RFC Europe map development thread

[Zipzapzup]

Ok ladies and gentlemen, here you have some pictures of the spawning areas. Its just a propose so feel free to comment it.

Notes to the Pictures:

#1: Where is the new starting point?

#2: I think France shall start with Paris as starting point, but i don't know where exactly i shall place it.

#3: I'm a bit unhappy with the german starting location, so please tell me a better one. Futhermore the question is how big the core areas shall be? are they to big or to small?

#4: I got 2 versions of the core areas of the andalus, because i didnt know how much influence they shall have when they spawn

#5: Shall sweden get the whole landmass of todays sweden?

 

[st.lucifer]

Ok ladies and gentlemen, here you have some pictures of the spawning areas. Its just a propose so feel free to comment it.

Notes to the Pictures:

#1: Where is the new starting point?

#2: I think France shall start with Paris as starting point, but i don't know where exactly i shall place it.

#3: I'm a bit unhappy with the german starting location, so please tell me a better one. Futhermore the question is how big the core areas shall be? are they to big or to small?

#4: I got 2 versions of the core areas of the andalus, because i didnt know how much influence they shall have when they spawn

#5: Shall sweden get the whole landmass of todays sweden?

I approve. Give me this coming weekend, and I'll finish up the map - and I'll try to put in a suitable German starting point in your new spawning area. I think that your core areas are generally fine, although I might shrink Portugal's so that it doesn't go quite as far south. The smaller area for al-Andalus is probably appropriate - remember that we're giving them a flip area in N. Africa, too. For Sweden, how about everything north of Kalmar? They should have a strong preference for the Malmo area/southern tip, but I worry about cutting the heart out of the Norse areas.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Ok ladies and gentlemen, here you have some pictures of the spawning areas. Its just a propose so feel free to comment it.

Notes to the Pictures:

#1: Where is the new starting point?

I'd put it one SE of its current location, though I'm open to arguments against (its just that the current location is dead wrong). The England core should be 5 shorter in the west and extend 2 further north.

#2: I think France shall start with Paris as starting point, but i don't know where exactly i shall place it.

#3: I'm a bit unhappy with the german starting location, so please tell me a better one. Futhermore the question is how big the core areas shall be? are they to big or to small?

If its germany-as-Austrasia, then the capital should be Koln with areas as here. Also answering the french question .



I think the sizes are about right.

The germany starting location is flat out silly, so I see why you're unhappy (what you have there is Brandenbergs core region ). There are many arguments for what the capital should be, but personally I prefer Koln or Frankfurt.

#4: I got 2 versions of the core areas of the andalus, because i didnt know how much influence they shall have when they spawn

I like the one you have here :shrug:

#5: Shall sweden get the whole landmass of todays sweden?

Nearly, it shouldn't get the southernmost 3 rows of tiles (Scania, historically danish, needs to be conquered).

@St. Lucifer, opinions on my redone england and wales?

 

[st.lucifer]

If its germany-as-Austrasia, then the capital should be Koln with areas as here. Also answering the french question .



I think the sizes are about right.

The germany starting location is flat out silly, so I see why you're unhappy (what you have there is Brandenbergs core region ). There are many arguments for what the capital should be, but personally I prefer Koln or Frankfurt.

I had Germany starting in Brandenburg for balance over historical accuracy. If we can move the core area to center around Frankfurt, leaving some of that buffer zone unclaimed, I'd be more comfortable with that than having them start in Koln. While it's historically accurate that Germany, France, and Burgundy should constantly be warring over that area, it would be better if there was a little more space for it to happen. But I am in agreement that Brandenburg is a bad starting spot - I just threw it out there when making the map, to try and give the AI civs some space.

Nearly, it shouldn't get the southernmost 3 rows of tiles (Scania, historically danish, needs to be conquered).

@St. Lucifer, opinions on my redone england and wales?

I agree on Scania - that's what I meant by everything south of Kalmar. I may be a bit off on the spacing there.

