments? (late-game only)
St. Lucifer - cities that existed from 500 onward in North Africa:
Carthaginian/Roman Tarabulus became today's Tripoli, Libya. It might be too close to Sabrat, though...
Also, maybe too close to Fez: Tanger (Carthaginian) became Tangier(s), Morocco.
If I notice others, I'll let you know.
Oui: Artillary/late cannon, and the last tier of ships perhaps?
Ideas for a reworked England and Wales
Spoiler :
Okay, just going through and changing some stuff:
1)The Marshland wasn't in the correct place, East anglia is boggy yes, but its also very productive and far dryer than the Wash.
2) Added the Thames (london appearing to start on the Ouse in the old one ) and Tyne. I think the Avon may have been altered by accident (both work)
3) The tundra is a placehold for Moorland
4)Added the lack district as hills and put stone there
5) Resource placement: Agriculture resources in the southeast, iron and coal in historically correct locations. Proposed some places for wool (there may be a lot but it is one of only 2 happiness resources. Put some fish by liverpool, gold in wales is more accurate than silver.
6) Suggested some places for independents.
Good ideas/bad ideas? Ireland tomorrow .