Thank you very much, Powerfinder, for your very relevant and useful feedback! You have understood the spirit of these maps and how I am trying to improve them with your gaming experiences and suggestions.
I will respond to all of these points in this message and the next, although some will take quite a long time.



In fact, between the large number of nations and mod nations, the different maps, my regular hesitations concerning certain nations, certain imbalances between the number of vanilla nations and the zones and spawn points, I had begun to check and harmonize my various files, and clearly define each starter on each of the four maps, adding the corresponding images. However, I had an Internet outage before I could take care of it for HCAM, which is already scheduled to be updated on these cases, correcting the errors, and with LA Pyrène in Tolosa, capital of the future Visigothic kingdom (just on the other side of the Pyrenees, therefore), even if I am not 100% convinced.
Regarding the Nordic nations, I had put Vanheim/Hellheim/Midgard as replacements for the Belgian Gauls, all of whose canonical nations are modnations.
I had forgotten Jotunheim and Niefelheim because none of the submaps include Hyperborea. They are clearly not canonical as Hyperboreans or the previous stages, which should rather be independent. The continuation to LA Utgard is probably a mistake on my part. In any case, the real place for all the Nordic nations (and Tir na n'Og/Eriu) is in the northwest extension, which I can't do at the moment since I can't touch the provinces because I don't know how to convert a .TGA map to .D6M (the game's automatic art).

Oprindeligt skrevet af powerfinder:

Hyperborea is inevitably becomes the backyard of the nearest nation. [...] Hopefully, in the future, there will be more than one route into Hyperborea, so that several nations can compete for the area.

Hyperborea is a very special area on this map. It is the only completely legendary part, which I was unable to accommodate within the local geography (unlike, for example, the Cassiterides and the Fortunate Isles of the Blessed) and which also covers more than one province. The provinces forming the path to Hyperborea are the names mapped by Herodotus. The names of the peoples of the provinces that lead there are less and less historical and more and more legendary as we get closer to it.

The provinces that are necessary to pass through to reach Hyperborea (Pterophoros, Arimaspeia, Riphean Mounts, and Geselitos) are some of the provinces where I already know what types of guardians to put.

Hyperborea is also the only area accessible via a single passage, as you pointed out. In fact, it wasn't intended to be the only one in the version where I will add mythological dimensions, some of which are mentioned with only one or a few entries. A number of them could be linked thematically due to the connections between certain mythologies (mainly for the Chthonian world of the Dead), but others are too unique for that. It wouldn't be too difficult to do because, unlike Hyperborea, it will be on planes other than the main one, so it doesn't need to correspond geographically : I can put in connections similar to those between the provinces of the overworld and those of the underworld in an automatic game map, linking any provinces on different planes.

I wanted Hyperborea to be on the main plane (which is why Hyperborea, on the other hand, is present even without the mythological version, which I didn't create) because the concept of Hyperborea is that it is in the same dimension, and in particular so that we can see the thrones when its proto-god pretender awakens and so that we know where to go and have an idea of the level of proximity (such as, for example, the Mounts of the Moon). In this regard, the ideal would be for the throne to be transferred to Hyperborea (to be the visible objective), but for the throne level guardians to remain in Geselitos. But I wouldn't want Geselitos to be bypassed in this case.

Over the centuries, the Greeks and then the Romans (and even Europeans until modern times on some maps) placed Hyperborea further and further north (and also further and further west), making it very difficult to reconcile the different proposals.
The oldest ones, which are to be excluded, place it barely north of Thrace. Otherwise, it is located between northern Scythia and much further east. The Riphaean Mountains are proposed as the source of the Don and Volga rivers (as I have depicted), either near the Urals (very far east). The Hyperboreans are described as having ties with the nations corresponding to Rus and Sauromatia.
Later, towards the end of HCAM and beyond, some Romans would place them towards Scotland, with the various Scottish archipelagos representing the Hyperborean island(s), then in Scandinavia (until maps pushed it back to the Arctic before European exploration of the Arctic).

For our map, the main problem from my point of view is the fact that a nation/unit further north (so, further northwest), towards Germania, has to take a more southerly route to get there. The problem will probably be greater with the northwest extension. However, between the future border of Germania and the Don, it will still be very far, and I have no concept of western “path” provinces, nor of “entry” provinces as with Pterophoros, Arimaspeia, Riphean Mounts, and Geselitos. I plan to set the border of the map at the Oder (which incorporates the maximum and short-lived extension of Roman control in Germania, around 8 AD, followed by a severe defeat). If we want to go further, we would need to make a Germanic modnation necessary in addition to Ulm. One avenue to explore could be to study the choice made by Total War Rome (which is later than HCAM), which places Hyperborea on the Baltic states side. In any case, I am sticking with my current entry (even if, in the event of an extension and a double entry, and therefore a move northwards, some provinces would have to be extended, but that's okay for the east-west distances represented, as we are getting closer to the pole).
In any case, for now, the only change I can hope to make in the not too distant future is the addition of guardians.



Indeed, adding throne guards is the main big next step in this series of maps. Determining a fairly balanced set of guardians for each throne from among the various units in the game and a good number of units (apart from unique titans and equivalents) is a too difficult task for me alone, which is why I seek advice from other players who are more experienced in the game, at least when we have more time to do so. To be honest, I have already determined some throne guardians (those guarded by titans, where there is no doubt about which unit to choose), and I can code them to test how they work. Let me know if you would like to contribute to the project to determine and set the throne guardians, and be credited if applicable.

