What's up with the barren maps

IamthePope · Nov 15, 2005

let me just say that all the work that you've done so far looks great. I was looking at the preview maps today and I was wondering why there was such a lack of features in the environment. Was this done because there were less trees in the middle ages? Was it done to make the map look sparser like the MTW map? Or is it due to a lack of progress that will eventually be remedied?

ColbytheConqueror · Nov 15, 2005

I hate those maps with gigantic trees

Destraex · Nov 15, 2005

I must say where I live trees are not much smaller, and I thought when RTW came out that large trees were a change from the "bushs" that seem to inhabit most games. However a compromise is in order. Now to go and look at the pics you are referring too.

Ok looked.

It does look kind of barren for France especially but I do not hate it. Was France covered in those ww2 stone fences around Normandy at this time? I do like the way the towns are surrounded by dirt and the map lines are not gaudy but stylish black dotted lines

militiaman · Nov 15, 2005

While I didn't make the decision on the graphical part of the campaign map I can explain somethings.

Firstly, I really doubt Adherbal was trying to make the map look realistic. It was meant to be graphically pleasing and suiting the theme. Do you not agree that it suits Chiv's features, e.g the new UI? Personally I like it more, it's a lot simpler to RTW's, which may have been more realistic but wouldn't have the same feel in a medieval mod. It's also refreshing from RTW's normal terrain which alot of mods use.

As for trees, that was a decsion made by the devs that we agreed on. Alot of RTW's European terrain consisted of the ugly impassable trees that you can only see small parts of on our map. Now we thought, should we keep these tress as most armies historically didn't travel through forests and cut out alot of the terrain on the campaign map, or do we cut down some of the trees and replace the impassable ones with the less dense ones to give the player the option of whether to travel through a forest. We thought that we should remove those impassable ones, as again, this didn't suit our TC theme. I'd just like to note here that we have removed those supertrees from the campaign map, we found them as annoying as you do :thumbsup:

1NEB2 · Nov 16, 2005

Hi, great work so far, as far as the strategy map is concerned, in my opinion needs more hills/mountains etc, and do you intend to show the resources as in RTW

Mr Jones · Nov 16, 2005

i like the way you guys have done it. it is, as militiaman said, a nice change to wat every other map is like, and when i think of this time period, i think of large fields and meadows (i know it was not actually like this and there was huge tracts of forrest but this is not wat i tend to think of). the hugely forrested areas of RTW suit the whole "barbarian" feel, but not the knightly age, in my opinion

Shaun · Nov 16, 2005

i really like the CTW map texture, dont know why, it just looks more lush.

Adherbal · Nov 16, 2005

I didn't like the RTW style because it uses satelite photo ground textures (with tiny rivers, fields etc) in combination with huge giants, collosal wheat stacks and iconic representation of cities.

I chose to display everything in a more equal scale: simple ground textures with grass and mud, more realistic looking tiny cities and actual tiny army regiments instead of huge giants.

If I choose to display resources then they will use the same style (ex: a tiny wheatfarm, or winefield).

At some point I'm gonna add tiny villages to the map aswell, who will show up on the battlemaps aswell. They will just be there for esthetic and tactical purposes tho, nothing nteractive.

Bello Gallicum · Nov 16, 2005

First I thought it looks a bit boring, but the more often I see it, the better I like it. With a few villages and other nice little cometic features, it will be a great map.
The Idea of having smaller trees, armies, cities etc. is great. I am totally in favour of the new CTW map. Great work, guys.

Last Roman · Nov 16, 2005

i have to agree with most everyone else here, except it does seem that the map could use a few hills here and there. But thats just my opinion. Otherwise the map has a great feel. Keep up the good work!

Faenaris · Nov 16, 2005

Nice map. And you have Gent on it! I live in Aalst, but Gent is close enough! Viva Flandria!

Master Nikolaos · Nov 16, 2005

I don't know how barren Medieval Europe was with all that cultivating and stuff, and I totally agree with the removal of unpasable forests, however, having a couple more forests(trees here and there) would add to the feel of Medieval combat. You have to remember that most Medieval battles where skirmishes, and even great battles(like Agincourt) had no more than 50,000 men(especially around Europe). In the Middle East, that changes, because there is a lot of open space to conduct 200,000 men battles. Even though that isn't numerically true to RTW, totally open battlefields shouldn't overpower the traditional topographic truths of Europe.

Adherbal · Nov 16, 2005

yeah but forest battles were very rare. Even if there were a lot of forests in medieval europe an army would rarely ever march through them and fight in them.

