World Map

[Anaztazioch]

I would like to see in "Total Realism" navigable rivers. In real life there are much importants to logistic of battle. For example: In amazonas river the brazilian destroyers navigable in them. The bigger battle of south america envolved the "River Plate", and the Viking uses the Drakkar to pillage the europe. In USA see the mississipe, (controling the estuary, the French controls for many years the region).

I think, to do this, create a another kind of land, like a "large river" with elements of fort (the water and land units can enter) and a promotion "navegable in large river" to see only canoas, drakkars, and especialized destroyers in them and not batleships.

I dont think this is related to a worldmap. Its more of a component request. It was allready mentioned few times, but i dont think anyone has managed to make it, and we have our own ideas to make.

 

[Cruel]

I dont think this is related to a worldmap. Its more of a component request. It was allready mentioned few times, but i dont think anyone has managed to make it, and we have our own ideas to make.

Sorry post in here... I played CIV, CIV2, CIV call to power, CIV3, CIV3 with Rhye´s, CIV4, CIV4 with warlords and BTS. Now the game in which I more played is the "Total Realism" and each lauch I wait for this modification... and I modified my "World map" with ocean title the navigable rivers. Just amazon region have 23 thousands kilometers of navigable rivers... in attach navegable rivers of Brazil

 

[Inverted]

Using coast for rivers has the drawback that land units cant cross it.

Also, viking ships were quite special, generally ships that are used on rivers are a suicide to enter open sea with because of their low stability. The same way most ocean faring ships would simply ground in rivers.

 

[Cruel]

Using coast for rivers has the drawback that land units cant cross it.

Also, viking ships were quite special, generally ships that are used on rivers are a suicide to enter open sea with because of their low stability. The same way most ocean faring ships would simply ground in rivers.

I know is not a good idea (using coast for rivers) and because of this I sugest this modification.
Viking ships were special, like a brazilian destroyers... (and there are reals)the moviment is slow because of bank of sands in rivers, for the special modification exists the promotion system. I think the modification is possible because the water units can enter in forts in BTS.

 

[Eggs_Zachtly]

Using coast for rivers has the drawback that land units cant cross it.

What if you created, at strategic locations along the "river", a new resource (call it "pier")? Then, had workboats able to build a bridge (as an improvement)?

This would allow land units to cross (taking an extra turn to do so, for most units) realistically. Bridges are bottlenecks, especially for large formations. Slowing them down keeps it real.

In order to (re)build a bridge, you must control the tile, or your workboats can't improve it (adds to realism).

They should be able to be destroyed by certain (heavy) land units, covert units, or all naval units. If possible, any units on the bridge at the time of destruction, should suffer damage (or be eliminated).

Any unit should be able to use a bridge that's already in place (provided it's not fortified by an enemy).

Longer bridges could be accompished by simply having several "piers" in ajoining tiles.

Perhaps, later in the game, workboats can create "piers", and then build a bridge on them. (Maybe that's the way it should be from the start *shrug*.) This increases the time and cost (multiple boats) of building bridges (again, realism).

Would this be do-able? =)

Eggs -just thinkin outloud- Zachtly

edited to add: The "later" boats (able to create piers) should be able to do so, regardless of ownership of the tile (with open borders or during war).

 

[Inverted]

I think that creating a terrain type that both land and water units can enter would be a ton lot easier.

Also Ive just noticed whats the main problem with ships navigating rivers: In civ 4 rivers are on tile borders, and therefore ships cant really move "on" them.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

What you really need is a new type of river terrain that "flows" through the middle of the square/diamond, acts like a coastal tile in terms of resources, commerce, etc...but allows land units and water units and air units, etc...to travel on/through it. Now, the problem becomes figuring out which vessels should be allowed to traverse the "navigable river".

Additionally, I have a problem with Montezuma rushing George Washington early in the game to take him out. Is there a problem with George Washington's strategy? The terrain and the barb civs seem excellent, but I'm curious...perhaps the issue is the terrain around Montezuma's start, forcing him to choose to expand to the North, rather than settling and defending his homelands.

 

[Rumbuddel]

I'm currently playing the large world map, and there are some things around Germany that are unrealistic. See the attached screenshot for my estimations of the locations of the regions.

