Where are the Pontic Mountains and the Taurus Mountains in Anatolia?

[Roma_Victrix]

From what I can see on the campaign map, there seems to be a few pathetic little mountains in the Taurus region (i.e. close to the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean), and basically nothing at all, just hills where the Pontic Mountains should be (i.e. close to the southeastern shores of the Black Sea). That's not topographically accurate and these mountain ranges actually made a huge impact on the historical development of states and empires in Anatolia. The Taurus Mountains, for instance, were fixed as the borders of the Seleucid Empire following their defeat at Magnesia in 190 BC and signing of the Treaty of Apamea in 188 BC with the Romans and their Greek allies. The Pontic Mountains provided an enormous shield for the cities and states of northeastern Anatolia in the ancient and medieval world, arguably part of the reason why the Empire of Trebizond was able to survive as long as it did in the Middle Ages.

I understand that editing the campaign map is a huge hassle, but you guys should consider beefing up these mountain ranges in a future release.

[Cohors_Evocata]

We might consider it, if we had an active member with the skills required.

[Roma_Victrix]

We might consider it, if we had an active member with the skills required.

I figured this was the case. What was the reasoning to have it this way to begin with, though? More well-known mountain ranges like the Alps predictably appear in the game, but that's not really good enough. Were the Taurus and Pontic ranges left out of the campaign map simply due to the general ignorance on the part of the map designer for pretty basic physical geography? Or was there some sort of reasoning behind it that I'm failing to grasp here?

In either case I'm happy to see that you guys are open to the idea of adding them into the game.

[Cohors_Evocata]

I figured this was the case. What was the reasoning to have it this way to begin with, though? More well-known mountain ranges like the Alps predictably appear in the game, but that's not really good enough. Were the Taurus and Pontic ranges left out of the campaign map simply due to the general ignorance on the part of the map designer for pretty basic physical geography? Or was there some sort of reasoning behind it that I'm failing to grasp here?

In either case I'm happy to see that you guys are open to the idea of adding them into the game.

I dunno, wasn't around back then. It may very well have been left unfinished due to a lack of available mappers.

[Gunydii]

wasnt there a (somewhat) recent discussion about a similar situation 'flat earth' problem in Iran? think it got changed so some more mountainous terrain was added?

[Roma_Victrix]

wasnt there a (somewhat) recent discussion about a similar situation 'flat earth' problem in Iran? think it got changed so some more mountainous terrain was added?

That's right, and a solution was made for it, only a year ago! See the thread here (by bigdaddy1204):

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ins&styleid=41

[Kull]

That's right, and a solution was made for it, only a year ago! See the thread here (by bigdaddy1204):

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ins&styleid=41

That was an interesting fix, but it was largely cosmetic. Changing the map - in particular by adding impassable terrain (which is what mountains are) - can be problematic for pathfinding. In the Zagros I mostly changed existing low mountains to high mountains (both are impassable), and switched a few of the "passable" terrain types over from "deserty" to "foresty", and the result was a great improvement in the "look", but no impact on pathfinding.

For the Pontic/Taurus, that's less of an option, especially since Asia Minor is so limited in total area (while also heavily populated with different factions) that even a minor pathfinding change could have a huge impact on AI activity. So it's going to take some study.....we'll see.

[myarta]

Fortunately mountain height shouldn't redraw borders which spares a lot of the hassle. One possible reason for its current state is managing impassable terrain as too many choke points can really screw up the AI's pathfinding.

[Tureuki]

From Taurus with love https://i.hizliresim.com/nOodjR.jpg

[Roma_Victrix]

That was an interesting fix, but it was largely cosmetic. Changing the map - in particular by adding impassable terrain (which is what mountains are) - can be problematic for pathfinding. In the Zagros I mostly changed existing low mountains to high mountains (both are impassable), and switched a few of the "passable" terrain types over from "deserty" to "foresty", and the result was a great improvement in the "look", but no impact on pathfinding.

For the Pontic/Taurus, that's less of an option, especially since Asia Minor is so limited in total area (while also heavily populated with different factions) that even a minor pathfinding change could have a huge impact on AI activity. So it's going to take some study.....we'll see.

