Being involved in technical map assessment for Demalion, I deliberately chose to not put much effort in assessing possible accessibility/explorability aspects of the biomes in this stage. Major geographical features (like lakes, rivers, dense forests and mountain ridges) of the maps can have a massive impact on potential travel and trade routes. Maps that seemed to possibly provide a major obstacle or attractive corridor can then turn out to be quite the opposite. So when these geographical features become known in round 2 the technicalities of the accessibility/explorability aspects can change dramatically when going from round 1 to round 2. Consequently, chances are high that the efforts you put in analyzing those aspects for round 1 maps and the subsequent scores you may assign to them, turn out to be meaningless for your overall map comparison. This may be a bit different when performing the assessment from the perspective of a kingdom instead of doing it for smaller groups of players, but overall the reasoning is the same. We did use 'biome accessibility' and some path lengths to assess several mititary and trade aspects of the maps, but quite roughly and for relatively short range, for the same reason.

Thanks for the comment, Alteogre. I have thought about something similar during my analysis. I would agree, if we are discussing the optimal route getting from point A to point B, we definitely do not have the information to draw useful conclusions.

However, since we are expected to get through a biome with multiple Elyrian days (unless we are lucky enough to find a boat sailing along the river). The impact from the biome itself will definitely be significant. When CoE eventually comes out, I do expect we should also consider the predators we may come across, the seasons, the weather, and the details of the terrain etc.

I know I am making some assumptions here. But hey, I believe information available to us now are reasonable enough to classifying maps into 3 broad tiers. By the way, the scoring system is only used for the analysis on the size of the biome, which is calculated by counting the pixels on the maps shown. It is not related to the accessibility : )

Thanks for the respond!

Updated the military section, summary of it will come later

Updated part 3) Coastliones and Bays for Exploration and added a sumamry for it.

Posted By Roarer at 10:05 AM - Wed Oct 31 2018

Updated part 3) Coastliones and Bays for Exploration and added a sumamry for it.

Interesting, but can you explain why I didn't make your list of good shipbuilding maps? It seems preferable, from that perspective, to several of the maps you listed.

Thanks for the question, Beathan. Sorry for replying late.

I am not sure if you have read the detail analysis linked in the post. I gave an explanation how I narrow down the maps.

With that said, Map I did not make the list because of the coastal length of the biomes that best support ship building being too short.

I expect ship-building will need

1) Coastal settlements and 2) Healthy supply of lumber

Having a bay will greatly help the development of the technology, but is not essential.

We don't have information on settlements yet, so I use the coastal length as the basis of an estimatation of # of coastal settlements or potential locations for setting it up.

Now, pulling data from my detailed analysis, Map I has a total coastline of 232units, which is the longest among all the maps. However, for the biomes that best support ship building, their total coastline length is only 66 units, which rank #5 the shortest. This means, a lot of its coastal settlements may not have a healthy supply of lumber. This implies that the naval technology development for the continent as a whole may be slower than the maps I listed.

I did not delve deep into the implication for biomes having an average amount of wood supply (e.g. grassland, Lower montane etc) because of time constraint. I gotta finish the analysis before the round 1 voting deadline. Adding in those factors will take much more time I can afford. XD

I hope my explanation answers your question.

I have to disagree with one of the parameters that you used.

You said that Taiga, because of its abundant wood is a good biome for ship building. Several facts make that assertion wrong.

First the tribe living in the Taiga, the Brudvir. The Brudvir are skillful carpenters, but they are slow workers and have small settlements and scattered population, both points make them suboptimal for both large size ship building and large size ship research.

Second is the wood itself. To make a boat you use two kind of wood, hardwood and softwood, coniferous are softwoods and as such are not used for the stronger parts of ship, those which are used for the load bearing regions. The Taiga and its coniferous only trees is a terrible wood supplier for large ocean faring vessels.

So i suggest you apply a diminished coefficient to the Taiga value or you completely strip it from your list of biomes that best support ship building.

Now that i dive a bit more into it, same should be done with the Broad Leaf Forest, it has perfect wood, but it is inhabited by the Kypiq which are not going to lumber or let anyone lumber their forest, so the Broad Leaf Forest is probably one of the worst biome for shipbuilding.

And on a side note, reducing ship building to wood and coast is a terrible lack of understanding of what a ship is and needs.

To make a ship you need deep water port, not any kind of shore, you need wood, both hardwood and softwood, but if you could do without softwood, you can not do without hardwood, you need fabric for sails and you need ropes, but that's not all you'll need tar and food/water preserved for them to last long enough.

With the maps we have it is impossible to tell which coast has deep waters or dont, so i'll leave that criteria away. Wood we already touched that matter so lets go on to the next.

Sails, sails need fabric which means flax, cotton or silk. The Broad Leaf Forest that was disqualified for wood due to Kypiqs is rehabilitated thanks to them for the sails and ropes, as they are master silk weavers and producers. It also give an attractiveness to biomes that can produce hemp, cotton and/or flax without hurting food production and being close enough to sea.

Food is a general subject, but maps with the larger farming friendly biomes are going to get a boost.

