View Full Version : Full Campaign Map
Templar Knight
08-12-2006, 13:46
https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9365/twtrlq2.png
Found this in a link over at the Gamespot forums. Shows the full map and the parts of the new world that will be in.
Looks like 5 provinces in the new world, maybe 6 if Cuba is seperated.
Looks good. :2thumbsup:
Looking at my map they really moved North America North, considering the Yucatan shares the same latitude as central africa, and England shares the same latitide as Qubec Canada. So it seems they decided to shove North America North
UltraWar
08-12-2006, 15:23
Finally! I can conquer the New World!
Interesting. I wonder if that's truly the full map. I would think it would go further west to include the heart of the Aztec empire. Cortes' conquest took place within the game's time period, after all.
I also remembered seeing a small piece of land in the northwest corner of the campaign map in earlier screenshot that most people assumed was Iceland. I guess it was actually North America.
Does the full campaign map extend further south, as well? It looks to me like there's more of Africa in this one.
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-12-2006, 21:05
That map doesn't look right. :inquisitive:
Is that supposed to be Cuba and the USA (especially Florida) in the top left corner? As pyradyn noted, that seems too far North.
And Yucatan seems too large relative the rest of North America.
From flashearth.com:
https://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6005/mtw2iswrongrk9.jpg
vs.
https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9365/twtrlq2.png
It seems radically distorted to me.
Midnight
08-12-2006, 21:37
I'm dubious. Massive provinces in the south and east, and a weird America.
Makes me wish they'd just gone with African and eastern nations, instead of this.
Templar Knight
08-12-2006, 21:49
They must be going with the sort of medieval inaccurate feel ~:)
Darth Nihilus
08-12-2006, 22:50
Holy cow that made me laugh! I really hope this is a joke that Florida is higher in lattitude than London. If it isn't, thats going to be horribly inaccurate.
NeoSpartan
08-12-2006, 23:12
That better NOT be the map of Medieval II. It is WAAAAAYYYYYY off.
If they are messing up like this on a map, who knows how much they are messing up on the game.
Faenaris
08-12-2006, 23:12
Well, CA can't make the whole map fully realistic. That would mean every town, village, castle has to be added to the map. It would turn Medieval Total War into Medieval Total Siege and that would make the game turn stale way too fast.
Also, the game's focus is on Europe. I rather have them spent some extra time on making Europe seem a bit more realistic instead of America. Also, this way, it seems more medieval, just like Templar Knight said. They didn't have a clue about what they discovered, so, as America seems now, that is fine with me.
NeoSpartan
08-12-2006, 23:18
Well, CA can't make the whole map fully realistic. That would mean every town, village, castle has to be added to the map. It would turn Medieval Total War into Medieval Total Siege and that would make the game turn stale way too fast.
Also, the game's focus is on Europe. I rather have them spent some extra time on making Europe seem a bit more realistic instead of America. Also, this way, it seems more medieval, just like Templar Knight said. They didn't have a clue about what they discovered, so, as America seems now, that is fine with me.
hummm....i guess you have a point there.... Europeans had no IDEA what America looked like once they came accross it. Hell, Columbus though he reached South East Asia, the so called Indies.
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-13-2006, 00:29
Looks like we'll need a "Actual Geography" mod. That's just idiotic. I'd certainly rather have no Americas than something that isn't the Americas!
I can't see how that could be defensible. Medieval perceptions of geography never affected actual geography! Should we put actual sea monsters in the oceans just because some people thought they existed?
Barbarossa82
08-13-2006, 01:30
Although I favour a high degree of realism, I can't say I'm bothered by the geographical inaccuracy in the portrayal of the new world. For a start, while everyone is rightly pointing out the odd relative sizes and positions of the various parts of the Americas protrayed, nobody seems too bothered about the single most massive liberty which has been taken - moving the entire continents several thousand miles east. Like the other alterations to factual geography, it's been done because of the practicalities of fitting the relevant bits of the Americas onto the same map as Europe.
Now if the Americas' part in the game were to be the same as other provinces, I'd be bothered about the inaccuracy. But (from what we've heard so far), it seems like their main impact on the game is to provide access to new trade resources as a bonus to whoever controls them. It's not as if the map inaccuracies are going to lead to counterfactual gameplay as it would if they had messed around with European geography.
It's a fudge, but complete geographical realism would damage gameplay if implemented - a massive ocean taking decades to cross (assuming ship movement speeds are similar to Rome), vast areas of the Amazon included in order to go far West enough on the map to include Yucutan... CA have certainly been known to goof on accuracy big time but I don't think they had a lot of choice here and I can't see it messing up the game.
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-13-2006, 03:20
The distance could be forgiven if the land looked... decently formed.