Thanks for explaining this. I think it would be a good compromise to simply make existing mountains taller for the Taurus range at the very least. The problem with the Pontic one is that mountains don't even exist there, just some hills, although these could be extensively lifted and raised like mountains, right? If it doesn't make a huge impact on path-finding, by all means, please do it!

From Taurus with love https://i.hizliresim.com/nOodjR.jpg

That is a lovely view indeed. Thanks for sharing.

It also goes to show how truly elevated the terrain is there.

[QuintusSertorius]

Thanks for explaining this. I think it would be a good compromise to simply make existing mountains taller for the Taurus range at the very least. The problem with the Pontic one is that mountains don't even exist there, just some hills, although these could be extensively lifted and raised like mountains, right? If it doesn't make a huge impact on path-finding, by all means, please do it!

Therein lies the problem. Changing low mountains to high mountains makes no difference to pathfinding - all mountains are impassable regardless. But changing hills even to low mountains creates impassable areas and cuts off pathfinding routes.

[Roma_Victrix]

Therein lies the problem. Changing low mountains to high mountains makes no difference to pathfinding - all mountains are impassable regardless. But changing hills even to low mountains creates impassable areas and cuts off pathfinding routes.

Well, if you cut off some path-finding routes in the Pontic Mountain range, where it should be historically, isn't that a good thing? Isn't that reaching a more historically accurate portrayal of how states in that region had to work around that obstacle? Again, we're not talking about some insignificant mountain range either. It's almost as long as the Taurus Mountain Range and spans a great deal of the modern country of Turkey. Excluding them from the game would be like cutting the Pyrenees out of Spain, or dare I say it, the Alps from northern Italy, Austria, Switzerland, and southern Germany.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

+Rep for those who can spot two modern day names on this map, and one name which became obsolete/replaced after the bronze age.

[Tureuki]

And thats pretty much the mid way, elevation still goes up after this point and trees get scarce, dense snows appear(at winter). And there is an annual festival of wrestling that takes place at top of the mountain.

[myarta]

For the player, yes. But the AI will go crazy and do stupid things if you throw up obstacles in its way, and you'd have to playtest for a while to make sure that change isn't sending them all up trying to get around via the north side of the Black Sea or something stupid like that. Mountain visual accuracy isn't worth the AI doing silly things. Or bunching up a ton of stacks there that can't get past each other or whatever else.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Two out of three, good enough for rep! One more left and who gets it first also gets a rep.

[Roma_Victrix]

Two out of three, good enough for rep! One more left and who gets it first also gets a rep.

The Caspian Sea should be called the Hyrcanian Sea.

Or, on Jeopardy..."What is the Hyrcanian Sea?"

"Correct! Pick your choice for the next round!"

"Thanks, Mr. Trebek. I'll take Rivers and Lakes for 500 please."

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Well, I made a fool out of myself for not noticing that one... I had another place in mind. Nevertheless you're correct, and you get a rep. Caspian Sea is a new term, despite a part of it's south-western shores being called Kaspiane, the appellation to the entire body of water being named as such seems rather new.

The place I had in mind was the Lake Thospitis also known as Lake of Thushpa, nowadays Lake Van, although that name is rather old as well.

[Cohors_Evocata]

Well, then I have another one to add (and the one I thought I should have used): I don't know what the academic consensus on this is, but some believe the ancient name for the Aegean was Αρχιπελαγος, which would then serve as the origin for the word "archipelago" through Italian. Others however believe the Italians merely misheard or changed Αιγαιων πελαγος instead.

All of this really just goes to show how humans more or less continuously reinvent their world through names and such.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Well, then I have another one to add (and the one I thought I should have used): I don't know what the academic consensus on this is, but some believe the ancient name for the Aegean was Αρχιπελαγος, which would then serve as the origin for the word "archipelago" through Italian. Others however believe the Italians merely misheard or changed Αιγαιων πελαγος instead.

All of this really just goes to show how humans more or less continuously reinvent their world through names and such.

I believe both names were used by Greeks in antiquity, the Aegean is believed to be connected to the mythical Aegeus.