I like some of what you've done with England/Wales, but I feel like it's way too resource-heavy - I'm going to take out some of the sheep and some of the coal. Is there actually gold in Wales? Silver is usually the byproduct of lead, tin, and zinc deposits, which Wales and Cornwall are famous for, so that was my rationale there. I'm fine with the change to moorland (although I'm going to have to find some way to represent it besides tundra - I may use snow as a placeholder) - proposed stats on it? Like plains, but movement cost of 2, defense bonus of 50%, no irrigation?

 

[Disenfrancised]

My early post was done concurrently with yours St. L .

I had Germany starting in Brandenburg for balance over historical accuracy. If we can move the core area to center around Frankfurt, leaving some of that buffer zone unclaimed, I'd be more comfortable with that than having them start in Koln. While it's historically accurate that Germany, France, and Burgundy should constantly be warring over that area, it would be better if there was a little more space for it to happen. But I am in agreement that Brandenburg is a bad starting spot - I just threw it out there when making the map, to try and give the AI civs some space.

Well its up to you, personally if one of them managed to conquer the others and then collapse whilst the conquered respawn I'd consider that an optimal outcome .

I like some of what you've done with England/Wales, but I feel like it's way too resource-heavy - I'm going to take out some of the sheep and some of the coal.

Well if you consider that Coal is comeing quite late, its actually somewhat resource poor with only 2 happy resources and a few food resources. Besides England needs something production wise to compete with the continent (not population though) . Plus britain was a huge wool and coal exporter.

Is there actually gold in Wales? Silver is usually the byproduct of lead, tin, and zinc deposits, which Wales and Cornwall are famous for, so that was my rationale there.

Yes, It was important from roman times till the 1990s when it got mined out. There is silver is several locations in the UK, but I think only one of the two metals should be in the UK (for balance), and gold is easier to place.

I'm fine with the change to moorland (although I'm going to have to find some way to represent it besides tundra - I may use snow as a placeholder) - proposed stats on it? Like plains, but movement cost of 2, defense bonus of 50%, no irrigation?

I was thinking just like plains but can't be irrigated/no bonus for irrigation (so it can still be used for irrigation chains), no need for a defence bonus greater than tundra as it will oftentimes be with hills and forests.

 

[Zipzapzup]

I approve. Give me this coming weekend, and I'll finish up the map [...]

Can you perhaps place also the independent cities we have agreed to on the map?

The problem i got right now is, that the most cities and capitals already existed before the game starts, so the civs shall start with these cities build or shall they found them like in original rfc?

What is about the Byzantium Empire, all the greek cities, egypt and the middle east?

 

[st.lucifer]

Can you perhaps place also the independent cities we have agreed to on the map?

The problem i got right now is, that the most cities and capitals already existed before the game starts, so the civs shall start with these cities build or shall they found them like in original rfc?

What is about the Byzantium Empire, all the greek cities, egypt and the middle east?

That's going to be the hardest part. The initial independent cities that I placed were those that I thought would be around in the 500 AD start - but some of those don't make sense at that time period, and obviously there are a lot missing. I'll put as many in as I can (with start dates) but it may take another iteration or two of the map to get them all right.

Does anybody know how to add and remove resources and terrains, or to add graphics for them? I'd like to try and set up resources, swamps, moors, and taiga as long as I'm tweaking the map.

 

[jessiecat]

Ok ladies and gentlemen, here you have some pictures of the spawning areas. Its just a propose so feel free to comment it.

Notes to the Pictures:

#1: Where is the new starting point?

#2: I think France shall start with Paris as starting point, but i don't know where exactly i shall place it.

#3: I'm a bit unhappy with the german starting location, so please tell me a better one. Futhermore the question is how big the core areas shall be? are they to big or to small?

#4: I got 2 versions of the core areas of the andalus, because i didnt know how much influence they shall have when they spawn

#5: Shall sweden get the whole landmass of todays sweden?

IMO both the France and the Burgundy starts should each
be 2 squares east and the Germany start 2 squares south.
Also Leon to start 1 sq. NE and Barcino 2sq. West.

Also, what is that alt. Spain start? That doesn't happen in history.
Madrid was est. as capitol in the 1600's, long after unification.
That should be labelled as Toledo, the Visigoth capitol,
which Al Andalus will have as it's first conquest.
You should also place Valencia down the coast from Barcino.
That should be it's second conquest.

