Iran is too flat - where are the Zagros mountains?

[MIKE GOLF]

When one looks at the EB II map it doesn't look like mountains are there visually, but as far as game play is concerned there are indeed mountains there. They act as barriers forcing players and the ai alike to go far around them. Up until this thread popped up, I never really noticed how flat the terrain is to look at, but now it will bother me from this point on. One benefit to the terrain is that battles are fairly flat, but as the EB II team are sticklers for historical accuracy, I am sure that at some point this will be dealt with to one degree or another.

[delra]

In the end, this isn't a presentation but a computer game which people are supposed to play and enjoy. What's the point of modding in all the hundreds of units if people are going to autoresolve every battle because they can't get a reasonable battlefield anywhere?

[bigdaddy1204]

can't get a reasonable battlefield anywhere?

I think this is an exaggeration. The Zagros does not cover the entire EB II map.
Also, other mods such as Broken Crescent and Stainless Steel Historical Improvement Mod have large mountains, yet I've never had to stop a battle because of it.

Also, huge mountains already exist in EBII in North Africa and the Alps. I played a campaign with several battles in that area (North Africa), and didn't have any problems.

Incidentally, here's the famous Behistun inscription, written by Darius the Great of Persia in 522BC and carved into the mountain in Kermanshah province, Iran (in the Zagros).



And a close up

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Genghis Skahn]

https://postimg.cc/image/qjv27okmp/


Here's a preview of the tweaked Zagros mountain appearance(before and after gif). Nothing topographically has really changed except for raising the altitude of a number of mountains. The mountain passes are the same. I think it's a good improvement!

[bigdaddy1204]

https://postimg.cc/image/qjv27okmp/


Here's a preview of the tweaked Zagros mountain appearance(before and after gif). Nothing topographically has really changed except for raising the altitude of a number of mountains. The mountain passes are the same. I think it's a good improvement!

Hi Genghis Skahn, thanks for sharing. This is a big improvement! It looks a lot better now.

Very impressive.

I shall now feel like a King of Persia when I lead my armies to conquer this region! Great job.

Is it possible to (also) increase the underlying topography slightly, to give that "bulge" kind of effect (like in the North Africa west mountains) ? If not no worries. Thank you!

[Roma_Victrix]

That's a great improvement, Skahn! Thanks for the work and for sharing this.

[QuintusSertorius]

That's a great improvement, Skahn! Thanks for the work and for sharing this.

It was actually Kull who made the changes, for the record (Skhan you can thank for all the work he's done and continues to do on the traits).

[Genghis Skahn]

That's a great improvement, Skahn! Thanks for the work and for sharing this.

Yes I'm just the messenger. Work in Geomod and mapping in general is always done by other members--in this case it was Kull.

[bigdaddy1204]

Thanks guys - love the mod and thank you for all of your efforts!

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

Personally I am not a huge fan of mountains. The fact that there are mountains in the world does not mean that there are many battles that have taken place on top of mountains.

In addition, they cause pathfinding issues and affect the aggressiveness of the campaign AI, because map calculations on such things as borders or units near borders can become difficult and sometimes fail.

[Genghis Skahn]

Personally I am not a huge fan of mountains. The fact that there are mountains in the world does not mean that there are many battles that have taken place on top of mountains.

In addition, they cause pathfinding issues and affect the aggressiveness of the campaign AI, because map calculations on such things as borders or units near borders can become difficult and sometimes fail.

The pathfinding should be the same as ever--only altitude was changed(no topography or passes), and I'm not sure if the change will affect battlefields whatsoever.

At any rate, elevation is still an important concern in a battle.

[Kull]

The pathfinding should be the same as ever--only altitude was changed(no topography or passes), and I'm not sure if the change will affect battlefields whatsoever.

At any rate, elevation is still an important concern in a battle.

I can assure everyone that this was a purely cosmetic change. The only areas where altitude changed were already "impassable" as low mountains (MIKEGOLF had alluded to this in an earlier post, but most people didn't pick up on it). Adding a lot of "High Mountain" terrain into those areas created part of the new look, which features more of a "mountain range" appearance. In addition, climate was also adjusted, both in the impassable zones and some of the neighboring terrain, which not only makes the Zagros look greener, but will produce a less desert-like appearance on the battlemap (if you should have a conflict in or adjacent to the foothills.

