Multiplayer maps: prefix labelling, terrain

I'm putting together the beta_8 version of the mod atm. We'll be using the old Shogun textures for all maps of this mod. This means that we'll have original maps only, all MTW maps will be deleted from the game. Maps that are in the popular MultiplayerMappack don't cause crashes but look ugly when played on LUSH or TEMPERATE. They can only be played on the textures we didn't change, ARID and DESERT. Therefore they won't be included.
Instead our mod will feature a number of SP maps for the campaign including castle maps and a selection of popular maps from Shogun, like 4th Kawanakajima (small size).
For Multiplayer we'll include a small selection of retextured popular maps like Mizulands or Realm and new original ones.
So far, MP maps had a prefix that sorted the maps into certain groups:
(fl) for flat large, (ml) for mountain large or (hl) for hilly large etc.

I assume that every map created for MP will be a large one, because we play mostly 2v2 and above. Therefore the designation "l" for large can be obmitted.

Then we have maps like Armenia that are labelled "ml" but are actually rather flat.

So, my question is, what kind of system should we use to label the maps?
What kind of maps in regard to size and terrain do we want to play?
It's my understanding that ragged terrain is appreciated and preferred over totally flat, like steppe. Too high heights aren't good because of the huge advantage ranged troops gain.......
Please post your opinions.

:bow:
R'as

Another thing, retexturing an existing map from the Multiplayer Mappack is not that much work. I suggest we collect opinions on which maps should be retextured and I'll tackle them one at a time until we have all we want.
Making new ones is more fun, though.

Hello R'as al Ghul,

ml stands for misc large. As there proved to be maps that fit neither category of castle, flat or hilly.

Each terrain has cons and pros. A totally flat map with a tiny bump in the middle can give interesting games. A map like Rugged, while not being everyones favourite, can. There is no best type of map, but one that may have a good chance of being played again and again is free of bugs, not unpleasantly textured and offers various terraintypes: some woods to hide monks, a small ridge for guns, a plain to unleash cavalry, maybe a hole to lure the enemy in.

It's not a big deal, but I prefer the two letter designator to be a suffix with no parenthesis. More of the actual map name will show in the hosted game listing, and players can, if they want, keep all the maps they create together in the listing by using a personal designator prefix. In any case, I think the parenthesis are unnecessary whether the designator is a prefix or suffix.

Maps with no designator are all small maps from STW. I retextured three large maps, Horselands, River Crossing (rivers removed) and Sacred Ground, which Obake made for WE/MI, and gave them the suffix 'fl'.

I agree about the suffix.
I think it'd be nice to have: mapname-terrain suffix-personal suffix.
That way all map names should be readable.

Concerning the personal suffix I plan on having an extensive readme documentation (pdf?) where such things could be listed. Map creators should get credit but I see no use in having, for lack of a better example, "O" for Orda. Either you know it's by Orda anyway or you don't and then the "O" isn't helping you any. I suggest that we get rid of personal prefixes/suffixes.
Tomi once suggested to have more telling names but we also have to think of the limited displayable space. (how many characters of the mapname is the lobby showing?) I think placenames like Tokaido or Anegawa (my maps) are short, memorable and fit the theme of the game.

Just thinking out loud......

Red Field of Patay showed in full.

My idea was to give a descriptive name that would instantly give a mental picture of the most outstanding characteristic of the map.

But that’s harder to do than it sounds.

Any “real” name will do (please no numbered maps).

They will be learned :yes:

For example, if I say Totomi, I bet you can see it in you mind :wink:

For me the suffix like (fl) are helpful and easy to know. But real names are quite more interesting than numbers like flatinland_01 etc.

I would prefer a mix of it. At first the name should express for how many armies the map is used to be, then some information about the terrain and at last a name of the map.

For example:

(8f)Fields_of_Agincourt: You see its for 8 players, its almost flat and "fields" causes an impression of the terrain, and the name Agincourt makes it easy to remember it.

R'as has correctly pointed out that all we have are large and small maps, and a single non-alphanumeric prefix would be enough to separate the large from the small in the list. The terrain type could be designated by the map's name, by an optional suffix or carry no designation as is the case with the original STW maps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

R'as has correctly pointed out that all we have are large and small maps, and a single non-alphanumeric prefix would be enough to separate the large from the small in the list. The terrain type could be designated by the map's name, by an optional suffix or carry no designation as is the case with the original STW maps.

---

Yuuki and I've discussed this pretty extensively and this is the result:
1. The two different groups of maps, SP and MP, will be seperated in the list of selectable maps simply by saving them in different locations. (/savemaps and /Battle/Maps)
The effect is that the MP maps are listed first and visually seperated by a slightly darker font. They form the first block.
The second block consists of all smaller maps, SP custom maps and campaign battle maps like flatinland_etc.

2. Within the large MP maps, we'd like to leave out any prefixes or suffixes to give the mapname the most space. However that doesn't mean we prohibit anything.
A mapmaker may choose to include a prefix to keep all his maps together in the list. In that case, please use an underscore "_" to seperate your author prefix from the mapname. Example: "O_Mizulands 01" (O=OrdaKhan) Btw, we try to get away from using numbers.

