Campaign map overview (picture) [Archive]

Perplexed

10-28-2006, 22:56

Finally, a full map for our consideration! ~:cheers: Excellent.

Now sorry to everyone if this seems nitpicky but just a few points: ~;)

_________________________________________
Western Europe:

- The Scots should control all of Scotland in 1080 except for the very northern tip (which was a possession of Norway).
- Northumbria should not be rebel in 1080, it should be a possession of England.
- The capital of Normandy should be at Rouen, not Caen.
- The capital of Brittany ought to be at either Nantes or Brest (probably Brest).
- The capital of Flanders should be at Ghent.
- France shouldn't control Aquitaine, Provence, or Toulouse. Their control of Anjou is also suspect.
- Portugal, if it should exist at all in 1080, should control neither Lisbon (which was captured from the Muslims in 1147 by a passing fleet en route to the Second Crusade) nor Navarre (wtf?).

Central & Northern Europe:

- Too little of Scandinavia is portrayed; the map should extend further north.
- Stockholm didn't even become a major city until the 13th century at least. The capital of Sweden ought to be Uppsala at this point.
- Again, Oslo did not become the premier city of Norway until the 13th-14th centuries. However, as the map does not seem to extend far enough north to include Bergen, it may have to do for now.
- The capital of what parts of Finland can be seen should be Åbo, as Helsinki wasn't founded until 1550.
- The capital of Prussia should be at Gdansk, not at Thorn, as that city only rose to some prominence under the Teutonic order.
- The capital of Friesland should be Utrecht, not Antwerp, since Antwerp only became important after the 15th century.
- Bern was founded in 1191, so it should not be the capital of Switzerland. I'm not sure what should replace it, but Zurich might be a fair bet.
- The Holy Roman Empire should control more territory to its north and west.

Southern Europe:

- Milan should not have been included as a faction over Genoa in the first place, and it certainly should not control the latter province in 1080.
- Malta should be included as a province under the control of Norman Sicily.
- Venice should not control the Adriatic coastline in 1080.
- Yugosolavia should not be province. At the very least it should be divided into Serbia and Croatia.
- Durazzo should at this point be Dyrrachium, and should be under Byzantine, not rebel, control.
- The capital of Bulgaria should be at Turnovo, not Sofia.
- Bucharest, not having been of any real import before the 15th century, should not by rights be the capital of Wallachia at this point. However, I can give no suggestions as to a suitable replacement.

Eastern Europe & The Steppe:

- There should be more steppe and Russian provinces. The current number doesn't do the area justice at all.
- Riga as a true city was founded in the 13th century by German colonists. Izborsk may be a more suitable capital for Livonia, but in this point I am uncertain.
- Technically the capital of the 'Muscovy' area ought to be Vladimir at this point.
- Volga-Bulgar should be simply Bulgar (or alternatively, 'The Great Bulgar').
- The province with its capital at Halych (which I assume to be Volhynia), should be stretched further southeast to include Galicia, since Halych (or Galich) was that region's capital.
- I don't know what the capital of Transylvania should be, but certainly not Bran.
- Budapest as a single city did not exist until the 19th century. The capital of Hungary should be either Buda or Pest, but not both.

North Africa:

- The Sahara should be an impassable zone. Conquerable provinces should be excluded to thick coastal provinces along the Mediterranean coast and very narrow coastal porvinces along the western coast.
- Dongola is much further south than this map would be able to show. Aswan might be a passable alternative, but that city may be too far south as well.

Middle-East & Anatolia:

- The capital of Cilicia should be at Tarsus, not Adana.
- The capital of Cyprus should be at Kyrenia, not Nicosia.
- The Arabian desert should be an impassable region like the Sahara, although Hejaz should be represented as a province.
_________________________________________

Zalmoxis

10-28-2006, 23:15

Yeah, Alba-Iulia would have been a much better capital for Transylvania.

