RFC Europe map development thread

[jessiecat]

In the past I have looked at Rhye's settler map and understood it, I figured out how to change it and stuff, but that's about it. I am totally clueless when it comes to creating a new one for a new, different sized, map. Hopefully some know-it-all shows up pretty soon, unless s/he already has and I missed it.
What's truly novel about Rhye's for me is this settler map. It is definitely my favorite part (although trust me, there are a thousand things tied for a close second).



You've got me convinced that Beograd is probably a better idea than Budapest, but maybe you might consider Pécs? It is one of the oldest cities in Hungary, and it's pretty far south. If you really won't hear any words for cities in Hungary, though, I can deal with Beograd. The Serbs were supposed, however, (per Wikipedia) to have lived in Beograd 200 years before the Magyars crossed the Carpathians. Yet, as you've said, they will not be represented in the game, and will be settled by Hungary (or maybe someone else?) every time. No use delaying the inevitable, right?



You're right, I can see, as I have a map of the Roman Empire right on my wall (I should really have looked before I asked...). A pity; kind of makes it a worse city. Anyway, I'll attach an update.

I've also got some more work done. I split up all of the cities into the civs from the other thread (except for Papal States, Venice, and Genoa). The aforementioned three didn't work because I couldn't have more than 18 civs without the game crashing. I don't know why, but I'm not expert so the reason is probably obvious. Anyway, I added the 18 civs to the just land map, too, as long as I had had the codes written up. The only real use of these is it helps to visualize, so that's their basic purpose.
I hope you find great uses for them!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/118076/R_FoE.rar

Welcome to the project. Fantastic, all the work you've done.

Just a word about the Serbs though. Yes they were there long before
the Hungarians turned up, as early as the 6th. century according to
Byzantine reports. The first Serbian kingdom controlled all the land
south of Belgrade including much of Croatia from 812AD. The Avars had
the whole Carpathian basin to the north of the Danube until they were
replaced by the Magyars. In fact the first king of Hungary, Stephen I, was
only crowned in 1000AD. The Serbian kingdom was always under pressure
from them from the start and hemmed in by the Bulgars to the east but it
did manage to survive until defeated by the Ottomans in the 1400's.
So the Serbs were there long before the Magyars (sorry, st.lucifer )

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

The most important centre of power in early Hungary was probably Esztergom.

This is definitely true. However, the whole reason we are avoiding Buda(pest) is because it is too close to Wien, right? And Esztergom is even farther north, almost exactly the same distance from Wien. It would be an obvious choice, but strategy-wise it'd kind of limit the Austrians.

That's fantastic Zavoevatell! I can begin putting this information into CityNameManager.py

Oh! This is wonderful news! You will have to tell me how to do this some time, as I'd love to help. If you have spaces you want me to fill, just say so, because if neccessary I can put a city on every square! Except for North Africa, that is, and it would require a lot of doubles. But no matter! It's seriously a lot more fun than writing English essays!

Also, D. Zavoevatell is short for Dzheremi Zavoyevatel', or 'Jeremy the Conqueror'. So feel free to call me Jeremy!

Welcome to the project. Fantastic, all the work you've done.

Thank you I could certainly tell you all the same...

Just a word about the Serbs though. Yes they were there long before
the Hungarians turned up, as early as the 6th. century according to
Byzantine reports. The first Serbian kingdom controlled all the land
south of Belgrade including much of Croatia from 812AD. The Avars had
the whole Carpathian basin to the north of the Danube until they were
replaced by the Magyars. In fact the first king of Hungary, Stephen I, was
only crowned in 1000AD. The Serbian kingdom was always under pressure
from them from the start and hemmed in by the Bulgars to the east but it
did manage to survive until defeated by the Ottomans in the 1400's.
So the Serbs were there long before the Magyars (sorry, st.lucifer )

It is nice to hear an explanation and have all those questions answered, it is. This leaves us, though, in the dilemma of finding a starting location for Hungary. We don't want them to flip a ton of Austria's cities, and vice-versa, but all of the centers of Hungarian civilization (as I've been told, that is) are up in the north: Esztergom, Buda(pest), Székesfehérvár, &c.. I really have no idea what the solution is/will be.