Oprindeligt skrevet af powerfinder:

Also, some thrones are positioned in such a way that they are more likely to be captured by a certain nation.

That is why I made “Belgica” a capital rather than a throne. I was hesitating between “the Eburones”, “the Remi”, and “the Nervi” for the capital of Blodwold, before finding mention of Belgica, the Belgian Gaul's legendary capital described by the Romans and notably sought after by Caius Iulius Caesar in The Gallic Wars, without further details. I figured that I wouldn't be able to find a throne to put there anyway, and that it would be an ideal capital for Blodwold, as the presence of Blodwold's capital sites and its special units would be enough to give it a legendary feel. A bit like the province “Ubar” with the nation of Ubar.

We could also create two categories of thrones: those placed as sites with their guardians by command, and those generated automatically by the game (depending on the settings chosen by the player) that do not require coding the guardians, but these would then be among all the thrones in the game, including those already placed, so some thrones could unintentionally be present in two copies instead of one.

Oprindeligt skrevet af powerfinder:

With all this in mind, it would be nice to have a version of the map without the pre-set thrones.

The idea you propose is understandable ; perhaps it's not too many files to disable all the placed thrones (and therefore also the future guardians of the throne provinces in this version, I imagine), and perhaps also the sites ? Furthermore, there is one type of version that I will not publish, and that is those without the starters for each nation, for the simple reason that you can choose to deactivate them at the start of each new game.

Due to the concept of these maps, it seems obvious to me that there are a large number of parameters where I had to choose between various options, and while sometimes I had no doubt, other times it was very uncertain and I still change my mind recently (hence some errors, particularly for some of the nations you pointed out). The density of the provinces and the maximum limits of the world cannot be changed (even by me for the moment). However, everything else can be changed.

Generally speaking, the problem with publishing additional versions for specific settings is that the number of possible combinations increases exponentially (there are already four maps in the basic version), and too many could be confusing for players ; the names and descriptions of the maps should always be clear. That's why any additional versions I publish will have to be carefully considered in terms of these combinations.

The idea is that I continue to present the information as best as possible, so that players who prefer one setting over another can edit it as easily as possible. If you copy the map folder from the downloaded mods folder on Steam Workshop (these are automatic numbers, so search for it using a keyword) to your own mods folder, you will have your own version of the corresponding map, which you can edit as you wish. At the bottom of the .MAP file, you will find the “Commands per provinces”, listed in order : various commands (including the one to reveal or hide the map), the description, all the nation starters (which I have sorted by age and then by ID), all the thrones placed, and all the other types of sites placed (and later, all the province units placed).

Everything on the same line after -- are notes that do not count in the command. I describe what each command corresponds to. This means that as a player, you can remove (modify, or even add, if you find the corresponding IDs in one of the guides/manuals, on Dom6Inspector, and/or in the mod files) certain elements, such as nation starters, thrones, other sites, and later units.

I realize that a player who is not used to browsing and editing Dominions 6 map files themselves would find it difficult at first, but in any case, I have presented this in the files as best I could. Perhaps I should add all this information to the paragraph where I talk about the topic in the collection of these maps.

In the case of the Carpathians, you are absolutely right. I should make them at least partially passable mountains.

As for a possible “fresh water” tag in Raqmu (Petra), we'll have to see, but in any case it would be very easy to do. I can't remember if I had planned to add a corresponding site for that if I found one.
I would have liked my hot deserts with freshwater but no rivers to have an oasis image, but we'll do without, as it's far too complicated to paint the map in .TGA. By the way, to get a volcano image, you have to code “fire sites” (the volcano site doesn't do it), and there is an equivalent translated into images for the 8 other types of sites (water, air, earth, nature, glamour, astral, death, holy).



Regarding Abysia, I read this interesting thread Dom5 started by AetherNomad: https://psteamcommunity.yuanyoumao.com/app/722060/discussions/0/2570942392198931546/ (“Theory: Abysia is Assyria”), with arguments for and against placing Abysia here or there on a map of our world, essentially as Assyria. Another participant suggests Abyssinia (where I have placed LA Abysia in some cases, as the Assyrian Empire did not last as long as others on this map, made all the more possible by the fact that in the Late Age there is still Caelum and also Ragha). I remember that a few other modders had written the lore for their modnation (notably Orbis), suggesting that Abysia would be located in northwestern Africa.

In general, apart from the western Mediterranean map, I need a nation for Assyria, one of the recurring empires, if only to cover the area and to be able to have the rivalry with Babylon (I already narrowly miss out on that of Fomoria/Tir na n'Og, and that of Kailasa/Lanka).
If a clearly Assyrian modnation is created, I will indicate it as “canonical”, with Abysia replacing vanilla, exactly as in the case of Xsaca and Caelum, or Sinkiang and T'ien Ch'i.



For the navigators guilds in Phoenicia, it's true that I had mainly thought of the Navigator unit. So, it's clear that not only does each of the provinces concerned offer navigators, but their bonuses are cumulative once you own these provinces, which seems too powerful.

I think what makes the area too powerful is not only the presence of these sites, but also the low number of sites added throughout the map.
I think we should keep at least one navigator guild in Phoenicia, because otherwise it would have fewer than the other areas where I have placed one.