Cheetah

10-29-2006, 03:17

Well, I assume it is a kind of PR decision to use modern names instead of historical ones (when it is possible). I am sure CA knew very well that this might be annoying for history buffs, but I guess that the proportion of history buffs to laymen decided the issue in favour of modern names. ~;)

What is lot more annoying, at least for me ... ~;) that Hungary is only two province. The one they call Budapest could be easily divided into two or three parts, both on historical grounds and on grounds of gameplay (IMO). It has the size of two or three western provinces, so for the same size the western factions has two or three cities, thus I assume a large economical and demographical advantage. If the reason to keep Hungary this "small" was that Hungary should not be as strong as the "main" western factions, then the disappointing news (from this point of view) is that Hungary at that time was "that strong", or perhaps even stronger than some of the main factions.
Of course I understand that it is probably another PR decision. They do not want to overload people with history, and they do not want to complicate the average customers life with things that Europe was different 1000 years ago than it is today. ~:joker:

Gah! More provinces to Hungary!!! :knight:

ps. At least I have something to moan about. not that I will ever play SP ...~;p

Furious Mental

10-29-2006, 05:09

Nice map but Bologna should be HRE

big_steveo

10-29-2006, 06:58

You guys sure do have a lot of "should"s. Just play the game and be happy. Alternatively, mod it when you get the full version.

Laman

10-29-2006, 07:48

For capital of Wallachia, Targoviste would probably be a better option, and for Moldavia Suceava would be preferable over Iasi IIRC. But all in all, large parts of the map (such as almost everything east of HRE to make an example) is actually an insult to every potential player with even half a brain IMHO.

Ituralde

10-29-2006, 09:54

Very nice work, gotta admire the artist for putting the effort into it.

All history and personal preferences aside Furious Mental is right though that Bologna is controlled by the HRE at the beginninge of the game, clearly said so in their faction preview at IGN. Besides that the map is perfect! :2thumbsup:

Faenaris

10-29-2006, 10:49

Love the map. :) The one thing that bugs me a bit is the fact that Milan is in instead of Genoa. But I can mod that, so, no problem for me.

I am pleasantly surprised to see Flanders has 2 provinces (MTW only had 1). I'm gonna go capture those ASAP. :)

Ferret

10-29-2006, 11:13

Frisky-Welshman

10-29-2006, 11:35

i like the map. it mightr not be the most historically accurate map in the world, and it might be a bit to small, no scandanavia, but it is still quite good. im looking forward to playing as portugal, if possible.

TheImp

10-29-2006, 12:06

Good luck. It looks like it's gonna be very difficult to survive with Portugal. They are surrounded by 3 other factions and don't have much freedom of conquest. I guess it will be mostly diplomatic style of game at the beginning.

Gampie

10-29-2006, 15:19

Nodey has made an update of the map:

https://img281.imageshack.us/img281/3913/m2tw2ir0.th.jpg (https://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mtw2map2qh7.jpg)

Bologna is HRE, as it should be. Furthermore the cities are now marked with a dot on the map. Cheers.

Perplexed

10-29-2006, 16:00

The idea of making the countries smaller is so we have rebel settlements to capture instead of going head to head with another faction straight away.
MTW is an alternate history not the exact thing that happened, it would be boring if we couldn't take a settlement if the faction we are playing did not historicaly take it.
STOP COMPLAINING!

The 'idea' of TW should be that you can jump into an accurate depiction of the period and from there change the course of history, it ishould not be that you have to jump into an ahistorical quasi-fantasy world and have to rely either on your own ignorance or increasingly difficult suspension of disbelief to keep the immersion factor from curling up and dying at your feet.

None of us are suggesting that people should attempt to follow the exact course of history as your campaign progresses, we only want the map to be as accurate as possible when the campaign begins. Please try to understand, it shouldn't be this difficult.

Templar Knight

10-29-2006, 16:19

Southern Scotland's capital should be St. Andrews. It was the capital of the Scotish Kingdom till the Scotish Reformation when it's cathedral and castle was burnt down.

Edinburgh was made Scotland's capital in 1437, long before the Reformation. Also where is there any mention that St Andrews was the capital?

lars573

10-29-2006, 16:20

- France shouldn't control Aquitaine, Provence, or Toulouse. Their control of Anjou is also suspect.

Yes they should. It was a massive distortion in MTW to have England Controlling Aquitane and Anjou in 1087. Those areas come into English control with Henry II in 1134. Toulouse and Provence were fiefs of the French crown in 1080. So they were part of France, but so was Burgundy.

Perplexed

10-29-2006, 16:42

Yes they should. It was a massive distortion in MTW to have England Controlling Aquitane and Anjou in 1087. Those areas come into English control with Henry II in 1134. Toulouse and Provence were fiefs of the French crown in 1080. So they were part of France, but so was Burgundy.

