Standard 80x52 World Map TSL

* * *
Civilization Fanatics' Forums Thread * * *
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Thread : Standard (80x52) World Map TSL

Started at Oct 10, 2011 06:45 PM by Veneke
Visit at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=442692
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 1]
Author : Veneke
Date : Oct 10, 2011 06:45 PM
Thread Title : Standard (80x52) Earth Map TSL
Standard Sized Earth Maps
http://i.imgur.com/GFYSy.jpg (http://imgur.com/GFYSy)
A standard sized world map (80x52) with upscaled Europe and Japan, all Civs and
City States are as close to their real world locations as good gameplay will all
ow.
A note should be made about resource placement in this map. Resources are very l
ocalized, for instance there's no sugar outside of the Caribbean or cotton outsi
de the southern United States. That's not entirely realistic, but it should help
create some interesting situations and encourage long-range expansion and colon
ization (for the human players anyway). This is especially true for oil, uranium
and aluminium which are confined to a limited number of areas and/or located in
very small quantities in rather remote areas.
Civilizations (20/21):
African: Carthage, Egypt, Ethiopia, Songhai.
American: America, (Inca - only in DLC version), Iroqious, Maya.
Asian: China, India, Japan, Mongolia.
European: England, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, Sweden.
Middle-Eastern: Arabia, Byzantium, Persia.
City-States (17):
African: Cape Town, Marakech.
American: Cahokia, La Venta, Rio de Janeiro, Quebec City.
Asian: Colombo, Hanoi, Jakarta,Kuala Lumpur, Lhasa, Manila, Singapore, Sydney.
European: Vatican City.
Middle-Eastern: Almaty, Jerusalem.
Limited Map: Civilizations and City-States:
Europe: France, Russia, Vatican.
Middle East: Byzantium, Almaty, Jerusalem.
Africa: Egypt, Cape Town, Marakech.
Asia: India, China, Lhasa, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Hanoi, Jakarta, Sydney, Col
ombo, Manila.
America: America, Maya, Rio de Janerio, Quebec City, La Venta.
Brave New World: Civilizations and City States:
Europe: England, France, Portugal, Poland, Sweden, Russia. Vatican, Kiev.
Middle East: Byzantium, Assyria, Arabia. Kabul, Samarkand, Jerusalem.

Africa: Zulus, Egypt, Songhai, Carthage, Morocco. Mombasa, Mogadishu, Cape Town
, M'Banza-Kongo, Antananarivo.
Asia: India, China, Japan, Indonesia. Lhasa, Kyzyl, Kuala Lumpur, Hanoi, Colomb
o, Manila, Singapore.
Oceania: Sydney, Melbourne.
America: America, Shoshone, Maya, Brazil. Panama City, Quebec City, Vancouver,
Buenos Aires, Cahokia.
Screenshots:
Worldbuilder view of map (http://imgur.com/Mgbyo)
England versus the Russian bear (http://i.imgur.com/ZaBBr.jpg)
A very British Middle East (http://i.imgur.com/8RaRV.jpg)
Installation Instructions
Extract to C:\Users\...\Sid_Meiers_Civilization_5\MODS
Load Civ 5
Navigate to the Mods section
Activate Vens Gods and Kings Standard Earth Map
Go to Set Up Game
Select the appropriate Map
Click Back
Select Load Scenario
Select Civilization and other settings
Enjoy!
To play with achievements
These Maps do not change any default settings and so it is possible to enable St
eam achievements whilst playing.
As above but after the game has started:
Save game
Exit to Main Menu
Cick Single-Player
Load the saved game
Play as normal
Abbreviations:
V Earth 2 - Requires no DLC nor expansions to play.
VGK Earth - Requires Gods and Kings to play.
VGK Earth DLC - Requires Inca DLC to play. <-- This is considered to be the prim
ary map.
VGK Earth Limited - Requires Gods and Kings to play. Has only 8 Civs and 16 City
-States.
VBNW Earth - Requires Brave New World to play. Not yet included.
Changelog:
Brave New World:
Version 1.0 - Updated for BNW with hotfix for Panama City starting position.
Gods and Kings version:
Version 6.0 - Balancing pre-BNW. Expected to be the last update to the G&K maps.
Version 5.0 - Changed Map Pack name, added 'Limited' map and fixed Egyptian star
ting position in all maps.
Version 4.0 - Added Manila and La Venta, shifted Mayan starting position south a
nd adjusted resources and terrain in central America. Minor adjustments elsewher
e, see changelog for more information.
Version 3.0 - Variety of issues addressed relating to Victory conditions, starti
ng positions and England.
Version 2.01 - Fixed issue with map names.
Version 2.0 - Added CSs, Civs and additional maps to cover DLC and advanced opti
ons.
Version 1.0 - Initial release.
Initial vanilla version:
v3.00 - Minor map changes, see Readme for more details. Expected to be the last
update for the Vanilla map.
v2.00 - Various map changes to the Vanilla version. DLC version added. Diplomacy
mod added.
v1.00 - First release
Credits:
The initial map design was the Large world map done by Vadus, which can be found
here: Vadus World Map (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=394987).
As it turned out I ended up placing every resource by hand but the initial map s
culpting was Vadus' and I'm quite grateful for having such an excellent starting
point.
Special thanks to markusbeutel as well for kindly allowing me to use the diploma
cy component of his Nights mod with the Vanilla map.
Special thanks to bwoww78 for his valuable contributions to the map.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 2]
Author : MAGBaxter
Date : Oct 11, 2011 02:27 PM
It looks pretty good !
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 3]
Author : Lachlan
Date : Oct 11, 2011 10:01 PM
Nice map !
But if you want creating scenarios with only the map file, using DLCs would be r
equired...
In 1000 AD you must have Incan Empire, Danish Empire, Korean Empire and Spanish
Empire, 4 DLCs at least...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 4]
Author : Veneke
Date : Oct 12, 2011 03:00 AM
The plan is to avoid DLC if at all possible. As there's a need to add some citystates (current version has renamed CS's, but that doesn't appear to carry over
to notifications arising from them), it may be that those Civs will be modded in
.
At the moment, however, there appears to be a problem in that the small size of
the map, coupled with the close border proximity, is making the AI even more vol
atile than it usually is. Hopefully a bit of modding will solve this (I'm thinki
ng of the NiGHTS mod's diplomacy system).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 5]
Author : Veneke
Date : Oct 13, 2011 06:13 AM
I've removed the offending City States and made some other minor changes to the
map. A DLC version has been added and both now come packaged with the NiGHTS dip
lomacy system although its very easy to return to the Vanilla diplomacy system b
y moving/deleting a single folder.
The 1000 AD scenario is about half-way done, although the project has encountere
d a small hiccup. If anyone has any experience in combining Civilization packs i
nto one mod I'd appreciate it if they could send me a message.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 6]
Author : Veneke
Date : Oct 19, 2011 12:17 PM
The map pack has been updated. The scenarios, however, have been delayed because
for some reason I can't figure out how to get the extra Civs to work with the m
ap. The extra Civs load perfectly for a normal game, but don't display on the Ci
v selection screen when Load Scenario is picked on the Map. In fact, attempting
to load the map causes the game to crash. If anyone knows why this is, or wants
to help create scenarios for this map (those listed or otherwise) please feel fr
ee to message me.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 7]
Author : Flamegrape
Date : Nov 06, 2011 08:18 AM
I just don't understand what I'm doing wrong or how it's supposed to work. I hav
e tried to install this mod both manually and automatically through the in-game
download. When setting up a new game, I cannot find any map or scenario titled "
Standard World Map" or "Standard World Map DLC".
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 8]
Author : Veneke
Date : Nov 06, 2011 11:52 AM
Hmm... I'll walk you through the manual installation process, as that's the one
least likely to produce a problem you can't overcome. Although it's odd that the
Mod Browser failed to install it properly.
First step is to delete the Mod from ".../My Games/Sid Meier's Civilization 5/Mo
ds", just in case it's a single bad install that's throwing things out of kilter
.
* Download zip file.
* Extract zip file to .../My Games/Sid Meier's Civilization 5/Mods (Delete diplo
macy folder if you want Vanilla Civ 5 diplomacy).
* Launch Civ 5.
* Open Mod Browser.
* Press Install Mods.
* Wait until completed.
* Go to Mods.
* Activate Vens Standard Mod Pack.
* In the Mods menu select Setup Game (Do not select advanced setup).
* Click Maps on the left hand side, Pangaea, Continents etc should display on th
e right.
* Scroll down on the list to the right hand side.
* Two versions of the same map (one using DLC, one not - the difference is marke
d in the name) should be visible, select the appropriate one.
* Click Load Scenario.
* Select Civ etc and play away.
I'm assuming that this isn't a common occurrence as this is the first I've heard
of the mod failing to install properly. Then again, I've had very little feedba
ck (none, to be precise) and perhaps that's because nobody has managed to get it
to work. <.<
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 9]
Author : Lachlan
Date : Nov 29, 2011 09:39 AM
What are the news of 1000AD scenario ?
I'm currently playing your DLC version map :good job:
Your map is very nice, not too big...
And civs at theirs right locations...
Why not adding Korea in DLC version ?
Clash between China Japan and Korea would be nice to experiment :)
And Siam ?
Only one victory type possible ?
Cultural victory ? Scientific victory ? Diplomatic victory ?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 10]
Author : Veneke
Date : Dec 01, 2011 05:59 AM

Thanks for the feedback. The reason why Korea is missing from the DLC map is bec
ause I don't have that DLC. :P I'm hoping to update it in the near future into a
single map where no DLC is required and custom Civs are used. Unfortunately, Ci
v 5 doesn't appear to support that type of mod/scenario very well at all. The sa
me thing applies for the limited victory conditions, you'd have to create severa
l versions to account for the different possibilities.
Siam was left out though in order to fit three City-States into South-East Asia
to try and recreate the dynamic feel of the region in a way that adding Siam wou
ld not.
Tthe 1000 AD scenario which has been much delayed due to the backwards way you h
ave to design scenarios to get them to work with custom Civs.
* The good news is that the first release (Beta version) of the 1000 AD scenari
o has been completed and works.
* The bad news is that ModBuddy is refusing to allow me access to Online Servic
es, so I'm unable to update the map already released or upload the 1000 AD scena
rio. It crashes after logging in, and creating a new account does not fix the pr
oblem.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 11]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 02, 2012 04:14 AM
I've decided to discontinue support and updates for the vanilla version of this
map unless there is strong support for the vanilla version to be updated.
The map itself now only uses the Gods and Kings DLC and has been updated to take
into account the new Civs and resources. I've also buffed the European starting
positions in comparison to the Vanilla map and made it slightly less difficult
to obtain strategic resources like oil, uranium and aluminium.
Feedback and commentary welcome, as always. As well as being found here, it is a
lso available on the Steam Workshop and the CivFanatics download centre.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 12]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 02, 2012 11:35 AM
The map itself now only uses the Gods and Kings DLC and has been updated to take
into account the new Civs and resources.
one quick note: I see there are several "coastal" resources in lakes (i.e. Crabs
near Iroquois start location). I haven't actually play tested this, but can cit
ies on lakes NOT coasts (i.e. connected to ocean tiles) still produce work boats
?
If they can't then, then all lake resources would be unattainable (in particular
for AI who might not settle directly on the lake).
this looks like a great map and wanted to make sure you were aware
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 13]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 02, 2012 06:57 PM
Honestly I missed that. I'm not in a position to test right now but will check a
sap and fix if necessary.
Thanks for the feedback!
Edit: It would appear that you can't create work boats unless you have access to
the ocean. I've added it to the list of things to be fixed in the next release
(likely Thurs/Fri). Good catch.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 14]
Author : overkill9
Date : Jul 03, 2012 04:03 AM
I was wondering if it might be possible for you to somehow make it so that we ca
n win only through domination and diplomacy? Also, allowing saving policy and pr
omotion would be great. Please let us know if both of these things are somehow a
chievable since as it stands now if you select load scenario you cannot adjust t
hese things in advanced settings.
Edit: I seem to recall there have been TSL world maps that allows the user to no
t only adjust those things, but many other options such as participating civs, e
tc. ((yet another earth map mod). I was wondering since you have done a great jo
b with this, if such options would be possible. Thank you.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 15]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 03, 2012 04:23 AM
Overkill9 - You're quite right, the Yet Not Another Earth Map pack does give you
these features. Unfortunately, I've never managed to get that particular mod to
work and my attempt to replicate its functions failed spectacularly. However, I
'll certainly have another look into it for the update as it is easily one of th
e best mod components for 'scenarios' like this one.
Because I'd hate to leave you empty-handed after you've taken the time to share
feedback, here's how you can mod the map to suit your own particular preferences
:
- Start the Civ 5 SDK (available through the Tools menu under View in Steam).
- Select Worldbuilder.
- Load Map and go to C:\\...\Mods\Vens Gods and Kings Standard Earth\GK Standar
d World Map. Click Open.
- Along the top of the screen you'll see a button called Scenario Editor.
- The options you want are in checkboxes along the top of the screen, select ap
propriately.
- Hit Save.
- When you load up the scenario again those options will be automatically avail
able to you.
Far from ideal, I quite agree, and I'll see about getting the options interface
screen to work asap.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 16]
Author : overkill9
Date : Jul 03, 2012 05:08 AM
Thank you for your quick response Veneke. It seems that particular mod creator h
ave stopped updating since last year, so I was at a loss. If it is too difficult
to do it his way, how about just making a map that 1. large/standard earth w/ T
SL (same size as the current one), 2. real resource placement, 3. scripted only
for domination/diplomacy, 4. appropriate civ number (20 sounds fine) ?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 17]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 03, 2012 06:01 AM
Well, it would be fairly easy to include
h different victory conditions. It'll be
ch of a hassle. If I can't figure it out
h a diplo/domination VC variant (and any
a dozen or so of the same maps just wit

a lot of repitition but won't be too mu
by the weekend I'll update the pack wit
other combination that is requested).
Civ numbers could be more complicated, so until I can figure out how to implemen
t a setup screen these are going to have to remain static. It has been pointed o
ut that 20 Civs and 10 City States is quite a large number to have on a standard
sized map. I have considered a more typical 8 Civ/16 City State combination tha
t focuses on the older civilizations (Iroqouis, Mayan, Egypt, India, China, Japa
n, Russia, Rome, Byzantium with the existing City States plus Valetta, Lisbon, Q
uebec, Jerusalem, Edinburgh and Antwerp) which I think could make for an interes
ting game but frankly there are quite a number of variations.
Like the Victory Conditions these are easy to implement but there will very quic
kly be a huge number of variants of the same map (especially so if different VCs
are added on top of the different Civs) which could all be easily solved if the
custom screen works out. On the other hand, that is a very big if.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 18]
Author : overkill9
Date : Jul 03, 2012 07:16 AM
Of course. The VC would be the first priority really. As for civ numbers, I pers
onally do not have much problem with it but if reducing them is your goal, perha
ps 14 or 15 would better fit a standard size map?
Anyway, thanks for working on this - if you can get the same map with TSL and di
plo/domination conditions only soon, I think many will greatly appreciate you ef
forts.
Edit: Is allowing policy/promotion saving similarly simple? If so, you could inc
lude that as well. Also, is it possible to choose which civs will be included in
a particular game? I personally try to include all the major historical players
(US, Rome, Arabia, Russia, China, India, Egypt, etc) whenever I play earth game
s, and try to include appropriate number of civs in each regions so that runaway
civ situation is not present in my games. If this is not as easy, I understand.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 19]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 03, 2012 08:47 AM
I'm actually perfectly happy with the current number of Civs and City-States but
I do appreciate that there are large number of them.
Policy/promotion saving and, indeed, Civs are all pretty simple. The problem is
that you'd probably need to include 3 maps just to cover the VC variations (all,
diplo/dom, culture/science/time). If you add in policy/promotion saving you're
up to 6 at a minimum (3 with and 3 without), then if you try and vary the Civs y
ou're up to at least 12 (the aforementioned 6 with one group of Civs and another
6 with a different group of Civs). This is the major problem I have with it - t
here'll be a huge map pack of some 20+ different maps that are all exactly the s
ame map just with some differences in settings.
The sickening thing is that it's actually all very easy to do and for the life o
f me I cannot figure out why it has been designed in this fashion. The only solu
tions I can see is to implement a whole new screen yourself (which is what YNAEM
P does), ask people to fiddle around with the map themselves in the SDK (which k
inda defeats the purpose) or else publish a huge number of maps that are little
more than setting variations.
I have contacted Gedemon and a few other modders to see if anyone knows of a sol
ution that isn't immediately clear but working under the assumption that it will
take a small bit before a settings screen is available for this map I think we'
re stuck with option 3 and I'll take requests to include various different setti
ngs on the map.
At the moment I'm planning on the initial 6 I described above (VCs and promo/pol
icy saving) with the existing Civ and city placement due for release sometime to
morrow. If you've any particular requests (Civs, City States, other options) I'l
l tailor each map setting to the request. This will, hopefully, be a temporary s
olution just to cover it until a screen can be added to allow players to alter t
he advanced settings on the map themselves.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 20]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 03, 2012 09:13 AM
Honestly I missed that. I'm not in a position to test right now but will check a
sap and fix if necessary.
Thanks for the feedback!
Of course! I cannot tell you how much I appreciate such a well made TSL earth ma
p that can function in the late game on a non-super-computer (like mine)
If you've any particular requests (Civs, City States, other options) I'll tailor
each map setting to the request. This will, hopefully, be a temporary solution
just to cover it until a screen can be added to allow players to alter the advan
ced settings on the map themselves.
I did some personal edits to the GK map in WB last night (some terrain, but most
ly changes to Civs & and added a few City States), which I'd be happy to post he
re for your reference or future use in this process.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 21]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 03, 2012 09:18 AM
I did some personal edits to the GK map in WB last night (some terrain, but most
ly changes to Civs & and added a few City States), which I'd be happy to post he
re for your reference or future use in this process.
Definitely post it here. I've been tweaking around with the terrain (still not 1
00% happy with it) and would love to have additional feedback. Although, I am sl
ightly more interested to know which City States you managed to sneak in.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 22]
Author : PawelS
Date : Jul 03, 2012 09:25 AM
The map looks nice, perhaps I'll make my version as well, using some DLC civs, l
ike the Inca.
Rio de Janeiro and Jakarta are placed in wrong locations, also the Mayan startin
g location is where the Aztecs should be.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 23]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 03, 2012 09:50 AM
The map looks nice, perhaps I'll make my version as well, using some DLC civs, l
ike the Inca.
Rio de Janeiro and Jakarta are placed in wrong locations, also the Mayan startin
g location is where the Aztecs should be.
Those are exactly the things I adjusted.
I also added Mapuche and Colombo CSs, swapped Persia for Inca (and added Persepo
lis as a CS), removed Rome and added Vatican City CS, removed Almaty and added O
ttomans in their place (just for kicks, even though Istanbul capital there may l
ook funny, it frees up some of Europe and creates a very enticing CS to conquer
in the Vatican).
I also made some changes to resource placement (lake issue previously mentioned--fish w/o boats are ok in lakes, but not crabs or pearls...). I changed some Eu
ropean terrain: less mountains in the Alps, boosted some of England's terrain (b
igger Ireland, taller main island), moved Madrid to the western coast (they have
a chance to accurately place Barcelona or lose out on that space to France...)
and moved Berlin from it's coastal start (that way both France AND Germany have
to settle on a coast...)
That's just what I can recall. I know I'd like to add some mountains around Moro
cco, but might have forgotten to. I'll post later tonight if possible. My CiV wa
s not loading correctly last night post-patch update though, so I might need to
deal with that first...
Overall, my goal is to have a standard earth map that is accurate yet balanced e
nough that I as a player would want to play as any Civ on the map and subsequent
ly I could swap out Civs & CSs based planned on gameplay and realism for future
playthroughs. This way resource placement doesn't have to change, rather the loc
ation/perspective of the player does, which is just as exciting and gives me an
excuse to depart from playing as my already well-worn favorite Civs.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 24]
Author : thadian
Date : Jul 03, 2012 10:47 AM
Hope ya don't mind, but im also making my own personal versions. I will simply
have an "old world" version, "full world" version, and then 2 separate for each
one so that i can try to replicate era's. I will also consider replacing some o
f the resources - but i doubt i will ever upload anything and if i do, ill post
my revisions here for you to tinker with as you like.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 25]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 03, 2012 06:41 PM
Those are exactly the things I adjusted.
I also added Mapuche and Colombo CSs, swapped Persia for Inca (and added Persepo
lis as a CS), removed Rome and added Vatican City CS, removed Almaty and added O
ttomans in their place (just for kicks, even though Istanbul capital there may l
ook funny, it frees up some of Europe and creates a very enticing CS to conquer
in the Vatican).
I also made some changes to resource placement (lake issue previously mentioned--fish w/o boats are ok in lakes, but not crabs or pearls...). I changed some Eu
ropean terrain: less mountains in the Alps, boosted some of England's terrain (b
igger Ireland, taller main island), moved Madrid to the western coast (they have
a chance to accurately place Barcelona or lose out on that space to France...)
and moved Berlin from it's coastal start (that way both France AND Germany have
to settle on a coast...)
That's just what I can recall. I know I'd like to add some mountains around Moro
cco, but might have forgotten to. I'll post later tonight if possible. My CiV wa
s not loading correctly last night post-patch update though, so I might need to
deal with that first...
Overall, my goal is to have a standard earth map that is accurate yet balanced e
nough that I as a player would want to play as any Civ on the map and subsequent
ly I could swap out Civs & CSs based planned on gameplay and realism for future
playthroughs. This way resource placement doesn't have to change, rather the loc
ation/perspective of the player does, which is just as exciting and gives me an
excuse to depart from playing as my already well-worn favorite Civs.
So please ignore what I said above about Civ/CS changes to the map; I didn't rea
lize that while I was editing the map last night I had the legendary earth mod a
ctivated, which changes the available city states (e.g. Persepolis as CS). I gue
ss I'm just wasn't familiar enough with the new CSs added in GK to realize those
were not "stock" unmodded CSs. So, with that said:
Attached is an adjustment to Ven's map. I changed the number of playable Civs (2

