Physical map problem

OK, first of all, this is a tiny bit pedantic.

Second of all, I know my criticism is based on Mundus Magnus. I havent seen your new updated maps, but this is a question not about faction setup or city placement or anything, which I imagine is the stuff you'll be changing.
This is about the shape of the map.

I had a few images to illustrate this, but it turns out I'm not allowed to post attachments for some reason, so whatever.

Look at the shape of the map here:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=49152

note that iberia is way further west than Ireland in the west and that the lake in the very very northeast of the map (ozero balkhash) is a lot further north than the Aral or Caspian seas and that the long thin bit of the lake is pointing north-east.

http://www.geography.uc.edu/~weisner.../eurasia-1.gif

Now look at this map (its not the most authoritative I know, but it was the best I could find to show the area of the map I wanted, If you look in an atlas you'll see the same thing)

You'll note in this map that Ireland is actually further west than Iberia. This implies that the game map has been tilted significantly in a clockwise direction. Thats fine.

HOWEVER, if you look at the lakes and seas in central asia I pointed out earlier, you'll see that they're all roughly in a straight line, demonstrating that in the east the map has been tilted in an ANTICLOCKWISE direction.

Now, you might not think this tilt is very serious, but let me give you an example that surprise you. The Most northern part of the black sea in real life is slightly further north than the most northern part of the caspian sea. Now look at the game map again.

EDIT: and for that matter, that lake in the very northeastern corner of the map? is should be no further north than the black sea either. Its quite a serious tilt.

I understand that the Mundus Magnus map was not an entirely new map and that it simply expanded on the original map, and therefore the strange geography is merely the result of CA trying to squeeze as much land and as little sea as possible into their map, but personally I think it would be nice to have an accurate map in RTW

well you have to keep in mind that in real life the world ain't flat, so you can never ever display a 100% correct map of such a large part of the world. I hope you know what I mean, cause I'm not that good at explaining things :p

Take the EB map you linked to and add in the latitude and longitude lines. Youll find that everything matches up better.

I guess it would come down to projection difficulties.

well...longitude and latitude lines would account for some things, such as iberia being further west than Ireland, but it doesnt account for others.

What I mean is, longitude lines curve but latitude lines are straight.

Take a look at this example http://cybele.bu.edu/research/lcc/eurasia.big.jpg

You can see that spain is indeed further west of Ireland, like I said, but that the four lakes in Eastern Asia, because the tops of them share roughly the same latitude, are in roughly a straight line. In the game map they are wayyy out of that line.

Now I dunno it's possibly the game mappers took north from a single point and let the latitude lines curve in a bow shape from there (i'v never seen that done except for maps of artic regions, but it's possible) but even if they did, the curves are far too dramatic to be accurate. These arent polar regions, so the curve would be gentle, almost unnoticeable.

Look, I'm not saying this is a big deal for me, or that it should be for you. I could happily ignore it and i'm definately not asking you to delay the beta by weeks so you can slave over a new map with correct latitude lines.

I'd just like us to recognise that this is an issue, and one we should perhaps discuss.

(incidently, I'm not a cartographer, so if someone can prove me wrong here and show how it is in fact accurate, then that fine, I'v been proved wrong on these boards before)

Meh... I also noticed this, but it really is such a minor issue. Nothing with EB's map is glaringly wrong. In fact, as pointed out by someone else, it can all be put down to projection differences... ~:handball:

On that note, how did the Mundus Magnus team get a hold of the EB map?

Actually :( my mistake.

I eventually found http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/A...ea_terrain.gif

This map, downloaded it, cut it and rotated it until it fit into the RTW map and...yeah, it's accurate.
I'm not sure I like the map based on this though, I prefer straight latitude lines. Maybe I'll go make my own.

Anyway yeah, sorry :)

It comes down to the projection I say again. It doesn't look that bad to me (a lot of my work/study involves mapping so I do have an idea what I'm talking about), if I find some time I might georegister the mundus magna map and see if it's correct...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Praetorian Sejanus

Meh... I also noticed this, but it really is such a minor issue. Nothing with EB's map is glaringly wrong. In fact, as pointed out by someone else, it can all be put down to projection differences... ~:handball:

On that note, how did the Mundus Magnus team get a hold of the EB map?