You are quite correct that, technically, these provinces paid homage to the king of France, but in reality France had next to no practical power over these areas in 1080. They were independent states in all but name. You have to remember that Normandy was also 'part of France' at this time, but I'm sure no one here would accept that area being under French control either; it's the same situation with these other provinces you mentioned.

And no, England should not control them either. ~:)

lars573

10-29-2006, 17:08

They were fiefs of the French crown. That means they were part of France. That means the French get them in the game. You have no room to complain about it.

Faenaris

10-29-2006, 17:31

They were fiefs of the French crown. That means they were part of France. That means the French get them in the game. You have no room to complain about it.

Could you post your sources? Also, might I suggest altering your tone a bit? It sounds a bit hostile. I'm sure that wasn't your intention. :)

Perplexed

10-29-2006, 17:34

They were fiefs of the French crown. That means they were part of France. That means the French get them in the game. You have no room to complain about it.

There's no point in getting uppity about it. The fact is that in 1080 the French king only had real power inside his own royal domain, and the fiefs outside that, although they paid formal homage to him, were in almost every other sense independent. Therefore, they should not be under his control.

scourgeofrome

10-29-2006, 18:16

Before everyone starts getting hostile, remember the game still ahs some time to come out.A few changes could happen.Also with the whole frech fief debate, do you guys really want to have a france with 1 starting province.

Zenicetus

10-29-2006, 18:17

The idea of making the countries smaller is so we have rebel settlements to capture instead of going head to head with another faction straight away.
MTW is an alternate history not the exact thing that happened, it would be boring if we couldn't take a settlement if the faction we are playing did not historicaly take it.

Right, it looks to me like this is a map designed for playability and fun, vs. strict historical accuracy, and (speaking only for myself) that's fine by me. Those rebel provinces mess with history a little, but they'll provide opportunities for early expansion, as well as buffer zones against immediate contact with another major faction. It may also have something to do with how the campaign AI is programmed. Maybe the buffer provinces help balance against too-aggressive AI expansion, or something. I assume this map tests well for playability, and that's why it looks the way it does.

scourgeofrome

10-29-2006, 18:20

Also, for the history buff whos nitpicky, just mod the game to your standards

Perplexed

10-29-2006, 18:28

Also, for the history buff whos nitpicky, just mod the game to your standards

Right, it looks to me like this is a map designed for playability and fun, vs. strict historical accuracy, and (speaking only for myself) that's fine by me. Those rebel provinces mess with history a little, but they'll provide opportunities for early expansion, as well as buffer zones against immediate contact with another major faction. It may also have something to do with how the campaign AI is programmed. Maybe the buffer provinces help balance against too-aggressive AI expansion, or something. I assume this map tests well for playability, and that's why it looks the way it does.

Fair enough.

I've never expected that the devs would take any notice of the points I posted above, and even if they did I wouldn't expect them to make any changes at such a late stage in the game development. This is perfectly alright: I'm sure it won't be too difficult to mod in new provinces and replace existing cities. ~:) I just wanted to point out the shortcomings of the map, that's all.

edyzmedieval

10-29-2006, 19:14

For Transilvania, use Bihor - Hungarian comitate founded in 1111.
For Moldavia, use Cetatea Alba or Hotin.
For Wallachia, use Targoviste.

:yes:

Otherwise, nice map.

Ultras DVSC

10-29-2006, 19:32

For Transilvania, use Bihor
She's not even part of it...

Anyway, this map is awful - there remains no more but penetrative modding.

darsalon

10-29-2006, 20:45

Nice one for showing the map, very interesting.

My one complaint with the map is the starting position for the Portuguese where they should have them as an emerging faction? However, I am impressed with the number of provinces in the middle east as that has improved over MTW.

Now it's just a matter of waiting a week and a half to see how it will pan out in the campaign game. I'm sure CA are well aware of those of us who look at the historical accuracy of the whole thing but, they do need to have some sort of balance on the playability side and there may have to be a bit of artificial changing around of things in starting positions. This would help in making sure factions weren't removed out of the game too early and so on I would have thought.

Just a question to ask around as well, is there going to be such a thing as Early, High and I think Late Period selection as there was in MTW and if so, it'll be interesting to see what the starting positions will be for those?

Ars Moriendi

10-29-2006, 20:58

For Wallachia, use Targoviste.

and

For capital of Wallachia, Targoviste would probably be a better option

Yes, Targoviste would be better (Bucharest was irrelevant at the time), but probably not the best option. According to Wikipedia :

"Câmpulung was the first capital of the feudal state of Wallachia, until succeeded by Curtea de Argeş in the 14th century."