0 to 21), opening up Europe a bit and filling out Africa in the process. Likewis
e, I added more CSs to the Americas and adjusted SE Asia.
Regarding resources and terrain, I added and rearranged some natural wonders (e.
g. Cerro de Potosi) for additional flavor (it is a more cramped map than the TSL
huge/giant earth maps). I changed the location of some strategic resources base
d on realism (though this was hardly scientific). Knowing this is one of the dri
vers for AI settling behavior, I tried not to mess with it too much. I assume a
few playthroughs will help to determine any changes in distribution.
I'd be interested to know what you think. Thanks again for the great mod!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 26]
Author : overkill9
Date : Jul 03, 2012 08:10 PM
I'm actually perfectly happy with the current number of Civs and City-States but
I do appreciate that there are large number of them.
Policy/promotion saving and, indeed, Civs are all pretty simple. The problem is
that you'd probably need to include 3 maps just to cover the VC variations (all,
diplo/dom, culture/science/time). If you add in policy/promotion saving you're
up to 6 at a minimum (3 with and 3 without), then if you try and vary the Civs y
ou're up to at least 12 (the aforementioned 6 with one group of Civs and another
6 with a different group of Civs). This is the major problem I have with it - t
here'll be a huge map pack of some 20+ different maps that are all exactly the s
ame map just with some differences in settings.
The sickening thing is that it's actually all very easy to do and for the life o
f me I cannot figure out why it has been designed in this fashion. The only solu
tions I can see is to implement a whole new screen yourself (which is what YNAEM
P does), ask people to fiddle around with the map themselves in the SDK (which k
inda defeats the purpose) or else publish a huge number of maps that are little
more than setting variations.
I have contacted Gedemon and a few other modders to see if anyone knows of a sol
ution that isn't immediately clear but working under the assumption that it will
take a small bit before a settings screen is available for this map I think we'
re stuck with option 3 and I'll take requests to include various different setti
ngs on the map.
At the moment I'm planning on the initial 6 I described above (VCs and promo/pol
icy saving) with the existing Civ and city placement due for release sometime to
morrow. If you've any particular requests (Civs, City States, other options) I'l
l tailor each map setting to the request. This will, hopefully, be a temporary s
olution just to cover it until a screen can be added to allow players to alter t
he advanced settings on the map themselves.
Thanks for taking this on yourself Veneke. The map I would request is one with d
iplo/domination only, with policy and promotion saving, TSL, and real-life resou
rce placements. You have made this leecher very happy today- time for me to fire
up the American campaign and dominate the western hemisphere:cool:
One thing: I think some ppl are not in possession of civ DLCs, so only including
the civs that came with GK and vanilla CiV might be a good idea to start with,
as in being able to play even if you don't have those DLCs.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 27]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 03, 2012 08:29 PM
Couple of points with relation to the Civ placement on my own map - I did simple
swap of the Aztecs for the Mayans, it isn't entirely accurate (obviously) but I
figured it was close enough to be acceptable. The Iroqoius (who are well out of
position) and Jakarta (who are slightly out of position) were moved on the basi
s of giving them decent breathing room. Rio I believe I confused with Buenos Air
es.
Anyone looking to alter the map should feel free to do so, but if you publish it
I'd appreciate a quick word of thanks.
==
@bwoww78:
That actually looks very, very good. I rather like quite a number of your change
s and if you've no objection want to incorporate them into the existing map. Cou
ple of the most obvious ones that struck me: Mt. Sinai being moved, El Dorado, C
olombo, Cahokia, Songhai.
Just a couple of points on some of your changes. I think some of these will be i
ncluded in some shape or form.
I had kept Madrid's starting location on the east coast in order to ensure that
Spain had the potential for a second city (like pretty much every other European
power had), however, moving it to the west does get around the problem of Marak
ech blocking Madrid's route out of the Med. Likewise London was positioned on th
e southern coast in order to help ensure that the English channel was English an
d not French. I honestly don't know if these should be moved.
The DLC Civs Inca+Polynesia are Civs I personally play with when playing the map
, but I wanted to avoid the DLC/non-DLC version division that happened for the V
anilla version. I'm probably going to include both, however, as the map is signi
ficantly better for their inclusion.
Swapping the Vatican for Rome is something I toyed with, but disregarded on the
basis that Rome would be more popular than any other Civ that would take its pla
ce. Seeing it now though I think I actually prefer the Vatican.
Jerusalem is a problem. I wanted to include
rfs Egypt's second city on the mouth of the
built. It also prevents a Kuwait or similar
erusalem is now the provider of most of the
.
it initially but it significantly ne

Nile and prevents a Suez from being
from being built, which means that J
world's oil... which is a little odd
Expanding Scotland is probably the right move, but Ireland no longer looks anyth
ing close to what it's meant to look like. On the other hand, the English AI sim
ply refuses to settle Ireland as is in my test games so this may be the only fix
.
I have to admit that I prefer a larger Alps. All of the European Civs with excep
tion to Germany have decent defensive locations which was deliberately put in pl
ace to help ensure that the European AIs survive the early rushes. London has th
e English channel, Madrid has the Pyrennes, France has the Pyrennes and the Alps
to their south and wooded, hilly terrain with rivers between them and Germany,
Constatinople has a river to the north and mountains to their SE, Stockholm has
wooded, hilly terrain with natural chokepoints etc. I don't think removing it is
conducive to helping the AI in Europe stay alive.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 28]
Author : overkill9
Date : Jul 04, 2012 06:43 AM
Veneke:
I found that strategic resources no longer reach 6- they are relatively small am
ounts. Is this on purpose?
Also, if you can also create 'Large' versions of these maps, I
great for people who prefer them. Some seems oversized - japan
nderstand the need to enlarge europe a little to ensure EU civ
overall small size of pacific oceans and enlargement of japan
uch
think it will be
for instance. I u
survival, but the
seems a bit too m
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 29]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 04, 2012 08:36 AM
There should be several 5 and 7 amounts of strategic resources dotted around pla
ces which typically have higher yields than the rest of the world. So the Middle
East has a number of 7 yield Oil (and I've added one or two more for the next v
ersion) while any Civ that needs Iron or Horse for their UU has 5 of the appropr
iate resource.
Resource placement has been skewed to localize resources to particular parts of
the world with the 1 and 2 yield strategic resource tiles dotted around the plac
e for some kind of balance. It is the case, however, that if you do not expand b
eyond your immediate starting location it is quite likely that you will seriousl
y lack for Oil, Uranium, Aluminium and potentially all three.
Part of the reason why this is Standard sized is that I want people with lower a
nd middle end rigs to be able to play it with somewhat reasonable turn times. Th
e number of Civs and resources obviously runs counter to this but increasing to
Large from Standard is roughly a 33% increase in hex numbers which is quite sign
ificant. As you correctly surmise if certain areas weren't upscaled you'd have l
ess viable starting points.
I apologize for not having the update today, unexpected matters cropped up that
prevented me from giving it my full attention and I want to avoid a constant str
eams of half-formed updates. Although I have many changes done, I still want to
review the Eastern Siberia and Mongolian region as well as Coal distribution bef
ore the next update goes out. Aluminium, Uranium and Oil might also need to be s
lightly buffed but I want to preserve the philosophy of scarce late-game strateg
ic resources that has driven this map since its inception.
For anyone interested, here are the current provisional update notes:
- Many of the changes bwoww78 has implemented I've taken on board (and I'd still
very much like formal permission to utilize those) though there are some that I
haven't; largely those that reposition the European Civs.