Well CA, no money from me until a 3rd party comes up with a real map. Preferably without the Americas.
:no:
Myrddraal
08-13-2006, 03:24
I'm dissapointed with this. I wondered how they would make them, and I assumed they would bring the americas closer to Europe than they actually were (which they have done) but I hadn't thought they'd change the latitude... It isn't necessary. As it is, South America is between spain and england... Crazy.
Well CA, no money from me until a 3rd party comes up with a real map. Preferably without the Americas.
Somewhat extreme wouldn't you say? Despite being dissapointed with this, I'm not that upset, I was expecting geographical anomalies anyway, just not on this scale.
NagatsukaShumi
08-13-2006, 03:29
Should we put actual sea monsters in the oceans just because some people thought they existed?
You mean they don't? ~:mecry:~:(
I don't actually see the geographic inaccuracy as a problem. I assume that the ocean terrain will reduce ship movement speed more than coastal/sea terrain, just as land units move slower through woodlands than on grasslands with roads. This could account for the lack of actual distance between the eastern and western continents. Might be wrong on this, but its certainly feasable. And if its true, then the fact that the North, Central, and South American provinces are artificially squeezed together will hopefully be offset by the fact that they're all seperated from each other by water with disproportional crossing times.
Having said all that, I'd still prefer an accurate map, even if it is ridiculously large. The size of the sea regions would just make the prospect of crossing them more daring and less trivial. Preferably, the mini-map would be toggled to show either the eastern or western hemisphere, instead of both at once. Not sure how the latitudal (or vertical on a 2d map) shift would be handled on the actual campaign map. Maybe there could simply be two seperate campaign maps, one similar to MTW & RTW, the other containing the Americas and the majority of the Atlantic Ocean. When a ship crosses the western edge of the Euro-African map, it would automaticly appear about 20 latitudes to the south on the American map.
I'm afraid it wouldn't be possible to mod something like that in, though.
Alexander the Pretty Good
08-13-2006, 04:59
I'd be playing a game with the continents of Europe, (North) Africa, (Western) Asia, and something else. Not really North or South America, is it? You can change the scale or positioning and get away with it, but not the shape. At least give the feeling that you're looking at the right place.
They didn't even do that.
As to waiting for a new map, if CA gives modders adequate support, it would be a non-issue. But that's dicey at best.
For every one bit of information or feature announcements that CA makes that give me hope, there are a half-dozen of these.
To the publishers, who are market-savvy, this is not really an issue (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12591413/). Only in niche markets like the Org here would people worry about Miami having pine trees.
Nice thought, I'd prefer it that way.
Horatius
08-13-2006, 06:55
Not perfect, but good enough if the gameplay is good.
Desperately trying to find something nice to say about the map. I wonder why they didn't make Scania a separate province or part of the main Danish province. Haven't they even done the most basic research? And about the Americas, I have nothing to add. And then we have Russia. At the time it shouldn't be Novgorod but Kiev/Kievan Rus (but the province borders doesn't allow Kiev with it's proper shape). Hope that the map is changed so it is more correct but somehow I doubt it.
DukeofSerbia
08-13-2006, 10:17
Provinces in Balkan Peninsula are pure catastrophe.
screwtype
08-13-2006, 10:25
The Russkies and Poles look a bit shortchanged. I'm sure they had a lot more provinces to play with in MTW 1.
poo_for_brains
08-13-2006, 12:53
Nah, don't think so - there were barely any Eastern Europe provinces in MTW1
As for the Americas, it's not the latitudes that irritate me - I was hoping that it would take ages to get to America, so that everybody had to rush there with one army and try and take the whole of America, as reinforcements would take too long to arrive. As it is, it's as close as other parts of Europe.
I genuinely believe that the map issue isn't really a major snag. CA had to get the map into an area which would live in the bottom left of the screen and show, at a glance, the whole of the conquerable area. Allowing instant appreciation of the political situation. For Florida and South America to be shown in the light that seems to be cast here in a more realistic geographical position, would have interrupted with the map of Europe.
I can look at this image and see, without pressing anything, who owns what and where. The larger Campaign map will, I'm sure, add the realistic issues such as distance and difficulty of travel.
The whole America thing is just a gimic anyway. American civilizations were a pushover, they can't attack back...it's just another feather for someone to put in his cap, a way to have a few interesting battles late game (interesting due to the unusual opposing units and terrain), and a way to generate lots of trade goods revenue most likely.
As far as the map of Europe...