I have placed a few other sites where the Dominions 6 site clearly takes up a concept of a place that actually exists on this map (although most were only built during the HCAM era).

Oprindeligt skrevet af powerfinder:

I suggest leaving one guild in one of the Phoenician cities (not sure where exactly) instead of three on HCAM, and removing them altogether on Fertile Crescent.

Are you suggesting this difference is due to the spawns of Berytos and Phaeacia (which are the same for Achaemenid and Hellenistic World as for Fertile Crescent), the Mediterranean coastal provinces varying between the three maps, and/or the specific era of the Fertile Crescent ?
It is also possible that there is another site that would be more relevant for this than the Navigators Guilds.

[historical lore only until the next part, which is about Phaeacia]
Historically, it is true that Canaan, an area encompassing Phoenicia, is a fairly disputed area, including in particular for the Fertile Crescent period, but that there it was mainly the Egyptian empire (C'tis?) and the Hittite empire (yet there is no real Hittite nation, if a modder ever creates one, I will suggest it here). Moreover, I will have to rename the provinces of Anatolia in Fertile Crescent with their Hittite names.

The era of Fertile Crescent is supposed to be from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_in_the_ancient_Near_East#The_second_millennium:_the_balance_of_powers.
The most significant moment in the period represented by Fertile Crescent would be the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples (a phenomenon that is still largely misunderstood) and the collapse of the Late Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse), around the 13th/12th century BC/CE, with the fall of the Hittite Empire and the Mycenaean civilization in Greece. To give you an idea of all this, the reign of Ramses II is clearly in this period, and the supposed era of the Iliad and the Odyssey would also fall within this period.

For information, the Phoenician cities themselves (provinces of Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Arwad) existed long before the beginning of the Fertile Crescent, while their period of greatest autonomy, prosperity, and maritime control is estimated to be around the 11th/10th century BC/BCE, i.e. during an advanced stage of Fertile Crescent and shortly before the beginning of HCAM. After that, the region was regularly conquered and/or became a vassal of the Assyrian and/or Babylonian empires.

This is a very rough summary, of course, just to give an idea of how I would like to refine this map in terms of adapting the borders, nations, thrones and other sites, and terrain.



I saw Phaeacia as the successor to Berytos, and for maps including the western Mediterranean, it was the only potential MA nation for the Carthaginians (the same reason I also placed LA Qadesh in Carthage), before Sturm released MA Abdera.

While it is clear that Arcoscephale can only be Greek (rather Athenian EA, rather Macedonian MA), the Greeks never took Carthage, but for Phoenicia it works. Berytos is the ancient Greek name for a Phoenician city that became present-day Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. From this perspective, Phaeacia and Abdera could be more like Carthage according to the lore. However, it is obvious that for the map, I necessarily put Berytos in Carthage and not in Phoenicia (except for maps that include Phoenicia but exclude Carthage). A somewhat far-fetched explanation could be that when playing MA on HCAM, the “former metropolis” of Phaeacia is indeed in Phoenicia, as is the case on Fertile Crescent (which is the only map from an earlier era than the other three).

Phaeacia has several inspirations: in addition to the entire Carthaginian part, it is notably the name of the island at the very end of Ulysses' journey in the Odyssey, which would in fact be located closer to Korkyra (especially since there is the site “Black Korkyra”) or Cephallenia.
Phaeacia also has the site “Gold Apple Tree” and the summon unit “Khalkotauros”, which would clearly be on the side of Atlas and/or the Hesperides (both thrones), therefore towards the Pillars of Hercules (the Strait of Gibraltar). The only island province in the area is the Hesperides (which the description of Phaeacia mentions for the Gold Apple Tree), which is adjacent to “Ispa in Tartessos”, the capital of Orbis. That said, I also sometimes represent smaller islands as part of the coastal province that encompasses them, such as Thasos, Chios, or the island of the Lotophagi.

Madeira is included in the map because it is (along with the Canary Islands, which are further southeast and would be adjacent to the continent) the best candidate for the Fortunate Isles of the Blessed, an important place in Greek mythology that will play a role when I add mythological dimensions, hence the throne. This province has the distinction of being what I call the only “real island” on this map, in the sense that it is connected to the world continent only by sea provinces, unlike the 15 other islands where crossing a sound/strait/inlet with the swimming skill is necessary and sufficient, which I call “false islands.” I imagine that Fortunate Isles of the Blessed is obviously counted as an “island” by the game, but for the “false island” provinces, it’s not always easy to know.
Powerfinder, I understand that you have studied this issue for one of the Dominions games: https://psteamcommunity.yuanyoumao.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3250567258 and https://psteamcommunity.yuanyoumao.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3251279553. I placed Phaeacia in Salamis, Cyprus, on maps without the western Mediterranean, as Phaeacia should, if possible, be on what the game considers an island, particularly in order for its “Orichalcum Mine” site to appear, but it did not appear on my test map.

About the Mauretanian spawn (a defensible point of view for Phaeacia), the canonical version should be EA Libwu, MA M'zurah, LA Kel Imizihit, a line of modnations from Africamod. However, Libwu is not finished, and Africamod has quite a few ID conflicts with other mods; for example, Kel Imizihit has the same ID as LA Oceania. This is also why Africamod is one of the first mods I would like to see made compatible with The Gathering Sturm, Nys New Nations, the nations of Mormacil, and Hexabellm. If Phaeacia moves to Volubilis, then I will make Abdera the canonical nation for Carthago. For MA games, what possible configurations do we prefer with Phaeacia, Abdera, and M'zurah (M'zurah can only be in Mauretania)?