---

That's because Mundus Magnus team IS EB :) Or rather was, some time ago.

is it me. or is Arabia/parthia bigger than on the map that Greek_fire gave us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eadingas

That's because Mundus Magnus team IS EB :) Or rather was, some time ago.

---

ahh... i see. ~:) I had been away from TWC during the uni semister, and only just noticed it. I thought maybe someone had leaked the map (thought there was a good chance I was the prime suspect :embarassed: )... in anycase, i was hoping there was a dramatic story there... obviously not... or is there? ~D c'mon, i want blood, betrayal and death! :duel:

There was a backstory, but we solved it within week, if I remember. We're not as bloodthirsty as some other mods ;D

Greek_fire19, you pay too much attention to lakes as geographical checkpoints. Don't you know that lakes are always migrating? :book:

What projection does EB use?

-Simetrical

Ask Dead Moroz, he knows best. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

What projection does EB use?

---

most suitable for mod purposes

Well, I was using sea's mostly (aral sea, caspian sea) but no, as I said above, I concede your map is accurate when the latitude lines are curved to fit the shape of the earth. This is mostly used for maps of polar regions (like the one I posted above) and is quite unusual, which is why it confused me. But I concede I was wrong, the map is perfectly accurate.

whoohoo EB rules ~:cheers:

Here's the base outlines of the EB map, which zoomed out still has the same proportions as the MM map, overlaid on top of a globe. If I had centered it, the edges would have needed less "stretching", but I wanted it to match up over the Mediterranean better, so I let the east tilt more to the north. I still am perfectly happy with it and think it does a great job representing the terrain.

https://img121.imageshack.us/img121/...rth10dy.th.jpg

Yeah, I see now that it's perfectly accurate, don't worry. What happened was, I was looking up something in an atlas and I happened to notice that it didn't really look like the EB map, ao I thought hmm, and I compared certain things. It did occur to me that you were using a map that was curved to simulate the curve of the earth, but until I found one myself I didn't think the curve could be so noticeable. But then I did, and you guys were right. Obviously.

But yeah, my mistake. The map is accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greek_fire19

Yeah, I see now that it's perfectly accurate, don't worry. What happened was, I was looking up something in an atlas and I happened to notice that it didn't really look like the EB map, ao I thought hmm, and I compared certain things. It did occur to me that you were using a map that was curved to simulate the curve of the earth, but until I found one myself I didn't think the curve could be so noticeable. But then I did, and you guys were right. Obviously.

But yeah, my mistake. The map is accurate.

---

No problem Greek_fire. I actually was just replying to it because it had been linked to in another thread. I thought it was more appropriate to post that image in this one than in the other one though. Anyway, not trying to hammer your idea down-just adding something (sorta cool) to the thread. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Here's the base outlines of the EB map, which zoomed out still has the same proportions as the MM map, overlaid on top of a globe. If I had centered it, the edges would have needed less "stretching", but I wanted it to match up over the Mediterranean better, so I let the east tilt more to the north. I still am perfectly happy with it and think it does a great job representing the terrain.

https://img121.imageshack.us/img121/...rth10dy.th.jpg

---

Surely that's not a good way to gauge its accuracy? After all, in that picture, the distances on the globe are themselves severely distorted. Maybe I'll e-mail some bored math professor about the best map projection for preserving relative distances—I'm pretty sure perfectly consistent distances are impossible, but there are probably better than Mercator or similar projections.

-Simetrical

~D So much Africa + Arab peninsula + Eastern "russia" , for what ??? in 280 bce (and even today ~D ~D ~D ) these areas did not include any political entities . maybe the Empire of the sand or the empire of the weeds ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

Surely that's not a good way to gauge its accuracy? After all, in that picture, the distances on the globe are themselves severely distorted. Maybe I'll e-mail some bored math professor about the best map projection for preserving relative distances—I'm pretty sure perfectly consistent distances are impossible, but there are probably better than Mercator or similar projections.

-Simetrical

---

There's no perfect way to represent a 3D geomorph surface on a 2D flat media. It's the eternal problem for cartographic projections: you either sacrifice distance, area, or aspect. Even the 'square' Mercator map projections we are used to, are severely distorted, specially in the poles -the more distance to Equator, the more distorsion. You can try other projections, but all are centered in some point were distortion is minimal, while the distant locations are distorted. In a map that includes so big an extension as MM, distortion is unavoidable, whatever the projection you use.

