Which Map Style?

[DoogansQuest]

Which campaign map style do you prefer?

I've noticed that the Roma Surrectum map is beautifully detailed, and there is simply more to do in each province than on other maps. There is one drawback, however, in that the map doesn't spread all the way out to India in the east, Arabia in the south, and Scythia in the north.

Every other RTW mod around here seems to use the map that covers more mileage, but lacks in detail.

Which version do you prefer, and why?

Also, is there a way to find a happy medium between the two?

Ignore the individual mods (as everyone has a bias for play preference), and answer based solely on the maps in a vacuum, please.

[ReD_OcToBeR]

I like the map the way it is because the mod is based on the rise of Rome, therefore having it extend to India isnt a priority really, since they never reached it. I choose the first option.

[DoogansQuest]

I like the map the way it is because the mod is based on the rise of Rome, therefore having it extend to India isnt a priority really, since they never reached it. I choose the first option.

Well, this game is based on the time period of Rome's rise to power, but it's up to the player to decide the fate of the world.

And again, we're not talking about the RS mod vs. other mods. Just the map designs.

[Their Law]

More detail less ground, one of the major turn off for mods such as EB and RTR for me is the cramped nature of the maps. Sure they go from India to Spain but it just feels and looks cramped. Areas that really suffer are Greece and Italy. This is by no way a criticism of the mods just a personal preference.

Also for me a more compact (geographically) map allows for realistic wars. So a war would not necessarily result in all of turkey being lost, rather perhaps several key towns, or even just one town. Finally the limitations of the RTW engine means that it's impossible to cover every part of the map with the same factional detail. Even Rs 1.5 suffers this in the East of the map and especially on the steppes. Large maps just exacerbate the problem.

[Evocati Vorenus]

I think more detail is always better. Im not a huge "Eastern" fan anyway.

[ISA Gunner]

More detail me thinks. Especially in the steppes. Russia and Ukraine aren't barren 'wildernesses'. Ukraine is one of the most fertile regions on Earth and Russia is covered in forests and farmland. But i chose number 3. Find a good balance. I'd hate to see a map smaller than the current 1.5 one but i wouldn't want see one a lot bigger.

[stanley86]

I chose the third option: 'Let's find an in-between..."
The RS map is awesome, one of the best I've ever seen, but I wouldn't mind taking, let's say, 2 desert regions from Africa, 1 region from the far north, 1 from Italy, 1 from Greece, 1 from Macedon. That's 6 provinces, you can try to put them in the east and you have full-sized Seleucid Empire, plus the parthian campaign changes nicely. Try to move more provinces there and you have Bactria as well. Don't get me wrong, RS is still my favorite mod. I switch to other mods only to play Bactria or a full parthian campaign in the east

[Tigrul]

I've voted for the "in between" option because... well, I'd rather we had both high detail and large map.
The thing is, certain provinces can really be merged without much objection, for instance, one could include all of modern day India in the map, and we'd have one huge province north of the Himalaya without much ranting about the large space, since it would be of little historical consequence anyway. I think that it's not difficult to represent most important regions within 200 provinces on a very large map.
And another compromise would really be to make certain regions unreachable as in another mod I've played. They can simply make Sahara unconquerable, for instance, the same for the steppes etc.

BUT

I think the devs have worked quite some time to make the current map as good as it is so... all in all, I think they've already done a great job and they should know it and feel good about it.

[tone]

Hopefully the RS2 map fulfils most of those wishes. It extends a little further east, makes the Sahara and a little of the northern arctic parts "terra incognita", and remains nearly as highly detailed as the RS1.5 map. The problem really is the hard coded limts we're up against. We can't have a map as detailed as that of RS1.5 that extends as far as the Himalayas.

[Otto von Bismarck]

It extends a little further east, makes the Sahara and a little of the northern arctic parts "terra incognita", and remains nearly as highly detailed as the RS1.5 map.

That is a very good news, high detail and even more ground will be available to us. That is i guess what what we want and plus would it be too unrealistic if we had a map covering the terrain all the way to India and China. That would not be RS map any more, and hardcoding limita present impossible task too.

[algorath]

For me a bigger map is actually a drawback...i dont really care for some farfarfar eastern southern whatever provinces. Don´t get me wrong, if the detail and settlement density would be the same why not, but since it isnt...I´m all in favour of higher detail

[apple]

Another thing is that a large map comes with the consequence that you need new factions to fill that space, which is something we dont have room for.
RS II's map is perfect for our timeframe and our focus which still is the Roman Empire.

[Tigrul]

Another thing is that a large map comes with the consequence that you need new factions to fill that space, which is something we dont have room for.
RS II's map is perfect for our timeframe and our focus which still is the Roman Empire.

Yeah... if only there were a mod out there with the greatness of RS, but focusing on the Greek factions...

[cnaeus]

I don't care; I want to conquer!. thats what i voted, and also how i deal with things in RS1.5. dont care if provinces are big, small, dettailed, bare, ugly, beautifull, i just want them added to my empire.

well offcourse im not al that evil, offcourse i'd like a nice campaign map in RS2.0

cnaeus,

[algorath]

I think the beautiful, detailed and province-packed campaign map is one of RS´ biggest assets^^

[Legionnaire151]

Does tactical Campaign Map fall under detail? I hope so, that's what I voted for.

Having choke points on the Campaign Map is great. I especially enjoy taking Corinth and holding off Macedon's forces at the isthmus as the Greek Cities.

[Ballacraine]

High detail for me, please.

[DoogansQuest]

Does tactical Campaign Map fall under detail? I hope so, that's what I voted for.

Having choke points on the Campaign Map is great. I especially enjoy taking Corinth and holding off Macedon's forces at the isthmus as the Greek Cities.

That definitely counts as detail. It's a part of what makes the more compact maps of RS as great as they are. There are actually more areas of conflict and strategic importance. Forts are far more worth while in RS than in most other mods.

Yeah... if only there were a mod out there with the greatness of RS, but focusing on the Greek factions...

Doesn't that mod use the large, but low-detail map?

As an aside (and hopefully not a starting point to get off track in this thread), I would like to see all of the factions as detailed and accurate as Rome. So far the RS2 previews look to be going that direction.

My personal preference would be a map as detailed as RS, with say, Scandinavia gone in favor of completing the Seleucid/Bactria area. Or something to that effect.

[apple]

My personal preference would be a map as detailed as RS, with say, Scandinavia gone in favor of completing the Seleucid/Bactria area.

Blasphemer!!

[Tigrul]

Doesn't that mod use the large, but low-detail map?

When I made my statement, I was unaware (I still am) of any mod meeting my wishes of having RS's greatness on so many levels, but being focused on the Greeks. If you know such a mod, please let me know.

But I can assure you that the mods I've tried didn't cut it. Somewhere in between RS and XGM might be my thing.

As for the Scandinavia part, yes I agree mostly. I don't think it should be cut off, I just think that it should be one province all together, and the same done to more of the steppe regions and to some of the desert regions. I don't think it's too high a price to merge, say, Nepte, Dimmidi and Lambaesis into an unreachable Sahara province if this allows the inclusion of two Indian provinces. And if it's possible to include regions from unrelated parts of the map under one province, even better, only one city would be lost for all of the unreachables.