 

[Zipzapzup]

Oh a new contributor, welcome on board.

Your map is amazing and i'm quite happy with most of the locations but i have got some troubles with a few spots in Germany (I'm german, so its the country i have the most knowledge about ).

I would place Bremen one square south and make the old location water, which is more accurate in point of view. Futhermore Hannover would be southeast of its old location. I'm missing cities in the middle of Germany which is "quite" empty on your map. Perhaps you can add some like Kassel, Würzburg or Erfurt there.

 

[Úmarth]

Oh! This is wonderful news! You will have to tell me how to do this some time, as I'd love to help. If you have spaces you want me to fill, just say so, because if neccessary I can put a city on every square! Except for North Africa, that is, and it would require a lot of doubles. But no matter! It's seriously a lot more fun than writing English essays!

The way it works is very straightforward: each civ has a huge grid in RFC\Assets\Python\CityNameManager.py which corresponds to the tiles on the map, with the names of their cities (and any cities they're likely to expand into) on every tile. If the tile does not have a name associated with it but the civ founds a city there the normal civ system of naming is used, going through a list regardless of location, so obviously the more tiles have names the better. City names can double up (they do in RFC) but if you have the same name on two non-adjacent tiles then theoretically you could have two civs with the same name, which is bad.

Cities can also be renamed on a certain turn or if a certain civ conquers it. If a civ conquers a city which has been founded by another civ but its included in their map it gets renamed to "their" version, otherwise it retains the original version.

You could do this manually in notepad, but I think it would be cumbersome so I was planning to write a simple utility that would generate the grids from a list of cities and coordinates.

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

I have got some troubles with a few spots in Germany (I'm german, so its the country i have the most knowledge about ).

I would place Bremen one square south and make the old location water, which is more accurate in point of view. Futhermore Hannover would be southeast of its old location. I'm missing cities in the middle of Germany which is "quite" empty on your map. Perhaps you can add some like Kassel, Würzburg or Erfurt there.

Okay! So I took most of your advice. I moved Bremen and added the coast as you suggested, and moved Regensburg (you'll see ) and Hannover. I added Brauschweig, Wittenberge, Erfurt, Kassel, Würzburg, Stuttgart, Ulm, and a second location for München, as well as Linz in Austria. Tell me if you disagree with any of the placements. In the process I accidentally deleted a part of the Donau, so I had to redo it. I think I got it back to the original, but if it's not, then I apologize.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/118076/VersionD.rar

The way it works is very straightforward: each civ has a huge grid in RFC\Assets\Python\CityNameManager.py which corresponds to the tiles on the map, with the names of their cities (and any cities they're likely to expand into) on every tile. If the tile does not have a name associated with it but the civ founds a city there the normal civ system of naming is used, going through a list regardless of location, so obviously the more tiles have names the better. City names can double up (they do in RFC) but if you have the same name on two non-adjacent tiles then theoretically you could have two civs with the same name, which is bad.

Cities can also be renamed on a certain turn or if a certain civ conquers it. If a civ conquers a city which has been founded by another civ but its included in their map it gets renamed to "their" version, otherwise it retains the original version.

You could do this manually in notepad, but I think it would be cumbersome so I was planning to write a simple utility that would generate the grids from a list of cities and coordinates.

Wow! You must be an expert, Úmarth, or something close to be able to 'write a simple ultility' like that. Either way, it sounds like a great plan. The problem would be the repeats (next to each other) because they are named Granada, Granada2 on the map. I'm sure you'll be able to just search for '2's and just delete them all though. Also, there are two different 'Reggio's on the map, but the second has an asterisk after it (it wasn't near the other one, so it wasn't just a second version). Finally, I don't know if you'll want the full names or the short ones like Frankfurt (am Main), Boulogne (sur Mer), Newcastle (upon Tyne), Rostov (na Donu), Talavera (de la Reina), Figueira (da Foz), &cætera &cætera... I'm neutral on the issue, but it might be wiser to remove them in order to save
I think the only places where we'll need the multiple names is probably Poland, Baltic, Bohemia region (for German names) and Turkey for Byzantine vs. Ottoman names. Although places like Italy and Hungary and even France could I guess be done if they were in danger of conquest by each other. I guess that would make for a difficult task, but it wouldn't be that hard with wikipedia... I don't know. If you need any help, tell me!