I think that MM's Ortographic projection, is, if not perfect, quite similar to the vision we'd had of the area from outer space, from a specific point. Distortion is due to perspective: take on account we're watching a spherical surface.

Quote:

---

So much Africa + Arab peninsula + Eastern "russia"

---

It has seemed to me for some time that there is too much south west Africa & north east Russia in the EB/MM map.
I understand the difficulties of projection & Teleklos' projection comparison is pretty interesting :)

The solution that I would like to suggest is where the map is on an angle relative to the latitude/longitude grid.
This lets those pesky big blank bits be largely removed while still allowing the map to cover the important bits.
Overlaid on Teleklos' image it would look kinda like this: (except not messy & poorly done)
https://img13.imageshack.us/img13/22...0dyb3ax.th.jpg
Of course there would be substantial (probably fatal :shrug:) difficulties in doing that & I can offer no help other than the idea :hat2:

@Caesar: Don't let Steppe Merc hear this, there were tribal confederations all over the Steppe, and the Saharah wasn't unpopulated. Arabian Peninsula had some really wealthy trading Cities.
And in Africa, if i remember correctly there were even some awefully rich
!kingdoms! (not tiny tribes) on the Southern Edge of Sahara, had something to do with Gold and Salt i think. Though i'm not sure if these were established later.

I love talking about maps, seriously, it's terrific! But one big thing here (that as much as we all might like to not think about, still is the 500lb gorilla sitting in this thread with us): there is no way the basic nature of the map itself is going to be changed. It's just too much work and we have had a lot of people working to make this map as perfect as we possibly can, but there has not been one voice inside EB raising the proposition that we totally move or "nudge" landmasses or provinces to represent another type of projection. Again, I really like the discussion, and I'll be more than happy to continue participating also, but have any of the folks here talking about the changes actually attempted such a change on an already-made RTW map? With characters' positions set, roads working like they should, ports and cities placed, units and rebels distributed like we like, mountains and terrain where we can best place them, snow lines set by satellite maps, vegetation in place, and all the other little things like that set?
:jawdrop:

Yeh, those were the fatal issues I was thinking of...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

@Caesar: Don't let Steppe Merc hear this, there were tribal confederations all over the Steppe, and the Saharah wasn't unpopulated. Arabian Peninsula had some really wealthy trading Cities.
And in Africa, if i remember correctly there were even some awefully rich
!kingdoms! (not tiny tribes) on the Southern Edge of Sahara, had something to do with Gold and Salt i think. Though i'm not sure if these were established later.

---

Just look at maps for 280 or 270 bce - no political entities in Africa South of Numidia , no political entities in the Arab peninsula (OK , several cities 1,000 km from each other...) and East off Dacia (OK , some tribes that moved from here to there , Steppe - ni offence ~;) )
The point is that the Greeks had tiny City states that had more influence than any gigantic tribal "empire" like the Sarmatians or the Scitians . now , in a big map you will see a mighty Sarmatian "empire" that controls 5 cities and a tiny Hellenic union that control 15 cities...

Well actually, during the time period of the game, Northern Arabia was dominated by the Nabataeans, who's capital was the magnificant city of Petra.

http://www.vet.purdue.edu/bms/intl/i...onal/petra.jpg

You really ought to recognise it. It was a flourishing centre for trade from the 6th century BC until 106 AD, i.e the game's time period. The Nabataeans were an arabic people.
The Nomadic Bedouin were another arab people and their only real purpose in EB would be as mercenaries because they were herdsmen who lived in small groups, mostly in the centre and east of arabia.

However, the south and west of arabia, which is comparatively lush, was controlled by the Sabeans, who are entirely distinct from the Arabic peoples in the north, and formed wealthy city states.

The Only direct historical evidence I can find of the various cultures of southern arabia comes from the greek historian Strabo: (born 62BC)

"the land is inhabited by four great peoples: first the Mineans, with their capital Karna. The Sabeans with capital Mariba. They are followed third By the Qattabanians, whose capital seat is Tamna. Towards the west the Hadhramis have settled in the town of Sabota".

These were not 'tribes' but city states with secular kings and codified laws.

These cities were situated on the main sea-borne trading routes between india and persia and egypt, and as such they were wealthy and powerful, and were not conquored until the 6th century AD, when they fell under persian and later islamic control.

