RFC Europe map development thread

[3Miro]

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?

My personal philosophy is that graphics and aesthetics should never overshadow gameplay and historical and geographical accuracy should overshadow that only if it is really very wrong.

If the resources for the starting location are OK, then, by me, it is OK to move Cordoba. It also fine to have an inland city as coastal as long as it makes sense in terms of gameplay (London is coastal in both RFC and RFCE).

st.lucifer, do you want to move Cordoba on the city name map or do you want to move the Cordoban starting location (or both).

 

[st.lucifer]

My personal philosophy is that graphics and aesthetics should never overshadow gameplay and historical and geographical accuracy should overshadow that only if it is really very wrong.

If the resources for the starting location are OK, then, by me, it is OK to move Cordoba. It also fine to have an inland city as coastal as long as it makes sense in terms of gameplay (London is coastal in both RFC and RFCE).

st.lucifer, do you want to move Cordoba on the city name map or do you want to move the Cordoban starting location (or both).

I'd like to move the starting location for Cordoba 1 tile E, which is still Cordoba on the city name map - no need to change that part.

The London analogy is actually pertinent here - London isn't coastal, but the Thames was large and deep enough that ocean-going ships could navigate it, and it didn't require a separate port. Sevilla was similar - until it silted up, the Guadalquivir estuary was similar to the Thames estuary. I'm going to add an inlet to the area to give the Sevilla tile ocean access - and if there's room for Cadiz, great.

 

[micbic]

For me:
1) Sevilla needs to stay inland. One of the reasons (apart from realism)is that currently I have no good 'filler cities' for between Sevilla and Cordoba. A good semi-proposal would be making a current coastal Guadilviqir tile inland, preferably the 3rd one moving N-S after Gilbratar.
2) Also, I do not think that Cordoba needs moving 1E, it is better represented here.

 

[jessiecat]

For me:
1) Sevilla needs to stay inland. One of the reasons (apart from realism)is that currently I have no good 'filler cities' for between Sevilla and Cordoba. A good semi-proposal would be making a current coastal Guadilviqir tile inland, preferably the 3rd one moving N-S after Gilbratar.
2) Also, I do not think that Cordoba needs moving 1E, it is better represented here.

1) I prefer st. lucifers's solution. Give it access via an inlet. And you don't need filler cities if you have 4x4 or 4x3 locations.
2) I agree with you on that. Cordoba should stay where it is. They're only about 100km apart in real-life.
I've taken trains between them in under an hour. (And it leaves room for Granada as well).

 

[micbic]

1) I didnt see st.lucifer's full post, so I am okay with the inlet solution (thats what I propose)
2) Basically, Granada is SE of Cordoba, not E. Jaen is exactly E.

 

[st.lucifer]

For me:
1) Sevilla needs to stay inland. One of the reasons (apart from realism)is that currently I have no good 'filler cities' for between Sevilla and Cordoba. A good semi-proposal would be making a current coastal Guadilviqir tile inland, preferably the 3rd one moving N-S after Gilbratar.
2) Also, I do not think that Cordoba needs moving 1E, it is better represented here.

The inlet solution works for everyone, then.

The reason I suggested moving Cordoba 1E was to make space for both cities, but this is probably skewed somewhat by my personal preference of spacing cities 4 tiles apart. My ideal map of Iberia has 13 cities, with only Pamplona (razed and re-founded to get the deer in its BFC) having significant overlap with others (this also requires razing Toledo in favor of Salamanca and Madrid, and razing/moving Lisboa 1S1E. If I ever played a game where razing cities was prohibited, I would die of frustration.)

Let me see what the inlet looks like, and I think it'll probably be the best possible solution.

 

[Wessel V1]

The inlet solution works for everyone, then.

The reason I suggested moving Cordoba 1E was to make space for both cities, but this is probably skewed somewhat by my personal preference of spacing cities 4 tiles apart. My ideal map of Iberia has 13 cities, with only Pamplona (razed and re-founded to get the deer in its BFC) having significant overlap with others (this also requires razing Toledo in favor of Salamanca and Madrid, and razing/moving Lisboa 1S1E. If I ever played a game where razing cities was prohibited, I would die of frustration.)

Let me see what the inlet looks like, and I think it'll probably be the best possible solution.

Agreed 100%. Pamplona could use a better place indeed, perhaps we should move it.

 

[JediClemente]

I prefer Cordoba where it is. Seriously. We already moved it 1 west to place it more correctly and make room for Granada.

Pamplona is in its exact spot, I think.

I don't understand this "ideal map without cities overlapping" concept. At least that's not what I play RFC for...

As for Sevilla, better without coastal access, but no big deal.