 

[mitsho]

We need more double names as for example Milan should be Milano (any Italian civs), Mailand (Germany), Milan (France, England) or anything else. If you see what we are getting at...

But I would say, start with the first names for the "real"/home civs. Then we can add on to that at any time later...!

m

 

[st.lucifer]

This is exciting. I second the suggestion that we work out the initial names first and worry about cities with language-variable names second.

I'm not 100% sure how the city placement works on the original RFC map when there are multiple spots for the same city - but there are many areas on the original RFC map where different tiles will generate the same city (Boston, Kyoto, etc.); I imagine that Granada et al can be handled in the same way. On a map this size, I doubt we'll have that many cities founded within two tiles of each other (probably more likely in Italy, England, and Netherlands, but less so elsewhere - at the very least, we shouldn't have to worry about there being 12 useless cities in Scandinavia.)

I like the idea of Pecs being the start for Hungary. Does that work for other people? Jessiecat, thanks for the history update on Serbia. I think our Hungary start date goes with the Avars rather than the Magyars, but it sounds like we should have Beograd and Buda/Pesth as independents. Others in that area? Zagreb or Split? I was thinking that we should have Trieste, which would flip to Venice upon spawning, but didn't put it on yet.

Eastern Europe is full of unknowns and less-well-known-than-I-would-like areas, so anyone who has a good grasp of the area is enthusiastically encouraged to offer corrections.

 

[Úmarth]

Wow! You must be an expert, Úmarth, or something close to be able to 'write a simple ultility' like that. Either way, it sounds like a great plan.

Haha, no really I'm not just being modest it's a bit of javascript.

 

[Zipzapzup]

Hope you get the DLL running too, Umarth.

@Jeremy
I like your placements. To me it looks much better then before.

 

[jessiecat]

This is exciting. I second the suggestion that we work out the initial names first and worry about cities with language-variable names second.

I'm not 100% sure how the city placement works on the original RFC map when there are multiple spots for the same city - but there are many areas on the original RFC map where different tiles will generate the same city (Boston, Kyoto, etc.); I imagine that Granada et al can be handled in the same way. On a map this size, I doubt we'll have that many cities founded within two tiles of each other (probably more likely in Italy, England, and Netherlands, but less so elsewhere - at the very least, we shouldn't have to worry about there being 12 useless cities in Scandinavia.)

I like the idea of Pecs being the start for Hungary. Does that work for other people? Jessiecat, thanks for the history update on Serbia. I think our Hungary start date goes with the Avars rather than the Magyars, but it sounds like we should have Beograd and Buda/Pesth as independents. Others in that area? Zagreb or Split? I was thinking that we should have Trieste, which would flip to Venice upon spawning, but didn't put it on yet.

Eastern Europe is full of unknowns and less-well-known-than-I-would-like areas, so anyone who has a good grasp of the area is enthusiastically encouraged to offer corrections.

Eastern Europe isn't my area either, but I was sure the Serbs were there
early, so I looked in Wiki. They've got some good maps there, esp. if you
do a search on Serbia or Hungary. IMHO Belgrade would make the best
start for Hungary so they can spawn south in the absence of the Serbs
who could be represented by independents like Pristina, Sarajevo and
Mostar. We should rember though that Hungary's historic area was the
Carpathian basin north of Belgrade so they'd have to be able to spawn
to the north as well, with Pecs and Budapest as independents.
I take everybody's points about multiple tiles for city starts but we need
to be careful about balance, In the case of Granada I'm happy with where
you've got it, 2 sq N of the coast, it as I am with most of the Spanish starts.
As far as other possible cities in Spain we should focus on what existed
at the time, like Badajoz, Merida, Cadiz, Malaga, Cartagena,Tarragona,
Huesca, etc rather than try to name every tile separately with town names
not appropriate to the period. This, of course, would apply as a rule of thumb
in other parts of the map as well.
BTW Don't agree with Trieste. Too close to Venice. Zagreb, Split and
Dubrovnik(Ragusa) would be plenty for Dalmatia.