We could also ask Sturm if he sees Berytos as Phoenician and Abdera as Carthaginian, or Berytos as Carthage and Abdera as a “Nova Carthago”, somewhere on the Numidian/Mauretanian coast (where I have placed it for now, Abdera having several Massylii units) or in the southeast of the Iberian Peninsula (Abdera is the name of a Phoenician, then Carthaginian, then Roman city located between Malaka and Qart Hadasht).

Thank you for your very detailed and informative answer!

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

For our map, the main problem from my point of view is the fact that a nation/unit further north (so, further northwest), towards Germania, has to take a more southerly route to get there. The problem will probably be greater with the northwest extension. However, between the future border of Germania and the Don, it will still be very far, and I have no concept of western “path” provinces, nor of “entry” provinces as with Pterophoros, Arimaspeia, Riphean Mounts, and Geselitos. I plan to set the border of the map at the Oder (which incorporates the maximum and short-lived extension of Roman control in Germania, around 8 AD, followed by a severe defeat). If we want to go further, we would need to make a Germanic modnation necessary in addition to Ulm. One avenue to explore could be to study the choice made by Total War Rome (which is later than HCAM), which places Hyperborea on the Baltic states side. In any case, I am sticking with my current entry (even if, in the event of an extension and a double entry, and therefore a move northwards, some provinces would have to be extended, but that's okay for the east-west distances represented, as we are getting closer to the pole).
In any case, for now, the only change I can hope to make in the not too distant future is the addition of guardians.

Regarding additional Germanic/Baltic nations, I heard that Illwinter is making a nation called Zemaitia. Perhaps this should be taken into account when expanding the northwestern part of the map.
https://psteamcommunity.yuanyoumao.com/app/2511500/discussions/0/4132682727131370992/?ctp=14#c595136186401515333

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

Indeed, adding throne guards is the main big next step in this series of maps. Determining a fairly balanced set of guardians for each throne from among the various units in the game and a good number of units (apart from unique titans and equivalents) is a too difficult task for me alone, which is why I seek advice from other players who are more experienced in the game, at least when we have more time to do so. To be honest, I have already determined some throne guardians (those guarded by titans, where there is no doubt about which unit to choose), and I can code them to test how they work. Let me know if you would like to contribute to the project to determine and set the throne guardians, and be credited if applicable.

At the moment I don't have any special ideas, but if something interesting comes to mind, I'll definitely write about it. I would suggest using the default automatically assigned throne guards as a placeholder, but I don't know where to find the exact formula/description for these guards. For a while, out of curiosity, I tried to take screenshots or simply record the guard composition, but trying to reconstruct the general formula from individual cases is somewhat time-consuming.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

The idea is that I continue to present the information as best as possible, so that players who prefer one setting over another can edit it as easily as possible. If you copy the map folder from the downloaded mods folder on Steam Workshop (these are automatic numbers, so search for it using a keyword) to your own mods folder, you will have your own version of the corresponding map, which you can edit as you wish. At the bottom of the .MAP file, you will find the “Commands per provinces”, listed in order : various commands (including the one to reveal or hide the map), the description, all the nation starters (which I have sorted by age and then by ID), all the thrones placed, and all the other types of sites placed (and later, all the province units placed).

I tried to change the map a little, but I ran into some difficulties. I copied the Fertile Crescent map into my local "maps" folder and then tried to make changes through the Map Editor. I deleted one connection between provinces (Salamis-Cilicia Trachea). To my surprise, when I tried to start a game on the modified map, the deleted connection remained. Apparently, some kind of reference error occurs when there are two copies of a map with the same name. I tried renaming the map folder, the .map file, the .d6m file, and changing the map name in the .map file, but this resulted in nations spawning in random locations, ignoring their starting positions. Ultimately, I was able to get a stable version of the map only by making changes directly to the .map file (rather than using the map editor), and by temporarily deleting the original version of the map. I still haven't figured out how to have a modified version of the map alongside the original at the same time.

I guess I'll find a way eventually, but if you could publish a version without the preset thrones, I'd be glad. Is it possible to add the new version to the existing one without creating a new Workshop entry?

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

Regarding Abysia, I read this interesting thread Dom5 started by AetherNomad: https://psteamcommunity.yuanyoumao.com/app/722060/discussions/0/2570942392198931546/ (“Theory: Abysia is Assyria”), with arguments for and against placing Abysia here or there on a map of our world, essentially as Assyria. Another participant suggests Abyssinia (where I have placed LA Abysia in some cases, as the Assyrian Empire did not last as long as others on this map, made all the more possible by the fact that in the Late Age there is still Caelum and also Ragha). I remember that a few other modders had written the lore for their modnation (notably Orbis), suggesting that Abysia would be located in northwestern Africa.