 

[Jaja]

Since the only thing I really have any real knowledge about is my native Sweden, I'm gonna add some more concerning it.

Sweden: This is Kalmar, which is where I think we'll have the Swedes spawn: http://www.civicheraldry.com/page/2858

(from the code-thread)

I'd kinda not want that. Kalmar was never the capital of Sweden, nor for the pre-unificationary semi-states the geats and the swedes (suiones).
The capitals were really just first Uppsala and then todays Stockholm. As you can see on the map, Kalmar is way off from those positions. If Sweden is going to colonize both Finland and Norrland ("lapland") there might be stability problems in having the capital so far away from all the other cities.
Also, it's close to the area that won't flip to Sweden, in Scania. About that, I'm down with this map 'cept you'd maybe want to give sweden the northeastern and 1s of the northeastern tile too.

My suggestion for capital is just plain Stockholm. Making it first Uppsala is just messy and unnecessary since they are so close to each other.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Since the only thing I really have any real knowledge about is my native Sweden, I'm gonna add some more concerning it.


(from the code-thread)

I'd kinda not want that. Kalmar was never the capital of Sweden, nor for the pre-unificationary semi-states the geats and the swedes (suiones).
The capitals were really just first Uppsala and then todays Stockholm. As you can see on the map, Kalmar is way off from those positions. If Sweden is going to colonize both Finland and Norrland ("lapland") there might be stability problems in having the capital so far away from all the other cities.
Also, it's close to the area that won't flip to Sweden, in Scania. About that, I'm down with this map 'cept you'd maybe want to give sweden the northeastern and 1s of the northeastern tile too.

My suggestion for capital is just plain Stockholm. Making it first Uppsala is just messy and unnecessary since they are so close to each other.

I agree - who's talking about making it Kalmar?

 

[ecv]

I suggest to change the Denmark area to something like this:



Notice the added tile in Scania as well. I havent considered exactly where to put bonus tiles, but a cow or two and a pig would perhaps be fitting - a couple of 1 tile rivers might be as well.

 

[st.lucifer]

Latest update to map!



Lots of changes - possibly too many, but I think that most of these are improvements.

-Corrected some coastlines - made a more accurate England, Denmark; minor changes to France, Sweden, Norway, Spain?
-Corrected a few rivers; added one in Denmark
-Corrected starting locations (may not be perfect, but are hopefully close)
-Added marshes (represented here with jungle) in many areas
-Added unchoppable forest (represented here with snow-covered forest) in many areas
-Added moorland (represented here with ice) to much of the British Isles. It should probably be added to other places as well. I may have overdone it a bit.
-Added part of Iceland, with whale and ivory resources. Remember that elephants are disabled, and that ivory is going to cover both elephant and walrus ivory - I'm going to have to find a new graphic to go in the resource file. This is also why there are elephants in Norway and the Orkneys.
-Separated the Canaries/Azores from Africa by changing coast to ocean.
-Made Sweden, N. Africa, and parts of Russia much less city-friendly. This may not be 100% accurate, but it's done in the name of gameplay balance - and even then, it may not be enough.
-Removed extraneous resources. Reshuffled a few existing ones. Almost all resource placements are temporary and subject to change, but they're generally in the area that I think they should be.
-Added several independent cities - some with dates. Dates, in many cases, are a little later than the cities were actually founded - this is intentional, to prevent significant independent development before they flip or are conquered. Independent cities without dates are presumed to be present in 500 AD, although some of them shouldn't be. If anyone wants to correct them, please do. Some independents may be a tile or two off from where they should be on the map (Meknes comes to mind) - this is mostly for spacing and playability over accuracy. I'm open to changing them, but I'd rather avoid RFC Scandinavia situations with 12 cities in a small, unproductive area.

We're not done yet, especially in terms of resource placement, but this should be a better map to work from.

 

[jessiecat]

Latest update to map!



Lots of changes - possibly too many, but I think that most of these are improvements.