- There are now 6 versions (3 DLC, 3 non-DLC one of each is as is, the second of
each is Diplo/Dom VCs with promo/policy saving, the third of each is Time/Scien
ce/Culture with promo/policy saving).
- The DLC version includes Inca and Polynesia in the positions bwoww78 suggested
.
- Both non-DLC and DLC maps now feature Songhai while the non-DLC version featur
es Rome and the DLC version features the Vatican (in order to make room for Poly
/Inca).
- Jerusalem is now included in both, though is slightly out of position so it ca
n act as a Suez transfer city. A side effect of this is that Persia has its star
ting position shifted 1 hex east to facilitate a city to be built in the Iraq re
gion.
- The Saudi penisula has been expanded and resources redistributed and altered a
ccordingly. The Arabian starting position has been shifted slightly.
- One mountain and the river have been fixed in Europe.
- Several Luxury and Strategic resources in inaccessible lakes have been removed
, replaced or repositioned.
- Salt added to N. America and Iroquois position to facilitate the loss of Crab.
- Uranium has been removed from two islands in the south Pacific and Atlantic an
d some Uranium tiles increased by 1.
- Removed 1 Iron down by Cape Town that shouldn't have been there.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 30]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 04, 2012 10:07 AM
first of all, OF COURSE you can use my input! I'm glad to help. I'm not much of
a modder, but I'm happy to help in testing for balance, etc. Like I've said, a s
tandard size TSL map that I can use to replay with any civ on the board is what
I'm looking for (and this is the best I've seen on the forums to date).
I like this principle, however I'd recommend against placing highly strategic re
sources (e.g. uranium) on single hex islands in the middle of nowhere as it shie
s away from the realism I think many look to TSL maps for in the first place. I'
ll defer to your judgement on resource placement, and worst case scenario, I kno
w how to play with WB for my own games...
Totally agree.
I appreciate your feedback and the inclusion of my edits. I've put some thought
into the Europe situation and I have a couple of potential recommendations:
1. SPAIN: Regarding Madrid's placement, the 2nd city issue and access to Gibralt
ar, you COULD simply swap the western-most mountain tile of the Pyrenees with th
e eastern-most forest hex (above what hopefully should be Barcelona). I think th
e argument can be made that this still definitely serves as a choke point in Spa
in's defense and that Spain would be even MORE likely to place it's second city
along the east coast of Iberia, if only for quicker access to that silver. This
should be play tested, and if you'd like I'd be willing to do that. Either way,
I won't fall on my sword for this one.
(Note: you could always just shift Marrakech southwest one tile as well as it's
associated resources to save the strait for Spain).
2. England: You know best from play-testing, but I just hate it when England cla
ims that west-most tile of France (what would be ~Brest). I don't mind, however,
if England claims one of "Brussel's" marsh tiles. Go figure. That's mostly why
I made the shift northwest. Regarding Ireland, well, it's not exactly the way I
wanted it to look either, but you have to do something to make the AI settle som
etimes, and if it's any consolation, I think with the plains/stone tile on the e
ast coast will look better in game than as a hex in WB. I would recommend having
something enticing there for both the AI (and the player). If we're upscaling J
apan, we should do at least something similar for England.
3. Do you agree with my moving start locations of Berlin & Moscow? I might have
changed some resources in the process, but thought I would note those difference
s.
.
/Inca).
Smart choice. I may still make my own changes (since I have all DLC) in play-tes
ting, but for as much as I've played Rome already, I had to do something to remo
ve the temptation...
gion.
I'm glad you included Jerusalem, if only because it's neat they (and Vatican Cit
y) were included in GK and I'm not sure what the balance is currently for religi
ous city-states. I'm excited to see what changes you've made for Saudi peninsula
. If you noticed my edits removed Arabia because I didn't want the challenge of
reshaping. I'd be glad to see them in game again.
I'd be interested to know which... did I do that? ha
Just FYI, I might have also changed some resources. If you noticed, I included a
river to represent the St. Lawrence Seaway. I think this is really important fo
r North America (a natural dividing line, etc.). Also, it' boosted a location fo
r New York. I'd definitely vie for it's inclusion.
Great! See my note above about strategic resources. As I said, I'm interested to
see your changes.
Thanks again
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 31]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 04, 2012 10:20 AM
(See attached to describe what I mean about Spain)
Edit: is there a 2 tile limit on city placement? Or is it 3 tiles? Hmmm
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 32]
Author : overkill9
Date : Jul 04, 2012 04:57 PM
There should be several 5 and 7 amounts of strategic resources dotted around pla
ces which typically have higher yields than the rest of the world. So the Middle
East has a number of 7 yield Oil (and I've added one or two more for the next v
ersion) while any Civ that needs Iron or Horse for their UU has 5 of the appropr
iate resource.
I apologize for not having the update today, unexpected matters cropped up that
prevented me from giving it my full attention and I want to avoid a constant str
eams of half-formed updates. Although I have many changes done, I still want to
review the Eastern Siberia and Mongolian region as well as Coal distribution bef
ore the next update goes out. Aluminium, Uranium and Oil might also need to be s
lightly buffed but I want to preserve the philosophy of scarce late-game strateg
ic resources that has driven this map since its inception.
.
/Inca).
gion.
Of course, the map size is appropriate for the stated purposes. I was just wonde
ring if you would be interested in doing same map but only in large size in the
future.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 33]
Author : PawelS
Date : Jul 04, 2012 05:22 PM
I think Siam should be in the game, the Hanoi CS can be removed to make room for
it. But if you are already at the 22 civ limit, I'm not sure which one should b
e removed...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 34]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 04, 2012 06:38 PM
first of all, OF COURSE you can use my input! I'm glad to help. I'm not much of
a modder, but I'm happy to help in testing for balance, etc. Like I've said, a s
tandard size TSL map that I can use to replay with any civ on the board is what
I'm looking for (and this is the best I've seen on the forums to date).
Thank you!
I like this principle, however I'd recommend against placing highly strategic re
sources (e.g. uranium) on single hex islands in the middle of nowhere as it shie
s away from the realism I think many look to TSL maps for in the first place.
Fair point and I have removed the offending resources.
With regards to your spoiler'd comments:
1. Playtesting at the moment pretty much confirms that the Spanish AI settles in
place and then creates a new city on that NW tile. Unfortunately, unless the XM
L (I think?) is altered you need 3 empty hexes between each city tile, which mea
ns that even if you swap the mountain tiles Paris will still block your proposed
city.
Shifting Marakech SW is a good move and will, hopefully, mean that Spain takes t
he Strait.
2. All of my playtesting so far suggests that even as is France still tends to g
et one of the tiles in the English channel while England picks up one, or both,
of the marshlands in Europe. It is not ideal. Something I am toying with is movi
ng the resources in the English Channel out of there, I'm hoping that will mean
that Paris' culture growth will veer elsewhere. Well, the upscaling of Japan is
a different game. Civs in Europe, with almost no exceptions, have access to 2 ci
ty spots. Japan, however, is competing with China, India and Mongolia all who ha
ve access to at least 3 good city spots. Expanding the Scotland is a good move b
ut I'm much more hesitant about Ireland or giving England access to Iceland/Gree
nland through coast tiles.
3. Regarding Berlin, no not really. This is on the basis that it prevents a city
from being founded in Eastern Europe and prevents Berlin's quick access to one
of its luxury resources (Pearls). I must admit that I missed the movement of Mos
cow. I think it cuts into the Caucasus city a bit too much but I'm curious as to
why you think Moscow should be moved there.
Vatican, Jerusalem & Saudi Arabia. Yeah, I spotted the Arabs sudden disappearanc
e and while there probably is an argument to be made for their departure I would
definitely prefer them to be kept. Completely agree on Vatican and Jerusalem.
Mountain and River in Europe. This is actually something that shouldn't have bee
n in the initial release. The river moving from central Europe along to the sea
above Constantinople is broken at one point. The fourth mountain 1 tile NE of th
e Alps has been changed into a hill.
I'll have to review the New York river again but yeah, that sounds like a good i
nclusion.
I think Siam should be in the game, the Hanoi CS can be removed to make room for
it. But if you are already at the 22 civ limit, I'm not sure which one should b
e removed...
Early on (way back when I did this map for Vanilla) I decided that it would be m
ore interesting to see a large number of CSs in Southeast Asia than it would to
have another Asian Civ. There is actually room for Siam in terms of Civ numbers
in the non-DLC map, but I've no plans to include it.
Of course, the map size is appropriate for the stated purposes. I was just wonde
ring if you would be interested in doing same map but only in large size in the
future.
Honestly I've no plans for this. I strongly suggest you check out Vadus' map whi
ch is linked in the OP if you want a map similar to this but Large. It was desig
ned for Vanilla (and I've not seen any update for G&K), however, and the resourc
e placement and a good deal of the terrain differs but it was a fantastic starti
ng point for this map and would definitely be what I'd use were if I was making
a Large or bigger version.
The next 'project' I'm toying with starting is a series similar to Neal's King o
f the World for Civ IV using this map as a base. Between that, updating my War A
cademy guides for G&K and RL I'm afraid that I simply don't have the time to exp
lore enlarging the map.
==
Update will be out sometime in the afternoon eastern Aussie time.
Edit: And it's out. OP updated as well.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 35]
Author : overkill9
Date : Jul 05, 2012 02:02 AM
Thank you veneke. Unfortunately, I see there are 6 maps, but they are somewhat h
ard to distinguish from each other and player can't tell the difference aside fr
om civ and cs numbers. do they also differ in victory condition, etc.? If so, le
t us know how to tell them apart.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 36]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 05, 2012 02:24 AM
Hmm... the map titles should specify the VCs and options enabled. When you go to
select the map there should be a series of 'VGK Standard Earth ...' with ...DLC
, ...DLC Saving, ...DLC SavingDiploDom and similar variations that tells each ma
p apart.
Edit: Okay, lemme fix this real quick.
Edit: It has now kinda been fixed. Something though is still telling it to displ
ay the old names for the maps. Once you click on one though the proper naming co
mes up.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 37]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 05, 2012 03:14 AM
Okay, fixed properly this time.
I believe I will forever be amazed at the idiotic design utilized by the Civ V m
odding system. It's almost as if they deliberately went out of their way to make
things more awkward for you than they had to be. I've seen and attended meeting
s and presentations which were little more than expressions of collective stupid
ity that made more sense than what you have to do to get Civ V's mod/scenario/St
eam Workship nonsense to work correctly. A grand total of 5 different entries ha
d to be changed to get those names fixed, I no longer have any idea what 3 of th
em do anymore. I think the other two supercede them once you've included the fil
e. The best part is that there's a whole separate screen that's always active an
d displays those two properties but which cannot be edited. You have to dig arou
nd in the Mod's properties file to edit them.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 38]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 05, 2012 10:52 AM
Thanks again for considering my input. Without any play-testing, I have a few co
mments on the most recent map changes. In short, I plan to make a few alteration
s myself to city/natural wonder/resource placement for a variety of purposes. I
will then play-test and let you know how the AI behaves. My hope is that this wi
ll overall improve realism and the quality of the map for others. It's hard to s
queeze TSL earth into a standard map, but I'm up for tweaking this one to perfec
tion. To save everyone's screen space, I'll spoil my comments by region below.
NORTH AMERICA:
1. Onondaga looks good to go now resource-wise. While not 100% historically accu
rate (it's really an up-state New York start location), I definitely agree with
it's placement and think it should work out well for a much more evenly settled
North America. One thing: I would recommend placing the Uranium north of Onondag
a out west in Alaska for two reasons: (1) if the whales do not do so already, th
is resource might encourage Hiawatha AI to settle out west; (2) if Hiawatha does
not get there, Washington likely will (and most definitely if it's me as the US
A player), which also supports in realism (btw, look out Honululu...).
2. Natural Wonders: I would recommend adding one (Grand Mesa) and changing the l
ocation of the other two North American natural wonders as you have them. First,
Old Faithful is actually located in Wyoming, so further north (more like on the
Truffles near Cahokia or the mountain tile directly west of there). Secondly, a
fter moving Old Faithful north, I'd replace it's old tile with the Barringer Cra
ter and put the Grand Mesa in place of the Crater's old position.
(Note: I'm a sucker for using all available natural wonders, when possible (henc
e including El Dorado before). For example, if I could I would place the Fountai
n of Youth in southern Florida; however there is an issue with that feature requ
iring no adjacent coastal tiles. While it's game-breaking in Florida, if one wan
ted to get creative, it could be put it somewhere in Brazil, though this seems l
ike overkill even to me...)
3. Cahokia & Palenque: Historically Cahokia is really supposed to be around St.
Louis. While we're breaking this rule plenty already (see Onondaga), along the s
ame lines as Jerusalem & Vatican City, I view this CS as a ripe target for both
AI/player conquest (more on the other two CS later). As such, I'm inclined to mo
ve it more to the midwest to draw it's expansion over the available natural wond
ers and relieve some space for Hiawatha. I mention Palenque here as well because
, well, as much as I look forward to Montezuma-less North America map, I think t
he Mayans are better positioned in the Yucatan peninsula for two reasons: (1) th
e Cerro de Potosi will draw a second Mayan city north OR El Dorado may draw them
south. This should be play tested, but I like the idea of Mayan expansion in ei
ther directly (otherwise Inca might get it too easy being basically alone in Sou
th America); (2) By placing Palenque closer to that available sugar in the Carib
bean, there's a chance the AI will go coastal and expand that way (or at least c
ompete with Washington + Colonial Europeans, should we be that lucky in AI reali
sm behavior).
As such, I plan to change the following city placements (along with Natural Wond
er adjustments noted above):
* Cahokia moved to the forest tile triangulated between the current 2 wheats and
aluminum along the Mississippi.
* Palenque moved south in the jungle tile (maybe change to a hill tile?) triangu
lated between the 2 sugars and silver.
4. Quebec City & St. Lawrence Seaway: Thanks for including. I like to make sure
the Great Lakes get their due, and on a map this size this is the best we can do
. I can't quite tell from the attached image what the river placement you adopte
d, but here's fair warning I might adjust it to respect it's realism and/or matc
h the natural border. As you likely know, CiV strongly considers rivers in cultu
ral tile acquisition and while I don't think this would mean moving Quebec City
south (specifically because I'd want to leave room for New York), I wanted to le
t you know that I might tweak this area (which might not be obvious at first gla
nce).
SOUTH AMERICA:
I worry that, as usual in vanilla CS TSL maps, the Inca will end up being too mu
ch of a powerhouse with little expansion competition until late game (hence want
ing to encourage Mayan southward expansion, as noted above). I notice you placed
them on a coastal tile. As they remain basically mountain landlocked on the wes
t coast, this seems fair so I'll leave it as is for now and see how the Inca pla
y out.
Aside from creating a special new CS (Buenos Aires equivalent? Some unused "Ital
ian" CS?) to be placed along the Rio de la Plata, I'm not sure I'd have any othe
r solutions. I'd be interested to know how others play-testing goes in South Ame
rica.
EUROPE:
1. England: I think you may be on to something with moving sea resources out of
the English Channel. Remember, France has an inherent advantage in early game wi
th a +2 culture bonus, so France (AI or player) WILL expand faster than England
without help. As such, I plan to move those to channel luxuries to the coastal t
iles between the main island and Ireland. This might not work exactly every time
to make sure England gets those last two (resource-less) western tiles of the c
hannel, but it might have the added bonus of encouraging settlement in Ireland.
It's just a hunch. Will play-test.
2. I see your point in placement of Berlin and Moscow. I trust your previous exp
erience here and will leave them as is. I'm curious though: are those marshes be
tween them to serve as "early rush" protection? I removed a couple of them in my
initial edits (and moved Moscow south a tile) because I'd like Russia to settle
St. Petersburg on the coast (a dream, I know). I'm always bummed Russia doesn't
expand enough as AI on TSL maps (which is really too critical, I know), but I'l
l take a Caucus settlement over a Baltic one if I have to. What would be great i
s a 5 total city Russia, spread in a circle around Moscow, which then poises Cat
herine for eastern expansion in the mid game... but then again, I guess that's w
hy this map is great, because that would be my plan as a player...
3. Lastly, regarding Vatican City, I'm very happy they made the cut. I mention i
t above, but I think it will be very interesting to see how AI handles a city st
ate with such awesome resources at it's disposal, especially given it's defensib
le position. This way we've got an important religious CS at the disposal of all
of Europe and Mediterranean and a conquest option that could really sway the ba
lance of Europe---hard to beat. While you can still miss Rome, I believe this wi
ll be much more interesting in replay value overall.
AFRICA:
1. Marrakech: Just looking at the map attached image, you might want to be certa
in that the starting point for this CS is on the same tile as the pre-placed cit
y. (Personally, I don't like to pre-place cities at all; rather, I only include
them for image captures like the one you did and then delete them and rely on de
signated start locations before running the actual scenario in game. This avoids
any potential bugs in cities not having the required buildings (palace?, etc.)
or designations. As you've already stated, there are some quirky things about mo
ds in CiV and I think this is an easy fix to avoid some.)
Additionally, I'm going to add some mountain tiles to the Maghreb (maybe a coupl
e, one southwest of the nearby copper tile on the coast, and a couple south of t
hose plains tiles?). Carthage needs some reason to utilize their UA, and unless
they take over Vatican City and head north into Europe through the Alps... Just
an idea. This does not hurt the map in expansion terms and provides a bit more i
nteresting gameplay. After all this, I'll post the edited map I plan to play wit
h and you can see my mountain additions there.
2. Songhai and Egypt: will need horses, I believe, for their UU. I'm not sure ab
out Ethiopia, but unless both those civ's rush to Madagascar (which I'm also not
sure why Uranium is there and not north of Cape Town somewhere...), they will b
e out of luck. And that's a lot for AI with no coastal start to research Optics
early and settle far away... sorry, you get my point. I'll make some adjustments
in my map (4-5 horses per civ who needs them, right?) and post.
3. Resources: in writing the above I realize you might want to add another mount
ain to represent Mt. Kilimanjaro (is that already a natural wonder? it should be
, Firaxis...). If there is a Kilimanjaro, I'll place it southwest of the current
mountain in middle Africa. If not, just another regular mountain tile there ins
tead.
MIDDLE EAST:
... looks great!
1. Arabia: well done. A la Madrid, I think you've got a great 2nd city location
and strong resource placement available to nearby CS and civ. Losing those coast
al mountain tiles on the Egyptian side is totally worth it for the peninsula's s
ake.
2. Jerusalem: See my Vatican City comments above. Great religious state with STR
ONG resources available (Mt. Sinai is a straight faith tile, I believe) which gi
ves all civs early reason to friend or conquer. Moreover, as you have the city c
urrently placed, it's Suez-utility makes it a crucial late game city, for obviou
s reasons. My only other suggestion would be to place a single source of Uranium
on Jerusalem's city tile as an easter egg in the late game.
(Note: I'm not sure of the mechanics of passing THROUGH a friendly CS on a coast
al bridge tile like that. My first play-test will be as the US---mostly to see h
ow the rest of the world expands---and I'll try out a Jerusalem friendly approac
h to see if this works. Either way, it's a great fit; glad to see it included.)
ASIA/PACIFIC:
This is where the expansion is move variable, I'd assume. It's hard to have many
comments without at least play-testing it once, but here you go.
1. Mongolia: Looks good. I'd include at least one lake (coast) tile nearby (the
grassland tile NW of the capital?) to represent lake Bikal (historically signifi
cant). This also provides some fresh water in the area without requiring a river
, which helps in Ghengis' road-less troop movement (look out China...). Otherwis
e, your nearby mountain placement looks good to direct city settlement and confl
ict.
2. Persia/India: I'd be very interested to see how nicely Persia and India play
together now that they are closer and there is even less of a natural defense bo
undary (at least compared to Europe). The difference here is that there is addit
ional room to expand for each civ in the other direction, respectively.
3. The Non-Siam: I agree with your using CSs instead of Siam in SE Asia as this
provides more flavor for CSs in what could (probably already is) a fairly crowde
d map. As a player, I think it's very interesting. For example, as England, I'd
build up my fleet and test out G+K naval combat to conquer/colonize much of Sout
h & SE Asia and Australia. Makes for a fun map that still holds up to some reali
sm without a ton of extra effort.
4. Pacific: I initially moved Jakarta to the west (realistic location) in order
to open up those islands a bit for Polynesia and Japan. I'd be interested to se
e how the AI approaches this region. It'd be great if Polynesia ends up colonizi
ng a bit of Australia as well. I did make the Hawaiian islands Asian "continent"
tiles, if that makes any difference to AI (though I think it's really just a gr
aphical adjustment).
In sum, at my next opportunity I'll make the adjustments I note above to the DLC
map (i.e. Inca/Polynesia/Vatican City) and post them here for your review. I'll
also play-test as USA to report how my changes play out.
Thanks again for a great map.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 39]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 05, 2012 05:21 PM
Attached is the edits I made to the map encompassing my last post with some addi
tional. See change log below:
NORTH AMERICA:
- Removed any culture on WB map by selecting "Paint" tab in Map Editor tools...
Brush Type "Culture Border"... Drop-down menu selection "No Culture". This is fa
irly simple and is required for some reason every time you add and then remove a
city from the map in WB.
- Added Uranium (3) to plot (5, 44) in Alaska per rationale above.
- Moved Cahokia start position to plot (13, 35) along Mississippi per rationale
above.
- Relocated 2 natural wonders; resulted as follows: Old Faithful plot (12,36), G
rand Mesa plot (11,34), and Barringer Crater plot (10,34).
- Added Fish resource near New England coast, plot (23,38)
- Relocated Mayan start position to plot (15, 26), in Yucatan peninsula; changed
tile from flat terrain to hill.
- Added Atoll features to plots (22, 25) (22, 26) to reflect smaller Caribbean i
slands.
SOUTH AMERICA:
- Relocated Incan start position to plot (19, 17) away from coast and north of L
ake Titicaca; as a result swapped existing Gold resource on that tile to plot (1
9,15), Inca's previous start position. Rationale here is both historial accuracy
of Cusco's location and Incan ability to settle further along coast at start an
d expand borders beyond mountain range easier from the interior position.
EUROPE:
- Swapped English channel luxury resources from plots (35, 39) (36, 40) to plots
(32, 41) (33, 42) per rationale above.
AFRICA:
- Added mountains to plots (33, 28) (36, 28) (36, 27) (38, 26) and hills to (32,
27) per rationale above (based on google maps view). Unfortunately, there is no
Mt. Kilimanjaro feature, so I left that region alone.
- Replaced jungle feature and changed grassland to plains on plot (36, 24) NW of
Gao to provide 5 Horses to Songhai.
- Note: I don't believe that Egypt needs horses for War Chariot UU. Not totally
sure though.
- Added 2 Uranium resource to plot (40,11) north of Cape Town for flavor.
MIDDLE EAST:
- Added 1 Uranium to Jerusalem's start position for flavor.
ASIA/PACIFIC:
- Changed plot (62, 43), north of Karakarum from hills to lake (coast) to reflec
t Lake Bikal north of Mongolia.
- Added Atoll feature to plots (68, 23) (68, 21) to reflect Philippines islands
more accurately.
This is the map I will use to play-test as indicated. Thanks again for consideri
ng my input, hopefully I haven't worn out my welcome.
(P.S. You might want to double check all of the WB files that the Team # for eac
h Civ & CS are not shared by accident. This is not handled very well by WB when
you add/subtract civs and may or may not cause problems for users down the line.
I always double-check before starting a scenario just in abundance of caution.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 40]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 05, 2012 07:12 PM
Feedback is always welcome. Worst thing to happen here would be a lack of commen
tary, not an over-abudnance of it!
N. America:
1. Well, there is already Uranium out in Alaska. Originally the Uranium in Onond
aga's starting position was several tiles north surrounded by snow and ice, howe
ver, I felt that the Iroquois would settle there anyway and given how poor the C
anadian terrain is I didn't want to overburden the Iroquois with another equally
useless city.
2. Fair enough, those are easy changes and I don't think they'll affect the AIs
settlement pattern anymore than the existing ones already do. I'm against the in
clusion of FoY though, it's still very OP'd.
3. (a) At the moment I'm hoping that Cahokia will serve as a buffer state betwee
n Washington and the Iroquois. I considered moving it from the initial location
but decided against on the grounds that it would cut into the number of availabl
e city spots in America. If it's moved to the position you suggest you'll preven
t cities from being settled in much of the southern United States/northern Mexic
o and it will force the Aztecs/Mayans to expand south unless they take a trip ac
ross to the west coast of the US or head east to Florida.
3. (b) Moving the Mayans is not a bad move.
4. Fair warning received. I followed the placement in the map file you attached.
If the AI follows river tiles too strongly then we might consider moving Quebec
1 tile NW and moving the Furs there to Quebec's current starting position. That
should prevent the city state from wrapping up all the river tiles before anyon
e can settle in NY.
S. America:
This is always a problem with the Inca and one without a very good solution, esp
ecially now that settlers do not require transports to go across water. Once the
Inca get Compass all bets are off.
The issue, of course, is that even removing the Inca doesn't actually solve the
problem as the Aztecs/Mayans will simply expand into where the Inca would have e
xpanded anyway. It might be that a number of Fish are removed from the Incas lan
dlocked terrain to prevent food growth and hopefully slow their science rate, bu
t ultimately it's going to be very difficult to prevent the Inca from running ra
mpant in S. America provided their AI is even remotely competent (it may be that
the XML files are toyed with to tone down their expansionistic preferences, tho
ugh I would dearly love to avoid doing anything like that).
You don't mention moving the Incan starting position here but it's in the change
log. One of the reasons why I kept Cusco on the coast was to prevent its culture
growth from giving it good food tiles for some time. In the new position it has
11 good food tiles which will, I fear, make it more likely to do well and do we
ll early.
Europe:
1. England: Well, if London is kept in the position I have it, England will alwa
ys get those luxuries and at least one English Channel tile. Obviously if you mo
ve London north then yes, you'd have to move the luxuries as well.
2. (a) Yeah, Berlin is rather exposed and the marshes help with that. It also (i
n Vanilla) helped the Germany AI settle there quickly, which gave them Prussia (
kinda) on the coast. They used to settle on that forested tile between the marsh
es and the Cows to the NW. Unfortunately my first play-test saw Hamburg being se
ttled in the dead centre of Eastern Europe 1 tile NE of the oil. This though has
the nice benefit of leaving St. Petersburg open to Russia. I think a few more r
un-throughs are necessary before anything is altered here.
2. (b) As such, there is a site for St. Petersburg on the coast, it's just the s
ame as the Prussian one! As for Russia's settlement - yes, there are 4-6 reasona
ble to good settlement spots for Russia before it has to consider moving into Si
beria. There is very little to be done about the AI unless the XML files are pla
yed with to encourage expansion but short of concentrating resources so that the
re is one and only one best settlement spot for a decent area we're going to hav
e to take a gamble on the AI.
3. This was an inspired suggestion, no doubt about it.
Africa:
1. (a) Yeah, the current version now uses
ty-States. The initial ones didn't and it
release that I realized that the CSs were
there is still some left-over culture for
starting positions for all Civs and Ci

wasn't until just before the previous
all missing Palaces! This is also why
some City State starting locations.
1. (b) Adding in some mountain tiles? Sure and you're right, it does mean that C
arthage gets to use its UA which is kinda important.
2. Well, Egypt doesn't need Horses (the War Chariot is a resource-less UU). Song
hai does and I think they were removed duing the initial update for G&K which di
dn't have Songhai in it. That'll be fixed.
2. (b) I initially had Uranium both north of Cape Town and in Madagascar but dro
pped the north of Cape Town Uranium on the basis of removing Uranium from Africa
which I felt was generally too easy to acquire. It was kept in Madagascar becau
se that required a deliberate move to settle like almost every other Uranium til
e.
3. Unfortunately Mt. Kilimanjaro is not a natural wonder; who can fathom the sel
ection criteria for these things?
Middle East:
1. I must admit that I'm very happy with how the Saudi Arabian penisula turned o
ut. I still think there'll be a problem with Arabia's culture grabbing those des
ert hills in Egypt but I've done my best with resource placement to delay that a
s long as possible.
2. A single source? Yeah, that would be a nice twist. Added. Unfortunately you c
an't pass through it unless you conquer the city. It's still the best solution t
o the Suez issue (in my previous playthroughs the Egyptian AI stubbornly refused
to settle for a Suez). You'll also have the problem of Arabian culture blocking
your movement but there's only so much that can be done about that on this size
a map.
Asia/Pacific:
1. Good catch, completely forgot about Bikal - added.
2. I'm more worried about Persia than India, frankly. It has a significantly wor
se starting position than India and it's second city spot, if it misses Iraq, is
pretty poor. What I suspect will happen is that if Persia doesn't conquer early
it's not going to do very well.
3. Yep.
4. I am almost 100% positive that it is a graphical thing, but we should compare
expansion patterns after a few play-throughs and see if it makes any difference
. I haven't tried the DLC map properly yet, but I'd be somewhat concerned if the
Polynesian AI didn't go for SEA or Australia. If it moves to America in the ear
lyish game consistently it's going to stunt its growth and something will have t
o be done about that. As it stands, the Silk in Asia is 1 tile closer than the S
alt in Western US but if it's scout heads East then all bets are off.
Will double-check the team # but I believe that they're all good.
Let me know how your playthrough goes.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 41]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 09, 2012 12:04 PM
OK, reporting back... (sorry no screenshots)
Notes on changes I made to the map:
CS:
I kept Cahokia's starting location per your suggestion. This works out perfectl
y as a buffer between Washington and Hiawatha. Additionally, with Old Faithful t
ile nearby (east of the Uranium, SE of the nearest mountain) was well positioned
in N. America throughout.
I moved Quebec City north (swapping it's location with the nearby Furs) per you
r suggestion regarding tile acquisition in that region. Ultimately, I think this
was unnecessary. Quebec has yet to reach even all it's coastal tiles and will l
ikely never get that whales in the ocean nearby. I'd consider reorganizing those
resources to benefit the CS moving forward.
CIVS:
I moved the 2 luxury resources in the English channel to the straight between I
reland and the main island. England is in it's original starting position on the
southern coast.
I moved the Mayan starting location to the Yucatan, as previously described.
I moved the Incan starting location from the coast to NW of the lake, as previo
usly described.
Results through 92 turns:
Mayan 2nd city on northern coast of S. America nearby El Dorado. (New city plac
ement works out really well; making lost of money and claiming tiles in Caribbea
n, etc.)
Incans stayed on eastern coast, founding 2 additional cities: one north and one
to the south, both coastal.
No expansion in Pacific (Polynesia) or Africa (Songhai, Carthage, Egypt, Ethiop
ia).
Spain still one city, claiming some North Africa.
England not only did not bite on settling in Ireland, as of turn 180+, Elizabet
h has yet to found a 2nd city anywhere. Moreover, being so close to Paris, Engla
nd has also claimed up both marsh tiles around "Brussels" as well as the western
-most "Brest" tile in France. So, there you go. In future playthroughs, I may pu
t those luxuries back or place one of the two north of Ireland. Also, I'm intere
sted to see what would happen if I moved England's start position NW one tile. F
rance is doing relatively poorly in this game, but I digress...
France 2nd city (late) east on coast.
Russia settled 2 cities on coast to the north, one almost directly north and th
e other closer to the Ural mountains. Big land grabs around Moscow.
Sweden went north 2nd city.
Berlin went east for 2nd city, then south near alps for 3rd.
Byzantium went directly east across Caspian for 2nd city.
Arabia still one city.
Persia stayed lonely, then ventured out east of Urals for 2nd city... in consta
nt conflict between Russia/Mongols...
India made a tri-fecta, first near Bangladesh then on west coast of subcontinen
t.
China placed Shanghai directly south, then west (stopping any Indian expansion
and butting up to nearby CSs).
Japan settled one directly north.
Results through 154 turns:
France settled 3rd city in the Baltics region! Pretty smooth placement, actuall
y.
Songhai expanded through jungles of Africa, with 3 total cities spanning across
continent (Carthage/Egypt/Ethiopia/Arabia = still one city)
Mongols settled one NE, above mountains.
China added 2 cities, one NE then later NW, butting up to Mongolia now and keep
ing Japan off mainland.
India snuck a city into what is actually east coast of China today. It has chan
ged hands between China and Japan I believe already.
Spain/England/Polynesia = still one city.
Russia conquered Persia's second city east of the Urals and settled another. Mo
ving east now in (eventual) conflict with Mongols.
Turn 164
Spain settled second city on NW coast (whoo!)
Turn 180:
Incas settle first city in Brazilian territory, Mayans nearly immediately decla
re war.
Mongols taking over Russian expansion and pushing back west. Pretty neat.
Overall impressions: So far, this has been a super fun game. Given, as the US I'
m influencing a lot of Hiawatha's plans and I think I've kept the Mayan's from s
ettling north for fear of reprisal after I placed New Orleans, I think a lot of
the city placement opportunities are realistic and repeatable. Hiawatha got gree
dy and settled on present day San Francisco and down the peninsula there, to cla
im Cerro de Potosi. By the time I got my minutemen, that is all changing...I'm o
nly around turn 200 and am now starting to officially meet the rest of the world
. This is a great game so far!