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

This is exciting. I second the suggestion that we work out the initial names first and worry about cities with language-variable names second.

It's true. There are a thousand (and counting) more neccesary things.
Here's this, though, for whenever that is gotten to: http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/118076/Cities.xls.zip

I'm not 100% sure how the city placement works on the original RFC map when there are multiple spots for the same city - but there are many areas on the original RFC map where different tiles will generate the same city (Boston, Kyoto, etc.); I imagine that Granada et al can be handled in the same way. On a map this size, I doubt we'll have that many cities founded within two tiles of each other (probably more likely in Italy, England, and Netherlands, but less so elsewhere - at the very least, we shouldn't have to worry about there being 12 useless cities in Scandinavia.)

I think we can safely say that as long as all repeats are within one tile of each other, it is safe. For big, important, places, like Milano, or vague locations like Moskva, there will certainly end up being multiple locations. For some, though, like Lisboa or Granada, they will probably spawn and we won't even need to worry about the surrounding squares. If they were destroyed, though, it might be neccessary... either way. What worries me is that in the far East we will not have very many names, and there won't be very many cities either, but will they build the cities where we have the names? Probably not. I don't want to have like "any tile within six squares of Bryansk will be Bryansk" or something outrageously broad (I'm sure no-one wants that) but I don't really want them founding obscure little cities when Bryansk was only two tiles away. I don't know... we'll leave that for expert Úmarth.

IMHO Belgrade would make the best
start for Hungary so they can spawn south in the absence of the Serbs
who could be represented by independents like Pristina, Sarajevo and
Mostar. We should rember though that Hungary's historic area was the
Carpathian basin north of Belgrade so they'd have to be able to spawn
to the north as well, with Pecs and Budapest as independents.

I like the idea of Pecs being the start for Hungary. Does that work for other people? Jessiecat, thanks for the history update on Serbia. I think our Hungary start date goes with the Avars rather than the Magyars, but it sounds like we should have Beograd and Buda/Pesth as independents. Others in that area? Zagreb or Split? I was thinking that we should have Trieste, which would flip to Venice upon spawning, but didn't put it on yet.

Pécs has always been an important city, and it's famous for being old. Although jessiecat's arguments for Beograd are convincing, I think I like Pécs better. Plus, it rhymes with Bécs, so it will still rival Vienna without actually sharing a direct border. I like the idea of Zágráb as an independent, but I think Venice should found Spalato itself. Maybe have Dubrovnik as an independent? I also like Trieste, but I think we want to give Laibach to Austria. They would have to both spawn, since they'd be so close, and I don't know which is better. Perhaps Trieste, but who knows?

I take everybody's points about multiple tiles for city starts but we need to be careful about balance, In the case of Granada I'm happy with where you've got it, 2 sq N of the coast, it as I am with most of the Spanish starts. As far as other possible cities in Spain we should focus on what existed at the time, like Badajoz, Merida, Cadiz, Malaga, Cartagena,Tarragona, Huesca, etc rather than try to name every tile separately with town names not appropriate to the period. This, of course, would apply as a rule of thumb in other parts of the map as well.

I agree with you. I think that, although I personally created all the specific ones , it is important to make sure the significant cities are founded before the insignificant ones. I think some specific nonsense ones are Écija and Castelló de la Plana, personally, but apparantly they are more important than I'd thought. I think most, if not all, of the remaining spaces should be used for more possibilities of founding existing, important, cities rather than unique villages we'll never hear of otherwise.

BTW Don't agree with Trieste. Too close to Venice. Zagreb, Split and Dubrovnik(Ragusa) would be plenty for Dalmatia.

