Rome 2 Interactive Campaign Map

[dge1]

Just out on the Total War site is an Interactive Map (http://maps.totalwar.com/rome2map) to play with.

[quadalpha]

Discovered the region 'lol' in Mauritania.

[hoom]

That is iol not Lol.

Interesting for Carthage, was surprised how little of the map starts out in their control but the Phoenician regions are all client states of Carthage.
So there is a relationship there, maybe will need to either live with that or enforce an annexation, hopefully won't require fighting.

Seleukids have a similar setup start with 6 syrian regions plus another 20 client states filling out the historical empire.
Fits with historical break up between satrapies, again probably will be able to enforce direct control.

Edit: I should say, I'm assuming that there will eventually be a playable Seleukid empire.

[quadalpha]

That is iol not Lol.

I'd never have guessed :)

[Ituralde]

The client kingdom setup looks really nice, although it could end up really bad if the AI doesn't care too much for it. I hope there's a political way to force annexation or create a greater union.

Also interesting to see the different mercenaries available and the special trade routes. Also lots of Wonders, I wonder what the bonuses are, you get from controlling them.

[B-Wing]

If the game can be easily modded to play as all factions, I would absolutely fall in love with it. Let us hope.

[dge1]

I'm hoping they have set it up to have quite a few more factions. If not, then I certainly will be looking for Mods.

[Philadelphos]

This map is a complete disaster. I don't know how they dare to come up with such unhistorical places and call the game Rome Total War?

Silesia????

There are at least two dozens of places which are Total Fantasy.
And then they miss such important cities like Byzantium, Tarentum and Messana.
They even left out Aetolia. This was much better in RTW 1.

Sorry, we've gone far beyond such poor mapping. There is much better stuff out there.

So let's hope the game playing makes up for the faulty map, but I'm seriously afraid they screwed it.

[knoddy]

This map is a complete disaster. I don't know how they dare to come up with such unhistorical places and call the game Rome Total War?

Silesia????

There are at least two dozens of places which are Total Fantasy.
And then they miss such important cities like Byzantium, Tarentum and Messana.
They even left out Aetolia. This was much better in RTW 1.

Sorry, we've gone far beyond such poor mapping. There is much better stuff out there.

So let's hope the game playing makes up for the faulty map, but I'm seriously afraid they screwed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesia

if you cant be bothered reading it, it was a region in Poland. So looks pretty accurate to me.

Byzantium was not a major city until later in history. While it was around, it was a small trading settlement, and probably didnt rise to prominence until Emperor Constantine made it the captial of the Roman Empire in 330 AD

Tarentum and Messana share their regions with Brudisium which if i remember correctly was a much more major city. Hence it was probably chosen as the capital for that region.

on a more important note why stress about this. We have known for quite some time that the map was goign to be made up of large regions with one captial. Chances are a lot of cities will not make it.

As for claiming them throwing historical accuracy out the window. You do realise that they do research and if i remember correctly they even have historical advisors as part of the developement cycle.


Cheers Knoddy

[Philadelphos]

Thanks for your answer.

I'm doing mapping Europe for twenty-five years now, so I know where Silesia is. The problem is that the region took that name only in Medieval times. Better call it Vandalia, Lugia, Hercynia or if you want Silingia. But maybe you can tell me something useful about the settlement Belz, because in 25 years I have never heard that name. I don't pretend to know everything and I'm still ready to learn new things, but this map is really hard to believe.
Well now I have studied a bit on that name and I've found on Wikipedia that the place is known since the 10th century AD. Here we are talking about the 3rd century BC. So much about historic accuracy.

I know which were the major cities in Hellenistic times and Byzantium was certainly among them, while Antheia hasn't even an entry in Pauly. I just checked my atlas and maybe it's my fault, but I can't find it. These are only two examples, but the more I check that map the more find such questionable choices.

Why did you drop Corinth? It was in RTW One and certainly the most important citadel in Greece. Where is Halicarnassus?