Very interesting thread. It's a shame threads like this are rare on Steam these days. AetherNomad's arguments are quite compelling, although I personally have no problem with Abysia in Abyssinia or in the Atlas Mountains. Before seeing the HСAM map, I also thought that Abysia could be located in one of the Saharan mountain structures - the Atlas Mountains, the Hoggar Mountains, the Tibesti Mountains, the Marrah Mountains, or maybe even the Aïr Mountains. As far as I know, all these mountains are of volcanic origin, except for the Atlas, which has a more complex geological history. And I explained to myself the presence of Zoroastrian daevic pretenders by the fact that these beliefs might have been brought either by the hellish emissary Malphas, or when the Caelian expedition (which later founded Nazca) passed through these places.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

Oprindeligt skrevet af powerfinder:

I suggest leaving one guild in one of the Phoenician cities (not sure where exactly) instead of three on HCAM, and removing them altogether on Fertile Crescent.

Are you suggesting this difference is due to the spawns of Berytos and Phaeacia (which are the same for Achaemenid and Hellenistic World as for Fertile Crescent), the Mediterranean coastal provinces varying between the three maps, and/or the specific era of the Fertile Crescent ?
It is also possible that there is another site that would be more relevant for this than the Navigators Guilds.

Yes, I suggested removing the Navigators Guilds on the Fertile Crescent map because Berytos starts in that region and quickly acquires several good sites as a result. Also, it creates duplication: Berytos can already hire its own captains and sea mages, but it can also hire Navigators, who in this case represent the same Berytian/Phoenician sailors (and, frankly, are often even better than the national ones). So, the argument is gameplay-related, not historical. Anyway, thanks for the historical background. My knowledge of this period is rather superficial, although I try to learn new things when I can.

I was also looking for a replacement for the Navigators' Guilds, but it seems like there's no better option in the base game. However, a mod could be created that replaces the Navigators' Guilds with some kind of naval schools.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

While it is clear that Arcoscephale can only be Greek (rather Athenian EA, rather Macedonian MA), the Greeks never took Carthage, but for Phoenicia it works. Berytos is the ancient Greek name for a Phoenician city that became present-day Beirut, the capital of Lebanon. From this perspective, Phaeacia and Abdera could be more like Carthage according to the lore. However, it is obvious that for the map, I necessarily put Berytos in Carthage and not in Phoenicia (except for maps that include Phoenicia but exclude Carthage). A somewhat far-fetched explanation could be that when playing MA on HCAM, the “former metropolis” of Phaeacia is indeed in Phoenicia, as is the case on Fertile Crescent (which is the only map from an earlier era than the other three).

I don't know why the developers attributed the destruction of Berytos on Arcoscephale. As far as I remember, before the introduction of Phaeacia, most of the community believed Berytos had been conquered by Ermor. So it was an unexpected turn of events. :) Perhaps this was done to avoid explaining what would have happened to the fragment of the state in Berytos after the fall of Ermor. Or maybe the goal was that the history of Dominions should be slightly different from the real one.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

Phaeacia has several inspirations: in addition to the entire Carthaginian part, it is notably the name of the island at the very end of Ulysses' journey in the Odyssey, which would in fact be located closer to Korkyra (especially since there is the site “Black Korkyra”) or Cephallenia.
Phaeacia also has the site “Gold Apple Tree” and the summon unit “Khalkotauros”, which would clearly be on the side of Atlas and/or the Hesperides (both thrones), therefore towards the Pillars of Hercules (the Strait of Gibraltar). The only island province in the area is the Hesperides (which the description of Phaeacia mentions for the Gold Apple Tree), which is adjacent to “Ispa in Tartessos”, the capital of Orbis. That said, I also sometimes represent smaller islands as part of the coastal province that encompasses them, such as Thasos, Chios, or the island of the Lotophagi.

I assumed that Phaeacia was located on the Isles of the Blessed or somewhere nearby, since some versions of the myth place the Garden of the Hesperides far to the west, and the Isles of the Blessed were also located "far to the west, at the edge of the known world." It seems to me that there might be an overlap of images here, although perhaps I'm wrong and the origins of both myths are in fact completely different. Also, Strabo believed that Scheria/Phaeacia was located in the Atlantic Ocean. But perhaps I underestimate the Carthaginian part of the nation's inspirations.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

Powerfinder, I understand that you have studied this issue for one of the Dominions games

I'm a bit ashamed of those ugly drawings of how to get an orichalcum mine, but I didn't delete them, thinking that they might help someone. I managed to get it in Salamis, but to do so I had to remove the connection with Cilicia Trachea (I described my difficulties above). Here's a screenshot.
https://psteamcommunity.yuanyoumao.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3577970917
I think the rule is this: an Orichalcum Mine will appear if
- The capital of Phaeacia is completely surrounded by seas, or
- The capital of Phaeacia has one connection to a land province, and that connection is a river/strait, or
- The capital of Phaeacia has one normal/mountain pass connection to a land province, but that other province has no other connections to land provinces, or if all its other connections to land provinces are rivers/straits.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

About the Mauretanian spawn (a defensible point of view for Phaeacia), the canonical version should be EA Libwu, MA M'zurah, LA Kel Imizihit, a line of modnations from Africamod. However, Libwu is not finished, and Africamod has quite a few ID conflicts with other mods; for example, Kel Imizihit has the same ID as LA Oceania. This is also why Africamod is one of the first mods I would like to see made compatible with The Gathering Sturm, Nys New Nations, the nations of Mormacil, and Hexabellm. If Phaeacia moves to Volubilis, then I will make Abdera the canonical nation for Carthago. For MA games, what possible configurations do we prefer with Phaeacia, Abdera, and M'zurah (M'zurah can only be in Mauretania)?