-Corrected some coastlines - made a more accurate England, Denmark; minor changes to France, Sweden, Norway, Spain?
-Corrected a few rivers; added one in Denmark
-Corrected starting locations (may not be perfect, but are hopefully close)
-Added marshes (represented here with jungle) in many areas
-Added unchoppable forest (represented here with snow-covered forest) in many areas
-Added moorland (represented here with ice) to much of the British Isles. It should probably be added to other places as well. I may have overdone it a bit.
-Added part of Iceland, with whale and ivory resources. Remember that elephants are disabled, and that ivory is going to cover both elephant and walrus ivory - I'm going to have to find a new graphic to go in the resource file. This is also why there are elephants in Norway and the Orkneys.
-Separated the Canaries/Azores from Africa by changing coast to ocean.
-Made Sweden, N. Africa, and parts of Russia much less city-friendly. This may not be 100% accurate, but it's done in the name of gameplay balance - and even then, it may not be enough.
-Removed extraneous resources. Reshuffled a few existing ones. Almost all resource placements are temporary and subject to change, but they're generally in the area that I think they should be.
-Added several independent cities - some with dates. Dates, in many cases, are a little later than the cities were actually founded - this is intentional, to prevent significant independent development before they flip or are conquered. Independent cities without dates are presumed to be present in 500 AD, although some of them shouldn't be. If anyone wants to correct them, please do. Some independents may be a tile or two off from where they should be on the map (Meknes comes to mind) - this is mostly for spacing and playability over accuracy. I'm open to changing them, but I'd rather avoid RFC Scandinavia situations with 12 cities in a small, unproductive area.

We're not done yet, especially in terms of resource placement, but this should be a better map to work from.

Thanks for the new map. Looks pretty good, though like you say, there are
some cities that probably need moving a square or two. Hope you don't mind
me making a couple of suggestions, mostly to Spain which I'm most famililiar with.

1) Barcino to move 1 sq west, on the hill.
2) Zaragoza to move 1 sq NW
3) Toledo to move 1 sq west
4) I think you need Badajoz, important independent,
should be about 3 sq sw of Toledo
The rest, incl. those in Morocco, look about right to me.
5) Where's Mecca? Surely the Arabs start there?
6) I think Caen in Normandy should be Rouen, the Norman capitol
7) There's a really big gap west of Antioch. No city there?
8) Also west of Alexandria, Maybe Benghazi in that gap
9) Last but not least:
As you know, I live in Cornwall, on the south coast.
Why haven't we been told about our Ice Age?
I have strong objections to depicting the whole area as Arctic hills.
There's only one tiny moor around here, called Bodmin Moor.
(Maybe you've heard of Jamaica Inn by Daphne De Maurier)
It wouldn't fill half a square on your map.. Anyway, the rest of
Cornwall and Devon too, is lush green hills, not moorland.
Even Dartmoor in Devon is green wit rocks and bogs.
It NEVER freezes here! What do you think those sheep are eating anyway?
Snow? The same goes for Wales as well. OK, maybe one mountain
square in the North for Snowdonia, but no more.
I wouldn't wish that tundra even on a Welshman.
"How green was my valley"? Not on your map!
Even Scotland isn't covered by icy tundra, either, in real life.
Scrubby bracken, hills, woods and a couple of mountain
squares in the Highlands, maybe?

OK, I've had my rant. But seriously, depicting warm, wet, green hills and
scrub-covered moorland as barren icy hills is totally flawed. There has
to be another way. What's wrong with grassy hills like they are in real life?
You really gave me a shock there when I saw where I live transferred
to the Arctic. And to think they call our coast the Cornish Riviera!

 

[st.lucifer]

stupid lag.

 

[st.lucifer]

*smacks forehead in frustration*


I used ice to represent moorland because I didn't have another terrain available that wasn't spoken for. I suppose I could have used fallout instead, but that didn't seem appropriate either. I'm not sure how to add the additional terrain type which we're going to use to represent moors, and I'm not sure that I could add it without making everyone install the whole modpack just to look at the damn thing. Yes, I'm aware that moors are not frozen tundra, just as I hope that you are aware that Karelia or the Netherlands are not covered with lush, Amazonian rainforest. I agree that the ice looks ugly - but people complained of inaccuracy when I used the much more reasonable plains, so I did this to avoid confusion. Clearly, that didn't work.