Targoviste became capital during the reign of Mircea cel Batran (~1400) which is kind of late for the period of time depicted in the game

ProudNerd

10-29-2006, 21:04

Over at TWC, nodey made a very nice looking map with all the cities and factions of the Grand Campaign. It is based on a beta screenshot ( http://www.g4mers.com/images/previews/shot_71_499.jpg ). The map was enlarged and then refined. From the demo files a list of cities could be extracted ( http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1274765&postcount=17 ) and by researching the net + tips from other fans the cities were placed on the corresponding regions. America is not included though :-P

Enjoy!

(Oh yeah, it's 1080 AD.)

https://img281.imageshack.us/img281/3913/m2tw2ir0.th.jpg (https://img281.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m2tw2ir0.jpg)

If interested, the thread is at: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=66394

He sure used nice colors and fonts for it its extremely clear and pleasant. ill have to print it and hang it near my pc for planing conquests!

Filipe24

10-30-2006, 00:32

Laman

10-30-2006, 07:52

Man there are sure some hard people to please in this forum thats for sure. OK so the map isn't the most historically accurate map in the world. But if you want that play europa universallis or crusader kings. The map has to be accurate but it has to be balanced (Portugal starting with Pamplona for example) so that CA don't get complaints that its too hard to play with some factions and that others are easy etc.. so they have sacrificed some historical accuracy to ensure that all the factions will be competitive and that hopefully no 2 campains will be the same.

Still there are things such as Scania NOT part of Denmark. It wouldn't even have to be it's own province but part of the same province as the rest of Denmark if they have to have one province only, or having Croatia and Serbia in one province. That kind of errors that should have never been made had any basic research been done are the worst. I wish that it was only which province should be had by whom and what cities that it should be would be only thing to complain about (such as France should not have Provence, if any faction should have it it should be HRE, since it didn't become part of France until ~1480 IIRC), but alas it is not.

JR-

10-30-2006, 12:18

does M2 have more Eurasian provinces than were found in the original M?

Perplexed

10-30-2006, 12:26

does M2 have more Eurasian provinces than were found in the original M?

If you mean in the continent of Eurasia then yes.
If you mean in Russia then no.

Wandarah

10-30-2006, 12:26

She's not even part of it...

Anyway, this map is awful - there remains no more but penetrative modding.

Lucky modding! I do hope it isnt the first date.

JR-

10-30-2006, 19:08

If you mean in the continent of Eurasia then yes.

yes i did, is it known what the difference is?

Dr_Who_Regen#4

10-30-2006, 19:51

Tough crowd on the Map...

However, I bet for 98 to 99% of the people who buy M2TW (most of which don't even step foot in a forum like this) the map will be more then fine. Things may not be historically accurate or provinces broken out the way poeple want, but I am hoping it is based on CA trying to strike a good balance and provide different difficulties by faction starting position. Also it gets a bit tedious to have too many provinces to manage so CA has to make a choice on the actual total number. I am sure this impacts things like Croatia and Serbia being in the same province.

Anyways I am looking forward to playing and do not think the map will detract from my game play in any way as it just provides the framework around which we play.

I do actually have 1 question. I think there are going to be land bridges in the game. Anyone know for sure what provinces they will link?

Ituralde

10-31-2006, 11:31

Since I don't know the exact province names I'll just go by the names of their capitals:

Constantinople --> Nicae (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/185/931592_20060705_screen001.jpg)
Naples --> Palermo
Aarhus --> Stockholm (http://www.gamestar.de/imgserver/bdb/1492400/1492413/800x600_2949E57E914941822263E94C04F409B0.jpg)
Edinburgh --> Dublin (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/285/reviews/931592_20061013_screen019.jpg)
That's all I know of for sure.
Could also be one across the Straight of Gibraltar, but I'm not sure about it.

Cheers!

Ituralde

Aracnid

10-31-2006, 11:47

Richard The Tiger Heart

10-31-2006, 12:12

Hi,

The map is not bad, i would like to point out that the lack of two provinces for Portugal really messes the gameplay. There should be two provinces, one north and another south.

South would be Lisbon, for its a very important city. By the way I heared someone say it was conquered by Crusaders. Well thats true, but the portuguese army commanded by Afonso Henriques was there to take it. Thats why there was no Crusader State there, like in the Holy Land or in Thrace.