Scotland is now 2 provinces instead of 1
Greece is at least 3 provinces instead of 1
France has 1 new province in the SE
There's 1 new province on the west coast of the Black Sea
Egypt is now 2 provinces instead of 1
I think they added Iraq
And yes, the Americas are totally mis-positioned
Orda Khan
08-13-2006, 16:52
I never thought much of the New World attachment to a Mediaeval game and nothing has changed, I still don't like it. If it was an expansion, fair enough I suppose but I fail to see the point of adding this when making different starting eras would have been a far better option
......Orda
screwtype
08-13-2006, 18:03
The whole America thing is just a gimic anyway. American civilizations were a pushover, they can't attack back...it's just another feather for someone to put in his cap, a way to have a few interesting battles late game (interesting due to the unusual opposing units and terrain), and a way to generate lots of trade goods revenue most likely.
Yes, it is a bit gimmicky, but I think it's a bit of a myth that the Americas were a "pushover". The standard story is that a few hundred Spanish conquistadors conquered a whole civilization, but in fact it took the Spanish about 20 years, including numerous defeats, to conquer the Americas. And they were helped mightily not only by exploiting existing hostilities between various tribes, but by the diseases they inadvertently introduced. Due mainly to disease, the indigenous population shrank by about 75%, from 15 million to 4 million, in the 30 years following the Spanish arrival on the mainland, and in the next 20 years it halved again.
Is it me or is America one big Province?
poo_for_brains
08-13-2006, 18:24
Is it me or is America one big Province?
It's just you.
Has Ituralde been on this thread? Because in another thread he mentioned that he had seen the entire map, and faction starting positions in a german pc mag - so he should be able to authenticate the map.
Geoffrey S
08-13-2006, 18:41
Provinces in Balkan Peninsula are pure catastrophe.
Yeah, I really dislike the way eastern europe provinces are lumped together in huge clumps. It's been a problem with both RTW and MTW, and I liked how it was improved in for instance EB.
Woad Warrior
08-13-2006, 18:52
@ Damiekpe - no, I think here's right, America (not the Americas) is one big province.
A completely seperate map would have been ideal for the Americas. That one they've shown us is just plain ugly, its not like they've made places disproportionally sized for gameplay reasons (like the giant Europe in the board game Axis&Allies to fit in more provinces in the important areas). I mean, America (as in US not Americas) is one giant province. Why?
Although all this is disappointing, its not the biggest deal in the world, is it? It will soon be fixed by the modders; MA and MTR aren't including the Americas. And someone will probably come up with a quick-fix map in a week or two of the games release, so its really not a big problem.
L'Impresario
08-13-2006, 18:54
I think it beats the point having the Timurids as a faction if the map ends near/along the Tigris river. Most of Timur's greatest holdings are near Khorasan (not to mention Samarkhand), and the map doesn't even approach the area. Ofcourse the same thing can be told about the Mongols, but at least they interacted with central and eastern European powers for a long period.
No indian or eastern campaigns for little Timur it seems heh
poo_for_brains
08-13-2006, 19:09
@ Damiekpe - no, I think here's right, America (not the Americas) is one big province.
A completely seperate map would have been ideal for the Americas. That one they've shown us is just plain ugly, its not like they've made places disproportionally sized for gameplay reasons (like the giant Europe in the board game Axis&Allies to fit in more provinces in the important areas). I mean, America (as in US not Americas) is one giant province. Why?
Although all this is disappointing, its not the biggest deal in the world, is it? It will soon be fixed by the modders; MA and MTR aren't including the Americas. And someone will probably come up with a quick-fix map in a week or two of the games release, so its really not a big problem.
Oh. My bad. Misunderstood the question. Sorry.
Ignoramus
08-14-2006, 01:13
Look, this is just a rehash of the original Medieval Map. All they have done is just add a few extra provinces.
Darth Nihilus
08-14-2006, 03:09
I second that they should have the America's on a second map. I live in Michigan and maybe one of these days I'll travel down south to Scotland for vacation (yes, that was pure sacarsm).
Although I like the feel of a realistic game, I am not too bothered by America being deformed, there will no doubt be mods which repair this, the main thing I am looking forward to is the battle mode.
Tw-Turkiye
08-14-2006, 14:03
https://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9365/twtrlq2.png
this picture is real , it was taken from pcgames.de magazine so the permission
gave for the broadcasting.we delivered this picture
WE ARE TOTALWAR-TURKİYE
https://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3990/anabaslikzh8.jpg
Totalwar-Turkiye will be open SOON
RESPECT
WarMachine420
08-15-2006, 13:48
I never thought much of the New World attachment to a Mediaeval game and nothing has changed, I still don't like it. If it was an expansion, fair enough I suppose but I fail to see the point of adding this when making different starting eras would have been a far better option
......Orda
Because the discovery of the New World was one of, if not THE biggest events in the history of mankind. What did you want them to do...include when someone founded the compass but not the discovery of the New World?
idea= don't conquer the new world. pretend it's not there. Voila!!! no more problems :juggle2:
As for starting times...that has nothing to do with this...by the time you got to the late era you would encounter the discovery of the new world. Again, what are they supposed to do...just pretend it didn't happen? Make a game covering the whole of the medieval times era and not include the largest event of the last chapter? How would that be better than this? ...you fight native american guerillas now after you conquer europe over hundreds of years. You fight it out alongside rivals on the new land. How is this a bad thing? How is more, less?