BTW micbic, Granada isn't correctly placed in the map, but it's the lesser evil right now (or so I think). The whole of Andalusia and Guadalquivir river are deformed by the tilt.

 

[micbic]

BTW micbic, Granada isn't correctly placed in the map, but it's the lesser evil right now (or so I think). The whole of Andalusia and Guadalquivir river are deformed by the tilt.

Perhaps, but mod-speaking, this is what I have to do. BTW I am currently reworking the Cordoban settler map, and for better results making the C.N.M as well (Granada should be 2S-2E or 2S-1E of Cordoba, right?)

 

[Wessel V1]

I prefer Cordoba where it is. Seriously. We already moved it 1 west to place it more correctly and make room for Granada.

Pamplona is in its exact spot, I think.

I don't understand this "ideal map without cities overlapping" concept. At least that's not what I play RFC for...

As for Sevilla, better without coastal access, but no big deal.

The concept of the ideal map, is that players who play strategy games, usually try to figure out an optimal layout of their empire, so that the chance of succes will be as high as possible. In RFC, it also exists, but in a lesser extent. For example, it is not very likely that you can build cities in the most productive configuration. When playing Germany, China or Spain however, you are likely to do so. What satisfies many players, is when they find a way to make their situation even better. In RFC, that means that they found Danzig in stead of Berlin. Ideal cities are not always possible in RFC, but their alternatives are usually not that bad.

In RFCE, there is much more land available for city building, thus more options to build the cities, but most players will find a suitable pattern when they've played some games. Pamplona doesn't suit in this pattern IMO (and Prague, for that matter), since it is not coastal and can grow much better on a nearby location. What I also don't like to do, is razing existing cities, with existing infrastructure, since that is a waste of a settler, stability and the infrastructure itself. So, I prefer cities to be in a position that I really aim for that city to conquer and keep it. Barcelona does a much better job here. The main difference is that, unlike RFC, there is enough room to let most cities work their entire BFC, so it attracts a style of optimizing the BFC to construct a powerful unit of cities.
This also means that Sevilla should be coastal, if we want the player (I mean casual players, not those who prefer historical cities) to build it. Nobody wants a city just one tile inland, since a coastal city is worth at least 3 workable resources (and a river-sided city 2) compared to a non-coastal city.

 

[MizhGun]

Question to mapeditors: is it possible to make this tile (crossed on the picture) that there is possible to found a city?

Spoiler :

 

[merijn_v1]

Question to mapeditors: is it possible to make this tile (crossed on the picture) that there is possible to found a city?

Spoiler :

Yes it is possible. Remove the mud and it's done.

 

[MizhGun]

Yes it is possible. Remove the mud and it's done.

I mean that it would be in the official release, not only on my edited map

 

[st.lucifer]

I mean that it would be in the official release, not only on my edited map

If I changed the mud, I'd move the resources around. The city would be too powerful otherwise.

 

[sedna17]

I mean that it would be in the official release, not only on my edited map

I there some important (in the middle ages) city at that spot?

 

[st.lucifer]

I there some important (in the middle ages) city at that spot?

Not that I could find. It's close to Vaasa, which goes back to around 1600, but Vaasa would probably be one tile west or 1W 1SW. Generally, there aren't many important inland cities from that era in Finland.

 

[fdgsgds]

Just found a city up-right one and a second city three spaces down from where you marked.

 

[sedna17]

Hey St. Lucifer,

Thanks for the new map update. It's easy to enable city founding on dense forest. I will do so.

What about a general project of reducing resources? I've been playing Poland for instance, and with the number of resources directly available there's basically no limit to city growth. This is true for a lot of civs, and is unrealistic. Now we can increase health/happy penalties, but it seems like removing some resources is the natural way to go. I think we've had this discussion broadly before.

For instance, here's Poland as it currently stands.

I wanted to limit the number of resources available right off the bat. I removed the pigs, two honeys, and a cow that were easily settled. I replaced a barely with another wheat. The net result is a decrease of 3 (6 once you factor in early building multipliers) and 1 . Wheat is not typically a good trade good (most people have it), so increasing wheat doesn't just automatically allow you to trade for another resource.

There are also some of these pre-built towns/villages that I have a problem with. I know you had nothing to do with adding them originally, but... The one on London's square, for instance, strongly discourages you from settling on the proper London spot since then you can't work the town.

I could take a stab at either of these projects if you're busy, but I don't want to step on your toes as main map-guy.

 

[jessiecat]

In the meantime, I hope we're releasing Alpha9 soon.

 

[sedna17]

In the meantime, I hope we're releasing Alpha9 soon.

Yes, I won't keep people waiting. We'll release Alpha 9 tonight.