North, well , Guimarães. It was the capital of the Count of Portucal which later gave the name to the coutry. In fact there should be no Portugal in 1080. There should be Aragon instead, and in other scenarios then there would be Portugal like it happened in MTW with the Russians.

Richard The Tiger Heart

10-31-2006, 12:28

Cant edit my post? Oh well, i wasnt to use the bold command and used the spoil one... too bad...

satchef1

10-31-2006, 13:21

Portugal does have 2, Portugal, and Navarre (:wall:)

Im not really liking the look of vanilla M2, too many daft choices based on things that the general public will recognise (Portugal over Aragon, Milan over Genoa, stupid city names etc.)
Wonder how quickly a proper campaign map and a better faction list can be nocked up? :thumbsdown:

Ituralde

10-31-2006, 13:41

Are you sure about Edinburgh-Dublin I can understand all the others but the Northern End of the Irish Sea is quite stormy and difficult to cross so I would imagine they would require ships to cross, all the others should be land bridges.

Look for yourself:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/285/reviews/931592_20061013_screen019.jpg

The green arrow represents the landbridge. I guess it's just to make the conquest of Ireland faster and give the Scots an easily accessible province.

Cheers!

Ituralde

Redtemplar

10-31-2006, 14:34

Maybe in Med III in middle and east europe there will be more provinces. Not just two for Poland and Hungary (I would suggest 3 or 4 if HRE has so many).

Aracnid

10-31-2006, 18:43

Well it does make the Scots position less dreaful, now they can easily grab 3 regions so that when English turn against them they have a chance, though I reckon they will still get wasted nearly all of the time when its AI vs. AI.

Aracnid

10-31-2006, 18:46

Maybe in Med III in middle and east europe there will be more provinces. Not just two for Poland and Hungary (I would suggest 3 or 4 if HRE has so many).

That will be a while away, based on CA's record we will probably have either STW2 or RTW2, though I hope they go for Reformation/Early Modern/Renaissance Total War (1500-1800).

Edit: Woops double post sorry

Drake

10-31-2006, 19:58

Where's Malta? Or have I missed it?

Small, yes, but an important Med anchorage point that was the site of some serious intense battles and campaigns (Knights of St.John anyone?) For factions like Sicily, Venice, the Moors and Egypt to name a view it would be a very important territory to consider. Even in mordern times like WW2 Malta was a much fought over island.

pyradyn

11-01-2006, 01:11

scourgeofrome

11-01-2006, 01:40

I love history and im in School for History but when it comes to TW I really dont care because its close enough. Also for the history buffs You are so fast to point out whats wrong with the cities in 11th century but what happens if they changed it all and its the 15th century and you have ancient city names and they are no longer historicly accurate. Just a thought

They would complain about that too.I say just deal with it and mod the game if it bothers you so much.

andrewt

11-01-2006, 01:44

Lots of provinces could be separated into 2 cities, but gameplay-wise, the game would suffer if there would be too many cities on the map. It'll take forever to complete one game.

Perplexed

11-01-2006, 18:54

I love history and im in School for History but when it comes to TW I really dont care because its close enough. Also for the history buffs You are so fast to point out whats wrong with the cities in 11th century but what happens if they changed it all and its the 15th century and you have ancient city names and they are no longer historicly accurate. Just a thought

By the time you've reached the end of your campaign history will already have been irrevocably altered as a matter of course, so that sort of accuracy becomes irrelevant. :2thumbsup:

Horatius

11-01-2006, 22:29

Does Constantinople start as city or Castle since it could concievably be both.

Kavhan Isbul

11-01-2006, 23:18

Southern Europe:

- The capital of Bulgaria should be at Turnovo, not Sofia.

I disagree - Turnovo became capital only in 1187, after the leaders fo the Rebellion from 1185 failed to capture Preslav, the capital of the former Bulgarian State (it was Ohrid in Macedonia just before the Byzantine conquest, actually, but that was because Preslav was in Byzabntine hands with no chance of being retaken). Therefore, I do not think Turnovo would be historically accurate. I do not think that the choice of Sofia was a poor decision, as it was an extremely important fortress during the Middle Ages, even if not the official capital of Bulgaria. However, it should have been called with its period appropriate name - Serdika. I think a much greater inaccuracy is having Bulgaria as a rebel province - as much as I wish this was true, in 1080 Bulgaria was firmly in the Eastern Roman Empire, with the last major rebellion defeated a few years earlier and not another to come in almost a century.
I for one, am sceptical about the inclusion of so many rebel provinces on the game and its results on gameplay, but let's wait and see.