• The German starting position is misplaced. Berlin is north of the Elbe river, so the starting position should move one tile north.
• Likewise, the French starting position should move one tile west to match the location of Paris. This makes it a bit harder for Paris to keep control of the nearby coal and iron resources, but that is a realistic addition; take a look at France's historic struggle to control Belgium, Lorraine, Saarland, and Ruhr.
• Northrhine-Westphalia has lots of coal (Ruhr area, Lower Rhine region). And it is not a swamp (and hasn't been one, AFAIK).
• But there is no coal near the Main river (both resources should be removed).
• The Main river is not as large/important as the other rivers on the world map (Rhine, Danube, Elbe), and should be removed.
• There is a one-tile piece of horizontal river north of my upper "no coal" label. There is no important river that flows into the Elbe at that location. Not sure if you can easily remove it, because WordEdit's river placement tool is kind of hard to use.
• The Allgäu region has very good conditions for agriculture. This should be reflected by a cow resource (lots of dairy farming there).
• In contrast, the Lüneburg Heath is not very suitable for agriculture, and a plains tile would represent it better than the grassland tile.

I hope that it is possible to modify the map accordingly without breaking the balance.

 

[Rumbuddel]

Another thing. At the moment, the large world map has got one offshore oil field in the North Sea. Both Britain and Norway have lots of oil rigs. Maybe add a second oil resource so that both England and Scandinavia have a chance to build an oil rig?

Here's a map of oil rigs in the North Sea: http://wiki.flightgear.org/File:Oilrigsmap.jpg

 

[Hian the Frog]

I'm currently playing the large world map, and there are some things around Germany that are unrealistic. See the attached screenshot for my estimations of the locations of the regions.

• The German starting position is misplaced. Berlin is north of the Elbe river, so the starting position should move one tile north.
• Likewise, the French starting position should move one tile west to match the location of Paris. This makes it a bit harder for Paris to keep control of the nearby coal and iron resources, but that is a realistic addition; take a look at France's historic struggle to control Belgium, Lorraine, Saarland, and Ruhr.
• Northrhine-Westphalia has lots of coal (Ruhr area, Lower Rhine region). And it is not a swamp (and hasn't been one, AFAIK).
• But there is no coal near the Main river (both resources should be removed).
• The Main river is not as large/important as the other rivers on the world map (Rhine, Danube, Elbe), and should be removed.
• There is a one-tile piece of horizontal river north of my upper "no coal" label. There is no important river that flows into the Elbe at that location. Not sure if you can easily remove it, because WordEdit's river placement tool is kind of hard to use.
• The Allgäu region has very good conditions for agriculture. This should be reflected by a cow resource (lots of dairy farming there).
• In contrast, the Lüneburg Heath is not very suitable for agriculture, and a plains tile would represent it better than the grassland tile.

I hope that it is possible to modify the map accordingly without breaking the balance.

Some changes were done.

Thanks for the comment.

 

[The Brute Squad]

Any chance of making it so there is the historical spread of resources given colonization etc from old to new and vice versa? I'm thinking maybe invisible placeholders, secondary waves that reveal only after certain techs? Strange, for example, to have no Potatoes at all growing in Ireland or Germany, though I understand why, given the historical late advent of their popularity.

Also, not many of the Caribbean islands have resources worth planting cities for. Historically, they were considered the prized areas for early settling, fought over like crazy, with mulitple European powers present and jostling for control. Speaking of planting cities, I notice that while I can't plant a city within two squares of another, I've now seen the computer do it at least twice. (Once with Spain, once with the Dravida) any reason this doesn't happen more often, besides it often being a poor strategy for working tiles?

Also, when cities are planted, any chance naming them can be linked to the tile for the map rather than the name rotation by civilization? I mean, Brits always plant London, then York, then Nottingham, etc... if it were determined by tile, it wouldn't matter if someone else popped into the "wrong" spot, since if the city were named right for the right place, who holds it is simply a matter of historical timing, subject to change a la military swings in fortune. But it bugs me when York is planted, say, where Cardiff should be. Or how Istanbul is planted way out in the grubby sprawling middle of Asia major rather than bridging Black Sea and Mediterranean waters.

This isn't directly map related, but since no Eastern Asian civs have acces to wine anyway, would Saki Distillery (from rice) to replace Brandy Distillery be an idea? On a similar note of distilling, making "sugar" out of other things became a worldwide industry craze for many years. Perhaps late game ability to turn corn into sugar (a la high fructose corn syrup) would make sense, or from potatoes (think sugarbeets, maybe?)

Anyway, LOVING this mod, far and away the best I've encountered, feels new and fun every time I play it.

 

[Walter Hawkwood]

Any chance of making it so there is the historical spread of resources given colonization etc from old to new and vice versa? I'm thinking maybe invisible placeholders, secondary waves that reveal only after certain techs? Strange, for example, to have no Potatoes at all growing in Ireland or Germany, though I understand why, given the historical late advent of their popularity.