Recommendations:
Keep Quebec & Cahokia as is. Change nearby Natural Wonders in North America per
previous notes.
Move Mayan starting location. As is with so much gold and silver nearby, Mayans
make INCREDIBLE money at the game's start. Having Cerro de Potosi within reach
of it's capital would only make that more so... plus I think this helps in their
southern expansion.
Move Incan starting location north of lake. I think not having a coastal start
put Inca down a different tech priority which helped in slowing their expansion
and runaway (not to mention that string of mountains...)
While the Persians and some others seem to be under-performing, it's bound to h
appen to some civs and may be COMPLETELY different in a different playthrough. W
hile I thought it'd be worth removing a civ somewhere, I've put some thought int
o it and here's the best idea's I've got:
You could remove Persia and Almaty and add the Huns near Almaty's starting posi
tion... I do like the idea of seeing more new G+K civs in action and this would
be interesting.
Likewise, if you wanted to be creative, you would add Warsaw west of current Be
rlin and add the Netherlands to northern Europe or Austria in central Europe. Ma
ria Theresa could then actually BUY up Vatican City and others...
Nobody seemed to claim anything in the desert areas north of the mountains nort
h of Lhasa. Maybe a spare incense or something there would be helpful.
While not historically totally accurate (but neither is Hiawatha...) if the Inc
ans do runaway with South America in the future, you could always throw the Azte
cs in there. With their jungle movement bonuses, this would be really interestin
g. Perhaps a swap with the USA for an "old world" start for those who prefer it?
Just an idea.
Thanks again for a great map and your consideration.
(BTW I knew all this information because of the InGame Editor mod, a great tool
for this purpose)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 42]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 09, 2012 08:09 PM
Thanks for the detailed feedback! Would you mind telling me what speed and diffi
culty level you were playing on? I wouldn't have thought that this would make an
y difference but there are some rather curious differences between my couple of
test games and what you're saying.
Anyway, in order:
Completely agreed on Quebec.
Inca development is dramatically different to what I experienced with Inca as a
coastal start.
I've seen some unusual Songhai city placement. In one game they went north to s
ettle immediately beside Carthage. I have no idea why this happened. Regardless,
however, Songhai's starting position is OP'd, it was well ahead of any other ci
ty in terms of population for the entire game and was particularly apparent earl
y on.
Carthage, Ethiopia and Egypt all expanded in my games to a second city at least
. Ethiopia and Egypt settled near their own borders to their south. Carthage on
the other hand went well down the African continent.
Spain AI will eventually settle 2nd city in penisula and I have seen them knock
ing around some spare settlers. It is inconsistent though with its timing.
England AI seems to stubbornly refuse to settle Edinburgh, let alone Ireland. T
his could be a unique luxury issue. Culture wise Brussels will happen almost def
initely, while Brest is theoretically a toss-up between a number of tiles it see
ms to hit Brest before any of the others. I think at this point moving London is
just about the only option.
French AI has actually done the best on average in my games. I was rather shock
ed to see just how aggressive he was settling (he was up in the Baltic before th
e Medieval Era).
Russia seems to develop fairly similarily across playthroughs alright. Although
her second city I've found tends to the south towards the Caucasus followed the
n by North of Moscow and towards the Urals.
Yeah, Sweden likes going north. I'm not terribly sure why, although I think the
AI has difficulty with the mountain placement in Scandanavia. There was a Frenc
h scout going back and forth between the same two tiles for the better part of t
wo games.
Germany has settled in dead centre of Eastern Europe for me when it can and has
avoided settling otherwise. Did you alter resource or terrain placement anywher
e near Germany?
Byzantium has never gone directly East for me. Usually, if it settles anywhere,
it'll go for northern Iraq which is then usually (but not always) puppeted by P
ersia reasonably quickly.
Arabia needs a serious boost to food in her starting location but does generall
y tend to underperform. I'm hoping solving the food issue will fix this.
Persia is a mixed bag. Sometimes it goes no where and other times I've seen it
beat India to that city spot on the west coast of India and then conquer Byzanti
um and Arabia.
India does tend to do well, regardless of Persian moves.
China seems about right.
Japan same.
Polynesian AI does seem unable to use its UA to benefit its settlers.
As for your recommendations:
I think you're right on Quebec, Cahokia, Maya and Inca.
I've seriously considered adding Antwerp on a few occassions. I'd wanted to avoi
d it so that the French or German AI will settle in the Alsace-Lorraine region b
ut this does not seem to be happening consistently. I don't think the Netherland
s would work as well given the already very tight nature of Europe. Warsaw was o
ne of the back-up plans if Germany/Russia refused to settle Poland. So far I'm s
till of two minds about it. I'm quite against Austria at the moment, partly beca
use of geography and partly because I think it's UA is rather overpowered.
I have, in my test map, thrown in some sheep and incense to that area north of L
hasa but it doesn't seem to have affected settlement patterns very much. Frankly
though, I'm quite comfortable with it being left as a barren region.
A couple of thoughts of my own:
Unless the modifications to England, Polynesia, Spain, Persia and Arabia make th
em any more viable I'm strongly considering cutting them from the map.
England needs to settle up in Scotland at least or it's simply not going to be a
ble to compete. I'm a big fan of England both to play and to play against but if
they can't compete as an AI their inclusion is debatable at best, especially as

there is an alternative. What I'm going to explore is swapping England out for
the Celts and placing the Celts up in Edinburgh to see if that helps. Resource p
lacement in England/France would have to be adjusted to prevent France from runn
ing rampant over England but it has the potential to work. I am reasonably posit
ive that the Celts have a stronger inclination to expansion than England has, th
ough I need to double-check the XML.
I had high hopes for Polynesia, but it's so inconsistent and so utterly unable t
o do anything but meet everyone really early that their inclusion is little more
than that of a city state. The fact that it is also a DLC is counting against i
t in my eyes.
Persia and Arabia are a problem and, unlike the aforementioned, are intertwined.
I think the region is simply too overcrowded and too awkward to give either a f
air shot. I also think part of the problem is that Arabia's AI is simply not exp
ansion-orientated, unlike Persia's. So, the plan being considered at the moment
is to remove Arabia and reposition Persia to immediately on top of the Oil direc
tly West of Persia's current placement. Honestly, I'm not happy about that and i
t is becoming increasingly tempting to buy the Babylon DLC and remove both Persi
a and Arabia and use it instead.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 43]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 10, 2012 10:27 AM
Thanks for the detailed feedback! Would you mind telling me what speed and diffi
culty level you were playing on? I wouldn't have thought that this would make an
y difference but there are some rather curious differences between my couple of
test games and what you're saying.
speed: standard
difficulty: prince (4)
In randomly generated maps I usually play one level up on 5, but in TSL maps my
goals usually vary significantly from a straight victory path, so I turn it down
a notch so it's fun.
Inca development is dramatically different to what I experienced with Inca as a

coastal start.
I'm well past turn 200 now and STILL no one has touched the Argentina side of th
e southern cone (so much free wine!). I'm fully aware my game's progression coul
d be the anomaly, but I like to think the non-coastal start AND mountains landlo
ck makes a difference.
I see two options if Incas can't be contained by resource/starting location adju
stments:
1. Keeping Mayans in central america, add the Aztecs to the jungles somewhere an
d open up a pathway or two between the mountains for the Incas to compete.
2. Add a second city state to south America where the Buenos Aires wine is (Ragu
sa or Genoa or Venice something. One can argue there is strong Italian heritage
from immigration to the region and plenty of CSs that might work). It's not perf
ect, but it might help curb runaway.
I've seen some unusual Songhai city placement. In one game they went north to s
ettle immediately beside Carthage. I have no idea why this happened. Regardless,
however, Songhai's starting position is OP'd, it was well ahead of any other ci
ty in terms of population for the entire game and was particularly apparent earl
y on.
I could easily see this happening. Lots of food in the area between jungle and r
iver flood plains...
I might suggest more pre-placed barbarians. I'm curious how setting raging barba
rians would impact the more open space on the map (siberia, southern Africa, Aus
tralia, etc.). With so many civs in play, barbs are barely a threat to the playe
r after the first 30 turns. likewise, if they continue to spawn in the mid game,
it might stop those weird german/french settlements in siberia (the AI is still
pretty horrible about accompanying it's settlers). I might try my next playthro
ugh with raging barbarians on...
Carthage, Ethiopia and Egypt all expanded in my games to a second city at least
. Ethiopia and Egypt settled near their own borders to their south. Carthage on
the other hand went well down the African continent.
Spain AI will eventually settle 2nd city in penisula and I have seen them knock
ing around some spare settlers. It is inconsistent though with its timing.
This is what makes these types of maps fun: the potential variety. As long as so
me civs don't continuously take off and run over others, then I'm fine with it (
I'm actually happy with it if it's a historically accurate conquest!).
England AI seems to stubbornly refuse to settle Edinburgh, let alone Ireland. T
his could be a unique luxury issue. Culture wise Brussels will happen almost def
initely, while Brest is theoretically a toss-up between a number of tiles it see
ms to hit Brest before any of the others. I think at this point moving London is
just about the only option.
French AI has actually done the best on average in my games. I was rather shock
ed to see just how aggressive he was settling (he was up in the Baltic before th
e Medieval Era).
For me, as much as I like the Celt's, if France is in game then it's just not ri
ght if the English aren't as well...
As such, when I have more time I might try a total re-haul of the British isles.
If it's possible to create some space in the channel, I think that might change
things for the better.
Russia seems to develop fairly similarily across playthroughs alright. Although
her second city I've found tends to the south towards the Caucasus followed the
n by North of Moscow and towards the Urals.
Yeah, Sweden likes going north. I'm not terribly sure why, although I think the
AI has difficulty with the mountain placement in Scandanavia. There was a Frenc
h scout going back and forth between the same two tiles for the better part of t
wo games.
That's all good news to me. I think those mountains look good, at the very least
. Also, speaking of good looking maps, if you haven't seen the Legendary Earth M
od map, it's worth a look. Very well done (even down to each mountain tile's gra
phical "continent" designation). It's a much bigger map, but it might help give
you ideas. All credit to it's creator, of course.
Germany has settled in dead centre of Eastern Europe for me when it can and has
avoided settling otherwise. Did you alter resource or terrain placement anywher
e near Germany?
Actually, I might have just described it inaccurately. That's basically what hap
pened. Later once the map is fully explored in my savegame, I'll zip it up along
with the two mods I'm using (Infoaddict & InGame Editor) so you can take a look
for reference.
Byzantium has never gone directly East for me. Usually, if it settles anywhere,
it'll go for northern Iraq which is then usually (but not always) puppeted by P
ersia reasonably quickly.
I'm starting to think the Jerusalem CS might be taking up too much real estate..
.
Arabia needs a serious boost to food in her starting location but does generall
y tend to underperform. I'm hoping solving the food issue will fix this.
definitely. turn 200+ and Mecca only has 4 population. I would recommend more Oa
sis tiles (like at least 3) in the area. It's an immediate boost that can't be u
pgraded with farms on the tile itself, but allows for fresh water in nearby dese
rt tiles. Personally, I think it looks weird to have an entirely farmed Saudi Ar
abia in the mid/late game, and at least graphically the oasis tiles look better
to me (plus whatever farms do get created will then add +1 more food due to fres
h water... right?)
Persia is a mixed bag. Sometimes it goes no where and other times I've seen it
beat India to that city spot on the west coast of India and then conquer Byzanti
um and Arabia.
Polynesian AI does seem unable to use its UA to benefit its settlers.
Beating India to that city placement would annoy me I think. More on Persia and
Polynesia below.
As for your recommendations:
I think you're right on Quebec, Cahokia, Maya and Inca.
I've seriously considered adding Antwerp on a few occassions. I'd wanted to avoi
d it so that the French or German AI will settle in the Alsace-Lorraine region b
ut this does not seem to be happening consistently. I don't think the Netherland
s would work as well given the already very tight nature of Europe. Warsaw was o
ne of the back-up plans if Germany/Russia refused to settle Poland. So far I'm s
till of two minds about it. I'm quite against Austria at the moment, partly beca
use of geography and partly because I think it's UA is rather overpowered.
I have, in my test map, thrown in some sheep and incense to that area north of L
hasa but it doesn't seem to have affected settlement patterns very much. Frankly
though, I'm quite comfortable with it being left as a barren region.
Thanks! Agreed on the status-quo of Europe, as at least in my game technically G