Scipio Africano

11-02-2006, 22:24

I for one, am sceptical about the inclusion of so many rebel provinces on the game and its results on gameplay, but let's wait and see.

I see them more as small 'independent' city states rather than rebels. If every one was a full faction there would be major chaos. They act as early buffers for expansion, imagine playing as French and being surrounded from Turn 1 by Catholic factions.

Anyone had the patience to count the amount of provinces?
Obviously appears to be less than RTW. Probably a good thing.

alpaca

11-03-2006, 15:35

Phalaxar

11-03-2006, 22:28

Still there are things such as Scania NOT part of Denmark. It wouldn't even have to be it's own province but part of the same province as the rest of Denmark if they have to have one province only, or having Croatia and Serbia in one province. That kind of errors that should have never been made had any basic research been done are the worst. I wish that it was only which province should be had by whom and what cities that it should be would be only thing to complain about (such as France should not have Provence, if any faction should have it it should be HRE, since it didn't become part of France until ~1480 IIRC), but alas it is not.

That's nice and such, but you missed the point of the guy you were quoting/replying to. He said that they were probably conscious choices made by CA to improve gameplay; you replied, "hey, look, they made these basic errors!".

Yes, there are historical errors, but as he was saying, they were most likely purposely put there to enhance gameplay.

No amount of pointing out flawed historical accuracy will change that.:smash:

Kavhan Isbul

11-04-2006, 00:14

I do not have any problem with total chaos whatsoever - after all, the period was characterized by it, wasn't it? I know the game is not about repeating exactly what happened in history, but with all these rebels I am getting the feeling that a good player might be able to win the game by 1200, simply bribing like crazy. One of the worst parts about MTW/VI was the rebel East - fighting weak rebels is great when you try to learn how to play the game, but it gets boring pretty quickly.

Laman

11-04-2006, 08:19

That's nice and such, but you missed the point of the guy you were quoting/replying to. He said that they were probably conscious choices made by CA to improve gameplay; you replied, "hey, look, they made these basic errors!".

Yes, there are historical errors, but as he was saying, they were most likely purposely put there to enhance gameplay.

No amount of pointing out flawed historical accuracy will change that.:smash:

Although they won't "enhance gameplay". What they do is kill whatever immersion this game could have had. With the Scania example it is something that doesn't even necessarily mean a new province! One might as well rename Novgorod to the Soviet Union to "enhance gameplay", or give the Mongols machine guns or the Papal States Roman Legionaries, it is essentialy the same thing (that is stupid things that shouldn't be that way).

Ferret

11-04-2006, 21:42

Has anyone noticed the mistakes in that map:
Bologna should belong to HRE
Nicosia should belong to the Byzantine Empire
Iraklion should belong to Venice
and not all of the Thesalonika region is shaded in (the island to the East)

I know this because of the screenshots the swedish guy posted.

Burakius

11-05-2006, 09:53

so weird that there is no malta... but palma is there :S... malta was even more important back then:S

Phalaxar

11-05-2006, 13:05

Although they won't "enhance gameplay". What they do is kill whatever immersion this game could have had. With the Scania example it is something that doesn't even necessarily mean a new province! One might as well rename Novgorod to the Soviet Union to "enhance gameplay", or give the Mongols machine guns or the Papal States Roman Legionaries, it is essentialy the same thing (that is stupid things that shouldn't be that way).

No, that's not the same thing. Changing who owns what province, what town is called what where etc. is to change minor details around so that they are historically inaccurate but make for a more fun game. Calling Novgorod Soviet Union doesn't make it any more fun. Mongols with machine guns would completely change the game mechanic, not just change a minor detail. That really does matter a lot to the outcome of the game, while a province here or there doesn't matter anywhere near as much. And again, Papal States with legionaries - how does that make it more fun at all?

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The immersion for me, in this game, is not in the fact that the starting map is exactly that what I thought it would be.

Furious Mental

11-05-2006, 13:16

Amazing though it may sound when I boot the game up and see that Scania, wherever that is, is not part of Denmark, I will not punch my monitor in frustration and then die of disappointment.

satchef1

11-05-2006, 14:09

imagine playing as French and being surrounded from Turn 1 by Catholic factions.

