Way out East?

[Durnaug]

Is there something not quite right about the Eastern portion of the campaign (mini?) map for R2TW? It's bugging me! Any map experts around to console me and say "yup, tis just you, the map scale, geography, representation etc etc etc are fine". I have compared it to one of the old RTW mod maps. For example, the Arabrian peninsula just looks odd in R2TW.



It is as if CA got to the right hand part of the map and said "oh crap we have run out of room". I jest and of course CA have map experts to hand. So is it the map or is it me?

[bengalg3]

It's very bizarre looking to me. France and Northern Europe in general looks so damn huge. Iran look smaller than it is to me.

[Mamertine]

It's very bizarre looking to me. France and Northern Europe in general looks so damn huge. Iran look smaller than it is to me.

That is because the map is compressed from the sides. Countries like the UK and Italy look better because they are more vertical, while other countries like modern day Iran looked squished. I hope CA fixes this, my mini-map does not have to be a perfect square.

Edit: Also note that mini-map =/= campaign map. I'm sure that the campaign map countries will be proportional and accurate.

[-=PHX=-Hades]

That is because the map is compressed from the sides. Countries like the UK and Italy look better because they are more vertical, while other countries like modern day Iran looked squished. I hope CA fixes this, my mini-map does not have to be a perfect square.

Edit: Also note that mini-map =/= campaign map. I'm sure that the campaign map countries will be proportional and accurate.

This is what I'm guessing. In order to compress the mini-map to fit into that area, it made the map look distorted, but I would think the campaign map itself is fine.

[HigoChumbo]

I think its a matter of space, but not because of "room", but because of gameplay.

It would not really bring much into the game to have Arabia modeled in real scale with its huge, useless dessert in the middle. Maybe also to shorten the huge "eastern distances"

That said, we will have to wait and see how Greece and Asia Minor feel in-game. In the screenshots Turkey seemed big enough and with enough features to look interesting from a gameplay perspective. I hope greece has as many hills and mountains passes.

[Durnaug]

I think its a matter of space, but not because of "room", but because of gameplay.

It would not really bring much into the game to have Arabia modeled in real scale with its huge, useless dessert in the middle. Maybe also to shorten the huge "eastern distances"

That said, we will have to wait and see how Greece and Asia Minor feel in-game. In the screenshots Turkey seemed big enough and with enough features to look interesting from a gameplay perspective. I hope greece has as many hills and mountains passes.

Excellent points. So you think the representation is a deliberate design decision to enchance gameplay.

[HigoChumbo]

Excellent points. So you think the representation is a deliberate design decision to enchance gameplay.

Well, i think it is a gameplay decission. I just don't know if it is a good one or a bad one. I imagine people looking for a completelly realistic experience won't like it while the more casual audience (and those who just want to play the game) won't even notice. (I don't think the hardcore audience would have noticed either... but you know, in a forum in which people can tell if Vth. century B.C. footwear is historically accurate with a 5 year margin of error... it was clear that someone would point it out sooner or later )

As for myself, as far as it feels "right" and big in-game and the landmasses have enough features to make for an interesting gameplay i just don't care if the legendary region of Baluchestan is just 80% of its real size.

[Wilder]

I hope it is just the mini map, not the campaign.

[Caelifer_1991]

The Eastern part of the map is clearly compressed to a greater extent than the West; I'm not sure why they chose to do that but I'd prefer that, if they must compress it - that they do it equally, and if not, that they just make the mini-map rectangular...

[Mortarion]

It does look very odd now that you mention it...

[Marbar]

I agree, the Arabian Peninsula in particular looks a bit off on the map, and something seems weird for Anatolia for me. I don't really mind it though, I care less about what the mini map looks like as long as it doesn't mess up the campaign map, I think we are nitpicking this because this is all we have right now. we'll forget about this assuming the actual map looks ok.