And finally tar, tar is either produced from coniferous or harvested, but in CoE we also might add alchemy, so the Waerd get a big push into ship building effort and the Brudvir can redeem themself a little that way.

While I mostly agree with what Markof has said I just want to point out two things.

Posted By markof at 07:35 AM - Thu Nov 01 2018

Second is the wood itself. To make a boat you use two kind of wood, hardwood and softwood, coniferous are softwoods and as such are not used for the stronger parts of ship, those which are used for the load bearing regions. The Taiga and its coniferous only trees is a terrible wood supplier for large ocean faring vessels.

It is perfectly viable to build an ocean-going vessel entirely out of softwoods. In fact several times during the 17th, 18th and early 19th Centuries the Royal Navy built non-line vessels (sloops, brigs and the like) out of softwoods due to the need to reserve hardwood stocks for the creation of ships-of-the-line. It is, in fact, cheaper to build ships out of softwood since softwoods grow faster.

Building a vessel out of softwoods has its drawbacks, softwoods degrade faster than hardwoods and are less able to resist weather and/or battle damage. Softwoods are also less able to take strain, meaning that you're limited in length and broadside (90ft and 10 guns is about the maximum).

To make a ship you need deep water port, not any kind of shore, you need wood, both hardwood and softwood, but if you could do without softwood, you can not do without hardwood, you need fabric for sails and you need ropes, but that's not all you'll need tar and food/water preserved for them to last long enough.

While you are right about needing sails (unless the vessel is purely muscle powered) and ropes. Taring is optional (though personally, I'd recommend it since it helps preserve the wood but if you're building on the cheap and don't mind a rapid degradation in ship utility (or can afford to constantly replace rotted parts of the ship) you can get away without taring.

Also, deep-water ports are optional - if we are talking about the only criteria being that the vessel is capable of traversing oceans flat-bottomed vessels are perfectly capable of doing so - as the vikings and pacific islanders can well attest. However, the ocean-going vessels used by the vikings and pacific islanders are hardly paragons of comfort, nor will they support a fledgeling colony or long-term expedition except in large numbers.

Posted By markof at 3:35 PM - Thu Nov 01 2018

I have to disagree with one of the parameters that you used.

You said that Taiga, because of its abundant wood is a good biome for ship building. Several facts make that assertion wrong.

First the tribe living in the Taiga, the Brudvir. The Brudvir are skillful carpenters, but they are slow workers and have small settlements and scattered population, both points make them sub-optimal for both large size ship building and large size ship research.

Second is the wood itself. To make a boat you use two kind of wood, hardwood and softwood, coniferous are softwoods and as such are not used for the stronger parts of ship, those which are used for the load bearing regions. The Taiga and its coniferous only trees is a terrible wood supplier for large ocean faring vessels.

So i suggest you apply a diminished coefficient to the Taiga value or you completely strip it from your list of biomes that best support ship building.

Now that i dive a bit more into it, same should be done with the Broad Leaf Forest, it has perfect wood, but it is inhabited by the Kypiq which are not going to lumber or let anyone lumber their forest, so the Broad Leaf Forest is probably one of the worst biome for shipbuilding.

And on a side note, reducing ship building to wood and coast is a terrible lack of understanding of what a ship is and needs.

To make a ship you need deep water port, not any kind of shore, you need wood, both hardwood and softwood, but if you could do without softwood, you can not do without hardwood, you need fabric for sails and you need ropes, but that's not all you'll need tar and food/water preserved for them to last long enough.

Thanks Markof, for your great reply. CoE forum do generate higher quality of p[ost, I guess.

In regards to the Kypig's religion holding them back from taking down trees for shipbuilding, of course I agree with you. After all, I suggested it in my analysis. However, I believe a lot of the Kypigs pushing for ship building will be players, not NPC. This implies, their religion might not hold them back as much. Despite that, they would still need to break the cultural dogma to become a naval power.

I see this as an obstacle to be overcomed by the players, not a hinderance that tied down the kypig in the long run. I recall Caspian saying the culture and the religion are just the opening setting of the world, and is expected to be changed by the players. Since we are talking long term here, it is not going to hold down the development of naval technology as much as having less woods. I do have to admit, this is merely a difference of extent, and this is just my opinion, not being supported by any official information.

Secondly, what a great point you have for the resources needed for ship-building. Now, I wonder how knowledgeable are the Subject Matter expert for ship building :) I expect the shiup building technology to be developed over a period of time. Instead of building intercontinental vessels right away, I believe many techniques in carpentry has to be developed first. A lot of those can be practised by making coastal vessels which the excels at, and the Taiga can support.

I admitted that I am not as knowledgeable on ship building as Markof. Except hardwood, I have no clue what other resources will go into ship building and I have no clue how SBS will implement the ship building blueprint. And since we have no information on where all these potential other resources can be collected from on the map, I can't draw any conclusions for map voting by considering this factor.

One last thing to add, it is reasonable to expect that any factions having an early advantage will leverage it. If the Brudvir has an early coastal advantage, we have no clue if it can leverage it to get those needed resources for ocean vessels. So.. I don't see the Taiga is inherently less supportive to the ship-building technology in the long run.

By the way, please keep up the great comments. We need more good replies!