You are much faster than I I like Dubrovnik, too

 

[jessiecat]

Yes, my favorite historical city I've visited (after Barcelona and Cordoba)
As Ragusa it was an important Roman city and became a powerful trading
rival to the Venetians.(It's where the term Ragu for sauce came from).

 

[jessiecat]

We need more double names as for example Milan should be Milano (any Italian civs), Mailand (Germany), Milan (France, England) or anything else. If you see what we are getting at...

But I would say, start with the first names for the "real"/home civs. Then we can add on to that at any time later...!

m

I agree, It's important to start with their original names, ie Fustat rather
than Cairo and Ragusa rather than Dubrovnik. Maybe their name could
change later when appropriate. I think there's a mechanism in RFC to
cover this, isn't there?

BTW To all you Brits. You can't have Benidorm or Torremolinos!
That's final!

 

[Úmarth]

Okay, the CityMap utility is done. You can find it here. I hope it's easy to use but I've included instructions on the right-hand side.

So, if anybody has a spare moment (ok... more than a moment) they can start doing some CityMaps (need one for each civ) and posting them here so I can add it to CityNameManager.py. Don't worry if you don't finish, I will have an importer working very soon (for now I need to go to bed, I have an exam tomorrow morning and I've been doing this for the last 5 hours or so! ) so we can edit existing CityMaps and collaborate more effectively.

(I have tested it fairly thoroughly but I apologise for any bugs that might remain)

@ZZZ, sorry mate still working on that DLL.

 

[st.lucifer]

I'm pretty sure that we had an existing list of Iberian independents (many of which flip to either al-Andalus, Leon/proto-Spain, and eventually, Portugal. We probably don't need to reinvent that.

For most large/important cities, they're going to start out as independents, so we don't necessarily have to worry too much about the tiles around them - as Jeremy said, the only way that comes up is if the original cities are razed.

For Dalmatia - Ragusa/Dubrovnik, certainly. You may be right about Trieste being too close to Venice proper - I just want to be sure that they don't end up in a 1-city challenge; they controlled the Dalmatian coast for most of the Renaissance period. Wasn't Split/Spalatum Roman, as well? (ed. wiki says founded as a Greek colony, secondary town to Salona; gained in importance after Avars razed Salona). I think one of Venice's proposed UHVs was territorial - control Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, and Dalmatia by ____ (I forget the date); would it be better to have the closer of the coastal cities flip to them (Split, in this case, if we're not doing Trieste), or have them all remain independent to be conquered? Most of Venice's strength early on will be naval, and the city doesn't have much production - they'll struggle to turn out units without some sort of second city.

This may be better handled down the line, but I just want to bring it up while I'm thinking about it.

For the far east, we may have to weaken some of the terrain so that the good city sites are more obvious. There were a number of independent principalities in proto-Russia and Ukraine, but there won't always be a Bryansk where we need one. If and when he comes back, this might be a good area for Disenfrancised to take over - he seems pretty comfortable with Russia and its environs.

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

Okay, the CityMap utility is done. You can find it here. I hope it's easy to use but I've included instructions on the right-hand side.

So, if anybody has a spare moment (ok... more than a moment) they can start doing some CityMaps (need one for each civ) and posting them here so I can add it to CityNameManager.py. Don't worry if you don't finish, I will have an importer working very soon (for now I need to go to bed, I have an exam tomorrow morning and I've been doing this for the last 5 hours or so! ) so we can edit existing CityMaps and collaborate more effectively.

Okay, I cannot hope to convey my elation!! Two thumbs up, I tell you. Now, I have a few questions before I begin.
--Should I include the parts in the parenthesis? Exempli gratia: Newcastle (upon Tyne) or not?
--Will the civs be discouraged/encouraged to settle in the right places? In short, will Spain's map need to have San-Peterburgo?
--Will everyone have a chance to settle Iceland, the Açores, and the Canarias?