:wall:
Here is something I rather quickly drew. Since I didn't slow down to check things up whenever I was unsure of something it is not perfect. Not that good actually, needs a lot of work, but still better then the actual map.
https://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7789/mtw2improvedmapcq4.th.jpg (https://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mtw2improvedmapcq4.jpg)
iraklaras
08-16-2006, 09:33
Finally! I can conquer the New World!
:2thumbsup:
sunsmountain
08-16-2006, 18:35
Look, this map was NOT created for (historical) accuracy, but was made to play a game.
So quit your whining: balkan's borders were always chaos, america was a new and exciting continent, and you don't want too many provinces since remember, you'll have to conquer them all (each time).
I do hope they bring era's back... Assuming this is the Early era, the top province in Russia would be Novgorod, otherwise Russia, according to MTW 1 anyway.
4th Dimension
08-16-2006, 18:41
Here is something I rather quickly drew. Since I didn't slow down to check things up whenever I was unsure of something it is not perfect. Not that good actually, needs a lot of work, but still better then the actual map.
https://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7789/mtw2improvedmapcq4.th.jpg (https://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mtw2improvedmapcq4.jpg)
One point. Why should Croatia be a faction and not Serbia?
scotchedpommes
08-17-2006, 00:27
One point. Why should Croatia be a faction and not Serbia?
The Serbian state there is Raška. Perhaps count Zeta with it. I would be much
happier to see it drawn along those lines. As the game map is, it seems there will
either be Croatia or Serbia.
bozkirsovalyesi
08-17-2006, 16:42
my recommendations maps:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=62945
_Aetius_
08-18-2006, 21:28
I think map is absolutely terrible, the size of the provinces and the number of rebel provinces is ridiculous, it also looks very weak on the number of factions. It seems entirely out of proportion.
dude,this map has too much rebel provinces.
normally,France has almost entire france etc.
Maybe this map is fake?:P
Vladimir
08-21-2006, 21:26
Anyone have a list of cities or a map that shows them all?
Looks to me like they made the various regions of the Americas the size needed for gameplay purposes. Five regions (assuming Cuba is part of North America). Central America area split into 3 territories showing its importance in the 'discovery' of the new world. Weren't enough settlements in North America to justify multiple provinces. Each territory needs room to have a city/castle, resources and some maneuver room for armies. End up with the portions that they did. Then to fit it onto the edge of the map the moved stuff some. In short, Americas strike me simply as how they handled gameplay issues. I'm fine with that.
Looks like there's more to Africa than before, that it extends further south.
I'm assuming (big assumption here) that starting posistions are based partially on historical aspects, but also partially on gameplay issues. Otherwise there's several questionable starting territories on the map. And as far as additional territories goes, I'd rather they stay with the number they have currently and wait to see how that plays before saying I want more. I remember in RTW that several mods added more and it tended to throw off gameplay and balance. The really good moders worked hard to rebalnce things, otherwise additional territories just messes up the playability.
All in all, to me its just a map. Neither good nor bad, just a tool used in my conquest of the world!
4th Dimension
08-25-2006, 09:01
The Serbian state there is Raška. Perhaps count Zeta with it. I would be much
happier to see it drawn along those lines. As the game map is, it seems there will
either be Croatia or Serbia.
Yes, there is a province named Rashka, but he didn't underline it, nor did he put it into that box with other states that he would like to see in the game.
That's why I was asking.
Yes, there is a province named Rashka, but he didn't underline it, nor did he put it into that box with other states that he would like to see in the game.
That's why I was asking.
Size. If I had written which I had written in the box in a smaller style I would have gotten in them as well (as well as Obodrites, Lithuanians etc.)
Look, this is just a rehash of the original Medieval Map. All they have done is just add a few extra provinces.
Shocking, since this is Medieval 2...I mean, be glad theres extra provinces...
Ignoramus
08-27-2006, 23:52
I think Navarre is included.
I think Navarre is included.
You think wrong. The colours are the same as Portugal. IE Navarre is held by Portugal in that screen.
Pupil of History
08-28-2006, 05:37
Would the map mean that any colored region would be a playable faction in both single player and multiplayer?
Vladimir
08-28-2006, 12:41
You think wrong. The colours are the same as Portugal. IE Navarre is held by Portugal in that screen.
So Portugal has Navarre while Aragon is rebel? I think not.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.