Campaign Map

[Lupus]

Can the campaign map be changed to the 1.6 version?

I would much rather prefer the green colours....and topography...
and the trees...

Please tell me there is a way....

[tone]

oh, here we go.....

topography, no way - it's too tightly linked in with the battlefield environments. If you change that you're asking for problems.

green colours, I'm sure someone will produce a mod that goes back to the old RS1.6 textures, but they're not my taste

[Lupus]

I have to ask how they can not be?

Most of the time will be spend on campaigns....

No point discussing it, is there?

Thanks for the reply.

Viva la 1.6!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[tone]

Presumably by topography you mean you want big mountain ranges....unfortunately that just won't work with the RS2 battlemap topography. We tried it and it doesn't look good.

In terms of campaign map textures there are definitely some people out there who'd prefer to see the old textures, but ultimately that's a matter of taste. As I said, I'm sure someone will come out with a campaign map texture mod.

[Asterix]

yes, i rather miss the 1.6 maps....i can easily live without them, but they were so beautiful...why were they changed in the first place? no offense, but the RS2 ones are (in my opinion) aesthetically inferior, even though the game is quite superior. just curious

[tone]

Topography....infinitely more accurate and better for the battlemap changes we've made.
Textures - purely taste.

[sithlord447]

I for example after playing RS II for almost a year think the current textures are much better than the RS 1.6 ones as i think they are much to bright and cartoony

[Lupus]

It is obvious that a lot of dedication and hard work has gone into this project. Inevitably, it will also involve personal preferences and the consensus of the team. So, first of all, respect and thank you for this monumental effort.

Admittedly, I have seen very little of what is hidden, but a majority of my time will be spend in Italy. Incidentally, one of the reasons I chose not to play SPQR was this lack of visual stimuli. Possibly, Italy is the runt of the litter, as other areas are much more pleasing.

The battlefield in Italy is also very flat and does not offer the same variance as before. My question is why take out what worked previously? Was the main criteria exclusively personal preference as it was for LT? What was it about the previous battlefield that was so wrong that it could not be allowed to live?

And no, there was nothing "cartoony" about the previous campaign map.

I am genuinely interested and am not disrespecting or knocking anything.

[sithlord447]

It is obvious that a lot of dedication and hard work has gone into this project. Inevitably, it will also involve personal preferences and the consensus of the team. So, first of all, respect and thank you for this monumental effort.

Admittedly, I have seen very little of what is hidden, but a majority of my time will be spend in Italy. Incidentally, one of the reasons I chose not to play SPQR was this lack of visual stimuli. Possibly, Italy is the runt of the litter, as other areas are much more pleasing.

The battlefield in Italy is also very flat and does not offer the same variance as before. My question is why take out what worked previously? Was the main criteria exclusively personal preference as it was for LT? What was it about the previous battlefield that was so wrong that it could not be allowed to live?

And no, there was nothing "cartoony" about the previous campaign map.

I am genuinely interested and am not disrespecting or knocking anything.

i said cartoony as it always seemed to bright, to vivid to be natural and i just prefer this slightly more somber map. As to italy being flater i don't think it is as it seems about the same i think it is just chance that led you to believe its flater

[Lupus]

Directly compared to 1.6 - It is flatter. Where is the chance in that, pray tell?

In fact, 1.6 has spoiled me so much I have forgotten how flat it was before. Now it is a shock.

[Timefool]

Directly compared to 1.6 - It is flatter. Where is the chance in that, pray tell?

In fact, 1.6 has spoiled me so much I have forgotten how flat it was before. Now it is a shock.

Same here. I played a city battle on my friends RTW who doesn't believe in mods and I was surprised. It was a barbarian settlement with no walls. It was on a flat little hill and as far as the eye could see there was not a meter of elevation change

[sithlord447]

Directly compared to 1.6 - It is flatter. Where is the chance in that, pray tell?