The goal was SPECIFICALLY to improve the look without altering any of the underlying mechanics, and I'm confident we achieved that.

[bigdaddy1204]

Fantastic work, guys.

Great job!

On a historical perspective, I think it's a big success. Signs of early agriculture date back as far as 9,000 BC to the foothills of the Zagros Mountains, near Shiraz and Susa. The ancient skeletal remains of Neanderthals have been found in that area. Some of the earliest evidence of wine production has been discovered in the Zagros Mountains; both the settlements of Hajji Firuz Tepe and Godin Tepe have given evidence of wine storage dating between 3500 and 5400 BC. In addition, the Battle of the Persian Gate took place in the Zagros, during the invasion of Iskander (Alexander the Great) into Persia. So there is a good basis for battles here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...e_Persian_Gate

As a way to say "thank you", I can share some more rare photos, which probably most people didn't see before. First one is from Lorestan, which is the province that is almost entirely in the Zagros. It was taken at a place near Borujerd city.




Also another from the Lake Gahar area, also in Lorestan, the eastern slopes of the Zagros.



And finally the old road from Shiraz to Yasuj, in the south east part of the Zagros. That area is historically interesting, as it is very close to Persepolis and the ancient Fars province, where the ancient Persians had their origin. Alexander and his army also passed through here on their way to Persepolis in 330BC.

[LusitanianWolf]

Beautiful

[Roma_Victrix]

It was actually Kull who made the changes, for the record (Skhan you can thank for all the work he's done and continues to do on the traits).

I stand corrected. The praise shall be reserved only for Kull and Kull alone! THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE.

[Havok.]

It's an ancient game with a lot of core issues that were never addressed by the studio, they never patched it, as at the time they were busy making the massive flop and the worst game in their history. What battlefields look like when translated from world map to battle map is one of those issues which CA could have fixed but chose to ignore, and modders need to work around that to keep the game going. Playing Parthia or Baktria with all the silly slopes only kills gameplay. Flat world map is purely cosmetic. There's really no point to sacrifice gameplay for cosmetics.

This thread wouldn't even be posted if the OP wasn't convinced he's the smartest guy in the room and the only guy who knows what the map of Iran looks like. Sadly he completely ignored the consequences of his suggestion while showing off his great geographical knowledge.

I rest my case too. I play EB2 instead of BC or TA because here I have normal battlefields.

Wow, for a member with the rank of -player-, you sure have that nose up to your hair.

@bigdaddy1204 provided backup information to account for his claim (first pictures of the real life Zagros, and then other mods representation of it). Even if one might disagree, its a solid argument worthy of taking into consideration, although we all know its not really up to us, players, to decide anything. We merely suggest.

Surely @bigdaddy isn't the smartest guy in the room, but i have to tell you, he did provided reasonable evidence, to a fairly reasonable claim.
You on the other hand, apart from "will break the game", and "cosmetics are overrated", fell incredible short of the same. Going far enough to dismiss it because you don't like 80 degrees battles (i'll quote you here, "normal battlefields").

I'll digress a just a little more. Here is what EB II official website has to say about, well, EB II:

"Later, the team expanded their aim to also correcting ahistorical representations everywhere on the map. As it became clear that CA would not use this sort of information, the group decided to transform the project into a modification."

As you can see, its perfectly palpable to uphold such suggestion of fixing the Zagros, as @bigdaddy1204 himself noted, there are other similar mountain ranges that are more faithful (to a certain extent) on the map.

My 2 cents on this particular matter is this: Although i too think the Zagros are a bit too flat indeed. I would totally support increasing its height and volume to more real life parameters. Without ever losing sight of the pathfinding issues that surround this course of action.
And I totally don't mind fighting 80's battles. If i want arcade play i would have not picked EB to be my favorite mod, ever.

Thus, i'll rest my case.