This map is even worse than the one of Total Medieval War. I played that for five turns and then I had nothing else left to conquer, so I dropped the game. The New World expansion was much better then and even the Scandinavia scenario. But the large map of Europe was unplayable and so appears RTW II.

Why is Mediolanum named Medhlan and Patavium reads Patavium? Is there any criteria? How did you reconstruct those pseudo-ethnic names? Is there any written source where Mediolanum is called Medhlan? Could you please name that source?
I guess Koria is Curia? Is that the Greek version or another ethnic variant? Why in Greek and not in Latin? The more I study the map the more I keep guessing names and languages.

Gelonus is completely wrong, it should be 500 miles west. Where did you find the notion of places like Solokha, Samandar, Aktau, Galic, Tur, Mons Regius? Knowing that Siracena and Gelonus are historic, I'd like to believe that they were too, but after seeing that you dropped Byzantium in favour of Antheia (which is Sozopolis, how I finally found out) I don't trust you anymore.

Where is Numidia? It isn't even in the map, so I guess we don't even need their capital Cirta? Poor Massinissa!

Why are there places like Macomades, Hegra, Charmuthas in the map, which were probably not more than 20 houses, but not Damascus, Thessalonice, Utica, Capua, Tarentum, Messana, Babylon? Don't tell me that Babylon was abandoned, because it's not true. Why is Thebes called Diospolis, when everybody knows it by the original "ethnic" name? Why do you call Aquincum Ak-Ink instead? Is there any written source of that version?

In conclusion, this is deliberate confusion: You name cities which are known under their ethnic name with later Greek variants and cities that are known under their Latin name are renamed to reconstructed pseudo-ethnic variants. Very funny, but I've already had enough.

Dear Knoddy, I apologize for adressing you as if you were responsible for that map. I know that this is not true. It just makes it easier for comunication. In reality I'm adressing those advisors and developers. I don't know how CA recruited them, and from the results I wouldn't believe that they are historians. But if they are paid for that lousy work they are surely thieves.

[Philadelphos]

I keep guessing with results of all kinds:

Solokha is the modern name of an archaeological site.
Samandar is a historic city from the 7th centruy AD. Since we lack other names in the area I think this choice is almost acceptable.
Aktau is a city founded in 1961 with some archaeological findings. With the same right you should also include Dusseldorf in the map.
Galic: I can only guess that this is a fantasy reconstruction from the regional name Galicia. Ptolemy has several historic names here.
Tur: still guessing. Oh, maybe I got it: Torun founded around 1230 AD??? Better check Ptolemy.
Mons Regius is the latin name of Königsberg. Funny: in the area of Roman conquest you avoid latin names and here you take one from a town founded in 1255! We know the names of several ancient towns in that area (Gothiscandia, Rugium, Ascaucalis), so there is no need for such acrobacies.
Addumata is Akkadian for Dumah/Dumatha. This is okay, but why that ancient name here and not for Thebes?
Charmuthas: no entry found. In that area we have the port of Iambia and the oasis of Dedan. The regional name is Lihyan.

[quadalpha]

I guess we should all just hope it's easily moddable.

[JoWarrior]

Be aware that this map is a bit of a spoiler if you like randomly coming across mercenaries. I looked at it and now I know exactly where to recruit each merc.

[rvg]

Domus Dulcis Domus needs to make a comeback.

[Papewaio]

I guess we should all just hope it's easily moddable.

I very much doubt it as that would stop the DLC being a benefit.

Considering there is DLC before the game is even launched (Greek) it would seem obvious that additional factions will be a pay to play option.

[Arjos]

it would seem obvious that additional factions will be a pay to play option.

Indeed...

Once skills unlocked content, what a naive world that was: rewarding competent success :P
These days whether you fail or steal, you get a gov bail out: plutocracy FTW! ^^

Ahhhh cultural ripples I love you so!

[Papewaio]

I wouldn't mind it if achievements also unlocked hats and factions.

Pay to skip ahead in single player fine.

Pay for cosmetics fine.

Pay to play a faction that is available on launch day... Meh.