ermany did go to Eastern Europe (and good point on Austria). Regarding the barre
n region, I see your point. I'd just rather have settlments there than see Frank
furt and Susa out in Siberia...
A couple of thoughts of my own:
Unless the modifications to England, Polynesia, Spain, Persia and Arabia make th
em any more viable I'm strongly considering cutting them from the map.
England needs to settle up in Scotland at least or it's simply not going to be a
ble to compete. I'm a big fan of England both to play and to play against but if
they can't compete as an AI their inclusion is debatable at best, especially as
there is an alternative. What I'm going to explore is swapping England out for
the Celts and placing the Celts up in Edinburgh to see if that helps. Resource p
lacement in England/France would have to be adjusted to prevent France from runn
ing rampant over England but it has the potential to work. I am reasonably posit
ive that the Celts have a stronger inclination to expansion than England has, th
ough I need to double-check the XML.
I'd be interested to see how this tests out. It will have to be a pretty nifty t
rick to keep France from claiming up southern England, but an interesting test.
As I said earlier, I'm more inclined to keep England in game.
Regarding Spain, Lisbon is also an easy stock CS (right?) swap out for the penin
sula, which would open up Carthage to be more of a Mediterranean power (harbors
everywhere, anyone?) rather than running south into Africa. Likewise, it would e
ntice France to settle south, I'd think, which then in turn supports a stronger
Germany start location, etc. AI Spain unfortunately has a rough time taking adva
ntage of it's unique bonuses; on TSL maps if it's not given Gibraltar to start w
ith, it's bonuses are basically useless. In short, I'd put Spain on the block ne
xt for European civs, if I had to...
I had high hopes for Polynesia, but it's so inconsistent and so utterly unable t
o do anything but meet everyone really early that their inclusion is little more
than that of a city state. The fact that it is also a DLC is counting against i
t in my eyes.
Agreed. A bummer too---there are so many luxuries in Oceania... In fact, in my g
ame they have literally denounced everyone and civs are basically asking me to D
OW. Just making it easier for the US to go for Honolulu, I guess, which is great
for this game, but I doubt will ever happen for an AI. Polynesia even has 2 set
tlers just sitting in within it's one city borders with no plans to expand! Very
weird. I'd sacrifice having that extra civ slowing down the game for another ci
v that would be more of a competitor.
Persia and Arabia are a problem and, unlike the aforementioned, are intertwined.
I think the region is simply too overcrowded and too awkward to give either a f
air shot. I also think part of the problem is that Arabia's AI is simply not exp
ansion-orientated, unlike Persia's. So, the plan being considered at the moment
is to remove Arabia and reposition Persia to immediately on top of the Oil direc
tly West of Persia's current placement. Honestly, I'm not happy about that and i
t is becoming increasingly tempting to buy the Babylon DLC and remove both Persi
a and Arabia and use it instead.
I have the Babylon DLC and would be willing to take a crack at adjusting the map
for this very change. I think it will be impossible to keep Jerusalem if we wan
t to accurately place Babylon, but then again, I'll make the effort.
Here's a tentative plan:
Remove Spain, replace with Lisbon on western coast.
Revamp British Isles to try to support stronger English settlements.
Remove Arabia & Persia to include Babylon in TSL, while trying to keep Jerusale
m (Mt. Sinai is really powerful for a civ that early...).
Remove Polynesia.
As such I'm removing 4 civs and only adding 1. These changes make it very tempt
ing to add the Huns to the game (in Almaty's place?), but I'd rather not rock th
e boat too much.
I'm in no rush (still playing out this game), so if you'd like me to work those
changes on a beta map you have been testing, just send my way.
Lastly, has Ethiopia always been the first to found a religion? In every G+K gam
e I've played so far with them on the board they are first to claim one...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 44]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 10, 2012 07:43 PM
See attached ideas for British Isles (and some Atoll tiles for Denmark, etc.) as
well as my idea for Babylon (vs. Persia and Arabia). Note that I did some resou
rce replacement for England but nothing for Babylon. I just added a new desert f
lood plains tile for the starting location. This may be a good split between the
two spots of Arabia and Persia...
Edit: now with attachments. Also, i DID add some Oasis tiles to the Saudi penins
ula to add some food to the region...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 45]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 10, 2012 09:02 PM
ok last thing here is a screen shot of what i mean about Europe and Germany.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 46]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 14, 2012 09:14 PM
I have the Babylon DLC and would be willing to take a crack at adjusting the map
for this very change. I think it will be impossible to keep Jerusalem if we wan
t to accurately place Babylon, but then again, I'll make the effort.
Here's a tentative plan:
Remove Spain, replace with Lisbon on western coast.
Revamp British Isles to try to support stronger English settlements.
Remove Arabia & Persia to include Babylon in TSL, while trying to keep Jerusale
m (Mt. Sinai is really powerful for a civ that early...).
Remove Polynesia.
As such I'm removing 4 civs and only adding 1. These changes make it very tempt
ing to add the Huns to the game (in Almaty's place?), but I'd rather not rock th
e boat too much.
I'm in no rush (still playing out this game), so if you'd like me to work those
changes on a beta map you have been testing, just send my way.
Lastly, has Ethiopia always been the first to found a religion? In every G+K gam
e I've played so far with them on the board they are first to claim one...
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this. I've attached my testing map so
you can take a look at it if you want.
In terms of changes to the published version, I think England is salvageable if
its unique luxuries are spread out to Edinburgh and Dublin. That should faciliti
ate the AIs desire to obtain new luxury resources. I believe you actually mentio
ned this way back when but I disregarded it, very sorry about that it would appe
ar that you were entirely correct.
Spain, Persia and Arabia I've kept for now; Spain because even with only two cit
ies it's still somewhat viable, Persia & Arabia because I don't have the Babylon
DLC. I have buffed Arabia's starting position though as discussed, which should
help. Regarding Spain and Lisbon my initial thoughts were that if Spain were cu
t then Lisbon and Valetta would replace it, however, as they don't seem to be la
gging too far behind I haven't given it much consideration.
Polynesia I've cut and a great deal of the changes you've suggested are included
in the test map, including raging barbarians.
Ethiopia does seem to go heavy towards religion, this could be because their UB
is a Monument which gives faith.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 47]
Author : iloveciv5
Date : Jul 16, 2012 05:47 PM
Move Jerusalem up a tile, it's on the Sinai. Also put Mt. Sinai on the Sinai pen
insula. Egypt then will have a chance to found Islam quickly(like on every earth
map)! Egypt owned Mt. Sinai and has almost always owned it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 48]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 17, 2012 12:20 AM
Move Jerusalem up a tile, it's on the Sinai. Also put Mt. Sinai on the Sinai pen
insula. Egypt then will have a chance to found Islam quickly(like on every earth
map)! Egypt owned Mt. Sinai and has almost always owned it.
Thanks for the feedback. One of the driving factors in putting Jerusalem into an
already overcrowded part of the map was to ensure that a city would definitely
be available to act as a Suez canal.
Mt. Sinai is a bit of a toss-up. In earlier versions it was located where Egypt
could get it rather quickly, a bit too quickly really. Unfortunately, there isn'
t a Sinai penisula worth mentioning in which to put it, the map simply isn't big
enough to include that level of detail and not make it look all sorts of weird.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 49]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 18, 2012 08:58 AM
haven't had much time to edit, but will comment on your test map.
in the mean time, i totally placed Cerro de Potosi wonder incorrectly (it should
be in present day Bolivia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potos%C3%AD
it's probably for the better to at least remove it and most likely not replace i
t as I'm not sure south america needs another money producing natural wonder. pe
rhaps remove el dorado (since we can more accurately place the cerro)?
just a thought
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 50]
Author : Lachlan
Date : Jul 20, 2012 07:15 PM
@Veneke :
Your map is great, one alone asking : when the next version will be downloadable
?
Why not activating all victories modes in same time ?
Thanks ! I liked to playing Carthage in current version GK"setc"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 51]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 20, 2012 09:38 PM
Lachlan:
Unfortunately RL has reared its ugly head, so I haven't had the opportunity to p
laytest the potential changes to England and a few other bits and bobs. I'm not
entirely positive that I'll be in a position to release by the end of the weeken
d, but I fully intend on doing so.
The 'normal' maps (the ones without SETC or SDD at the end) have all victory con
ditions enabled with no special settings.
Glad to hear you're enjoying the map!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 52]
Author : santoo
Date : Jul 21, 2012 03:50 AM
thanks a lot for the map - very nice!
The 'normal' maps (the ones without SETC or SDD at the end) have all victory con
ditions enabled with no special settings.
could you please check again? I've been playing a looong game on the
map - although with DLC - and NONE of the victory conditions seem to
!
(I tried for UN, which I couldn't build, same with the spaceship. So
'd conquer the world, which yielded no victory, and finishing utopia
either. I've just passed turn 500 and - nada :()
normal G&K
be enabled?
I thought I
didn't help
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 53]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 21, 2012 09:39 PM
Lachlan & all, the next version is up. Songhai now has horses and should no long
er run quite so far ahead in pop so early and Arabia should do much better pop w
ise. Polynesia was removed, Rome was removed for the Vatican in the non-DLC map
and a few other bits and bobs were changed which are more fully documented in th
e Readme.
One that I forgot to put in though was that I shifted India's starting position
one hex west. This was to prevent Persia from settling along India's western coa
st which, if done, prevented Arabia from settling on the tip of the Saudi penisu
la. I'm afraid that I still do not have the Babylon DLC mainly because their inc
lusion will not solve the problem for the non-DLC map.
santoo - You're welcome. Glad to hear that you're enjoying it. Unfortunately, yo
u're quite right; the non-special settings maps lacked for any kind of VCs. I'm
not quite sure what happened there but it's fixed now. Very sorry that it bugger
ed up your game.
bwoww78 - I am almost 100% positive that the Cerro refers to this mountain in Me
xico: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Potos%C3%AD
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 54]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 21, 2012 10:03 PM
bwoww78 - I am almost 100% positive that the Cerro refers to this mountain in Me
xico: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Potos%C3%AD
Oh good! I'm sure that's what I was originally thinking when it was added..... h
a thanks for the clarification.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 55]
Author : santoo
Date : Jul 22, 2012 05:04 AM
santoo - You're welcome. Glad to hear that you're enjoying it. Unfortunately, yo
u're quite right; the non-special settings maps lacked for any kind of VCs. I'm
not quite sure what happened there but it's fixed now. Very sorry that it bugger
ed up your game.
wow, that was quick! thanks a lot!
I was really astonished when playing on your map - a lot of civs seemed to settl
e their 2nd and sometimes 3rd cities pretty much where they should be geographic
ally - very fun.
Two main observation from a long game
.) Incas don't seem to be a problem, being mountainblocked too long to matter but mayans will be the runaway-civ (at least if human, but probably as AI too?).
they block americans and iroquois from going south and can take (allmost) all o
f south-america, meso-america and, if early-expanding north, even a sizable part
of north-america.
.) no one ever ever settles oceania. even when every piece of land is taken, eve
n when there is dire need of uranium or aluminium - australia, indonesia & co re
main empty. probably a ciV/AI-problem, not a map-problem. maybe use the space fo
r another city-state or two? (OTOH: I was playing the version where all victoryconditions were turned OFF, so maybe the AI didn't look as much for conquest/exp
ansioin as it otherwise would have? maybe both territorial gains and acquiring s
trategic ressources became non-issues?)
some other points:
.) russia ate up most neighbors in the late game and held what was surprisingly
close to the USSR-territory at max. expansion. (in addition: russia started to d
ominate the game fairly early on)
.) india became a high-pop powerhouse, confined mostly to their subcontinent.
.) china & japan stayed mostly where they were supposed to be and remained rathe
r inconspicuous
.) no civ in africa ever really took off (don't think there was a single wonder
built in all of africa)
.) european civs did well tech & money-wise but never expanded much - largest eu
ropean civ by # of cities: sweden, by far.
.) polynesia never expanded IIRC
.) very cool map to see AI-religious bias in! most civs got to found their prefe
rred religion, which lead to rather appropriate distribution of religions: shint
o and taoism were dominant in SEasia, christianity conquered europe (and after i
nfecting russia, spread across their lands as well), islam held a good part of a
frica and one or two cities in the middle east. (btw: is there really not a sing
le new-world religion in GaK?)
once again, thanks for quite an experience :)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 56]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 22, 2012 08:01 AM
No worries, I'm glad you enjoyed it and thanks for the feedback.
I've found that city settlement is hit and miss across playthroughs, it seems to
depend on how the random adjustment to the AI's expansion trait (it moves up or
down by 2 every game from its base on a scale of 1-10 - this happens for all ga
mes, not just my maps).
A. This is a problem, usually either the Mayans or the Americans (provided the p
layer isn't one or the other) will expand into South America. My current game ha
s the Americans settling the entire South American continent after having thrash
ed the Mayans and Incas. bwoww78 suggested that the Aztecs could be put in S. Am
erica to avoid this problem but that takes shifting Civs slightly to an extreme
I'm not comfortable with. An old Civ IV map got around this problem by putting o
cean between North and South America but it looked ugly as sin. Unfortunately, I
can't see a good solution to this without doing more extensive modding (eg. add
ing in a custom Civ, adjusting the base expansion traits for the Civs in America
, etc).
B. I don't think this is an issue with victory conditions. The AI seems to have
a mental block when it comes to anything beyond Jakarta. I have seen Japan settl
e in Indonesia but it's very rare. I've seen Civs settle up in Siberia or that d
ead desert between Lhasa and Almaty with no resources but Australia is treated l
ike it has the plague. I don't know if the confluence of city states is affectin
g it or what but something does seem to be off. I don't think there are any more
City States or Civs to add in down there though, unfortunately.
1. Russia usually does fairly well, yes. I've seen it get beat to the punch with
regards settlement, but it's a rare game when they don't conquer far and wide.
I'm actually rather pleased with Russia's performance, out of all the AIs on thi
s map, I think they're the most consistent.
2. That happens in about half of my playthroughs, the other half of the time Per
sia will settle their second city southwest of Delhi and India will then usually
expand into modern-day China.
3. Yes and this is a problem. Japan will, once in a blue moon, poke its toe eith
er into Siberia or down into Indonesia, but its rare. China, for reasons I canno
t fathom, typically does rather poorly.
4. Really? That now is odd. Africa usually ends up founding at least one religio
n (usually Ethiopia) and Egypt will normally grab a few wonders while either Car
thage or Songhai die by the other's hand. That said, I was rather excited to see
Spain take out Carthage and become a strong African power in my current game.
5. Now that's unusual. I've yet to see Sweden found more than two cities (its ca
pital and one to its north - who knows why there and not to its west). Usually w
hat I see after that is two of the following (Russia, France, Germany, Byzantium
) conquer/settle the rest of Europe and remain at war for most of the game. The
other two are typically killed off.
6. Polynesia should have been really exciting. Definitely the single most disapp
ointing performance of any AI on the map to date given its opportunities.
7. That sounds perfect! Religion I've found a bit hit-and-miss, especially if an
y of the American Civs found a religion. Japan will usually pick up Shinto, Indi
a will generally get one and Ethiopia almost always gets Christianity. One thing
I want to do, if it isn't too difficult, is expand the number of religions that
can be founded from 5 to 7. If the Inca grab a religion, for instance, that typ
ically makes for rather large blocky religions in the Old World. Oh and yeah, it
's all Old World religions I'm afraid.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 57]
Author : santoo
Date : Jul 22, 2012 10:38 AM
A. This is a problem, usually either the Mayans or the Americans (provided the p
layer isn't one or the other) will expand into South America. [...]
I see, thanks for the explanation. would it be viable to add another CS in the m
iddle/northern part of south-America, blocking of the rest? would that discourag
e (rapid) expansion southward, either from America or the Mayans, thereby giving
the Incas some time to settle the southern part of south-America? or a really c
razy amount of barbarians roaming the continent?
4. Really? That now is odd. Africa usually ends up founding at least one religio
n (usually Ethiopia) and Egypt will normally grab a few wonders while either Car
thage or Songhai die by the other's hand. That said, I was rather excited to see
Spain take out Carthage and become a strong African power in my current game.
well, to be more precise: all african nations lagged behind the european ones an
d most of asia technology-wise. Ethiopia did found the first religion, but they
seemed to get into an early war with Egypt, thereby crippling the wonder-factory
. none of the african nations got taken out (by AIs), unlike some european (Germ
any) and asian (Russia's neighbours) nations - but no african nation was ever in
the top 5 score-wise
5. Now that's unusual. I've yet to see Sweden found more than two cities (its ca
pital and one to its north - who knows why there and not to its west). Usually w
hat I see after that is two of the following (Russia, France, Germany, Byzantium
) conquer/settle the rest of Europe and remain at war for most of the game. The
other two are typically killed off.
in my game, Russia & France divided the only 2 German cities amongst themselves
(ca 1500AD?), while Byzantium remained more or less a one-city-nation (might hav
e made some inroads into north-africa or the middle east, but lost those again).
so Spain, England, France, Byzantium ended up with 1 or 2 cities, while Sweden e
xpanded to 6 or 7 - all of (realworld) Scandinavia, Poland, maybe even a city in
north-western Russia
6. Polynesia should have been really exciting. Definitely the single most disapp
ointing performance of any AI on the map to date given its opportunities.
agreed 100%. if it's not too much trouble, could you provide a version of the v3
DLC map for G&K with Polynesia included? yes, they are a waste if played by AI,
but after seeing how bad the AI did, I wanted to try playing Polynesia myself t
o see how much potential it has (room to expand, no close rivals, early contact
to both hemispheres, finally a use for Australia.. ;))
Oh and yeah, it's all Old World religions I'm afraid.
:( strange how I've never noticed that, until I've experienced them in a more re
alistic context...
two more observations:
.) everyone loves Hanoi. Whenever there were election-shenanigans and coups goin
g on, it was here. NO other CS *ever* played a role in the espionage-game (and,
in fact, all AIs seemed to have stopped maintaining relations with CSs post 1600
AD or so - even while banking more than 50k gold). But Hanoi, they did love.
.) it's probably an AI-issue and has nothing to do with this map per se, anyway:
Russia DOW'd twice on me for no reason - in situations where I had no foothold
in the old world yet and they were landlocked (actually: super-landlocked, as th
ey didn't even have open boarders with any coastal neighbors and no intention of
capturing any coastal areas). They had literally no way of getting to me. The m
ost boring 50-turn wars ever :)
Later on, on several occasions, nations shared intrigue with me of impending nau
tical invasions of my land from a couple of "friends" - yet no ship ever got nea
r the new world
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 58]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 22, 2012 11:55 AM
1. Might I suggest instead of the Aztecs in south America (which is admittedly a
historical stretch) maybe, as suggested, a city state in modern Venezuela... La
Venta is the best (g+k) vanilla city state left in the America's. I believe his
torically La Venta represents the Olmecs, which are of the yucatan region. It's
at least accurate in that they would be a potential conflict for the Mayans and
would help cover some more ground in south America without introducing another c
iv.
2. Speaking of other civs, maybe the only hope for Polynesia is to actually plac
e their start position in the oceania pacific region, in line with some of the l
ocations of its 2nd and 3rd city names (tonga, Samoa, etc.) I'm not sure how you
mod their city name list, but if it's possible to rearrange to make Honolulu a
lower tier city and a start position near those spices...
3. I have a few edits to your test map which I'll post once RL permits; most edi
ts are minor but I think would be helpful (hence my previous (poor) attempt to d
ouble check cerro de potosi).
4. Funny, in my game as America (which explains how I kept Mayans and an expansi
onist Hiawatha in check) china was the tech lead with 4 cities and excellent rel
ations for a long time with southeast Asia (Hanoi included). The Mongols actuall
y kept the Russians in check but their age old wars kept them behind while china
eventually took over a poorly defended India. As America, with porcelain tower
and plenty of RAs, including one with my dear friend Gandhi, changed that Chines
e ambition and resurrected the Indian empire with b17s. I eventually won in scie
nce.
In short, I guess my point here is that it might be
urrent mix of city state types for balance. Lots of
e the AI imbalances, for example. Right now I think
e in this map. As a note, including more new g+k CS
rcantile and religious).
worth taking a look at the c

maritime friendships can mak
that's the prevailing CS typ
will increase variety (ie me
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 59]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 23, 2012 12:56 AM
I see, thanks for the explanation. would it be viable to add another CS in the m
iddle/northern part of south-America, blocking of the rest? would that discourag
e (rapid) expansion southward, either from America or the Mayans, thereby giving
the Incas some time to settle the southern part of south-America? or a really c
razy amount of barbarians roaming the continent?
La Venta, as bwoww78 suggests, is a possibility. It's not a great one because it
should, technically speaking, be between the Mayans and the US and not the Maya
ns and the Inca. Also, given the fact that a city state south of the Mayan start
ing position won't actually prevent spread southwards I'm not sure it's a good f
ix. Ideally speaking it either needs to be populated with CSs, a south American
Civ or transport there needs to be blocked. More barbarians though I think are p
robably warranted.
well, to be more precise: all african nations lagged behind the european ones an
d most of asia technology-wise. Ethiopia did found the first religion, but they
seemed to get into an early war with Egypt, thereby crippling the wonder-factory
. none of the african nations got taken out (by AIs), unlike some european (Germ
any) and asian (Russia's neighbours) nations - but no african nation was ever in
the top 5 score-wise
Africa does seem less able to conquer other Civs than European ones, I'm not sur
e why because aside from Ethiopia none of them are particularly defensible. I'm
not sure how to address there development any further either, the Songhai and th
e Egyptians have fantastic starting positions so unless someone can spot somethi
ng the map has that is handicapping them, I'm inclined to suggest that this is a
problem with the AI of the African Civs.
in my game, Russia & France divided the only 2 German cities amongst themselves
(ca 1500AD?), while Byzantium remained more or less a one-city-nation (might hav
e made some inroads into north-africa or the middle east, but lost those again).
so Spain, England, France, Byzantium ended up with 1 or 2 cities, while Sweden e
xpanded to 6 or 7 - all of (realworld) Scandinavia, Poland, maybe even a city in
north-western Russia
Russia and France dividing Germany is fairly typical. I've yet to figure out how
to give Germany a better defensive starting position while maintaining some kin
d of accuracy.
England almost always ends up with 1 or 2 cities, tops. Byzantium and Spain usua
lly. though not always, have 2 or 3 while it's an odd game where France doesn't
have a number of cities. I've never seen Sweden go beyond 2 cities but it's good
to hear that they can, if circumstances permit.
agreed 100%. if it's not too much trouble, could you provide a version of the v3
DLC map for G&K with Polynesia included? yes, they are a waste if played by AI,
but after seeing how bad the AI did, I wanted to try playing Polynesia myself t
o see how much potential it has (room to expand, no close rivals, early contact
to both hemispheres, finally a use for Australia.. ;))
Sure, I'll attach it to this post.
:( strange how I've never noticed that, until I've experienced them in a more re
alistic context...
two more observations:
.) everyone loves Hanoi. Whenever there were election-shenanigans and coups goin
g on, it was here. NO other CS *ever* played a role in the espionage-game (and,
in fact, all AIs seemed to have stopped maintaining relations with CSs post 1600
AD or so - even while banking more than 50k gold). But Hanoi, they did love.
.) it's probably an AI-issue and has nothing to do with this map per se, anyway:
Russia DOW'd twice on me for no reason - in situations where I had no foothold
in the old world yet and they were landlocked (actually: super-landlocked, as th
ey didn't even have open boarders with any coastal neighbors and no intention of
capturing any coastal areas). They had literally no way of getting to me. The m
ost boring 50-turn wars ever :)

Later on, on several occasions, nations shared intrigue with me of impending nau
tical invasions of my land from a couple of "friends" - yet no ship ever got nea
r the new world
I've found that the AI can become fixated on certain City States. In my current
game anything done for Kuala Lumpur is destined to be revoked in a few turns whe
n someone coups it again. I haven't noticed Hanoi taking more attention than the
others but I have noticed that everybody wants to conquer Jerusalem. Strangely
they seem okay with other City States near their borders but Jerusalem seems to
attract declarations like flies to a cow pat.
I'm reasonably certain that the problem with Russia is a map issue. The concentr
ated resource placement means that the AI desires far away territories you own b
ecause of the unique luxuries, while it desires nearby territories because of yo
u're so close to them. The AI should realize what it can and can't reasonably ac
complish and that is certainly an AI fault but the circumstances in which its pl
aced in this map are different to the norm so depending on the AI's traits you m
ay see more of this than in a typical game.
Fortunately (or not, depending), the intrigue issue is not a map problem. The pr
oblem here is that the AI likes to change its mind. In a normal game (random map
) I received severals notices that Sweden had embarked a naval force to attack o
ne of my cities. The third time I got this message I took a sub up to Sweden to
see what the fuss was about. Apparently, their army was embarking and disembarki
ng every dozen+ turns. It was almost like it calculated the force needed to take
the city but once they got on water it seemed to think more were needed so put
everything back on land and the cycle began once again!
1. Might I suggest instead of the Aztecs in south America (which is admittedly a

historical stretch) maybe, as suggested, a city state in modern Venezuela... La
Venta is the best (g+k) vanilla city state left in the America's. I believe his
torically La Venta represents the Olmecs, which are of the yucatan region. It's
at least accurate in that they would be a potential conflict for the Mayans and
would help cover some more ground in south America without introducing another c
iv.
2. Speaking of other civs, maybe the only hope for Polynesia is to actually plac
e their start position in the oceania pacific region, in line with some of the l
ocations of its 2nd and 3rd city names (tonga, Samoa, etc.) I'm not sure how you
mod their city name list, but if it's possible to rearrange to make Honolulu a
lower tier city and a start position near those spices...
3. I have a few edits to your test map which I'll post once RL permits; most edi
ts are minor but I think would be helpful (hence my previous (poor) attempt to d
ouble check cerro de potosi).
4. Funny, in my game as America (which explains how I kept Mayans and an expansi
onist Hiawatha in check) china was the tech lead with 4 cities and excellent rel
ations for a long time with southeast Asia (Hanoi included). The Mongols actuall
y kept the Russians in check but their age old wars kept them behind while china
eventually took over a poorly defended India. As America, with porcelain tower
and plenty of RAs, including one with my dear friend Gandhi, changed that Chines
e ambition and resurrected the Indian empire with b17s. I eventually won in scie
nce.
In short, I guess my point here is that it might be worth taking a look at the c
urrent mix of city state types for balance. Lots of maritime friendships can mak
e the AI imbalances, for example. Right now I think that's the prevailing CS typ
e in this map. As a note, including more new g+k CS will increase variety (ie me
rcantile and religious).
I'm not sure about La Venta, but it's definitely worth a look. The same with mov
ing Polynesia. China did well there. I've yet to see it but the fact that it's p
ossible is the key point.
I think you're right - a review of the city states might well be in order. I'm n
ot sure who's been left out but provided they're not in Europe then they should
be free to include.
On another note. I'm trying to collect screenshots of the map in play. I've a fe
w myself but if there are any interesting or cool situations that cropped up dur
ing your games on the map I'm very interested in putting them up on Steam.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 60]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 23, 2012 09:30 AM
La Venta, as bwoww78 suggests, is a possibility. It's not a great one because it
should, technically speaking, be between the Mayans and the US and not the Maya
ns and the Inca.
perhaps that's an answer: (using the Onondaga gameplay principle) move the Mayan
start position much closer Panama (enabling the strait which is a major plus on
these types of maps...), place La Venta somewhere a bit north of it's TSL in me
xico (giving it access to Cerro de Potosi?). This pits US vs. Iroqois to settle
north America and Mayan vs. Inca to settle south america. If need be, you could
easily slip one open hill near the Incan mountain range. The Inca are defensible
with mountains and the Mayans would be defensible with only ~2 non coastal tile
s to assault it's capital (if/until the Incas or others build up a navy).
i think it'd be worth a playtest. I'll mark it up in the test map you provided w
ith my other thoughts and try to post that later.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 61]
Author : iloveciv5
Date : Jul 23, 2012 09:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potos%C3%AD
I'm pretty sure that this the real, famous one that made Spain rich, made China
abandon paper money and go back to silver coins, and made England also rich from
wars with Spain. Cierro de Potosi was a mountain made of silver, and maintained
to have been mined over 150,000 tons of silver periodicity.
I think i'm also pretty late on this one.
This video on YouTube helped me know this:
The Spanish Empire, Silver, & Runaway Inflation: Crash Course World History #25
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 62]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 23, 2012 11:39 PM