This is supposed to be the beauty of playing the french though. You have to fight off the English and HRE whilst Crusading against the infidels to secure more land!
Some Rome mods started off with this sort of campaign map and all were dull. All that happens is 2 or 3 factions grab most of the rebel provinces on the map and dominate for the rest of the game. :wall:

Phalaxar

11-05-2006, 14:53

FM, we'll miss ya.

This is supposed to be the beauty of playing the french though. You have to fight off the English and HRE whilst Crusading against the infidels to secure more land!
Some Rome mods started off with this sort of campaign map and all were dull. All that happens is 2 or 3 factions grab most of the rebel provinces on the map and dominate for the rest of the game. :wall:

So you're asking for a game where only a few factions have a real chance, and the rest you can play if you like your empire inevitably crumbling before you?
And then you complain that in this sort of game a few factions dominate.
Which is it?

Miloshus

11-05-2006, 17:50

Map is one big dissapointment
Half of the map are the rebels, why the hell are they rioting if they have their own countries.
What happened to other medieval kingdoms (Ireland,Serbia,Romania,Bulgaria,...).

We are lucky that we have mods.

Zenicetus

11-05-2006, 18:24

Map is one big dissapointment
Half of the map are the rebels, why the hell are they rioting if they have their own countries.

"Rebel" in this starting context doesn't mean the same thing it means later in the game, when you lose control of a city/province. It's just a way to provide buffer areas for separation and expansion, with a generic faction that doesn't try to expand and conquer.

These buffer zones really don't bother me, but that's just one person's opinion. What I see as the main advantage is that a player might have more possible options at the start of the game, instead of being thrown into immediate conflict with a major faction, or being railroaded into just one direction of expansion.

There may be other reasons for the rebel provinces that aren't immediately obvious. Maybe the AI just works better with these buffer zones, and we'll see more randomized and different conquest outcomes when re-playing the game (which would be good), instead of locking everything in at the start. I think we can assume this campaign map is the result of some fairly heavy play-testing.

What happened to other medieval kingdoms (Ireland,Serbia,Romania,Bulgaria,...).

The total number of named factions -- ones that can be played or unlocked, with expansionist goals and unique units, as opposed to generic "rebel" provinces -- has to be limited, or the game would take forever to finish. I want to play this thing now, not a year or two from now. Sure, I'd like to see every single province have its own faction AI, unique graphics and unique units, but that's just not practical.

What we get is CA's idea of the most prominent factions at that time, or the ones that they think offer the best contrast and matchups, and would be the most fun to play. For some people... me, at least... that's better than strict historical accuracy and completeness. They do have to sell this game to people other than history buffs.

We are lucky that we have mods.

Indeed, and I'm sure one of the first efforts will be to make a more accurate map, although it may not please a majority of players if it isn't as open-ended and playable as the official map is (we hope).

Ferret

11-05-2006, 21:30

Indeed, without these 'rebel' factions we could end up being excommunicated on turn one for hostility towards fellow chatholics. The rebels are also a great way to train armies/generals and quickly nab more land. Like Zenicitus said they also provide the availibility of different outcomes each time you play, surely this is good.

Laman

11-06-2006, 07:58

No, that's not the same thing. Changing who owns what province, what town is called what where etc. is to change minor details around so that they are historically inaccurate but make for a more fun game. Calling Novgorod Soviet Union doesn't make it any more fun. Mongols with machine guns would completely change the game mechanic, not just change a minor detail. That really does matter a lot to the outcome of the game, while a province here or there doesn't matter anywhere near as much. And again, Papal States with legionaries - how does that make it more fun at all?

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The immersion for me, in this game, is not in the fact that the starting map is exactly that what I thought it would be.

What I was complaining about was not who own's which province (since that is easily modded if one wants to) but the actual provinces which are an insult. I mean all they did was use the bad map from MTW and made it RTW style. There are some changes in provinces, but not large enough (and in the case of Serbia and Croatia the changes are actually much worse, having them in the same province makes no sense, it would make more sense to have all of France in a single province (and noone sensible wants that)). So these things are the same, moronic things without any sensible justification, but those things I wrote are actually preferable IMHO to the current map since they are atleast easily modded (that is only a text editor will be needed).

Amazing though it may sound when I boot the game up and see that Scania, wherever that is, is not part of Denmark, I will not punch my monitor in frustration and then die of disappointment.