You are taking away a very important part of the steppe. That is unaceptable, hoom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salazar

@Caesar: Don't let Steppe Merc hear this, there were tribal confederations all over the Steppe, and the Saharah wasn't unpopulated. Arabian Peninsula had some really wealthy trading Cities.
And in Africa, if i remember correctly there were even some awefully rich
!kingdoms! (not tiny tribes) on the Southern Edge of Sahara, had something to do with Gold and Salt i think. Though i'm not sure if these were established later.

---

Too late, I've heard the blasphemy. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greek_fire19

The Only direct historical evidence I can find of the various cultures of southern arabia comes from the greek historian Strabo: (born 62BC)

"the land is inhabited by four great peoples: first the Mineans, with their capital Karna. The Sabeans with capital Mariba. They are followed third By the Qattabanians, whose capital seat is Tamna. Towards the west the Hadhramis have settled in the town of Sabota".

These were not 'tribes' but city states with secular kings and codified laws.

These cities were situated on the main sea-borne trading routes between india and persia and egypt, and as such they were wealthy and powerful, and were not conquored until the 6th century AD, when they fell under persian and later islamic control.

---

We wanted to show Karna, Mariba, Tamna, and Sabata, but when you look at a map, they are entirely too close to each other to merit full provinces with those as the capitals. So we basically still have the three areas, but then instead of Tamane/Tamna, we are using the important coastal city of Aden/Adane as the seat of the Qattabanians. It was a tough call, but otherwise we would have four capitals in the area of a small province anywhere else -- all the more striking given that there would be no other capitals anywhere near them in such a big and vast area as Arabia. So we are very close to Strabo, but have had to change one thing (though the Qattabanians themselves are still represented, just with another important city instead of the place Strabo calls their capital).

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon....-700large.html

There you can see all the kingdoms in Arabia ~D

lol, very good.

I actualy did a little more research on the Kingdoms of Southern Arabia because I think they're pretty interesting and exotic and the kind of history i'm into.

http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/arabia_map.gif

Theres a map of most of the major cities in the most populated region, though as telekos said, theyre pretty close together so they'd need to be spread out a bit.

These were wealthy trading kingdoms. They sent ships to trade with India, Persia, Egypt, Eritrea, Zanzibar and Madagascar. The region was famed for it's incense, especially Frankinsense, which was used in religious rituals across the civilised world and which they had a virtual monopoly of.

The main Kindom in Arabia between about the 8th Century Bc and the 3rd Century B.C was Saba. Saba controlled the main land routes from arabia felix, along which spices, incense and cinnamon was carried to mesopotamia.
The road (known as the gold and incense road) was kept in good order and even partly paved with flat rocks. There were road stations situated at intervals along the road. The leader of each station would receive taxes up to one tenth of the transported goods. Security along those roads was guaranteed; but it was forbidden and considered a severe offense, if a road station was simply bypassed without entering.

They used this wealth to cultivate a highly advanced agricultural system, which used huge dams and irrigation systems to control the water, which was so precious because droughts were common and when it came it usually flooded the region, until the dams were built.

In the second century B.C a new kingdom, the himyarites, emerged. They were beaten in battle several times by the Sabeans, because the Sabeans had a much larger army, and the sabeans quickly conquored all the Himyarite's inland provinces, however the Himyarite control of the sea was crucial, because with it they controlled the massive trade routes round the peninsula. Their wealth allowed them to hire mercenaries prevent their destruction. However the Sabeans seemed to have the upper hand until the 1st century AD, when the Greek Hippalus is credited with the discovery of the changing monsoon winds, blowing the sailing boats to India and back. The great monopoly of the Sabeans for trade with India and Africa was broken. Now Roman ships could leave Egypt in early June for the port of Aden. The south-west monsoon would then carry them to India in September. After doing trade and business for two months, the ships could be back in Alexandria by February.

The Sabeans had known of this for centuries, but now that the Romans knew it too, the use of the Gold and Incense road rapidly declined and without their main source of wealth Sabean power declined. The Himyarites controlled most of the Sea ports and were more able to capitalise on the change. By the 5th century A.D the himyarites controlled almost all of Yemen. (Shortly after, the Islamic armies conquored the area and it became part of the Caliphate)

Anyway, having read this, I hope that the regions in Southern Arabia are shown in EB as rich and fertile with plentiful trading goods such as Incense, and that their armies are strong and well equipped.