[spartan_warrior]

It is obvious that CA decided to shrink the size of Arabia and the East. However, the choice of map projection they used also makes things appear even more out for proportion. They seem to have used a Mercator projection as the base, which inherently makes northern areas appear much larger. Just look at the difference between these three map projections:
Mercator

Azimuthal Equal Area

Winkel Tripel


Personally, I would have used a Winkel Tripel for the map, as over larger areas it best limits area and distance distortion.

[CanOmer]

Winkel Tripel

Personally, I would have used a Winkel Tripel for the map, as over larger areas it best limits area and distance distortion.

If the map extends towards India, do you prefer straight parallel lines to avoid tilting? Is it the reason for you to prefer Winkel Tripel? I would prefer an equal-area projection Mollweide (centered on 20^oE) instead of Winkel Tripel if I want straight parallels, what are your thoughts about Mollweide?

Which one is more important to you, area or distance? Why?
Do you prefer Azimuthal Equal-Area or Equal-Area Conic? Why?

Why CA doesn't make spherical world to create perfect map

[spartan_warrior]

If the map extends towards India, do you prefer straight parallel lines to avoid tilting? Is it the reason for you to prefer Winkel Tripel?

Well Winkel Tripel doesn't exactly have straight latitudinal lines, they actually curve outward further away from the central meridian. The reason why I prefer Winkel Tripel is because it's purpose is to best balance angular, area, and distance distortion. Notice in this picture how the circles' size and shape changes towards the margins of the map, this projection doesn't favor anything in particular, angle, area and distance distortion all increase, but equal to each other.


Compare that to the Mollweide equal-area, you'll notice that the circles attempt to maintain area, but as a result the angles and dimensions of each gets drastically distorted away from the centre.


Also, compare this to a common Equirectangular projection, which is just a simple lat/long representation. This map preserves angles, but compromises in area and distances.

Which one is more important to you, area or distance? Why?

I think all aspects of distortion are important, but between these two I guess preserving area is more important as it at least maintains the relative sizes of geographic locations.

Do you prefer Azimuthal Equal-Area or Equal-Area Conic? Why?

This one really depends upon the extent of the geographic region being mapped and its purpose. For larger areas, azimuthal is better as it adapts for the earths curvature. While conic just continually expands, the main aspect of conic though is that it is conformal, meaning that local angles are preserved, making it suitable being used for navigational purposes. This is not really needed in a map for a game, so azimuthal would be more suitable.

[Emperor of The Great Unknown]

I would have much preferred the Azimuthal Equal Area, map as it cuts out most of the useless parts of Africa, and Russia. Although it leaves Arabia. Honestly they could cut off most of the southern portion of the map and leave it Aswan. But then CA would lose their perfect square map that they cherish so much.

[ptoss1]

In Shogun 2, CA didn't include like any of the small islands. WTF. Somebody needs to blow up CA headquarters.

[Kadoken]

In Shogun 2, CA didn't include like any of the small islands. WTF. Somebody needs to blow up CA headquarters.

Like Hokkaido and Tanegishima? They added those in ROTS and FOTS. Also, isn't that a bit extreme?

[Caelifer_1991]

Like Hokkaido and Tanegishima? They added those in ROTS and FOTS. Also, isn't that a bit extreme?

Nah, these are the total war forums, when you declare war on a company you do it totally and without restraint.

[Igor85]

Well, it would have been kinda cool, if invasions get more problematic because of deserts. But if deserts are only represented as shrinked little sand areas, they won't have a great strategic/tactical influence.

[Durnaug]

Great feedback and merci beaucoup. So you have a combination of gameplay design decisions (e.g. lets shrink the Arabian desert and squeeze the Eastern portion) combined with a choice of "map projection" that distorts these choices even further? Does this translate to the main campaign map?

I'm still buying what should be a brilliant game but I think its too bad they decided upon a map that looks a bit odd way out East. I am spoiled by the Mod mappers so it is all their fault

@Spartan_Warrior thanks for the awesome technical feedback and your awesome name!