Basileos Leandros I · Nov 16, 2005

Can you tell us the secret of the map?! It looks so professional...

Master Nikolaos · Nov 16, 2005

Ofcourse they didn't fight in them that often, but it'd be nice to see some greens around a battlefield. At Agincourt, the French had to make a run through a wooded hill in order to get to the main battlefield(thats why the crowding got to them and many fell to their muddy deaths). I don't know quite how to explain it. I guess the buttom line is how the scenery looks in the campaign map. If you have a good number of trees here and there, or just scattered mini wooded areas in a battlefield(about as big to fit no more than 2 units or so) then it wouldn't really matter if the campmap looked barren. The trees would also be in the right places, not everywhere, like close to forests and in some places in the countryside.

Oh, BTW, will you use the lush grass for only Northern Europe? i'm asuming you are, as other areas of the map had different climates and that should reflect on the grass color right?(ie Mediteranean)If you actually separated areas of grass colors it'd be awsome; it would and to the feeling of location.

Destraex · Nov 17, 2005

Being a bit of a stickler for the historical right (albiet an outspoken one

I prefer to have forests, even if they are smaller trees in the right places. If historically armies did not travel through them then do include them anyway as impassable terrain to an army bigger than X.

Anyway I am not really passionate about either way as long as the battlefield looks correct and not like a barren grass mowed STEPPE for millions of miles. Plenty of places to Ambush and hide are good. Sort of like the BI maps which seem to be more undulating than flat

Zenith Darksea · Nov 17, 2005

One question: why do you have Dover? Surely Canterbury or some such would be a much more sensible choice? Dover really should just be represented as a port. Furthermore, instead of Leicester, you might want to have the North of England split into Lancaster and York. I hope that the cities in Scotland are sensible - Edinburgh and Stirling would be best, and Berwick on Tweed would be a very good one indeed, as this was almost constantly under siege by the English or Scots and was Scotland's foremost trading city. I'm a Scot, so I'd like to see you get it right.

Lusted · Nov 17, 2005

Wouldn't Nottingham be a better choice than Leicester?

Kor Khan · Nov 17, 2005

Leicester has been changed to Nottingham in the latest version.

Martocticvs · Nov 17, 2005

I completely agree about Berwick-Upon-Tweed. That was a hugely important city to Scotland, and as pointed out was hotly contested between Scotland and England.

Cha0sMarin3 · Nov 17, 2005

Well... about the campaing map and giant trees, dont get me wrong, your work is impressive so far but the campaing map looks... Uninspired and boring. As im a real lover of the sp part of rtw and the campaing map i do hope you guys do something about the campaing map.

Kor Khan · Nov 17, 2005

Cha0sMarin3 said:
Well... about the campaing map and giant trees, dont get me wrong, your work is impressive so far but the campaing map looks... Uninspired and boring. As im a real lover of the sp part of rtw and the campaing map i do hope you guys do something about the campaing map.

One reason for the apparent featurelessness of the map in the shots you see is probably the lack of any roads, armies and agents. If they were there, the map would definately look more interesting.

militiaman · Nov 17, 2005

One question: why do you have Dover? Surely Canterbury or some such would be a much more sensible choice? Dover really should just be represented as a port. Furthermore, instead of Leicester, you might want to have the North of England split into Lancaster and York. I hope that the cities in Scotland are sensible - Edinburgh and Stirling would be best, and Berwick on Tweed would be a very good one indeed, as this was almost constantly under siege by the English or Scots and was Scotland's foremost trading city. I'm a Scot, so I'd like to see you get it right.

Let it be known once again that these are NOT the final regions for the map. That map was made a few months ago and since then things have changed. I guess you guys couldn't have known this so that's ok. Just to let you know, Dover will become Cantebury, and Leicester (yes, that's a spelling mistake on the map) will become Nottingham. As for Scotland, the three settlements are Edinburgh, Stirling and one other that I can't remember now, though it's not Berwick. Which reminds me, I have to tell the map designer about Stirling...

Well... about the campaing map and giant trees, dont get me wrong, your work is impressive so far but the campaing map looks... Uninspired and boring. As im a real lover of the sp part of rtw and the campaing map i do hope you guys do something about the campaing map.

Keep in mind what Kor said, the screen was taken straight away at the start of the campaign so there's obviously no agents, roads (though that will probably change), armies and the extra things that adherbal said he might add.

italiano · Nov 23, 2005

I think the map looks really nice. More aesthetic than rtw. I hope you trimmed down the size of the rtw trees for the battlemap.