Well Scania (together with Blekinge and Halland) was an integral part of Denmark throughout the middle ages. Nowadays it is just the southern part of Sweden but that is just because we conquered it in the 17th century.

Kavhan Isbul

11-06-2006, 19:24

The rebels are great if you want to build an empire in five turns (or even less). Just bribe one or two, conquer another one or two and there you go, you already are the biggest faction. If all you want is a quick victory, then there is nothing greater than plenty of rebels.
However, if you want a decent and realistic challenge, having more and bigger factions at the start of the game is key. In MTW in all the mods that had more factions and less rebels, the game was better balanced - it was harder to expand both for the AI and the human, and overall it took longer for superpowers to develop. Even in the vanilla version there were less rebels, than what seems to be the case in M2TW. And looking at the mods, noone seem to want more rebels, on the contrary, there was much improvement by adding more factions and improving the game's toughness and realism.
I do not mind rebels, but a only in a few provinces, which were not under the control of a ruler or a state. Valencia with El Cid might be a good example, and so are some of the Baltic lands. But to have York and Prague as rebel is ridiculous.

johhny-turbo

11-07-2006, 04:50

Why? EU2 has a lot more factions than MTW2 and it didn't end in major chaos. The problem is that the factions wouldn't be very diverse (a lot of them would share the same units for example), but I'd rather have 100 factions than 21...
I don't think that many factions will work in a turnbased game.
Anyone know the inbuilt mod that came with the Civ 3 Play the World Expansion that came with a huge amount of factions from Israel to the Malay to the Sokoto Caliphate? The turns were so long because of it was unplayable. EU2 worked because it was done in real time.

Laman

11-07-2006, 07:50

I don't think that many factions will work in a turnbased game.
Anyone know the inbuilt mod that came with the Civ 3 Play the World Expansion that came with a huge amount of factions from Israel to the Malay to the Sokoto Caliphate? The turns were so long because of it was unplayable. EU2 worked because it was done in real time.

OTOH we have Spartan. Turnbased and lots of factions and the ai-turns were very quick, and the strategy part of Total War are more similar to Spartan then Civ 3 so it could theoretically be done (many factions that is). However do be aware that the similiarities are on the surface, not necessarily in the actual code.

Phalaxar

11-07-2006, 08:26

What I was complaining about was not who own's which province (since that is easily modded if one wants to) but the actual provinces which are an insult. I mean all they did was use the bad map from MTW and made it RTW style. There are some changes in provinces, but not large enough (and in the case of Serbia and Croatia the changes are actually much worse, having them in the same province makes no sense, it would make more sense to have all of France in a single province (and noone sensible wants that)). So these things are the same, moronic things without any sensible justification, but those things I wrote are actually preferable IMHO to the current map since they are atleast easily modded (that is only a text editor will be needed).

Well Scania (together with Blekinge and Halland) was an integral part of Denmark throughout the middle ages. Nowadays it is just the southern part of Sweden but that is just because we conquered it in the 17th century.

You say that there's no actual reason/no sensible justification, but you're wrong.

It doesn't matter if CA don't defend every decision they make, if they don't justify every detail like the map. Just because they havne't doesn't mean they can't.

Purely speculating on my part, I'm willing to bet that the decision was made every time in the interests of gameplay. Stop attacking them for every little decision they make and realise that they aren't out to ruin the game, aren't out to confuse the general populace on important historical issues, but are just trying to make a fun game. Whether you think this incarnation is fun or not is, of course, irrelevant.

Kavhan Isbul

11-07-2006, 19:55

Phalaxar, you seem to live the role of a CA defender, which is completely unnecessary, as this is far from a CA bashing thread. I cannot understand why you need to feel so offended, when people point out the obvious mistakes CA made in naming cities to the East. For the most part, they simply chose whatever city is an important one today, and simply did not do their research. I do not see how putting cities in, which did not exist or were small insignificants settlements in 1080 makes the game more fun. I like the game because it allows me to recreate the Middle Ages to an extent, and anything that takes away from the realism diminishes the enjoyment, at least for me. For all practical purposes, lumping Croatia and Serbia together and putting in Helsinki and Bucharest would be the same as simply replacing Novgorod with St. Petersburg. It is simply out of context.
Cities names and provinces are small details, true. But they are very noticeable ones, as you stare at them on the strategic map, and correcting them should be extremely easy. Having proper names may not exactly enhance gameplay, but it will most deffinitely enhance the overall enjoyment from the game for most people.