In the M2TW kingdoms, in the amercas campaign the was a black shroud covering the unknown parts of the map.
I'm wondering if it will be used in EB2 to represent the lands unknown to the faction?
Printable View
In the M2TW kingdoms, in the amercas campaign the was a black shroud covering the unknown parts of the map.
I'm wondering if it will be used in EB2 to represent the lands unknown to the faction?
Don't think there is any point. Most of the peoples knew roughly how the map was.
The Gauls knew where India was?Quote:
Originally Posted by Krusader
They should know it because their Druids often drink tea together with Indian Yogis in the astral plane...Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Seconded. I myself have flown high into the air using similar techniques. Lovin' the "tea."Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
You haven't read Asterix and the magic carpet !Quote:
The Gauls knew where India was?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ixcover-28.jpg
Welcome to the org! :smiley:
I think what they meant to say is that making the map black would add little to the game, only being extra work to do. In EB I already the factions know the place of several cities of the map, depending of which areas they knew about (the greeks for example know about most of their old mediterranean colonies). I think it was quite well done, because for the ai it doesn´t matter (the ai is all knowing), but for the player he has to explore a bit to see where the cities are placed, but the rough shape of the map is already there present. Imho having the map blacked out would be hardly a needed feature, adding very litle to the game. Anyway i suppose it could be added later as a submod or in a later release, i understand it sort of makes sense (for example, as carthage exploring the british isles) but it hardly something that improves the game much.
I don't think that this is bad idea if we see it through Hellenic or Roman eyes. Some of their geographic knowledge is documented.
However, how would we guess what was the world view in 272BC for the Sauromatae, Casse, Saba, Saka, Boii, Sweboz, etc? It would be a very arbitrary decision.
a bit of blackmap far away from the starting position would be quite nice (as mentioned british isles blacked out(or just the southern coastline visible) for most factions) and India obscured for many others. what would be fun aswell: factions with rich trade could have the map "discovered" along great trade routes, whereas the most of the area would still be black so you have rough guidlines where to go but are always exposed to unpleasant supprises along the way. this would make spies even more valuable.
still It's not as important as many other things that are part of EB2 If I were to compile the schedule I would give this a VERY low Priority somewhere with the boii voicemod ;)
Small problem, you can't set it for individual factions, only for the map as a whole, this makes it pretty useless except for maybe to cover the Eremos region.
Yeah, I think bobbin's the only one who seems the real issue here. As I understand it, the feature that hid the America's in vanilla M2TW made them completely invisible and inaccessible to all factions, until a certain event lifts the veil. So, it really wouldn't have any use at all in EB2.
Useless.
I thought this was about the standard RTS blackmap from Kingdoms rather than the "new world"-expanding map in M2TW which (without non-playable Factions) is totally useless likewise any universal blackmap.
Nice and friendly today? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
I dont think it is a bad idea, but its impossible, because we dont know much about antic maps, esspecially about the barbarians and there knowledge of the world.
I like that... maybe all will start black except some trade routes and the seashore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca Putt
I am nice and friendly, every day, but I don't like to use many words unless necessary. I'm saddened to hear that the shrouded map is a universal aspect (i.e. part of every faction) and not on a per-faction basis. It is this exact universal aspect of this "darkness", if you will, that makes it so unappealing. The Americas being darkened makes sense. But 272BC, what would you darken? I think that is one question with one too many answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
Are you referring to your own post? As it is neither constructive, nor clear whether you are referring to the original suggestion or the objections.
I guess this needs clarification, as some don't really knew which m2tw feature the op is talking about.
[spoiler]https://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1517/0010y.jpg[/spoil]
As you can see, in the americas campaign, the usual slightly greyed out but still visible parts of the map that you never see, it's black instead. And like the usual map shroud, you can make a different "map" for every faction. I think this is a great feature, btw.
I think it's a nice idea, you could just 'blacken' the same parts on the big campaign map that were hidden on the minimap in EB I for the factions.
A black fog to the style of the "Americas" campaign would be rather cool and realistic imho. I've always thought it was silly how the entire map was revealed from the start for all factions.