Kor Khan · Nov 24, 2005

italiano said:
I hope you trimmed down the size of the rtw trees for the battlemap.

Yes, absolutely. No more giant redwoods, just normal-sized European pines.

wallace1297 · Nov 24, 2005

Hey guys, like everyone I have been watching this mod closely from the beginning, and waiting with great anticipation. But I must say that with the new campaign map while the dark green grasslands look delightful and the trees look pretty, the rest of the map is an inaccurate portrayal of rural and agricultural Europe.

Now please read this as constructive criticism only, it is not meant to demean the hard work and devotion that this team has to this point displayed.

If one views Europe from space one would see the map as it is indeed portrayed now. However, viewed from an aircraft at 30 000 feet or indeed at 100 feet from a lookout, one would actually see a patchwork of fields and undulating terrain......in essence the map that that came with RTW.

I agree that the original map required work, but this aspect of the game looks unresearched and unprofessional compared with the accurate portrayal of other aspects of the mod. As an archaeologist I am surprised at the little regard shown for the many different features present in European geography.

Can you advise whether the map will change when farming has been upgraded as in the original RTW? Or will the map look the same for the entire game (obviously with roads and ports added when they are built)?

Anyway, in closing please see this as constructive criticism and hopefully an area where improvements could be made. By the way the addition of Berwick on Tweed, Edinburgh, Stirling and Inverness should be seen a paramount for Scotland, the previous entries by Zenith Darkseas and Martocticvs are correct.

(I like the UI by the way, although you should take a look at the UI in the original Stronghold game or Europa 1400, these have same great Textures)

cheers and keep up the good work

Wallace

militiaman · Nov 25, 2005

As I said before, we're not trying to recreate accurate terrain. Adherbal made it to be better on the eyes and suit the theme and feel of the mod, not to be realistic. This part of the game is only about giving the player a map (doesn't matter what texture the terrain is) so that they can manage their empire.

By the way the addition of Berwick on Tweed, Edinburgh, Stirling and Inverness should be seen a paramount for Scotland, the previous entries by Zenith Darkseas and Martocticvs are correct.

We don't want to fill the campaign map up too much so it's all about sieges, so Scotland only has 3 provinces. I checked and these three cities are Edinburgh, Stirling and the Brough of Birsay.

Shaun · Nov 25, 2005

militiaman said:
We don't want to fill the campaign map up too much so it's all about sieges, so Scotland only has 3 provinces. I checked and these three cities are Edinburgh, Stirling and the Brough of Birsay.

Well 3 cities for Scotland is about right, but i think inverness is very important to add.

Zenith Darksea · Nov 25, 2005

Inverness was not so important at this time. I would say that the city of the third greatest importance in Scotland was Berwick on Tweed, being the richest (and I'm not kidding) trading port in Britain and one of the most bitter flashpoints in British military history. However, I understand perfectly the arguments about the cluttering of the map, so I shan't press the point. I haven't heard of the Brough of Birsay before, though I'll look into it.

militiaman · Nov 25, 2005

I'll mention it at our main forums for discussion to see what they think about it. Our map designer may agree, in which case we will change it.

About the Brough of Birsay, it's not on mainland Scotland, but on Orkney. So really, we only have two mainland Scottish cities, so I guess it wouldn't be that crowded...

What's up with the barren maps

What's up with the barren maps

I'm the king of the world!

Here's looking at you, kid!

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

GEWar TWC Alliance!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

It was Beauty killed the Beast.

I'll be back!

I'll be back!

ron :wub:in swanson

Son of Dorn

I'll be back!

I'll be back!

Writing is an art

I'll be back!

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

&#927;&#961;&#952;&#959;&#948;&#959;&#958;&#943;&#

Look to the stars

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

GEWar TWC Alliance!

There's no place like home.

Here's looking at you, kid!

Here's looking at you, kid!

GEWar TWC Alliance!

It was Beauty killed the Beast.

&#927;&#961;&#952;&#959;&#948;&#959;&#958;&#943;&#

GEWar TWC Alliance!

Join the Total War Center!

Wiki Links

Rome on TWC Wiki

Total War Center on the Wiki

Total War Series on TWC Wiki

Modding Information on TWC Wiki

Medieval II on TWC Wiki

Thread Statistics

Site Polls

Axis & Allies

Battleship

Checkers

Chess

Clue

Go

Monopoly

Risk

Stratego

Other

Ορθοδοξί&#

Ορθοδοξί&#