...
I'm blaming the Spanish for naming everything so bloody similar. In the next upd
ate Cerro de Potosi is going in Bolivia then.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 63]
Author : santoo
Date : Jul 24, 2012 08:16 AM
Sure, I'll attach it to this post.
Thanks a lot!
but I have noticed that everybody wants to conquer Jerusalem. Strangely they see
m okay with other City States near their borders but Jerusalem seems to attract
declarations like flies to a cow pat.
Jerusalem I can understand. I typically never DOW on CSes, much preferring to al
ly them, but Jerusalem holds such a powerful position geo-strategically speaking
... if you plan on invading Europe, Africa, Asia or the Arabian peninsula (from
a different region, via land), you'll most likely want that territory
I'm reasonably certain that the problem with Russia is a map issue. The concentr
ated resource placement means that the AI desires far away territories you own b
ecause of the unique luxuries
ah, that makes sense. thanks for clearing that up.
...off to try out Polynesia for the first time... :)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 64]
Author : santoo
Date : Jul 24, 2012 01:30 PM
I think I have some idea, why Polynesia (as AI) doesn't expand - it's a combinat
ion of factors:
.) Really unproductive starting location: 3 production from capital + 1 from an
atoll nw. No chance of improving production (2 more landtiles are near, but they
are jungle - with grassland below) - so the initial production for Honolulu sta
ys really low for reaaaally long.
.) Good growth starting location: IIRC 4 improvable sea-resources lead to compar
able quick growth of the capital - soon eating up the happiness-bonus from the 2
or 3 luxuries - assuming you *have* used your valuable production on 1-use work
boats (unlike the other civs that can build workers to multi-improve their capit
als' ressources, and which are not so strapped for production in the first place
)
.) Settling new cities would be quite a drain on the economy - you have to wait
at least until late medieval times to research compass before you can form your
FIRST trade route - but even if your new cities have some good production going,
you *still* have to wait while building a harbor in the really lazy capital as
well (or you could buy it... with the money... you don't have... thanks to no tr
ade routes ;))
I don't know why the AI wouldn't expand after Compass - then again, it might try
to play catch-up in the capital (which, due to limited production, will be sore
ly lacking in area-appropriate buildings)
Even if geographically incorrect - maybe give them one or two hills (or even som
e atolls) and see if that helps the AI?
oh, and bad production in Honolulu also means 2 things:
.) Polynesia has virtually no chance to found a religion (no natural wonders for
faith, too slow to build faith buildings, scouts used mainly for naval purposes
, therefore no goody huts/free faith)
.) No chance to grab any wonder in the first 100 turns. (Playing on Immortal. I
had no problem getting 5 or so wonders by this time in my earlier Maya-game - at
Immortal as well)
That being said - surprisingly, Polynesia can still hold it's own (score-wise in
the top third of civs) - even without wonders, free techs or religion.
Other observations @Turn 110, unless otherwise noted
.) China explores Australia as early as Turn 55 (with land units!). Makes it eve
n stranger, that no one settles there.
.) Selasse leads the scoreboard - all other African nations are in the bottom ha
lf.
.) By turn 100, Polynesia has made contact with every other nation (using only i
ts starting unit to scout). Since open borders are only just started being trade
d and no one else can cross oceans yet - this is hugely different from other nat
ions. (Though not [yet] much of an advantage, as RAs are not yet possible).
.) American, Chinese, Indians Mayans and Russians are the remaining nations in
the top 3rd (apart from aforementioned Ethiopia and Polynesia), all with ample s
pace to expand into
.) The Bottom-6 look like they will stay at the bottom: Spain, Germany, Carthage
, the Inca, the Arabs and the Byzantines (high-to-low) all have no place left to
expand (England could settle Ireland, but that's it)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 65]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 24, 2012 07:35 PM
I think I have some idea, why Polynesia (as AI) doesn't expand - it's a combinat
ion of factors:
.) Really unproductive starting location: 3 production from capital + 1 from an
atoll nw. No chance of improving production (2 more landtiles are near, but they
are jungle - with grassland below) - so the initial production for Honolulu sta
ys really low for reaaaally long.
.) Good growth starting location: IIRC 4 improvable sea-resources lead to compar
able quick growth of the capital - soon eating up the happiness-bonus from the 2
or 3 luxuries - assuming you *have* used your valuable production on 1-use work
boats (unlike the other civs that can build workers to multi-improve their capit
als' ressources, and which are not so strapped for production in the first place
)
.) Settling new cities would be quite a drain on the economy - you have to wait
at least until late medieval times to research compass before you can form your
FIRST trade route - but even if your new cities have some good production going,
you *still* have to wait while building a harbor in the really lazy capital as
well (or you could buy it... with the money... you don't have... thanks to no tr
ade routes ;))
I don't know why the AI wouldn't expand after Compass - then again, it might try
to play catch-up in the capital (which, due to limited production, will be sore
ly lacking in area-appropriate buildings)
Even if geographically incorrect - maybe give them one or two hills (or even som
e atolls) and see if that helps the AI?
oh, and bad production in Honolulu also means 2 things:
.) Polynesia has virtually no chance to found a religion (no natural wonders for
faith, too slow to build faith buildings, scouts used mainly for naval purposes
, therefore no goody huts/free faith)
.) No chance to grab any wonder in the first 100 turns. (Playing on Immortal. I
had no problem getting 5 or so wonders by this time in my earlier Maya-game - at
Immortal as well)
That being said - surprisingly, Polynesia can still hold it's own (score-wise in
the top third of civs) - even without wonders, free techs or religion.
Other observations @Turn 110, unless otherwise noted
.) China explores Australia as early as Turn 55 (with land units!). Makes it eve
n stranger, that no one settles there.
.) Selasse leads the scoreboard - all other African nations are in the bottom ha
lf.
.) By turn 100, Polynesia has made contact with every other nation (using only i
ts starting unit to scout). Since open borders are only just started being trade
d and no one else can cross oceans yet - this is hugely different from other nat
ions. (Though not [yet] much of an advantage, as RAs are not yet possible).
.) American, Chinese, Indians Mayans and Russians are the remaining nations in
the top 3rd (apart from aforementioned Ethiopia and Polynesia), all with ample s
pace to expand into
.) The Bottom-6 look like they will stay at the bottom: Spain, Germany, Carthage
, the Inca, the Arabs and the Byzantines (high-to-low) all have no place left to
expand (England could settle Ireland, but that's it)
You could be right, the production issue might be what's preventing Polynesia fr
om expanding. Those jungle tiles could all be changed to hills (with the jungles
removed - the AI has a tendency to TP jungle tiles, irrespective of the terrain
underneath) which might help and a few more atolls would do no harm. The happin
ess issue is only a concern for the human player. The AIs essentially ignore hap
piness but even if they didn't Monarchy makes it a non-issue anyway. Poly starts
with Whales, Crab and Pearls IIRC which is 12 so the city would have to be abov
e 18 before they run out of happiness from luxuries if Monarchy is in play. This
, of course, ignores the difficulty level bonuses.
I'm not as convinced with the gold issue - Polynesia can pick its settlement spo
ts in most of the open areas for the first third of the game basically with no c
ompetition. I simply can't see how there isn't a gold-positive settlement site a
vailable to them early on. Buenos Aires is a gold mine, as is most of South Amer
ica. The west coast of the US has some very nice spots as does southeast Asia wh
ile Australia has some choice locations as well. Plus, all of these locations ha
ve luxury resources they need - the AI should be settling there as a matter of p
riority.
Also, bwoww made a comment earlier that Polynesia did have settlers, it simply w
asn't using them and I did see something similar at one point. It imagine that t
his was after compass (as I couldn't have known otherwise) but I couldn't be pos
itive.
Well, I'd argue that Polynesia has first pick on a good number of goody huts, es
p. those in Australia, New Zealand and other places besides because of their UA.
You're right though, early wonders and a religion are not really on the cards a
nd are likely to remain off them even with a production boost.
With regards Australia etc. in my current game Persia (who has taken to settling
everywhere) dropped a city in the Phillipines and another in Indonesia. Not qui
te Australia but they're definitely capable of expanding that far out.
With exception to Ethiopia, Maya and Polynesia, those Civs in the top tier usual
ly wind up there unless the game develops unusually. Ethiopia in particular I've
rarely seen do anywhere near as well as that.
With exception to Byzantium, those Civs in the bottom tier do usually wind up th
ere as well. That said, I have seen Spain conquer northern Africa. I've yet to s
ee Carthage, Germany, Inca or Arabs do anything other than poorly though. Byzant
ium is hit-and-miss - it very much depends on settlement patterns and how quickl
y they can get their army to a large size.
One thing I've noticed, though perhaps its just my playstyle, is that you seem t
o go through techs faster than what you'd see on a default map. On Immortal I ma
naged to get to the Industrial era with very little beelining before any other A
I, including the Americans who were double the score and triple the cities of an
yone else, as England with 3 cities. Has anyone else experienced anything simila
r?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 66]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 24, 2012 09:44 PM
just a couple of suggestions. see attached screenshots...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 67]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 24, 2012 10:39 PM
just a couple of suggestions. see attached screenshots...
The changes to central and south America look pretty solid. I assume you've adde
d the two mountain tiles north of La Venta to prevent the Americans from walking
quickly over them? The Mayan starting resources will need to be adjusted, as mi
ght La Venta's now that I look at it but it could very well solve the potential
runaway American Civ issue.
Manila I think is an easy add. Honolulu looks a bit odd there, but it should def
initely make the more viable.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 68]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 24, 2012 11:08 PM
The changes to central and south America look pretty solid. I assume you've adde
d the two mountain tiles north of La Venta to prevent the Americans from walking
quickly over them?
thanks. and actually i just swapped the old Potosi location with a mountain, but
you're absolutely right that the hope is to keep the Americans (and Iroquois) f
rom running to far south...
The Mayan starting resources will need to be adjusted, as might La Venta's now t
hat I look at it but it could very well solve the potential runaway American Civ
issue.
definitely. it's your map and you seem more well versed in AI expansion principl
es and resource balance. i would note that it might make sense to move El Dorado
, maybe deeper into the Amazon... those natural wonders are big $$$ makers, whic
h is really powerful in early game (especially with 2.. and the +4 faith bonus t
o natural wonders pantheon... just thinking out loud).
either way, in this layout the incas/mayans are trapped into jungle conflict, wh
ich should slow any early runaways...
Manila I think is an easy add. Honolulu looks a bit odd there, but it should def
initely make the more viable.
it just seemed obvious. You might want to consider looking into reorganizing the
city name priority of Polynesia, if that's something that irks you. personally,
i could get over it. moreover, that seems above the scope of this mod (and defi
nitely my modding skills).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 69]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 24, 2012 11:11 PM
one last thought, while you're rearranging resource placement (assuming you go w
ith the central america layout as is) i'd consider adding another plains/hill ti
le due east of the southern most central american sugar (hope that made sense...
). this would add a little depth to central america and allow you to potentially
play with the new Mayan "panama" placement resource type distribution a little
more...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 70]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 28, 2012 06:39 AM
Okay, version 4 is out. It incorporates pretty much all of the changes that we'v
e talked about since the last release. The only thing I've left alone at the mom
ent is Polynesia, I'm still not convinced that they can make a reasonable contri
bution to warrant their inclusion without drastic changes - like starting them i
n New Zealand or Australia.
One really cool thing I found out is that it's possible to play this custom map
with Steam achievements enabled by loading the game up without activating the Mo
d. I've included instructions on how I did it in the OP, but if this isn't news
to everyone else and/or there's a better way of doing it, please let me know!
I've also included two screenshots from my recent game as England (runaway US wi
th strong India Russia, Mongolia and Songhai) in the Workshop but I'm still very
interested in screens from other people's games if anyone has any that they'd l
ike to share.
In other news the G&K map has surpassed Vanilla map downloads with over 2,000 do
wnloads on Steam! That might not be that big in comparison to the popularity of
other, larger, Earth maps (Gedemon's has 12,000+) but I'm reasonably positive th
at this is now the most popular standard-sized Earth map for Civ V. There's a po
tential exception to Smellymummy's cordiform map that's included in Gedemon's ma
p collection but I think regardless of where it's placed, it's been a pretty suc
cessful venture. A venture that certainly would not have been anywhere near as s
uccessful, nor as good, without the valuable contributions from everyone in this
thread.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 71]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 28, 2012 08:47 AM
Okay, version 4 is out.
do you mind updating the OP screenshot of the WB map? i'm not going to be near a
civ-ready computer for a while, but i'm interested to see how the new version l
ooks, civ/cs/resource placement changes and all.
thanks!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 72]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 28, 2012 09:07 AM
do you mind updating the OP screenshot of the WB map? i'm not going to be near a
civ-ready computer for a while, but i'm interested to see how the new version l
ooks, civ/cs/resource placement changes and all.
thanks!
Sure thing.
Also, you might be interested in this Let's Play (http://forums.civfanatics.com/
showthread.php?t=470753) which is based on version 4.
Edit: Done. I've changed it to a url link to the file on the imgur site, largely
to save on CFC space but it has the added benefit of being bigger than the prev
ious version. Also, what happened your computer or are you just away from your g
aming rig?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 73]
Author : RedRover57
Date : Jul 30, 2012 01:43 PM
Where is the link to download the zip file? The link in the original post is fo
r a RAR file.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 74]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 30, 2012 08:59 PM
Where is the link to download the zip file? The link in the original post is fo
r a RAR file.
ZIP and RAR are just two different means of compacting a file. You may need WinR
ar (http://www.rarlab.com/download.htm) to extract it.
Alternatively, you can simply hit 'Subscribe' on the map in the Steam Workshop a
nd it'll instantly download and install to your harddrive.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 75]
Author : RedRover57
Date : Jul 31, 2012 03:28 AM
Ah thanks. That's the issue. I don't have that app.
I've been searching for a standard size Earth map with correct civ starting posi
tions so this looks interesting.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 76]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 31, 2012 04:29 AM
No worries. Technically the WinRar you download is a trial version for 30 days b
ut after the 30 days you just have to close the warning and it works as normal archiving, extracting, exploring etc.
Hope you enjoy the map, let me know what you think of it when you've given it a
go.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 77]
Author : vibe96
Date : Aug 02, 2012 08:39 AM
the map looks pretty good. but could you add the huns somewhere near the caspian
sea. i also think that you should remove one of the european nations. like fran
ce
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 78]
Author : Veneke
Date : Aug 02, 2012 09:22 PM
the map looks pretty good. but could you add the huns somewhere near the caspian
sea. i also think that you should remove one of the european nations. like fran
ce
Thanks for the feedback.
The Huns have been suggested a few times and my opinion on them is mixed. I just
don't know if their inclusion will be of benefit. It's rather cramped down wher
e it's been suggested they start, even with Almaty removed.
Europe is a little crowded but if any Civ was on the chopping block it would hav
e to be Germany - they consistently fail to break out of Europe or survive the i
nevitable attacks from France/Russia.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 79]
Author : Lehnardtsson
Date : Aug 03, 2012 06:52 AM
can you post the last version in this forum? My PC for play is not connected so
I cannot donwload through the interface but rather do it during lunch time at my
jobs computer :)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 80]
Author : vibe96
Date : Aug 03, 2012 07:19 AM
How about this:
Civs:
France
Germany
Carthage
Ethiopia
Egypt
Songhai
Russia
Mongolia
Sweden
India
Arabia
China
City states:
All you have in the map exept jerusalem
native americat tribes
london
kyoto
edinburgh
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 81]
Author : Veneke
Date : Aug 03, 2012 07:41 AM
@ Lehnardtsson: The latest version is attached to a .rar file in the OP. Downloa
d and follow the installation instructions and it should be good to go.
@ Vibe: I have seriously considered releasing a map with a significantly reduced