I'm pretty sure that we had an existing list of Iberian independents (many of which flip to either al-Andalus, Leon/proto-Spain, and eventually, Portugal. We probably don't need to reinvent that.

For most large/important cities, they're going to start out as independents, so we don't necessarily have to worry too much about the tiles around them - as Jeremy said, the only way that comes up is if the original cities are razed.

This is good. Maybe there is a way to encourage the artificial intelligence to settle on ruins? That would be helpful and would solve this problem in a heartbeat. However, it'd be kind of irrealistic... but kind of realistic at the same time. I don't know...

For Dalmatia - Ragusa/Dubrovnik, certainly. You may be right about Trieste being too close to Venice proper - I just want to be sure that they don't end up in a 1-city challenge; they controlled the Dalmatian coast for most of the Renaissance period. Wasn't Split/Spalatum Roman, as well? (ed. wiki says founded as a Greek colony, secondary town to Salona; gained in importance after Avars razed Salona). I think one of Venice's proposed UHVs was territorial - control Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, and Dalmatia by ____ (I forget the date); would it be better to have the closer of the coastal cities flip to them (Split, in this case, if we're not doing Trieste), or have them all remain independent to be conquered? Most of Venice's strength early on will be naval, and the city doesn't have much production - they'll struggle to turn out units without some sort of second city.

This may be better handled down the line, but I just want to bring it up while I'm thinking about it.

Wise thinking, indeed. I can easily see Venice playing out the entire game as someone's vassal never controlling any other land. That is wholly undesirable and I think we should flip Spalato, as you suggested, to keep the chances of that at a minimum. Of course, it will likely fall to Hungary or the Ottomans eventually, but by then Venice should have a sizeable sea empire already.

For the far east, we may have to weaken some of the terrain so that the good city sites are more obvious. There were a number of independent principalities in proto-Russia and Ukraine, but there won't always be a Bryansk where we need one. If and when he comes back, this might be a good area for Disenfrancised to take over - he seems pretty comfortable with Russia and its environs.

It is always such a pity to have to weaken terrain... But it is usually the only option. It might be a good idea to make the unchoppable forest also unable to be built upon, but unable to spread, and then foresting a large swath of undesirable territory. True, it wasn't all forest, but it's better in my opinion to have a forest than a bustling city where there really's been a deserted plain.

 

[D. Zavoevatell]

Okay, so here we go. I made the settler map for Spain! It includes all of the Iberian Peninsula, the Canarias, the Açores, Southwestern France, the Baleares, Sardegna, Corse, and Italia from Roma south including Sicilia. It took surprisingly long, but it was just typing in numbers and names from the map file I created and looking up Spanish versions online a couple of times. There is a city on almost every square in Iberia, so it is pretty good, I'd dare say. I didn't put it in any file, just a textedit save.

Here is the world-builder save with all of the cities:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploa...nsula_Canarias_Baleares_Acores_Citied-Out.rar
Here is the settler map:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/118076/SpainSettlermap.rar

This may work for Portugal, too, as it includes all areas it has controlled except for North Africa. North Africa also has been many times Spanish, so this will probably have to be changed. Hopefully Al-Andalus will hold on to North Africa through the Reconquista and prevent Spain and Portugal from holding land there....

 

[jessiecat]

Okay, so here we go. I made the settler map for Spain! It includes all of the Iberian Peninsula, the Canarias, the Açores, Southwestern France, the Baleares, Sardegna, Corse, and Italia from Roma south including Sicilia. It took surprisingly long, but it was just typing in numbers and names from the map file I created and looking up Spanish versions online a couple of times. There is a city on almost every square in Iberia, so it is pretty good, I'd dare say. I didn't put it in any file, just a textedit save.

Here is the world-builder save with all of the cities:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploa...nsula_Canarias_Baleares_Acores_Citied-Out.rar
Here is the settler map:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/118076/SpainSettlermap.rar

This may work for Portugal, too, as it includes all areas it has controlled except for North Africa. North Africa also has been many times Spanish, so this will probably have to be changed. Hopefully Al-Andalus will hold on to North Africa through the Reconquista and prevent Spain and Portugal from holding land there....