It's confusing though. The fog of war in Rome:Total War would still show geography and topology, but you wouldn't be able to see provinces and armies. The darkness in M2TW, whatever it's called technically (I do not know), was a complete blackness. It did not even show the landscape, etc. Certainly the individual starting maps (which province locations are known) can be individualized for factions, but the darkness, if I follow correctly, cannot be individualized. If this is true, then it's quite unfortunate. Nonetheless, the fog of war in RTW is not bad at all, the landscape isn't that beneficial a piece of knowledge anyway, since you still do not see enemy units.
Wow, I feel like a moron. Didn't even realize there was such a shroud feature in the Americas campaign for Kingdoms. I thought the original poster was referring to the time-based event that allows factions to see and travel to the western hemisphere in the grand campaign. :embarassed: I actually never played the Americas campaign even though I have Kingdoms; just doesn't appeal to me.
Anyway, now that I understand what is being suggested, I kind of like it, but can't really see any utility in it. I mean, everyone who plays this mod will almost certainly already have a very good mental image of the entire campaign map, so it's not like there would be any real "discovery" taking place. Just a lot less to see for the first several turns before your spy has wandered everywhere, even though you pretty well know what's there already. I wouldn't want any time or resources spent implementing it, at least.
Well that's not too difficult. Where did these people live traces, who did they trade with,... Take Saba (as that's the one I know best) we know with who they traded and where they went. We know that south arabians have been in Egypt (the ma'in left a lot of traces there and even a temple), we also even have an inscription at Delos. We can be quite sure they know about India due to their intense seatrade, we aso know they'd must at least have a general idea of Arabia (except for the driest desert places parts) due to the incense routes. A minaean inscription speak Sidon. The minaeans being the close neighbours and not the exclusive south arabian traders, and the sabaean information on it's own we could say they knew egypt, the levant, ethiopia and arabia very well. They'd have a decent amount of knowledge of the Indian coast and would at least know the bigger trading settlements from greece and turkey.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosMaximilian
Sorry bro, I think you're still confusing the grand campaign black curtain over america with the black fog of war specificaly in the America campaign. In Americas, All factions do have a unique starting map with areas that they know of, not only provinces that they own. The rest of the map, is blacked out until you travel there. The black fow will dissappear where you go and become the usual "You can see the terrain but nothing else" fow.Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
The Mayas, in the picture I posted earlier, have knowledge of three cities outside their control right from start, without the player ever been there. The Spanish is the only faction that only have map information on their own lands.
Instead of that goodol'ancient sattelite map of europe, you would get a rough outlining of your surroundings. I think this would be good for immersion.
Thanks for clarification Smeel. That's funny: clarification. Haha! Anyway, thanks. It sure clears things up!
Too bad RTW didn't have that feature.
Ok, I get your point on the Saba, maybe they had some knowledge on Persia too. But, what about the Saka? Or the Sauromatae? How much do we know about their knowledge of the world? Did they have knowledge of the steppes from the Yuezhi homeland to the Great Hungarian Plains? How far south their knowledge should go? Steppe confederations raided Babylon, Baktria, the Caucasus, Anatolia and the Crimean peninsula in different periods, but was the knowledge of those regions transmited through generations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
The Germanic faction(s) represent a similar problem. Should their knowledge of the world be represented from the Baltic up to Belgium and from Scandinavia all the way to the Bastarnae lands?
What about the Celts? They are everywhere on the map, but I doubt that Galatians in Anatolia would've transmitted their geographic knowledge to the tribes living in Britain.
They are actually the same thing, both come from the map_fog file, in the american campaign the cities are revealed via the script so you get a faction specific "map" of sorts, its kind of similar to what was in EB except there spies were spawned and then killed at the start to reveal aras of the map.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smeel
If it were to be incorparated into EBII I imagine something similar could be done.
My personal knowledge of the steppe people is way to small to give you the awnsers. But I'm sure our steppe historians can work that out in a similar way as I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikosMaximilian
That is for our german historians to decide, if we are to use this function.Quote:
The Germanic faction(s) represent a similar problem. Should their knowledge of the world be represented from the Baltic up to Belgium and from Scandinavia all the way to the Bastarnae lands?