While I may make more than my share of mistakes, please give me a little bit of credit - I've come this far, so obviously I'm not completely ******ed. If I do go down that path, I'll be sure to make my very own mod - RFC British Ice Age.

Hmph.

 

[st.lucifer]

I will now demonstrate my superior intelligence by posting the same thing three times in two minutes.

 

[jessiecat]

stupid lag.

I'm sorry if I've caught you in a sensitive mode. It wasn't my intention to be
overcritical. And I am aware of the work you're putting into this. It is much
appreciated. Why do you think we all wanted you to coordinate?

I understand your frustration at the terrain types available. And yes, some
people jumped on you for using plains terrain. But let me try to be helpful
here. IMHO you could get away with grassy hills, some forested esp in
Scotland. Selected moors, Bodmin, Dartmoor, Scottish Highlands etc. could
be represented by rocky outcrops. We can do rocks, can't we?

The reason I go for grassy hills, esp in the Southwest and Wales, is that they
need to be food productive. In my own area, Cornwall, yes it is hilly but very
wet, so they are very green and are covered with very productive farms.
It would make more sense to make these areas hilly but food-rich.

I replied to your map with suggestions which I hope you welcome. If I can
help in areas where I have some knowledge, then I hope that help is
appreciated. I also have other things I could be doing. But, like you, I am
very interested in this project. If that's OK by you.


BTW I've just been looking at the map again in Worldbuilder. Couldn't we
get away with hills? They produce 1 food, don't they? For more extreme
areas of selected moorland just a tundra square. OK?

 

[Úmarth]

On a lighter note, an Ice Age mod would be cool.

...no pun intended.

 

[st.lucifer]

I'm sorry if I've caught you in a sensitive mode. It wasn't my intention to be
overcritical. And I am aware of the work you're putting into this. It is much
appreciated. Why do you think we all wanted you to coordinate?

I understand your frustration at the terrain types available. And yes, some
people jumped on you for using plains terrain. But let me try to be helpful
here. IMHO you could get away with grassy hills, some forested esp in
Scotland. Selected moors, Bodmin, Dartmoor, Scottish Highlands etc. could
be represented by rocky outcrops. We can do rocks, can't we?

The reason I go for grassy hills, esp in the Southwest and Wales, is that they
need to be food productive. In my own area, Cornwall, yes it is hilly but very
wet, so they are very green and are covered with very productive farms.
It would make more sense to make these areas hilly but food-rich.

I replied to your map with suggestions which I hope you welcome. If I can
help in areas where I have some knowledge, then I hope that help is
appreciated. I also have other things I could be doing. But, like you, I am
very interested in this project. If that's OK by you.

My point was that I'm using the ice as a stand-in for the moor terrain for now. I'm fine with changing some of that back to grass, and if you can show me which squares should be higher production, I'll be happy to change them. I think we had decided that the moor terrain would have the same stats as plains but would gain no bonuses from irrigation.

I'm sorry if I come off as overly sensitive. I just didn't expect anyone to take the map so literally - I initially stayed away from the ice because of the jarring visual effect, but I couldn't think of anything else to use as a stand-in and I figured that at the very least, it would be easy to find and replace it once we had the new terrain added. I'm not mad, just frustrated.

I do welcome your suggestions and input, and I'll probably make some of the adjustments for cities that you suggested.

 

[Úmarth]

I have a suggestion for an independent city: Eboracum/Jorvik/York (in the north of England). It's a Roman city, was capital of Britannia Inferior. Then it was the main city in the Dark Age kingdom of Northumbria and the capital of the Danelaw and continued to be England's second city right up until the civil war.

Does anybody know how to add and remove resources and terrains, or to add graphics for them? I'd like to try and set up resources, swamps, moors, and taiga as long as I'm tweaking the map.

I suspect its a dll thing, that put together with what you pointed out - that it would involve everyone installing a small useless mod - makes me thing that it's probably best left to the very end.

Perhaps you could add notes to the map pointing out which terrains represent which to clear up any confusion?