Reorganize native settlements?

[ArrivedLeader22]

When TAD introduced religious sites as native settlements (which imo is not a good idea), people have been presuming the convention of “native tribes for American maps, religious sites for Asian maps”.

However with the new regions introduced (and potential additions in the future!), Jesuits have been placed everywhere now. For me it would not hurt if we can now mix different types of settlements (i.e. tribes and religious sites co-existing like on South American and African maps), and it also opens up the possibility to enrich the Asian maps with natives based on peoples as well.

For example:
“Real” Mongols on Mongolia
“Real” Manchus on Manchuria
“Real” Koreans on Korea
Bedouins, etc. on Fertile Cresent
Malays on Malaysia

Right now it is typical to use Shaolin to represent whatever Chinese-related, Zen whatever Buddhist, Sufi whatever Islamic. This feels a bit lacking.

[M00Z1LLA]

This is what the developers have said on the issue: Maps and Minor Civs imbalance by region - #21 by tilanus

By that criteria, Mongols, Malay, and Bedouin would probably be okay since they could be used on many maps. Manchus and Koreans would be too limited because they wouldn’t make much sense outside of Manchuria or Korea. On top of that, Manchus are already a mercenary and Koreans could be a candidate for a playable faction instead.

[SimilarOwl0320]

I did not know that.

@tilanus

Generally speaking a good minor civilization is one that can be used on multiple maps.

I’m 110% with him here. This is not NatGeo. Obviously, I advocate for things are abnormally wrong but people are going a bit over the board with geo-representation while there are so many things to cover.

I live in Brazil and the maps of Bahia and Minas are not exactly right (just google it), but I don’t care because they’ve been added and they are in overall good positions. Plus, there are far more important things than pushing or pulling the limits so the regions can be “precisely precise”.

@tilanus

However, so called “one-map natives” just aren’t sustainable as they can’t get enough exposure, even if they’d make a single map more accurate

Again I fully agree with him. I rarely saw Tupis because I hate that Amazon map. Now I have more opportunities to use Tupi with Bahia and Minas.
Same thing with Caribbeans: I hate water-based maps which no ones plays (Carib, Amazonia, Hispaniola). But if they make a land map surrounded by water (similar to Borneo), tweak it and brand it as a “Caribbean island”, we’ll see more of the Caribbean tribe and geography. Same thing can be done in Asia and SA regions.

@tilanus

The current minimum of appearances per minor civ is 3 maps, which is not a good value (although it is only 2 civs) and one we hope to raise. 5-6 appearances on the hand can be considered solid. Fortunately that is a threshold all African and (by now) also all Asian minors have reached or surpassed by now.

Yep. Jesuits and Sufi feel like they are everywhere now. I don’t think it’s a problem. I think it’s noticeable because so many others are “one-map natives": Huron, Klamath, Seminole, Maya…

[M00Z1LLA]

@SimilarOwl0320

Same thing with Caribbeans: I hate water-based maps which no ones plays (Carib, Amazonia, Hispaniola). But if they make a land map surrounded by water (similar to Borneo), tweak it and brand it as a “Caribbean island”, we’ll see more of the Caribbean tribe and geography. Same thing can be done in Asia and SA regions.

Isn’t Hispaniola a land map surrounded by water just like Borneo? The only difference is an extra bay and lack of water treasures. Orinoco also has Caribs and the Guianas map that’s in the works will have them too since that’s where they originated from.

@SimilarOwl0320

so many others are “one-map natives": Huron, Klamath, Seminole, Maya…

They all have at least 3 maps. Although Mayans should probably only have 2 until Panama is added.
Huron are in Great Lakes, Saguenay, New England, and Plymouth (would make more sense if Plymouth was actually where it’s supposed to be). Klamath are in California, Cascade Range, and Northwest Territory (last one is a bit of a stretch). Seminole are in Bayou, Carolina, and Florida. Maya are in Mexico, Yucatan, Sonora, and Orinoco (shouldn’t be in the last two).

[SimilarOwl0320]

“One-map natives” is just a way of speaking man, it’s not literal. We meant to say they lack diversity in maps.

@M00Z1LLA

Isn’t Hispaniola a land map surrounded by water just like Borneo? The only difference is an extra bay and lack of water treasures.

I am personally imaging a map like Borneo but with a thin ring of water and curious custom stuff in-land, but that’s not the point.

Furthermore I don’t even count filler “uninteresting” water maps like Horn, Northwest Territory,
Hispaniola, Amazonia, Caribbean, Indonesia, Honshu… but whatever: Let’s pretend they exist. Some tribes still lack in diversity and that’s the point the Developer meant.

[ArrivedLeader22]

I can agree with Mongols or Manchus are too map-specific. But sufi on Mongolia with war elephants is very out of place.
They can simply add one other muslim settlement with cavalry archer etc and place it on Mongolia as well as few middle eastern maps.

[RatcicleFan]

A lot of regions could be represented by multiple maps, which would then give justification for making minor civs for the actual natives of those areas. Imo at least.

Mongolia, Honshu, Hokkaido, Korea, Siberia and Amazonia could all be represented by multiple maps instead of only one for each of those regions.