I doubt that too as there was no relation between the people living in modern day Brittain and the Galatians. I'm no celt historian but some knowledge may have been shared between the galatians and some 'brother tribes' back at home, not sure. Either way the celts were far traveling mercenaries as well so I think they'd knew more than just France and central Europe.Quote:
What about the Celts? They are everywhere on the map, but I doubt that Galatians in Anatolia would've transmitted their geographic knowledge to the tribes living in Britain.
No. I doubt that antic people really knew where other countries were. Look at the greek understanding of the world an the earliest map we have. Impossible for someone to have an overview like in Total war^^. The system is incredible unrealistic so I wouldnt bother trying to improve it unless it is for gameplay reasons.
They might have had difficulties representing the such large scale maps. However they knew enough to get there didn't they? The accuracy of the map of ptolemy isn't that far off especially most of the regions featured in our map. The biggest problem with it relative size comparisons of regions, bays, landmasses,... And it only looks more inaccurate because the maps we tend to use the most don't give an accurate image on relative sizes either.
True, an accurate representation of an area isn't necessary for many purposes (including travelling). Knowing where roads or rivers lead to, having at least some villagers (or banditing allies) to talk to,... could just as well bring an army to it's destiny. And then there is of course trade (think about the amber route, or depictions on ceramics found in Belgium that very strongly resembled Greek ceramic patterns). Trade may not imply direct contact (as massed migrations suggest), but at least it offers those who buy the end-goods the (possibly severly disformed) stories of the merchants or other intermediataries.
Funny, I always thought the ancients had relatively good maps of their surroundings.Quote:
Originally Posted by seienchin
The world according to Hekatæus, 500 BCE:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The world according to Herodotus, 440 BCE:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Reconstruction of the Orbis Terrarum, 20CE:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Reconstruction of the world map according to Dionysius, 124CE:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Ptolemy's world map, 2nd century CE (after EB time period, but not that much tbh):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Of course, tribal societies would probably have a lesser understanding of the geography of the world, but for example, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for a Gallic tribe to roughly know the general landscape in Gaul, the location of the Pyrenées, the South(-East)ern portions of Britain, the Alps and Northern Italy and even possibly southern Germany (the "Hallstatt" region). They were ardent traders after all, and the Helvetii for example planned to migrate from the Swiss plateau across Gaul to the Atlantic coast.
I don't think the unlifted fog of war translates as comprehensive knowledge about the location of every little stream, rock or cops of woods in that particular area/province, but rather a general knowledge or familiarity with the landscape. Thus, I don't think it would be unrealistic for nations and tribes to have knowledge about "their" lands, the lands surrounding theirs (especially if not divided by, say, a mountain range or some other natural barrier) and the lands of their traditional allies, foes and trade partners. For me, the need for exploration would create immersion in the gameplay, as opposed to the current state where all nations have discovered all there is to know about the geography of the world.
Very true, but please spoil the images, they're quite bigQuote:
Originally Posted by The General
~Jirisys (pretending to be a mod, AGAIN!)
Funny thing to say after quoting the entire thread, images and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by jirisys
Seconded. The images are simply hotlinked as far as I can tell, and spoiling them unfortunately doesn't do any good, except for collapsing the individual post. The images still load in the background, and not only when you click on the spoiler.Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
Yes but you don't get the hateful pushing up of the page if you spoil them, it's not the loading as much the problem, i hate thatQuote:
Originally Posted by vartan
~Jirisys (i don't know what to put in here)
Eep, my bad, fixed now.
Very good point raised by the OP. The shroud is an available tool worth investigating.
I wonder does the shroud influence AI expansion? Do AI factions strike out for cities they can see ahead of cities they cannot? Does a faction surrounded by shroud expand slower than one which is not?
If so this could be a uselful tool to channel the Saka into India, the Sauromatae into the Caucasus.
Maybe it could be used to keep some factions quiet early on while they feel their way in the dark (eg Sweboz, Casse, Getai somewhat hemmed in) while others hit the ground (or their neighbours) running (Romani and Carthage close to the brink at game start, AS and Ptolemaioi ready to go too).
If certain minor powers were "off radar" to their bulky neighbours they might avoid some unpleasantness, not so much when they are AI as when they are human controlled (eg early game human Hayasdan vs the relentless AI AS spamstacks)
While it is desirable to give factions historical levels of geographic knowledge, the "scripting" or narrative driving potential of this tool has me more intrigued.