Morek Empire is called Morek Empire because... they felt like it (and I think they weren't able to just reuse plain "Morek" at first, since it was the renaming of Xinhai)? Seriously, there's nothing to it other than the name. It got huge because it has just about no competition, after it moped up Springdale as it imploded, and then surrounded itself with friendly theocracies. At its peak, it wasn't huge because it could crush any of its neighbors with ease, but because there was no neighbor to crush. Morek didn't need advantageous geography to become large, and it most certainly doesn't have it. Actually, it's imo much *better* geography, gameplay-wise, as we can *now* see many realms within that region that can fight each other without any steamrolling. The rest of Dwilight would be better off if it was more like Morek.
Luria has a more legitimate claim to being an "Empire".
That said, I don't get the relevance of these semantics. My point was that various game mechanics already favor tight city clusters, and that reducing distance from capital allowance only further increases the favor towards tight city clusters. The rationale behind lowering the distance allowance was "to make smaller realms more competitive", but that's not really what it does. What it does is make realms with tight city clusters more competitive. But these are already the most competitive realms in the game. Ipso facto, this measure taken for the purpose of reducing inequalities actually increases inequalities.
The maps were made that way because it looked cool and looked like a good idea at the time. There's many things about the map that people were really hyped about back then, that didn't live up to their promise. Maps have changed throughout the game's history. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. A volcano island was added on EC, for example (I think?). Blighting did vast changes, as did the glaciers, or roguification of Dwilight's West. More rarely, I believe there were a few cases of region border changes. The maps aren't as static as you seem to believe.
Please cite examples of jealousy creating conflicts and empires coming into existence by invading neighbors. Dwilight was founded by 4 colonist realms, and those pretty much colonized the whole map before any significant interaction. Morek kinda killed Springdale, but that's debatable, because Springdale mostly killed itself. Madina has never had any meaningful involvement with any of the other founding realms, and only limited involvement with any other realm at all. Luria barely involved itself in continental affairs for but a few short occasions. Those that grew big did not grow big because a neighbor had some good regions and they went "Ha, I want that!", and then taking it forcefully. Those who grew big did so because they started out with those, or went to an empty location where they could find those. Nobody looked at Luria and went "that cluster looks mighty fine, I should expand into it". Because nobody CAN. It's too frigging far from any potential neighbor. The closest thing that came to be was when Barca was to be relocated, and that had nothing to do with "I'm jealous of what they've got and I want it for myself", but was purely "I need a place for my friends and I happen to hate that realm so I'll try to place them there". And that hatred was purely a historical construct, not the byproduct of jealousy.
Placing more valuable spots LOOKED like a good idea because it LOOKED like it would promote conflict. But it didn't. This game has been going on for many years, and those theories did not pan out. Why? Largely for the rather simple reason that any geographic location worthy of generating envy is able to provide ample capacity to defend itself. Poor nations don't invade rich ones. The weak don't conquer the mighty. All realms of Dwilight except one, at one point, had united against Luria. They still failed. How is jealousy supposed to motivate conflict when it's so futile?
You can also look at other maps. Beluaterra and Atamara basically had the same maps. And for most of their history, they had the same power blocs located in the same regions. Coincidence? How large a part plays player agency when the battlefield is so lopsided? The most populous realms also tended to be in the same regions, and the smaller ones the same. I spent less time looking at EC, but I'm fairly sure I remember a similar pattern with EC/FEI. Then you can look at the blight. Enweil started out as BT's superpower, with the most wealth, regions, strength, allies, etc. When the blight started carving out BT, Enweil shrank. And shrank. And shrank. Not only in terms of regions, but also in terms of nobles. Players quit, either the realm or the game, and never came back, as the landscape turned more and more against them and more and more in favor of enemies. The same was seen with the ice age, with the realms afflicted losing many players. This isn't to debate whether these things were right or not, but to demonstrate that there is a clear historical link between geography and noble count(/might). Every time I have seen a realm handicapped by map changes, it has bled out nobles as a result. There are cases of exceptional players pulling off exceptional stunts. But generally speaking, favorable positions attract more players, unfavorable positions attract less, and this cleavage makes sure that favorable positions generate hegemonies, not jealousy-driven wars.
What the impact of those hegemonies on the game is though is up for grabs. Depends a ton on that realm's culture. Enweil for a while drove conflict by promoting democracy, but it also, for a while, stifled the whole continent by suppressing conflicts. Large empires like Enweil, Cagilan Empire, Luria, and Astrum (or the astrocracy bloc) have had many serious cooling effects, because they tend to terrorize neighbors (if you go to war, we'll destroy you!). I've played in and near many large empires for a decade, and I cannot conclude any other way than saying that while those realms have the potential to create conflict, this is only possible by special active efforts on their part, because on the net their passive dissuasion effect is much, much greater. If you compare the number of wars that have been held around the North-East of Dwilight and the North-West, and then compare it to the number of wars that have been held around Madina, this discrepancy is not a product of randomness. It is the product of geography, first and foremost. Diffused placement of cities creates much more possibilities for conflict that taking all of the cities of a large area and placing them instead in a cluster, remote from anything else.
My arguments are based on empirical data. What's your statements based on?