We could also ask Sturm if he sees Berytos as Phoenician and Abdera as Carthaginian, or Berytos as Carthage and Abdera as a “Nova Carthago”, somewhere on the Numidian/Mauretanian coast (where I have placed it for now, Abdera having several Massylii units) or in the southeast of the Iberian Peninsula (Abdera is the name of a Phoenician, then Carthaginian, then Roman city located between Malaka and Qart Hadasht).

I must admit, I haven't used Africamod or Orbis, so I couldn't see the full picture. It turned out to be more complicated than I thought, so I can't insist on moving Phaeacia to the northwest coast of Africa or the Hesperides Isles.

I have one more question. I noticed preset sites in Thesprotia - the haunted village on HCAM, and the Ruins of the Old Empire on Fertile Crescent, but I can't figure out what they're referring to. Can you tell me?

Oprindeligt skrevet af powerfinder:

At the moment I don't have any special ideas, but if something interesting comes to mind, I'll definitely write about it. I would suggest using the default automatically assigned throne guards as a placeholder, but I don't know where to find the exact formula/description for these guards. For a while, out of curiosity, I tried to take screenshots or simply record the guard composition, but trying to reconstruct the general formula from individual cases is somewhat time-consuming.

For throne guardians, I suggest searching for them by playing Omniscience, which can see all units from the start, and therefore does not require you to play an entire game yourself, attacking thrones and all independents in your path.
This could be useful for getting a better idea of the balance.
Also, remember to note down the strength of the independents in the game in question. Specifically coding the province guardians by hand means that the difficulty of the provinces concerned will not be recalculated according to the level of strength of the independents chosen for the game.

Oprindeligt skrevet af powerfinder:

I tried to change the map a little, but I ran into some difficulties. I copied the Fertile Crescent map into my local "maps" folder and then tried to make changes through the Map Editor. I deleted one connection between provinces (Salamis-Cilicia Trachea). To my surprise, when I tried to start a game on the modified map, the deleted connection remained. Apparently, some kind of reference error occurs when there are two copies of a map with the same name. I tried renaming the map folder, the .map file, the .d6m file, and changing the map name in the .map file, but this resulted in nations spawning in random locations, ignoring their starting positions. Ultimately, I was able to get a stable version of the map only by making changes directly to the .map file (rather than using the map editor), and by temporarily deleting the original version of the map. I still haven't figured out how to have a modified version of the map alongside the original at the same time.

Yes, there is the map in the mods folder taken from the Steam Workshop, and the one in your own maps folder (the only one accessible via MapEditor).
I didn't clearly understand the reference error, which explains some of the problems I had that led me not to subscribe to all my maps.
You have to save all the “Commands per provinces” you've made in another document before making changes with the MapEditor because it deletes them (and then you have to paste them back in).
I found these elements myself when creating my maps, with the help of the manuals and the modders' Discord, but maybe I'll make a guide on Steam and mention it in my collections.

Oprindeligt skrevet af powerfinder:

I noticed preset sites in Thesprotia - the haunted village on HCAM, and the Ruins of the Old Empire on Fertile Crescent, but I can't figure out what they're referring to. Can you tell me?

I didn't place any specific site in Thesprotia, as I didn't know exactly which one to choose, so for now I've requested “death sites,” “blood sites,” and “glamour sites” in general. The site should represent the Necromanteion of Acheron https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9cromant%C3%A9ion_de_l'Ach%C3%A9ron (the French article is more complete).
But there are a number of other places that could be represented as sites, without going overboard (and I imagine that the version where the thrones are random would also have no sites ?).

Oprindeligt skrevet af powerfinder:

I guess I'll find a way eventually, but if you could publish a version without the preset thrones, I'd be glad. Is it possible to add the new version to the existing one without creating a new Workshop entry?

Unlike mods, I don't think this is possible for maps. When someone publishes or updates a map, he/she has to select the .MAP file and not the folder (I'm not even sure you can put .MAP files with a different name than the folder). Other map creators have already published several different articles for different versions of a map. The English description is automatically replaced by that of the published or updated .MAP (which must then be modified again). Theoretically, each new update is a new downloadable version, but that wouldn't work here.

Whether it works or not, I would have to adapt the description of each map to indicate the equivalent, as well as the name of each map.
This would give each map, on the one hand, a more specific, scripted, and static version, with defined thrones, their guardians in place, and various sites, and on the other hand, a more random version, where thrones and guardians would vary unpredictably from one game to another and according to the desired strength of the independents, even without additional sites.
Knowing that the other planned variation is the presence or absence of (future) additional planes, and counting the expansion, this would give us 5x2x2 maps, or 20 maps. This is still acceptable in terms of files, but it's true that limiting the workshop items to 10 would clearly be the best way to present them.

Oprindeligt skrevet af powerfinder:

Perhaps this was done to avoid explaining what would have happened to the fragment of the state in Berytos after the fall of Ermor. Or maybe the goal was that the history of Dominions should be slightly different from the real one.
[…]
I assumed that Phaeacia was located on the Isles of the Blessed or somewhere nearby, since some versions of the myth place the Garden of the Hesperides far to the west, and the Isles of the Blessed were also located "far to the west, at the edge of the known world." It seems to me that there might be an overlap of images here, although perhaps I'm wrong and the origins of both myths are in fact completely different. Also, Strabo believed that Scheria/Phaeacia was located in the Atlantic Ocean. But perhaps I underestimate the Carthaginian part of the nation's inspirations.

