dragodon64
Noble
I don't see how you can say it accurate- the south and northeast are terribly represented- too small and horribly out of proportion. But that area is quite marshy so i suppose it fits in that sense.
Where are you on Rhye's map?
- Thread starter flaming_iles
- Start date
eris23
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 122
yeah, turicum if the latin name rings any bells...its a pity you cant found that...only genf. never quite understood why you cant work or settle mountain tiles anyway. back in civ2 times they at least gave 1 production...
dragodon64
Noble
Mountains in CIV represent two different and often unrelated concepts. Impassable terrain for armies and unworkable land for settlements. Personally, I think RFC grossly overdoes mountains, so usually take out a bunch of them (often replaced by hills to represent rugged terrain that is far from being impassable or unworkable).
flyingchicken
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2007
- Messages
- 3,783
The mountains cutting off the Silk Route exactly where Han China historically protected for the monies, and probably where the Bactrians did some of their things, is kinda iffy.
ambassoon
Chieftain
I'm in central Indiana, America. It's right on the marble just south of lake Michigan. It's very accurate if you consider the large limestone deposits in Indiana :-D I remember seeing it and thinking how cool that was.
Duke of Awesome
Warlord
i apparently live in the ocean because i should be one tile right (east) of Philadelphia. i live in New Jersey.
pacesplace
Prince
I am at the tile north of the one square bay between Florida and New Orleans. The terrain is accurate, though the shape is nothing like that. 
dragodon64
Noble
So would that be Alabama? America's shape is really screwed up, so I'm not sure...
Ready_set_go
Too Late
Hmmm
Approximatly 1 tile NE of New York...
And it's foresty here soooo....
But it's green, so I guess I have to agree with the map.
Approximatly 1 tile NE of New York...
And it's foresty here soooo....
But it's green, so I guess I have to agree with the map.
I apparently live in a swamp to the south of large mountains...neither of which is accurate.
The swamp tile south of the mountain tile north of the Savannah tile in the SE U.S.A.
All of the "Peaks" in the eastern U.S. should be grassland hills and I dunno why there is a big swamp covering most all of Georgia.
The swamp tile south of the mountain tile north of the Savannah tile in the SE U.S.A.
All of the "Peaks" in the eastern U.S. should be grassland hills and I dunno why there is a big swamp covering most all of Georgia.
dragodon64
Noble
Those peaks apparently represent the Appalachian Mountains, except they are too far west, and the appalachians are no more than hills (if that) by civ terms. Heavily forested hills, though.\
And the scrunched up east coast makes it hard to tell, but I think the swamp is more like Alabama or Mississippi than Georgia.
And the scrunched up east coast makes it hard to tell, but I think the swamp is more like Alabama or Mississippi than Georgia.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
A few tiny changes to Eastern Canada would make a world of difference for the map.
The mouth of the St. Lawrence really ought to connect to the Gulf of St. Lawrence ... not terminate in a weird lake just before reaching the sea.
Newfoundland should be an island.
There is no particularly large lake in the middle of Labrador. There is the Smallwood Reservoir, but it's artificial and I don't really think it's large enough to include, given that Lake Ontario and Lake Erie are represented by just a single tile.
I've marked these changes on a cropped bit of the map:
I didn't mark this on the map, but the Torngat Mountains in Labrador really ought to be featured as well. The peaks are not as high as some of the peaks in the Appalachians, but they pretty much rise straight out of the sea and they are not worn down and rounded but quite, well, mountainy.
Torngats: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/land/physio_torngat_mountains.jpg
Appalachians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Craggy_Gardens-27527.jpg
The mouth of the St. Lawrence really ought to connect to the Gulf of St. Lawrence ... not terminate in a weird lake just before reaching the sea.
Newfoundland should be an island.
There is no particularly large lake in the middle of Labrador. There is the Smallwood Reservoir, but it's artificial and I don't really think it's large enough to include, given that Lake Ontario and Lake Erie are represented by just a single tile.
I've marked these changes on a cropped bit of the map:
I didn't mark this on the map, but the Torngat Mountains in Labrador really ought to be featured as well. The peaks are not as high as some of the peaks in the Appalachians, but they pretty much rise straight out of the sea and they are not worn down and rounded but quite, well, mountainy.
Torngats: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/land/physio_torngat_mountains.jpg
Appalachians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Craggy_Gardens-27527.jpg
Heh, if that is to represent Alabama or Mississippi (which I don't believe it does) it makes even less sense. At least Georgia has the Okefenokee swamp in the south-eastern part of the state. Though it's easily as far south as Savannah which is 1 square south of it on the map. Go figure.
Imo, it should just be another grassland hill with a forest (like all of the Appalachians should be) to represent the Piedmont Plateau. And when a city is founded on it, it should be Atlanta (which is currently unrepresented in the game and I feel slighted because of such
)But what do I know...I've only lived here 34 years.
Panopticon
Utilitarian
Heh, if that is to represent Alabama or Mississippi (which I don't believe it does) it makes even less sense. At least Georgia has the Okefenokee swamp in the south-eastern part of the state. Though it's easily as far south as Savannah which is 1 square south of it on the map. Go figure.
Imo, it should just be another grassland hill with a forest (like all of the Appalachians should be) to represent the Piedmont Plateau. And when a city is founded on it, it should be Atlanta (which is currently unrepresented in the game and I feel slighted because of such
But what do I know...I've only lived here 34 years.
In the city name manager, the marsh tile is listed as Atlanta for the Americans and "Charles Town" for the English. So it represents basically a whole state's worth of coastal area between central Georgia and southern S.C., depending on which civ's map you use. It's difficult to see what the marsh is meant to be, other than a barrier to building cities there.
dragodon64
Noble
Heh, if that is to represent Alabama or Mississippi (which I don't believe it does) it makes even less sense. At least Georgia has the Okefenokee swamp in the south-eastern part of the state. Though it's easily as far south as Savannah which is 1 square south of it on the map. Go figure.
Imo, it should just be another grassland hill with a forest (like all of the Appalachians should be) to represent the Piedmont Plateau. And when a city is founded on it, it should be Atlanta (which is currently unrepresented in the game and I feel slighted because of such
But what do I know...I've only lived here 34 years.
Sorry, I thought the marsh was 1W of where it currently is. I actually play this game with google maps open sometimes and wonder about the naming and tile choices... but, yeah, that should be Atlanta.
On another note, why the heck can't you ever clear marshes? Both my hometown, Calcutta/Kolkata (current pop ~15million)and my current location, Houston (current pop~5million) were built on swamps, and they certainly aren't backwater places today!
Thankfully neither of those tiles is swamped in game.
Úmarth
Megalomaniac
Because otherwise large parts of Siberia, Amazonia and Central Africa (after Biology) would be unrealistically hyper-productive. I've heard a few people complaining about mountains and swamps because there are very few places on the Earth which remain completely uninhabitable, but they really are necessary for balance on a map as large as RFC's. One of the things I hate about most vanilla maps is that they're usually far too open; forcing you to build many average cities instead of selectively building great ones and limiting how strategic you can be in wars. Thankfully RFC doesn't suffer from those problems because of it's liberal use of mountains, marsh and unchoppable jungle.
Panopticon
Utilitarian
Úmarth;8206119 said:
I agree with this reasoning in those three cases, but there is a case for removing the marshes in Georgia and especially the extremely fertile Indus Valley.
In fact, someone should make a modmod that addresses our problems with the world map.
Skafsgaard
Chieftain
Hahah, my plot is not even represented. I live on the second biggest danish island Fyn, or 'Funen' in english. 
Similar threads