People tend to forget that we're not a map-centered mod. The map is just a fun addition to the main mod. Therefore, we'd need a whole new game mechanic for spreading crops etc. for it to work on random maps as well.

Also, not many of the Caribbean islands have resources worth planting cities for. Historically, they were considered the prized areas for early settling, fought over like crazy, with mulitple European powers present and jostling for control.

The problem with the islands is that they are small. Also, if they are made to be the prized city spots, long before Europeans we'll see Aztecs settling there.

Speaking of planting cities, I notice that while I can't plant a city within two squares of another, I've now seen the computer do it at least twice. (Once with Spain, once with the Dravida) any reason this doesn't happen more often, besides it often being a poor strategy for working tiles?

Haven't really seen that.

Also, when cities are planted, any chance naming them can be linked to the tile for the map rather than the name rotation by civilization? I mean, Brits always plant London, then York, then Nottingham, etc... if it were determined by tile, it wouldn't matter if someone else popped into the "wrong" spot, since if the city were named right for the right place, who holds it is simply a matter of historical timing, subject to change a la military swings in fortune. But it bugs me when York is planted, say, where Cardiff should be. Or how Istanbul is planted way out in the grubby sprawling middle of Asia major rather than bridging Black Sea and Mediterranean waters.

See above. There is just no reason for us to invest so much effort in one map.

This isn't directly map related, but since no Eastern Asian civs have acces to wine anyway, would Saki Distillery (from rice) to replace Brandy Distillery be an idea? On a similar note of distilling, making "sugar" out of other things became a worldwide industry craze for many years. Perhaps late game ability to turn corn into sugar (a la high fructose corn syrup) would make sense, or from potatoes (think sugarbeets, maybe?)

Representing sugarbeets in some way should probably happen. As far as different distilleries are concerned, this is up for debate. I'm not sure if the ones currently in should even stay in the way they are; I have yet to observe if AI can grasp the concept that it needs two instances of a resource.

 

[kiwitt]

I am extremely late to this mod ... Playing the Huge map at the moment. Yes it is slow, but you should see the speed of my mod.

 

[zoob]

Time for a thread resurrection

I like to play World Map Huge from time to time and want to give some feedback.

Playing as Arabs is kinda hard. Let me explain why:
You play as barbaric Umar Ibn Al-Khatthab and receive -25% malus.
Meanwhile ethiopian Zara Yaqob on the african continent has creative personality and receives bonus.

Around 2000BC just after i found my 3rd city in the south of the middle east, ethiopian city spreads over the sea very soon. I did not even manage to build the Storyteller circle!

I suggest a change from ethiopian creative leader Zara Yaqob to another one without creative personality.

 

[kiwi_lifter]

First, this is a great mod, and I can't stop playing it, as my relative flood of recent posts probably indicates.

But in the spirit of constructive criticism, having played a lot of games, I've yet to see one where China, India, or South China are anything but doormats. This is easily explained:

1. They are surrounded by barbarians with impregnable tribal forts
2. They have a very strong civ (almost always a top 3 civ in my games) right by them in the mongols.
3. They have no access to bronze
4. They have another very strong civ (korea) right next door, who gets bronze.
5. South China's food resources are covered with jungle, which you must wait for 4000 years before you can remove due to the jungle removal tech being relatively deep in the tree.

I can usually do quite well i.e. win) as any of the European or African civs playing on monarch or above, but I've yet to last to the ads as China or India. They have such fertile lands, I understand why the map makers might want to limit them. On the other hand, China has consistently been one the foremost civilizations for thousands of years. No other civ comes close to matching that longeviity. But on this map, China (and India) is too severly handicapped.

Also regarding the (large) map: no fish for Greece? Rome is swimming in aquatic resources, but poor old Greece doesn't get anything. Also, since their wine is on an island, unless you build a city on that island, you can't use the resource (you can work the tile, but get no wine).

Spain is essentially an island civ with their two tribal forts, which makes them incredibly easy to play. I believe that the Romans conquered Spain quite early in their history without making great use of boats, but there's no way to get to Spain until the gunpowder era without transports. And, of course, the ai doesn't deal with transports well-it has no idea how to defend against them. So, being an island civ on the doorstep of Europe gives Spain (for a human player) too great an advantage, in my opinion. Those forts shouldn't be there or...better...make the forts difficult but not impregnable. We shouldn't have to rely on exploits to try and beat them.

 

[kiwitt]

Take a look at my Mod!