The (both Greek) myths of the Hesperides and the Fortunate Isles of the Blessed are not the same, but their locations are certainly close, given that they were placed at the western edge of the known world (the idea of a western island paradise is quite widespread in European mythologies), with a phenomenon of relative displacement similar to that of Hyperborea (I hadn't thought of it, but I could place the Hesperides on the Fertile Crescent as well).
However, there are still characteristics that suggest the hypothesis of real elements explaining the legend, such as the “golden apples,” which could in fact be citrus fruits or quinces, and a link with voyages to Madeira or even the Canary Islands, with a climate suitable for the Fortunate Isles (makárôn nễsoi in ancient Greek, hence the name Macaronesia).
One of the maps of the Hesperides places them as the islands of the Bay of Cadiz (Gadir/Gadès at the time), just beyond the Pillars of Hercules, where I have placed them.
I hadn't noticed that Strabo placed the Phaeacians of Scheria in the Atlantic, and in any case I don't see how he integrates this with the rest of the Odyssey.

In any case, Illwinter explained in the main manual that he drew on several sources of inspiration to create a number of the nations, as a single source of inspiration did not always seem sufficient. This seems to have been intentional for the game, in order to develop effects in terms of lore, identity, gameplay, and balance. Whereas, on the contrary, some modnations were created specifically to represent/embody a particular civilization or historical nation.

[Warning: spoilers about future map features concerning throne guardians and other planes]
The Hesperides and the Fortunate Isles of the Blessed are designed as thrones, not capitals of nations (which would expand). Phaeacia and the Hesperides share common concepts, and units from Phaeacia will likely be part of the throne guardians.
The Fortunate Isles of the Blessed will be directly connected to the Elysian Fields, which is why I thought they could be guarded by Greek (and Roman ?) heroes. There must be at least one level 3 throne on one side or the other, because you're not supposed to enter the Greek Underworld easily from there; you're supposed to go through the Styx like everyone else.
The most emblematic case I could add in this vein would be the treatment of Tir na n'Og (both a playable Irish nation and a mythological place with eponymous units), and the same goes for the Nordic nations, except Midgard.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

For throne guardians, I suggest searching for them by playing Omniscience, which can see all units from the start, and therefore does not require you to play an entire game yourself, attacking thrones and all independents in your path.
This could be useful for getting a better idea of the balance.
Also, remember to note down the strength of the independents in the game in question. Specifically coding the province guardians by hand means that the difficulty of the provinces concerned will not be recalculated according to the level of strength of the independents chosen for the game.

Thanks for the advice. I'll try Omniscience and hopefully get some useful information.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

You have to save all the “Commands per provinces” you've made in another document before making changes with the MapEditor because it deletes them (and then you have to paste them back in).
I found these elements myself when creating my maps, with the help of the manuals and the modders' Discord, but maybe I'll make a guide on Steam and mention it in my collections.

Again, thanks for the explanation. Without it, I'd have been wondering what went wrong for ages.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

I didn't place any specific site in Thesprotia, as I didn't know exactly which one to choose, so for now I've requested “death sites,” “blood sites,” and “glamour sites” in general. The site should represent the Necromanteion of Acheronhttps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9cromant%C3%A9ion_de_l'Ach%C3%A9ron (the French article is more complete).
But there are a number of other places that could be represented as sites, without going overboard (and I imagine that the version where the thrones are random would also have no sites ?).

Oh, so that's what it is. I didn't know about this place, so I couldn't guess. The image of the tunnel looks familiar. I might have seen it somewhere.

I think visible 1-gem sites aren't too disruptive to the balance, unless there are many of them. As for Nekromanteion specifically, as far as I understand, Arcoscephale and Phlegra aren't considered particularly strong nations, so one extra death gem wouldn't make them overly powerful. However, there is a small chance that the game will put the Shaded Lands in place of the visible death site.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

This would give each map, on the one hand, a more specific, scripted, and static version, with defined thrones, their guardians in place, and various sites, and on the other hand, a more random version, where thrones and guardians would vary unpredictably from one game to another and according to the desired strength of the independents, even without additional sites.

This gives me an idea. It would be possible to create a mod that replaces the standard throne guards with more thematic ones. Since you're making these new guards anyway, you could then use their composition for such a mod.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

In any case, Illwinter explained in the main manual that he drew on several sources of inspiration to create a number of the nations, as a single source of inspiration did not always seem sufficient. This seems to have been intentional for the game, in order to develop effects in terms of lore, identity, gameplay, and balance. Whereas, on the contrary, some modnations were created specifically to represent/embody a particular civilization or historical nation.

I can also add that such an approach allows for multiple interpretations, as in the case of Abysia and many others. And this is a strong feature - each player can construct their own picture (or even several) of Dominions, unlike some other settings with less equivocal lore.

Regarding the connections between planes, it's a pity the game doesn't allow you to place a single province on multiple planes simultaneously. Perhaps this would make sense in the context of the connection between the Fortunate Isles and Elysium. Or in the case of EA Pyrene, which seems to be located both in the caves and in the mountains above them. I think I should suggest this in the modding wishlist thread if it hasn't been suggested already.

I'm somewhat wrong about the impossibility of placing a province on multiple planes simultaneously. This can be approximated by simply adding more connections from another plane to the province. Then functionally (but not visually) the province will be as if on two planes at the same time.