3. Concerning the terrain, we don't see a real need for a designator in the name. We expect a certain quality and fairness when it comes to maps that we include into our mod. Official map updates will always be approved by us to ensure that.
What do we mean by quality and fairness?
That's certainly subjective and not easy to define, but as a rule the maps shouldn't favor either side of the players. Defenders' and attackers' sides should be treated equally by map creators. Keep in mind that we play without designated attacker and defender roles in MP. Maps should reflect the Taishos' intention to choose a suitable terrain for huge armies to meet. (We can hardly fight a 4vs4 in a mountainous all forest map) 4th Kawanakajima is a nice example for this which most players should know, it's only missing wooded areas to hide units in. (It's included in beta_7 and 8 and in original STW)
I hope this isn't too blurry. :beam:

R'as

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

Yuuki and I've discussed this pretty extensively and this is the result:
1. The two different groups of maps, SP and MP, will be seperated in the list of selectable maps simply by saving them in different locations. (/savemaps and /Battle/Maps)

---

My understanding is that large maps will go in /Savemaps and small maps in /Battle/Maps. All maps are available for use in MP, but the small maps are only recommended for 1v1 or 2v2 since the usable playing area is smaller than it was in stw.

The /Battle/Maps folder should contain all of the original STW province maps under their original names and duplicates renamed into the MTW naming convention for use in the SP campaign, 16 castle maps derived from the original STW castle maps renamed for use in the SP campaign and many small custom maps created by various players for original STW.

An outstanding job gentlemen, I really mean that :bow:

This will be the greatest mod ever!


Please let me intervene here for a moment, because of something that was mentioned above.

Quote:

---

Keep in mind that we play without designated attacker and defender roles in MP.

---

I am a strong advocate against attacker/defender designations, considering it a major flaw in Total War multiplayer conventions. I wish they would have just called them the armys of the North and South, or something.

But anyway. In a discussion about this, a Clan m8 of mine brought up the range advantage of the armies in the South. And although this “fractured feature” may not pose and significant imbalance, I had forgotten the details and wanted to ask you guys for a refresher. Can you help with the spec on this please?

Thanks in advance :smile:

P.S. I would like to suggest that in order to avoid any confusion, and to help to build a strong Samurai Wars community, that this current forum be archived (but still available for reference), and a fresh one started. The problem is all of the previous versions, revisions, instructions, contests, links, etc. could lead someone astray, or cause them to assume that it would be to complicated to try and install. Thinking that we want the only challenges to playing this fantastic mod to be on the battlefield, and not in trying to get there. Please consider this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomisama

I am a strong advocate against attacker/defender designations, considering it a major flaw in Total War multiplayer conventions. I wish they would have just called them the armys of the North and South, or something.

---

Somebody has to attack or else there is no battle. The attacker chooses the weather, and in STW this was important because of the effect it had on ranged weapons. It's less of a tactical advantage for the attacker in MTW because the weather is mostly random making it impossible to tailor an army to an expected weather condition. To some extent the dynamic playbalance between attacking and defending, which declined in MTW, has been restored in Samurai Wars by returning to the stronger RPS gameplay of the original game, selecting an overall morale level which provides a balance between positional and attritional gameplay when utilizing individual units or combinations of units and a return of the deep back kills of guns which puts close packed, static formations of units at a disadvantage. Ideally, these tactics can be utilized to overcome significant terrain disadvantages, and thus allow a greater variety of maps to be used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomisama

But anyway. In a discussion about this, a Clan m8 of mine brought up the range advantage of the armies in the South. And although this “fractured feature” may not pose and significant imbalance, I had forgotten the details and wanted to ask you guys for a refresher. Can you help with the spec on this please?

---

Archers and xbows are 20% more effective when shooting from the south towards the north.

Quote:

---

Somebody has to attack or else there is no battle.

---

Everyone who comes to play multiplayer is looking to win. You put opposing players on a map, and they will eventually fight for that honour. That is self evident, that’s why they came! Assigned attacker/defender roles to instigate multiplayer battle are unnecessary, and can limit peoples thinking, and there by their choice of armys, and their gameplay as they try to fulfill these imaginary designations.

I always dread to see the chat “are we the attackers (or defenders)?”, and always try to answer “no, we are the winners!”. Or worse, “you must attack us, you are the attackers”, always shouted from atop an impenetrable camp site. To the later I have no answer :shame:

Quote:

---

Archers and xbows are 20% more effective when shooting from the south towards the north.

---

Ok, thanks. Just to be clear, if the southern army is forced to shoot to either east or west against a flanking enemy, does increased percentage still hold?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomisama

Everyone who comes to play multiplayer is looking to win. You put opposing players on a map, and they will eventually fight for that honour. That is self evident, that’s why they came! Assigned attacker/defender roles to instigate multiplayer battle are unnecessary, and can limit peoples thinking, and there by their choice of armys, and their gameplay as they try to fulfill these imaginary designations.

---

"Know your enemy - Sun Tzu"

Some players have a defensive or counterattacking style if you will, and it doesn't matter if they are designated defender or attacker. Also, it's bad tactics to give up advantageous terrain unless you have a compensating advantage. If you're playing to win, you shouldn't give up advantages. The idea is to accumulate advantages.

I think the problem is a map design issue. Maps should be carefully designed so that both sides have winning chances. If a map gives the defender a significant terrain advantage, it should be handicapped by giving the defender less money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomisama

Ok, thanks. Just to be clear, if the southern army is forced to shoot to either east or west against a flanking enemy, does increased percentage still hold?

---

No advantage. CBR and I tested this carefully.