Campaign Map Screen (good quality)

[Filusi]

Link
There are also 4 new screens of different battles and a screen with a comparison of campaign map "controlmenü".

edit: It was postet first by BigChef in the german forum where I come from, so spezial thanks at him.

[The Thracian]

Very nice and good looking screens espically the campaign map. Thank you

[Lusted]

Now that is a nice looking campaign. Its like the RTw one, but it has much nice textures on it. There also seems to be a fairly decent amount of provinces on the map.

[Kaweh]

Now that is a nice looking campaign. Its like the RTw one, but it has much nice textures on it. There also seems to be a fairly decent amount of provinces on the map.

Well, then the image above it actually makes sense. But where can we see how much rounds passed then?:hmmm:

K.K

[hsimoorb]

I have to admit that campaign map looks much better than I expected. It almost looks as good as RTR's map! I'm still unhappy that the number of provinces is apparently so low ompared to RTW.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Oh the map looks nice.
Looks darker then RTW.



Mongols or Timurids ?? :hmmm:

[spirit_of_rob]

looks good lot more texture to it than the current RTW map (and by the look of the mini-map Greece appears to be the shape of Greece and not some weird malformed blob... sorry couldnt resist )

[The Thracian]

Oh the map looks nice.
Looks darker then RTW.



Mongols or Timurids ?? :hmmm:

I believe they are Timurids. Not sure though

[The White Knight]

Thanks for posting these screens!

I like the campaignmap's textures, but the interface is ugly in my most humle opinion.

Ps: Anyone noticed the green <=> round the sea of Marmara? Crossable straits ("landbridges"?)?

Or maybe the pic was taken a few years into the campiagn, who knows?

10 turns?

[Edvinsen]

I think it looks great!. More darker for sure than RTW, and the amount of provinces look promising gogo CA

Now just give us a "decent" AI! :original:

[Frost, colonel]

Ps: Anyone noticed the green <=> round the sea of Marmara? Crossable straits ("landbridges"?)?

Yes, I am thinking that them there green marks are indeed land bridges!

Also why are there 2 army buttons on the interface?

[Edvinsen]

Yes, I am thinking that them there green marks are indeed land bridges!

Also why are there 2 army buttons on the interface?

hmm, maybe its some kind of mercenary feature? :hmmm:

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Ps: Anyone noticed the green <=> round the sea of Marmara? Crossable straits ("landbridges"?)?

Yes it looks like landbridges indeed.

[Kscott]

Oh the map looks nice.
Looks darker then RTW.



Mongols or Timurids ?? :hmmm:

Well, I can tell you the historical answer.

First off I don't see a bow on any of thes guys which tells me first off they can't be mongols. Second I would find it a strech to place any real horde of infantry like that as mongolian. Mongolian infantry are really almost excluded to their camp gaurds. Third problem being Lamellar armor for some grunt infantry seems way over the top for a Mongolian army.

As for being Timurid the faces look far too mongolian. Yes the Timurids were very mongolian in culture, but lets be realistic. Mongolia had a very limited population. Look at the Godlen Horde. It was almost entirely composed of Kipacks and Tartars. I think the Timurids aside from the elite should look very much Turkic.

That being said, though I find it hard to classify this unit as either, but its much safer to say its Timurid. But still, I don't think it was made with too much history in mind.

[Last Roman]

As for being Timurid the faces look far too mongolian. Yes the Timurids were very mongolian in culture, but lets be realistic. Mongolia had a very limited population. Look at the Godlen Horde. It was almost entirely composed of Kipacks and Tartars. I think the Timurids aside from the elite should look very much Turkic.

They look turkic to me. As for the ones that look more Mongolian, I think those are actually masks

[Muizer]

That campaign map looks a lot like RTW's. Mind you, I wasn't expecting anything staggeringly different. Judging by the shapes of the coastline it seems the resolution has been increased, which is always a good thing. As far as terrain is concerned though the major advances seem to have been made on the battlemap, especially the vegetation.

[Shaun]

Great pic, thanks for that.
It seems that there areno rebel provs, the Turks have basically the whole of Asia Minor. Or maybe the pic was taken a few years into the campiagn, who knows?

[Zenith Darksea]

Nicaea has been put in the right place! But why do they always put so few provinces in the Byzantine Empire? Can they not be bothered to research it? No, that can't be the answer.

[Rusty Catapult]

Nicaea has been put in the right place! But why do they always put so few provinces in the Byzantine Empire? Can they not be bothered to research it? No, that can't be the answer.

Too many provinces = too much frustrating micromanagement.

The campaign map could use an extra 10-15 provinces at best. The Byzantines seems fine, imo. 6 provinces is enough to get an empire (re)starting while showing how much in decline it has suffered.

[Arbaces]

Whho... what happened to those guys and so many regions on map? Looks good... can't wait to see if really is good. However I don't like there is no year being shown on the interface.