number of Civs as well as only old world Civs etc. Your list is close to my pla
ns for the latter but you've included every African Civ and removed a number of
Civs in the more high-powered regions (Europe and Middle East in particular stru
ck me). There's actually a reasonably strong argument to be made for that approa
ch, as it might help ensure a more consistent historical development. It might,
however, make it too historically consistent. There is also the issue that Germa
ny rarely survives long enough between France and Russia to warrant inclusion in
any reduced Civ map.
Your suggested city-states, however, are both beyond the scope of this mod and a
gainst my preference to keep things as vanilla as possible. It's largely for thi
s reason that there is a DLC map at all - if I was modding in Civs/City-States I
'd ignore DLC altogether. It's a tempting approach but in the interests of not l
etting this project run away on me (I've still to get a working settings selecti
on screen in order!) I fear that I'm unlikely to add those city-states in.
I'm more curious though why you want to remove Jerusalem. Testing made it pretty
clear that Suez was basically a non-starter on most playthroughs unless the hum
an got a chance to settle the city himself, and although the trip around S. Afri
ca is not terribly long, Suez is still an important site that adds interest to t
he map. Have you encountered something that would suggest its removal would be o
f benefit?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 82]
Author : vibe96
Date : Aug 03, 2012 09:16 AM
Well, i haven't yet tryed the map, but doesn't jerusalem "block" arabia from exp
anding. the civilization list was just my picks. its really hard to pick only 10
-12 civilizations so i decided to leave out england and spain. of course you cou
ld change this to remove carthage, germany and arabia and add england, spain and
the byzantine. England could do really well with tradition+left commerence and
beeline to astronomy to colonise americas. Spain could expand to north africa an
d americas. Its just a matter of taste which civs do you want in. About those ci
tystates you can just rename the cities in worldbuilder. But if you dont want to
do so, its OK.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 83]
Author : Veneke
Date : Aug 03, 2012 09:13 PM
I tried the renaming option before and never managed to get it to work. It would
always come up as 'TXT_KEY_X' ingame.
Jerusalem kinda blocks Arab expansion, but they have two easily accessible city
sites - one to their east at the other end of the Saudi penisula and another up
between the two rivers. The AI does settle there if it has the chance, almost al
ways on the former and if Persia buggers up on the latter. On the other hand, pl
aytesting without Jerusalem found that usually Egypt went north to settle roughl
y in Alexandria, which blocked Arabia anyway.
It is tough to reduce the Civ list. I think you're right in that removing Englan
d and Spain (and Japan) are good moves in any reduced civ listing, primarily on
account of the fact that they typically do so poorly. Germany I also think is an
easy write-off, as probably are Carthage and Ethiopia. I think the real issue i
s whether the reduced Civ listing would have Arabia, Persia, Byzantium, Turks or
even the Huns, Babylon would actually be ideal. There's probably only room for
one of them.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 84]
Author : Arsuro
Date : Aug 04, 2012 04:20 AM
Very good map. Tks vm for sharing.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 85]
Author : Veneke
Date : Aug 04, 2012 04:58 AM
Very good map. Tks vm for sharing.
Glad you enjoyed it! Welcome to CFC. :D
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 86]
Author : Lachlan
Date : Aug 10, 2012 12:36 PM
Any news here ?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 87]
Author : Veneke
Date : Aug 13, 2012 01:22 AM
Any news here ?
Unfortunately, with the semester well and truly started my free time has gone fr
om 'very little' to 'hahahaha, all your free time belongs to us', hence why ther
e've been no updates to the Russia LP or the map.
On the other hand, aside from the setup screen problem I think the map(s) are pr
etty good as they are now. The only possible inclusion to the map pack that is r
eally being considered is a 'Limited Civs' map with maybe half the number of Civ
s that are currently in play but I don't consider this a major priority because
you can very easily adjust this yourself through the worldbuilder.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 88]
Author : Avatan
Date : Sep 21, 2012 04:46 AM
Hi! I am currently playing a game as France and it's heap of fun (g&k version)!
This map is exactly what I was looking for: a real world feel but I don't need t
o but a super computer from NASA.
Most civ are happy with just one city when they could be building more (well, e
xcept cathy!). I got 13 denoucements after ending isabella :P
Well done!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 89]
Author : MadLion
Date : Nov 20, 2012 01:03 PM
Veneke.
I absolutely love your map!! ( happy! happy!! joy !!! joy!!!! ).
Can you please do a large version of it . That would be awesome mate.
Best regards
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 90]
Author : Veneke
Date : Mar 16, 2013 08:24 PM
Glad you're enjoying the map Avatan and Madlion!
One of the driving reasons behind why I made this map was because of the plethor
a of very well crafted Earth maps of larger sizes and the dearth of available ma
ps in the standard size. I'm still of the opinion that Civ 5 is so poorly optimi
zed that anything larger than standard size is a non-starter without a huge rig
of a computer and a willingness to put up with serious lag. I haven't played in
some time but I've not seen anything that suggests this has changed (if it can e
ven be changed).
For both of these reasons I have no intention of redrawing the map at a larger s
ize. I would, however, recommend Gedemon's earth pack for a good huge earth map
selection and Vadus' large earth map which was the basis for this map.
In addition, if anyone is curious, there will be a new version of this map relea
sed for BNW.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 91]
Author : Lachlan
Date : Mar 17, 2013 08:07 AM
Egypt can't build a city on Mediterranean Sea, you should correct this...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 92]
Author : Veneke
Date : Mar 17, 2013 05:07 PM
Huh, I never noticed that. The region has always developed pretty acceptably in
my playthroughs but moving Thebes 1 SW or SE shouldn't affect anything terribly
significantly and would allow for there to be a city on the Med between Carthage
and Jerusalem.
Very good catch.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 93]
Author : Veneke
Date : May 09, 2013 12:22 AM
I've tidied up the map pack so that you are now only presented with four maps; a
Vanilla version (basically the Gods and Kings version but with the new things r
emoved), a Gods and Kings version with 21 Civs and 17 City States, a Gods and Ki
ngs version with 22 Civs and 17 City States that requires the Inca DLC and a God
s and Kings version with 8 Civs and 16 City States. All four have fixed Egypt's
starting position to allow for a city to be built on the Mod between it, Carthag
e and Jerusalem. OP has been updated.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 94]
Author : EgyptRaider
Date : May 13, 2013 12:03 PM
I've never been that interessed in world maps but this map just seems made for m
e since I always play with alot of civs on a Standard map, because I love the cr
owded civ maps with not that much cities so I'm certainly gonna try this!
Are you planning a BNW version as well? I could imagine that there would be room
for the Zulu and Brazil, and the probable new Native American and let's hope fo
r the new Asian civ, and maybe some new city-states.
EDIT: woops, I missed your announcement a few posts back concerning the BNW vers
ion. I can't wait for it!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 95]
Author : Veneke
Date : May 13, 2013 10:19 PM
Glad to see that you're going to give it a try EgyptRaider. Yes, you're quite ri
ght that there will be a BNW map once it's released. Obviously no changes are se
t in stone, but these are my thoughts on changes based on what we know so far:
North America:
La Venta will go, replaced by Panama city 2 SW. Panama is further north than I'd
like but putting it where it actually is would mean that the Mayans are not in
S. America and that does not work for balance, especially if Brazil is the power
house I kinda expect it to be.
South America:
Brazil will take the place of the Incas and RdJ is obviously gone. I'm consideri
ng removing El Dorado. To be honest, I'm kinda hoping for a new city-state to go
somewhere in S. America.
Africa:
Zulus are definitely going to be included, probably swapping out Carthage for th
em. Cape Town will have to go. M'banza-Kongo will be included where it should be
. I suspect that we'll see a number of new African Natural Wonders given the sce
nario and its conditions, these will all be included (provided they don't bugger
up anything in the process anyway). Zanzibar will potentially be included (poss
ibly on Madagascar). Previously I think I rejected it and Mombasa on the basis t
hat it would block Ethiopia, it still might but after a few playthroughs I'm beg
inning to rethink it.
Europe:
Europe is always a pain. Portugal will take Spain's place though, that's pretty
easy. Germany will probably be swapped out for Poland. I was uncertain about thi
s until recently but I think it's a good move. Poland though will almost certain
ly have to start where Germany is right now, this is to ensure that Riga will fi
t north of those swamps between Germany and Russia and so that they definitely h
ave access to the water. Sofia and Bratislava are almost certainly both out.
Middle-East:
I'm not sure about how this will work. Assyria is definitely in, but whether to
drop Byzantium, Persia or Arabia (or both Persia and Arabia) for it I'm not so c
ertain. Arabia typically does pretty poorly, Persia sometimes does alright provi
ded it can win the rush to the flood plains, Byzantium usually does reasonably w
ell no matter what happens but rarely successfully holds onto a second city for
very long. I'm wondering if it might be too crowded. Dropping all three for Assy
ria could work too... I really am not sure here. I think it's safe to say that U
r is out though.
Asia:
I'm toying with the possibility of nerfing Siberia except for late-game stuff an
d removing Mongolia. They rarely achieve anything and that Civ spot might come i
n handy elsewhere. They'll stay though unless that Civ spot is needed. I want to
try and leave the CS-heavy SE Asia as it is, as I think that works pretty well
and looks kinda neat.
Then there'll be the usual tweaks and resource re-allocations that happen whenev
er I start looking at a map.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 96]
Author : Lachlan
Date : May 14, 2013 03:27 AM
A) What about an ancient, classic and medieval era Civs and City Set ?
Europa (6) : Celts, Rome, Greece, Huns (placed as Scyths), Denmark and Russia
Asia (6) : India, China, Siam, Mongolia, Korea and Japan
Middle-East (4) : Assyria, Babylon, Arabia and Persia
Africa (5) : Carthage, Egypt, Songha, Ethiopia and Zululand
America (1) : Mayans
Total : 22 civs !
B) What about allowing 7 religions instead of 5 on your Standard Map ?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 97]
Author : Veneke
Date : May 14, 2013 04:42 AM
That listing looks pretty good though Babylon, Denmark and Korea are all out, pu
rely on the basis that they're entirely separate DLC (I'm only running with the
Inca because of the problems that arise from not doing so as is). I'd probably t
oss in the Aztecs and the Iroquois to the Americas, just so the Mayans don't run
away entirely. Depending on the other Civs to be revealed that should be doable
, very doable. That and a map where the focus is on Old World Civs, which is som
ething I forgot in this most recent update. A Classic and Medieval era Civ/CS li
sting map I probably won't do, that's something better left to scenarios I recko
n.
You've brought up the 7 religions before I think and I'm sorry to say that I had
entirely forgotten about it. For much the same reason that I'm not touching sce
narios and no longer including a diplomacy mod or Infoaddict or anything similar
I really don't see this being included. The problem isn't so much the idea (I t
hink it makes quite a bit of sense) but rather that I don't want to set up to do
something and then have to back down on it because I lack the technical experti
se, the time, or whatever to actually do it. I've also a concern that this is ju
st meant to be a map pack, no dependencies, very little chance of technical erro
r etc, adding a modification to the core game would change that.
If I get around to figuring out scenarios then I would play around with expandin
g the number of religions, capping range to two tiles (Longbowmen shooting from
behind London into France is a bit wonky) and other fancy things of that nature.
Right now though, that's just not on the cards. To be honest, I'm more likely t
o do a Small version of the map before anything like that.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 98]
Author : Lachlan
Date : May 14, 2013 03:13 PM
Thanks for answering me : i must admit that i just agree...
Your map is nice, i just colonized new egyptian spot with Carthage...
More production tiles for Egypt perhaps ?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 99]
Author : Veneke
Date : May 14, 2013 07:28 PM
Cool. Remember that I'm always looking for screenshots from any game played on t
his map to be displayed on Steam, preferably mid or late game.
Hmm... it might be worthwhile moving the hill tiles NW of Egypt's old starting p
osition SW of it's new one. That'll give it 6 desert hill tiles, give or take, a
nd more than enough food with the flood plains to work them. Do you reckon it'll
need more?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 100]
Author : Lachlan
Date : May 15, 2013 04:21 AM
1) I do not finished your map at 2050, my computer could hardly handling it...
The ideal size is Small at the moment... With serious slowing at the end...
2) I read that you think to make a Small version of your map, very good idea...
What would be the changes between Small and Standard size in term of possibiliti
es of your new map ? Could be handled by more computers...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 101]
Author : Veneke
Date : May 15, 2013 08:21 AM
Aye, even standard-sized maps (especially landmass/civ heavy ones) slow down to
a crawl towards the end. Pretty sure that the problem is the game engine but be
that as it may, that's what we're working with.
In terms of a small map, thinking as I type, perhaps ~10-12 Civs:
- America and Brazil are easy picks.
- Zulu is a shoe-in as well. Go for another civ in Africa? Probably.
- Only one European Civ I imagine and they would have to be from mainland Europ
e, not the Baltics nor the British Isles. Not sure who to put here really, a Civ
like France or perhaps something different like the Netherlands, Austria or Pol
and?
- Russia, India and China are easy inclusions.
- Then 2-4 more... Assyria probably, Mongolia maybe? Perhaps Siam and cut the n
umber of city states?
Which brings us to the City-States.
- Jerusalem and Panama are more than likely.
- One-tile CSs that don't impact terribly much on major landmasses, like Manila
and Jakarta are probably okay.
- Everybody else, with potential exceptions to Almaty and Lhasa are probably sp
ace dependent.
I'm far from wedded to any of these by the way. So if you've thoughts, feel free
to jump in.
The drop from standard (~4200) to small (@2800) is pretty significant so it'll b
e a challenge to fit everything in. I'll have a look at what other people have d
one but from what I recall the smaller maps tend to look horribly disfigured. I
went through the old posts and I think that ComradeKristov was on the right trac
k. Unless I find something better I'll probably use that for inspiration. Natura
l wonders and resource distribution will hopefully stay the same.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 102]
Author : Lachlan
Date : May 17, 2013 08:40 AM
You could limit the map to Ancient World area, you cut Americas, Australia, Sout
h Africa...
Only north hemisphere, Suez Canal zone would become major importance...
If not you could rest on your standard handmade Earth map , because i could upgr
ade my computer...
And so, Standard Maps could be fully playable !
And your Scenario 1000AD, is it outdated ?
I sugest for your map a 500 BC Scenario...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 103]
Author : Veneke
Date : May 17, 2013 09:22 PM
I could but ultimately I won't. There are others out there who like cutting thin
gs out to make the map more playable but I prefer dealing with the big, complete
and ultimately messy picture.
The 1000AD scenario is well outdated, never really worked and is certainly no lo
nger supported nor receiving updates. My experience with scenarios was not pleas
ant and I very much doubt that I'll return to them.
On a BNW note, with Indonesia and Morocco confirmed I'm pretty sure that Morocco
will be included for the BNW map. I'll drop Songhai for them and nerf Songhai's
starting position (which was well OP even by the map's standards), that'll leav
e the Zulus, Egypt, Ethiopia and Morocco in Africa with M'banza-Kongo and Zanzib
ar/Mombasa as city-states which is a nice mix although Ethiopia is kinda cramped
.
Indonesia, unfortunately, will probably be left out. After our misadventures wit
h Polynesia I simply don't see Indonesia faring any better. If I was to cut into
the city-states in Southeast Asia it would be for Siam, given that there is an
alternative to the inclusion of Indonesia, Civ slots are already tight on the gr
ound and they're likely to underperform I just can't see it.
For South America Buenos Aires is definitely in and for the Middle East I'm thin
king to add Kabul where Persia is now and use Persia's Civ slot for Assyria. Tha
t would still leave Byzantium and Arabia in the Middle East both of whom will st
ay depending on what the last two civs are. Kabul, however, leaves Assyria with
no decent second city spot so that will have to be addressed, somehow.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 104]
Author : Omega_Kabob
Date : May 24, 2013 05:48 PM
Would you mind if I use this map as a reference for my Asia map? :)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 105]
Author : Veneke
Date : May 25, 2013 02:18 AM
Work away mate.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 106]
Author : Barak
Date : Jul 14, 2013 05:02 PM
I really like this map. Any plans to update for BNW?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 107]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 15, 2013 02:00 AM
Yep! I had planned on having it done earlier but having run into a few errors wi
th worldbuilder I gave up on it to concentrate on actually playing the expansion
. :P Fortunately, those errors were resolved when I updated to the beta version
of the SDK/World Builder.
The good news is that it's up on steam now, so if you're subscribed to that it s
hould auto-update for you. There's detailed changelogs and what have you in that
and I'll update the OP accordingly with a new manual download including the BNW
map.
The bad news is that I'm a little concerned about turn times given that they've
slowed down already in BNW and I went a little nuts with all the new city-states
. The map now has the maximum 22 civs and 24 city-states. Some things may have t
o change; Indonesia for example might do very poorly in Southeast Asia. As far a
s new Civs go though, the only Civ not included is Venice which I thought was pr
etty good going (although I have taken some serious liberties with Poland's star
ting position). I probably could have squeezed Venice in there, somehow, but for
much the same reason that I dislike Austria I am not particularly fond of Venic
e - the ability to permanently remove civs or city-states from the game is too m
uch. If you could raze everything, including capitals and city-states then I'd h
ave less of a problem with it, as is I'm not exactly devastated by their non-inc
lusion.
One fairly big change to the map though is that Mongolia was cut. I've absolutel
y no idea what this will do to the development of the map over the course of a g
ame but I really wanted to get Indonesia in there. If Indonesia flops I'll drop
them and put Mongolia back in but, for now, that's how we're rolling.
Oh, and raging barbs was turned off - cause barbs in BNW are terrifying enough w
ith it off.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 108]
Author : Barak
Date : Jul 15, 2013 07:12 AM
Thanks for the update! I fear that with no Mongolia it will leave China too muc
h room to expand and no one to keep them in line.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 109]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 15, 2013 07:31 AM
That's a distinct possibility and, frankly, I'd expect to go through a couple of
games and versions of this until I'm happy with it. The Vanilla and G&K version
s went through three to four reasonably major changes before they reached their
pre-BNW state.
At the moment, however, I'm banking on barbs and Kyzyl to slow down any potentia
l Chinese spread through Siberia. There's also the point to be made that, pre-G&
K at least, the AI did not regard Siberia very highly. Russia typically conquere
d Europe (or was, in turn, conquered) and China kinda sat there while the Mongol
ians as a fairly mediocre middle power. It should, I hope, give China a nice boo
st though as, in my experience, they rarely have sufficient weight to put up a f
ight against the (inevitably) united Americas or other major Eurasian power. My
experiences with BNW so far have led me to believe that the AI will go tall unti
l Industrial and then go nuts expanding and, in theory, I think that'll work out
fairly well for China and Siberia.
It's also worthwhile pointing out that the addition of so many CSs will also hav
e an impact, though how significant that will be is a bit early to say. It's an
extra 7 I believe, which cuts down on potential city sites by quite a significan
t margin.
In short, BNW changes so many things and introduces so many things that, given t
he restrictions I've set myself (standard map, no changes to the base game), the
re are fairly decent odds that the map will require at least one major overhaul.
Hopefully that can be avoided but I'm distinctly aware of the possibility that
it may take several attempts to get it right.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 110]
Author : Barak
Date : Jul 15, 2013 07:40 AM
I have played many run throughs on your map in G+K, and i really like it. It ru
ns fast, and forces some interesting conflicts. The middle east is a tad overcr
owded, and adding Assyria leaves no good second city locations for the Byz Assyr
ia or Persia.
That said, I will give it a try as Arabia and see how aggressive Assyria is.
I always found that China had 3 good city spots, as did India, Sweden and Englan
d. Some civs struggled to find a good second spot. Which usually mean the Euro
peans fight lots of wars until someone wins :)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 111]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 15, 2013 10:16 AM
I have to admit, I am rather happy with how the maps have developed. There's alw
ays a tweak here or there which might make it better but, on the whole, it seems
to stand up pretty well. Speed (or more accurately, turn times) is something th
at I place a premium on - I've a feeling BNW will not help in that regard, nor w
ill my happy-go-lucky approach to City-States for the BNW map.
Also, I should probably have mentioned that Persia was swapped out for Kabul (th
e map in the OP will be updated as soon as I can get WB to stop crashing on me..
.). It's still very crowded in the Middle East; it's like Europe really, but eve
n smaller. Kabul though will hopefully mean that Assyria can avoid building for
settlers and instead take a good spot by going warlike early which thematically
I find quite appropriate. Same with the Zulus, they've no good second city spots
nearby but 4 decent city-states to conquer.