In fact, 1.6 has spoiled me so much I have forgotten how flat it was before. Now it is a shock.

the chance in where you fought your battles, as i have fought in many a hilly battle, perhaps not huge cliffs and ravines but definitly hilly country

[Lupus]

Fair enough. Does that hilly country, in your opinion, provide enough diversity?

And if so, how does that diversity compare to the previous battle map?

[NerZhulen]

Can the campaign map be changed to the 1.6 version?

I would much rather prefer the green colours....and topography...
and the trees...

Please tell me there is a way....

Oh no no no no no! the new map is wayyy better!

[Brusilov]

As Tone has mentioned the changes to the campaign map are tied into the topography of the battle maps. I don't mean if you;'re standing on a hill on a campaign map then you will be in a simlar position on the battle map (that is part of RTW) but the size of the hills etc.

If you don't like it there is always RS1.6.....

[Lupus]

I just don't understand why. The higher elevations make for better game play in both campaign and battle map.

If I am the only one, so be it.

[dvk901]

As Tone said, the map textures involve two things.....geographic accuracy first of all (which pertains to the map as a whole, and why we used it), and personal interpretation of what that's going to look like. The prerogative of the artist, plain and simple. I understand the sentimentality involved with the previous map, and suffered it a bit myself. But the current map is from a satellite image and was made from scratch, basically. So it is one of, if not THE most accurate RTW map ever made.

As for the topography of this map (how it looks on the strat), and the hilliness (or lack thereof) on battlefields, there are a set of mechanics involved here that few people have ever understood......and that's basically because it was too hard to address in previous mods or by previous modders, AND because the terrain generation in RTW was an infant stage of the one used in M2TW.....where most of it was essentially disabled because they (CA) never finished it in RTW. This involves the Geography database in RTW used to generate the terrain you see in battlefields. Most of the settings that would've created hills, valleys, mountains, etc...and that controlled texture placement where either disabled or set to very generic settings. This forced modders to create very intricate map_heights.tga files that basically created the hills and valleys and mountians, and caused a much exaggerated 'look' on the strat map. The key here is that the strat map and the battle map are DIRECTLY linked to each other. So an exaggerated mountain on the strat map (which would in reality be 3-4 times higher in relationship to the lower areas) will be exactly the same on the battle map.....so high that it would be impossible to see the top of it in the game.

Prior to Gotthard creating a program that allowed editing the geography database, and later Squid creating a better one...all RTW map makers were forced to deal with this pretty 'clunky' way of generating terrain....and battlefields typically looks flat and very 'homogeneous'...with wide areas covered by the same texture. We called them 'golf course' battlefields. Unlocking the geography database allowed us to adjust things never allowed before.....but with a new restriction, map_heights.tga has to be rendered differently (with less exaggerated high points and smoother treatment of pixels to remove extreme jumps in height). The end result of that is that the strat map appears 'flatter'...but in reality more to scale.

Now, Tone and I have studied these mechanics for the better part of a year and a half, and there was an incredible amount of testing and tweaking done to effectively create the most realistic battlefields you'll ever see in RTW. I would suggest that anyone who is dissatisfied with the RS2 map or battlefields can download Squid's Geography database tool, acquire a good graphics editor, sift thru map tutorials to learn map mechanics in RTW, and then spend a good year changing it all. You have our blessing.

[Lupus]

And yet, for all that it was working before. Quite beautifully, in fact.

[Nordmann]

And yet, for all that it was working before. Quite beautifully, in fact.

Bloody hell, then go back to the previous RS and stop complaining. They have just explained the reasons why it appears different, and you've gone right ahead and made another pointless remark.

Frankly, I think it looks excellent. Don't like it? Don't play it. Simple.

[tone]

That's a very subjective statement and again a question of personal preference. There are plenty of people who found the 1.6 terrain too uneven and bumpy. You don't like the current terrain? There are loads of people who do. You like 1.6 terrain? There are plenty of people who don't.