Thanks for the maps. Look forward to seeing them when I get my computer
back from the doctor. Massive crash, wiped the hard drive, damaged the
motherboard. Major surgery required.

Re. Dalmatia and Venice: Latter needs to be strong from the start, so
should flip Spalato/Split. Zagreb will be under pressure from Venice and
Hungary. But Ragusa(Dubrovnik) should begin as a strong independent to
provide early competition to Venice.

Re, Spanish map: Thought major independents already placed as st.lucifer
has said. Hope to include others from my previous post if possible. Then
it's just filling the settler points up in between I guess. Is that how you've
done it?

Re. North Africa: Tangier, Fez, Meknes and Tlemcen already there. Possible
others could include Cueta, Melilla, Rabat, Marrakesh and Agadir if possible.
Further east, area around Tunis had a lot of cities in Roman times. An
important one for the Arabs should be Kairouan to the south (very major
mosque for the Fatimids).

Still, I shouldn't say much until I see what's been done. For that I need
my computer back. On the missus' machine at the moment (too slow!)
Come back baby, all is forgiven!

 

[st.lucifer]

Thanks for the maps. Look forward to seeing them when I get my computer
back from the doctor. Massive crash, wiped the hard drive, damaged the
motherboard. Major surgery required.

Re. Dalmatia and Venice: Latter needs to be strong from the start, so
should flip Spalato/Split. Zagreb will be under pressure from Venice and
Hungary. But Ragusa(Dubrovnik) should begin as a strong independent to
provide early competition to Venice.

Sounds good. BTW, wiki says that it was Ragusa until WW1. I guess that solves the dynamic name issue. Is Zagreb old enough?

Re, Spanish map: Thought major independents already placed as st.lucifer
has said. Hope to include others from my previous post if possible. Then
it's just filling the settler points up in between I guess. Is that how you've
done it?

Re. North Africa: Tangier, Fez, Meknes and Tlemcen already there. Possible
others could include Cueta, Melilla, Rabat, Marrakesh and Agadir if possible.
Further east, area around Tunis had a lot of cities in Roman times. An
important one for the Arabs should be Kairouan to the south (very major
mosque for the Fatimids).

As tempting as it is to fill N. Africa with cities (and as historically accurate as it would be), remember that we've already nerfed it extensively to make it less city-friendly. If we didn't, whichever independent civ controlled the area from Tunis to Marrakech would be the most powerful in the game; claiming the area from the independent (as presumably al-Andalus would do) would have a similar effect. While there are great historical arguments for the inclusion of all of the cities you've mentioned, I think that game balance requires us to weaken the Maghreb in the same way that we've got to shrink the arable part of Russia. We're getting ahead of ourselves a bit with the whole game balance issue, but if there are problems visible months before playtesting starts, it seems logical to go after them. I'm fine with adding one city west of Tunis and keeping the four independents in modern-day Morocco; I'm wary of adding more.

We could potentially add more if we put them in the hands of barbarians, but that doesn't necessarily help the historical side of things much, and would probably serve to weaken barbarian invasions (generally, when they have cities, they tend to mill around rather than invading others.)

Still, I shouldn't say much until I see what's been done. For that I need
my computer back. On the missus' machine at the moment (too slow!)
Come back baby, all is forgiven!

Good luck with the puter. Having lost a masters thesis and the manuscript to a textbook to computing catastrophe, I hope you're better about backing things up than I am.

 

[jessiecat]

Wow! You really lost bigtime! I guess you're like me. Never really backed up
my files before. Guess that'll teach me. Still not as bad a loss as yours.

Agree with you on North Africa. Between Tlemcen and the Tunis area there's
really only Algiers and Oran that should concern us. But around Tunis there's
a case for more. Hippo and Saldae to the west and Kairouan and Sousse to
the south. East of there really only Tripoli and Benghazi before Egypt.

Great to see Jeremy on board, I'm not a modder. History's my bag. So it's
good to have another techy type to lighten the load.