If the BNW map plays out anything like the G&K one, there should be an absurd nu
mber of dig sites once Archaeology comes online.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 112]
Author : Barak
Date : Jul 15, 2013 08:01 PM
I played about 150 turns as Arabia, and the only DOW that I saw was when I decla
red war on Assyria. Their starting spot needs some work, as their is only 1 pea
rl and not enough production for them to really work on anything. I read somewh
ere that the AI is not DOWing enough due to the effect on their economy and thei
r reliance on trade routes.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 113]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 15, 2013 08:38 PM
Good catch, I beefed the Assyrian start with Gems (robbed from Kabul) and Incens
e (newly placed). There's still no decent second city spot for them though, ther
e's potentially one in the Caucasus but no obviously good way to fit it in there
without harming the potential city spots on the northern end, near Russia.
I also fiddled with Melbourne/Sydney and gave Panama City a starting position I'm still not sure how that didn't make it in.
As for the AI, there's unfortunately not a huge amount I can do about that. Prev
iously they could be counted upon to take neighbours out. If they don't do that,
I'm not sure trade routes will provide enough of a boost to their economies in
the longer term.
Edit: Also, attempting to put an Assyrian city down to display the name (like it
's done in OP) causes WB to crash, consistently, so I'm afraid an overview like
that will have to wait until I find a workaround or they fix it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 114]
Author : ariel552
Date : Jul 17, 2013 02:56 PM
Hi Veneke,
Very good job on your maps!! I use them every day!
Well, I've found two bugs in version 4 and 5, with the VDK DLC map, it crashes a
few turns before 1 A.D (somewhere between 600 AD and 300 AD, standard speed) an
d tryied twice with England and Cartaghe, same crash.
I hope you can finish the brave new world map, soon!!
And that Firaxis fixes the bug in the archeologies, the pop up window that canno
t be closed crashed another of my games in late game, and cound't finish it!
Regards
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 115]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 17, 2013 08:24 PM
Glad you're enjoying them ariel552. The BNW map should be good to go, it should
auto-update through steam but, if not, then unsubscribing and resubscribing shou
ld fix it.
I've experienced that kind of random crash on custom maps before (it's why I had
to give up on smellymummy's interesting standard Earth map) but have never foun
d a fix. I'll double check that map (and the others) later on tonight to see if
there's anything in the set-up that might eventually cause it. Could you attach
a save from a few turns before the crash? Who knows, maybe there is a fundamenta
l flaw in the map that leads to an automatic crash under certain conditions? I d
on't think so, but that's the best I can do I'm afraid.
It might be an idea to delete old versions of the map pack, they shouldn't inter
fere but you can never tell. I've no idea why it would keep old versions around
but I know it does - I had to delete my own old versions of both this and Gedemo
n's map pack because, for whatever reason, it refused to overwrite them like it
normally did.
I've yet to encounter the archaeologist bug but it sounds particularly awful.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 116]
Author : ariel552
Date : Jul 19, 2013 02:47 PM
All right Veneke, thanks! And if want to download the last version to have the B
NW map, would it be the attachment Vens Standard Earth Maps.rar (46.1 KB, 465 vi
ews) in your page?
I'll use it and
th your map but
his last one, a
rom IGE and the
let you know, but actually I'm thinking the crash is not only wi
also with Legendary Earth, and in both I was using the IGE. In t
crash around 1870 AD that couldn't even load the autosave both f
civ itself...
By the way, in order to reduce the turn to turn time to 5-10 seconds, I put a mo
ntains wall between the urals in russia and north china/corea. No one can enter
to found cities, so much less units = time :) and also sometimes I conquer Asia
with the barbarians, whe they get too much tech than europe, to mantain history
...
Cheers
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 117]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 19, 2013 05:47 PM
It's the attachment with 0 views on the OP 56KB or so (I've removed the old pack
age to avoid confusion. The new one contains everything the old one did).
It's an interesting idea to cut out some sections of the map, although not one I
'm currently keen on introducing to my map. There are much better gameplay orien
tated maps out there than this one, I'd recommend djvandyke's map in that regard
which removes the less important areas of the map like Siberia and so on. Unfor
tunately, it's a large map so the boost to turn times will be relative to that.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 118]
Author : Spawnblade
Date : Jul 20, 2013 02:12 PM
I'm a bit of a dunce with Civ 5 mods, but doesn't the new v6 archive need a .mod
info file in it to function? I thought the civ5proj files were purely for moddi
ng purposes?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 119]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 20, 2013 05:09 PM
...
Yes, yes it does. Fixed. It should still have worked anyway as these are maps an
d none of the core files are changed but they decided a bit back that maps were
mods for some reason.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 120]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 21, 2013 11:01 AM
1. really happy this map is still getting all the attention it deserves! (and is
becoming BNW ready)
2. just had a chance to take a look at your placement of new civs, natural wonde
rs, etc. really well done! i like the layout of Europe (here's hoping France mov
es eastward and the Poles make it interesting) and the crowded layout of Africa
makes for early and often conflict, which will be interesting to see. I also hop
e that the Mongolian decision works out (there's always the idea of adding in Ko
rea...?)
3. Here are my thoughts on potential changes:
* Switch Mayan and Panama's starting position to be historically accurate (unles
s you're doing this on purpose to give Brazil a challenge, and then it would mak
e more sense...)
* If Indonesia goes the way of Polynesia (unfortunately...) and add back in the
Incans (S. America is pretty vacant vis-a-vis Africa) while switching Panama/May
ans. I think this would make the western hemisphere much more interesting and hi
storically accurate.
* If another Civ can go, I think it would be Carthage (gives Morocco more room t
o expand vs Songhai) and you could then add the Iroquois into the Cahokia slot (
or further north, utilizing it's forest travel bonus) or add back in the Mongols
, if that seems appropriate.
I plan to make a few of the adjustment types listed above and play as the US to
toy with the new trade routes and tourism aspects on this map. if all goes well
(and it may take me a long time to actually finish the game as the summer rolls
on), I'll try and report back so you have some data on how those changes affect
the map.
thanks again!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 121]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 21, 2013 06:43 PM
I hadn't actually intended on setting out to make Africa crowded but that's how
it seems to have worked out and I'm not terribly disappointed with the results.
Europe, as always, remain an interesting place to start.
Given that Korea is a separate DLC I'm not keen on including
eption was made for the Inca in past incarnations so there's
ouldn't be made here; except that to include anyone I'd have
nd if I'm removing someone then I can just add Mongolia back
it, although an exc

no reason why one c
to remove someone a
in...
Aye, the Mayan/Panama starting positions are switched to avoid giving Brazil rel
atively uncontested access to S. America and having three Civs in N. America. It
's a more extreme sacrifice of realism to gameplay than what had happened previo
usly with La Venta and what's currently happening with Poland.
Dropping Carthage and Indonesia for the Incas and the Iroquois is certainly a po
ssibility and could well work out better than how it is currently. I'm less cert
ain on the Panama/Maya switch, keeping as is with the Civ swaps would give 3 Civ
s in N. America and 3 in S. America. If Indonesia works out, however, then poten
tially swapping Byzantium for the Incas (and putting a city-state nearby) and le
aving Indonesia in there could prove interesting. Carthage still be swapped for
the Iroquois.
One other swap I'm toying with is dropping Arabia for Mongolia. At the moment As
syria is somewhat trapped for space and while having Assyria surrounded by CityStates might impede their growth it would guarantee at least one second, decent,
city.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 122]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 22, 2013 10:40 AM
I hadn't actually intended on setting out to make Africa crowded but that's how
it seems to have worked out and I'm not terribly disappointed with the results.
Europe, as always, remain an interesting place to start.
So each civ in Africa seems to at least get a decent 2nd city? That's good to he
ar (I suppose Africa is a bit bigger than S. America anyways). I'd say of the re
maining group, Carthage would be the one I'd use to replace, if I had to choose.
..
Given that Korea is a separate DLC I'm not keen on including
eption was made for the Inca in past incarnations so there's
ouldn't be made here; except that to include anyone I'd have
nd if I'm removing someone then I can just add Mongolia back
it, although an exc

no reason why one c
to remove someone a
in...
You're right about Korea for the reasons you mention; also it has a tight spot f
or it's TSL. I think that any expansionist ways from China would be better check
ed by Genghis in that regard anyways...
Aye, the Mayan/Panama starting positions are switched to avoid giving Brazil rel
atively uncontested access to S. America and having three Civs in N. America. It

's a more extreme sacrifice of realism to gameplay than what had happened previo
usly with La Venta and what's currently happening with Poland.
I see your point and could live with Panama being north of Palenque (looking bac
k through posts, it's a little embarrassing to see that I might have been the on
e to initially suggest the Mayan placement in the first place - oops!). Panama i
s a decent choice as it's nice to have a variety of CS flavors; however, La Vent
a could also continue to be placed there if you have find you have too few relig
ious flavored CS... (I'm not sure about the current balance)
Dropping Carthage and Indonesia for the Incas and the Iroquois is certainly a po
ssibility and could well work out better than how it is currently. I'm less cert
ain on the Panama/Maya switch, keeping as is with the Civ swaps would give 3 Civ
s in N. America and 3 in S. America. If Indonesia works out, however, then poten
tially swapping Byzantium for the Incas (and putting a city-state nearby) and le
aving Indonesia in there could prove interesting. Carthage still be swapped for
the Iroquois.
One other swap I'm toying with is dropping Arabia for Mongolia. At the moment As
syria is somewhat trapped for space and while having Assyria surrounded by CityStates might impede their growth it would guarantee at least one second, decent,
city.
While I have done no playtesting yet (so just from a theoretical perspective), I
'd encourage the following swaps:
1. Arabia for Mongolia: you help out Assyria, freeing up some space in the middl
e east, and add back in a check on China and solid warmonger for a bigger/emptie
r (barbarian-prone) part of the map. Even a struggling Indonesia still has a gre
at civ bonus for it's likely 2nd city placement, and for some reason I kind of l
ike Byzantium (or even Ottomans) in that regional spot.
2. Carthage for Inca: You'd know best with play-testing, but it might help out M
orocco/Egypt expand vs their two offensively minded continental neighbors while
adding some more flavor to the S. America map. Also, I definitely wouldn't remov
e both Carthage and Byzantium, but having both is maybe why I keep trying to rem
ove one.
2a. Rather than Carthage for Inca, Carthage for Iroquois. You'd keep Mayan start
as is, but swap Panama for La Venta (if CS flavors may need balancing, plus it'
s just a bit more historically accurate TSL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ve
nta)). I'd guess that Shoshone grabs up a LOT of territory (and quickly after ci
ty #2), so you could move Cahokia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia) a bit s
outh, Shoshone a bit north (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshone_people) and a
dd Iroquois to somewhere in the forest-y north/northeast as a balance. Quebec Ci
ty could really be even more on the NE coast (can anybody reach that whale out t
here?) or simply removed to make more room (Hiawatha does have Montreal, etc. in
his city names list...). To this end, maybe you'd also add some more deer/fores
t/etc. as necessary to the N. America for balance. The more I think of it, the m
ore I like removing Quebec City...
3. ...or, then again, you could go crazy: Iroquois for America! (though actually
, I like having US in the game when I'd play as them, but otherwise it'd be neat
to play with a European start and meet (now mostly) just "new world" civs in th
e Western Hemisphere. I doubt you'd want to have too many versions of the map; i
t's just a thought.)
Lastly, I might be the only one, but Baja California seems really huge and just
looks funny to me. I'd swap that interior-most coastal tile, which is basically
in Nevada/Arizona right now for a desert tile and maybe move the Barringer Crate
r SW one tile(?).
Thanks again for the shout out and considering my input.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 123]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 22, 2013 08:58 PM
So each civ in Africa seems to at least get a decent 2nd city? That's good to he
ar (I suppose Africa is a bit bigger than S. America anyways). I'd say of the re
maining group, Carthage would be the one I'd use to replace, if I had to choose.
..
Well, everyone except the Zulus. They are forced down a warlike path as they are
surrounded by city-states. Somehow, I don't think Shaka will have much of a pro
blem with this.
...
I see your point and could live with Panama being north of Palenque (looking bac
k through posts, it's a little embarrassing to see that I might have been the on
e to initially suggest the Mayan placement in the first place - oops!). Panama i
s a decent choice as it's nice to have a variety of CS flavors; however, La Vent
a could also continue to be placed there if you have find you have too few relig
ious flavored CS... (I'm not sure about the current balance)
It never really occurred to me to check for balance of CS types, I tossed Panama
in there simply because it was new and threw La Venta out because it wasn't. :m
ischief: I'm going to look more closely at Panama/La Venta and see what, if anyt
hing, could be done.
1. Arabia for Mongolia: you help out Assyria, freeing up some space in the middl
e east, and add back in a check on China and solid warmonger for a bigger/emptie
r (barbarian-prone) part of the map. Even a struggling Indonesia still has a gre
at civ bonus for it's likely 2nd city placement, and for some reason I kind of l
ike Byzantium (or even Ottomans) in that regional spot.
Yeah, I'm liking the idea of an Arabia for Mongolia swap. That will be in the ne
xt update (this weekend, hopefully? It depends on if I manage to convince myself
of all the various changes by then.). I don't particularly mind Byz/Ottomans ei
ther but they usually struggle - badly. Reckon I'll swap Byz for Ottomans though
, if only to try something new.
Carthage for Inca: You'd know best with play-testing, but it might help out Moro
cco/Egypt expand vs their two offensively minded continental neighbors while add
ing some more flavor to the S. America map. Also, I definitely wouldn't remove b
oth Carthage and Byzantium, but having both is maybe why I keep trying to remove
one.
Aye, Carthage of either Inca or Iroquois will almost certainly happen. I do need
another Civ removed though to ensure three Civs start in N. America and S. Amer
ica. BYZ are my first preference for removal, followed by Japan and England. I'd
really rather avoid removing England - although the possibility of replacing th
em with the Celts is always there. At any rate, removing either Japan or England
brings balance issues to both continents that removing BYZ doesn't... Will have
to have another look at this but BYZ seems like the best option.
... I'd guess that Shoshone grabs up a LOT of territory (and quickly after city
#2), so you could move Cahokia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia) a bit sout
h, Shoshone a bit north (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshone_people) and add
Iroquois to somewhere in the forest-y north/northeast as a balance. Quebec City
could really be even more on the NE coast (can anybody reach that whale out ther
e?) or simply removed to make more room (Hiawatha does have Montreal, etc. in hi
s city names list...). To this end, maybe you'd also add some more deer/forest/e
tc. as necessary to the N. America for balance. The more I think of it, the more
I like removing Quebec City...
If there are three Civs going in N. America then removing one, if not both, of t
he city-states up there makes a degree of sense. I like Cahokia as a border and
Quebec might work if I push it out of the way a little more but if the Iroquois
are going back in then a little more attention to N. America is almost certainly
warranted.
3. ...or, then again, you could go crazy: Iroquois for America!
I've thought about this (and variations thereof) a couple of times but mostly it
comes down to the very simple fact that people like playing as their own Civ es
pecially on TSL Earth maps. And yeah, I'm growing increasingly concerned at the
number of maps I'm toting around. Once I'm happy enough with the BNW map I'll li
kely add a Limited Civ variant and an AIOW variant and then leave it at that. Al
though, I've been toying on and off about the possibility of a Small version as
well. At that point, it might be worthwhile sitting down and figuring out how be
st to organize all of that.
Lastly, I might be the only one, but Baja California seems really huge and just
looks funny to me. I'd swap that interior-most coastal tile, which is basically
in Nevada/Arizona right now for a desert tile and maybe move the Barringer Crate
r SW one tile(?).
I believe I made it like that to try and ensure the possibility of two coastal c
ities down there. I definitely haven't reconsidered it though since the Shoshone
made an appearance so that sea can be shortened a bit depending on likely Shosh
one city placement.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 124]
Author : Barak
Date : Jul 23, 2013 07:01 AM
I disagree with Mongolia for Arabia. In truth, Arabia fits better than Assyria,
who although they are new to the BNW, really don't fit in very well to the map.
I personally would go back to having Arabia and Persia and take out Kabul. It
would allow The Byz, Persia, Egypt and Arabia a good spot to fight over for a 2
nd city near their capital. Not having Assyria there allows the Byzantium to ha
ve a spot to expand. Perhaps give the Byz an Iron as well?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 125]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Jul 23, 2013 09:00 AM
It never really occurred to me to check for balance of CS types, I tossed Panama
in there simply because it was new and threw La Venta out because it wasn't. :m
ischief: I'm going to look more closely at Panama/La Venta and see what, if anyt
hing, could be done.
FWIW here's a link (http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/City-state_(Civ5)#List_of
_city-states) to what seems to be a comprehensive listing of city states.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 126]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 23, 2013 11:02 PM
Just to clarify, as I got lost myself a few times in the post below. The current
swapping envisioned is as follows:
- Carthage for Iroquois.
- Arabia for Mongolia.
- Byzantium for Inca.
I disagree with Mongolia for Arabia. In truth, Arabia fits better than Assyria,
who although they are new to the BNW, really don't fit in very well to the map.
I personally would go back to having Arabia and Persia and take out Kabul. It
would allow The Byz, Persia, Egypt and Arabia a good spot to fight over for a 2
nd city near their capital. Not having Assyria there allows the Byzantium to ha
ve a spot to expand. Perhaps give the Byz an Iron as well?
I think, at present, that you're right in that previous versions had a nice rush
to where Assyria/Babylon would start for a decent but not spectacular second ci
ty spot. Dropping Assyria for Persia and removing Kabul would be fine (although
Egypt should be blocked to that particular position by Jerusalem - they have a s
pot nearer Alexandria though and a few more besides so they're good) but it leav
es the problem of Mongolia and creates problems for a three Civ start in both N.
and S. America. If Arabia isn't swapped for Mongolia then swapping Byzantium fo
r the Inca doesn't make any sense which would undermine the whole justification
for swapping Carthage for the Iroquois. None of this would be overly problematic
but for the fact that, after a couple of games, it has become obvious that leav
ing Mongolia out was an error that needs to be addressed and reverting to the Mi
ddle East from before the BNW map doesn't fix this.
Indonesia, Japan, Carthage and England are all prime candidates but Indonesia is
actually doing alright while Japan and England can do reasonably well. Carthage
for Mongolia could work though.
FWIW here's a link (http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/City-state_(Civ5)#List_of

_city-states) to what seems to be a comprehensive listing of city states.
Thanks for this!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 127]
Author : Qlover
Date : Jul 24, 2013 06:05 AM
hello,
first thank you for working on this map!
is there a possibility that you can take all the winning conditions including so
me round limitation out for a version with bnw?
since bnw the sdk is not working for me and i love long "marathon" infinite play
:(
ps: my english is very bad, sorry...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 128]
Author : Barak
Date : Jul 24, 2013 07:07 AM
@Veneke
Was wondering since there are soooo many civs available now could you create 2 d
ifferent maps with some civs in both but some others in one or the other? For i
nstance, different euro civs in each, different middle east civs in each?
Just a thought...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 129]
Author : Veneke
Date : Jul 24, 2013 08:57 PM
@QLover - Sorry to hear that you're having trouble. They do seem to have managed
to break the SDK for some people with BNW (although for me it's been semi-broke
n since a patch or two ago). Fortunately, a workaround is to sign-up for the bet
a version of the SDK. Details on how to access it are here: http://forums.civfan
atics.com/showthread.php?t=500778
@Barak - Definitely a possibility, although I am concerned at the growing number
of variations of one map. This started out as a very simple Standard Earth TSL
map and has rapidly changed into a map pack catering for increasingly diverse de
sires.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 130]
Author : bwoww78
Date : Aug 09, 2013 11:44 AM
FYI: In line with my previous list, this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/sh
owthread.php?t=491713)seems way more comprehensive and helpful.
@Veneke: any time frame on an update? thanks in advance.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 131]
Author : ariel552
Date : Aug 15, 2013 03:09 PM
Hi Veneke,
Since I play it a lot I have one suggestion, could you make a BNW version where
the vanilla civs are replaced by GK and BNW? for example, poland instead of russ
ia, celts in england, denmark in germany, etc?
And one version with civs in america and another without? since it leaves the co
ntinent for european expansion and doesn't slow the turns so much.
Thanks a lot! very good job!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 132]
Author : Lachlan
Date : Dec 27, 2013 04:00 AM
Could you make a 500 BC version of this map ?
Could you remake 1000AD version ?
No need for a mod for that, you could make it in the spirit of 1000 AD for Civ 4
...
Just a scenario, you could just updating your first version of 1000AD by transpo
sing on your actual Earth map...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 133]
Author : clinton
Date : Jul 31, 2014 08:49 AM
I'd like a version of the BNW map with no victory conditions if possible. As muc
h as I try sadly the worldbuilder keeps getting stuck on the loading screen.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[Post 134]
Author : Sag Bobet
Date : Oct 07, 2014 02:42 AM
Thread Title : Download
This mod looks really cool, but I'm kind of new to Civ and don't know how to dow
nload this mod. Where does it say to do that? Sorry if this is a stupid question
.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Standard 80x52 World Map TSL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Standard 80x52 World Map TSL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

* * *

Civilization Fanatics' Forums Thread * * *

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Thread : Standard (80x52) World Map TSL

Middle East: Byzantium, Assyria, Arabia. Kabul, Samarkand, Jerusalem.

Date : Dec 01, 2011 05:59 AM

screen to work asap.

a dozen or so of the same maps just wit

Attached is an adjustment to Ven's map. I changed the number of playable Civs (2

it initially but it significantly ne

haven't; largely those that reposition the European Civs.

starting positions for all Civs and Ci

. This is a great game so far!

they can't compete as an AI their inclusion is debatable at best, especially as

Inca development is dramatically different to what I experienced with Inca as a

Thanks! Agreed on the status-quo of Europe, as at least in my game technically G

worth taking a look at the c

ost boring 50-turn wars ever :)

1. Might I suggest instead of the Aztecs in south America (which is admittedly a

Date : Jul 23, 2012 11:39 PM

@ Vibe: I have seriously considered releasing a map with a significantly reduced

nearby but 4 decent city-states to conquer.

it, although an exc

it, although an exc

atively uncontested access to S. America and having three Civs in N. America. It

FWIW here's a link (http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/City-state_(Civ5)#List_of

You might also like