I started taking screenshots of the throne guards using Omniscience, but it was a bit tedious. So I decided to look for information about the thrones, and it turned out that just two weeks ago Loggy published the formulas for the standard throne guards.
https://illwiki.com/dom5/user/loggy/indies-thrones
Hope this helps.

Hello again Powerfinder,

Thanks for the file published by Loggy, this could be useful.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

In the case of the Carpathians, you are absolutely right. I should make them at least partially passable mountains.

I've verified, and all carpathian connections are passable mountains, there is not impassable mountains. I better understand the issue with Rus. So your suggestion is that I should delete at least one of the mountains connections, to at least one normal connexion.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Powerfinder:

Regarding the connections between planes, it's a pity the game doesn't allow you to place a single province on multiple planes simultaneously. Perhaps this would make sense in the context of the connection between the Fortunate Isles and Elysium . Or in the case of EA Pyrene, which seems to be located both in the caves and in the mountains above them. I think I should suggest this in the modding wishlist thread if it hasn't been suggested already.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Powerfinder:

I'm somewhat wrong about the impossibility of placing a province on multiple planes simultaneously. This can be approximated by simply adding more connections from another plane to the province. Then functionally (but not visually) the province will be as if on two planes at the same time.

I have a similar issue (with the next map I'm creating), because I'm not sure I can "simply adding more connections from another plane to the province". I've found a method by corresponding "gates", each province with the same gate are connected. I've succeed in assign different provinces of a same plane to the same gate. In the MapEditor I can assign one number of gate of each province, but in the .MAP file this is a simple command lign, so maybe I can assign several gates for a single province.
If not, I can't create what you describe : in some cases, if I have provinces A, B, C in plane 1, and X, Y in plane 2, if I want A and B are connected to X, and B and C are connected to Y, single "gate" as zone doesn't work, because here A, B, X needed one gate, and B, C, Y, an other gate, so B needs two gates.

An other command I'll search is if I can choose a special connexion (river ; passable mountain ; impassable mountain ; each combinaison between these 3 features) between provinces of different planes.
If the habitual command for connexions works between provinces of different planes, these potential issues will be resolved.

For some maps, some provinces visually in different provinces should be better. I think the way to create this would be to create a command to transform one province of a plane, in the visual view of a province of another plane (its terrains, features, sites, units recruitments, province defense, guardians, control, dominion and things as sieges).
This could be useful for maps where a plane is revealed but another is hidden, and to see positions of thrones in different planes when it's wanted by the concept of the map. An other advantage could be the province could exists and works even on version with a single of the two concerned planes.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

I have a similar issue (with the next map I'm creating), because I'm not sure I can "simply adding more connections from another plane to the province". I've found a method by corresponding "gates", each province with the same gate are connected. I've succeed in assign different provinces of a same plane to the same gate. In the MapEditor I can assign one number of gate of each province, but in the .MAP file this is a simple command lign, so maybe I can assign several gates for a single province.
If not, I can't create what you describe : in some cases, if I have provinces A, B, C in plane 1, and X, Y in plane 2, if I want A and B are connected to X, and B and C are connected to Y, single "gate" as zone doesn't work, because here A, B, X needed one gate, and B, C, Y, an other gate, so B needs two gates.

By "adding more connections," I meant linking a province on one plane to multiple provinces on another plane using gates of the same number, exactly as you depicted, I just chose my words poorly. But yes, it seems impossible to create complex geometry like in the example you described.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

In the MapEditor I can assign one number of gate of each province, but in the .MAP file this is a simple command lign, so maybe I can assign several gates for a single province.

I tried doing this but it seems like the game only takes into account the last gate number specified for a province in the map file. As far as I know, Tlaloc_ asked the developers for the ability to assign multiple gates of different numbers to a province, but it is unknown when they will do this. Perhaps he found a way to bypass this limitation?

Oprindeligt skrevet af Vesporium:

An other command I'll search is if I can choose a special connexion (river ; passable mountain ; impassable mountain ; each combinaison between these 3 features) between provinces of different planes.
If the habitual command for connexions works between provinces of different planes, these potential issues will be resolved

I tested two methods.
First, I tried setting up a connection in the map file for provinces connected by gates of the same number.
#neighbour 18 161
#neighbourspec 18 161 2
Province 161 in this case is a province on another plane. In the second plane's map file, this province is numbered 7, but the game assigns it the number 161 (7) when both planes are combined into one map.
In theory, this should make movement from province 18 to province 161 (7) impossible for non-amphibious units, but in practice, troops can still pass. Apparently, the presence of the gate overrides the connection's properties.

Then I tried connecting provinces that didn't have gates of the same number:
#neighbour 18 177
#neighbourspec 18 177 33
And it worked in the game, but not perfectly. Traveling from province 18 to province 177 (23) followed the mountain pass rules, and province 18 even had a gate icon leading to province 177 (23). However, in province 177 (23) such an icon did not appear, which made it very difficult to understand that province 177 (23) was connected to province 18.

If I specify the connection
#neighbour 18 177
#neighbourspec 18 177 33
in the second plane's map file, then instead of connecting to province 18 in the first plane, the game will connect province 177 (23) to province 172 (18) on the same plane.

I'm not sure, but perhaps this problem could be solved if the province numbering in the second plane's map file continued the province numbering in the first plane's map file. It's very difficult to do this manually, and even if I did, I suspect the map would simply stop working.