EB II map ideas discussion

**Dumbass** · 09-25-2008, 22:09

I wish to propose some suggestions for the map:
I think the map scale should be increased as some areas of the map seem a little cramped (asia minor, syria, greece). I think the EB team are going to increase the scale but I'm not sure. Not too large though, as I'm not a fan of those huge scale -one-million-miles-between-each-settlement maps.

The EB map also seems a bit too lush and green around asia minor, persia, africa and the middle east, whereas upon looking on a map (Space view), I saw that those areas had much more desert parts than the EB map shows, and I think it would be good to have some more desert-esque battle maps/strategic map to give a little variety.

I also think that there are way too many trees in the battlemaps, sometimes covering the whole deployment zone and making battles tedious and confusing. Spain and Macedonia are nightmare places to fight in because of this. I know that historically, armies did not usually deploy in the middle of a forest as it was often considered unpassable terrain, so maybe reducing the amount of forest battlefields will stop me bursting multiple blood vessels in frustration.

I feel that there are a bit too many resources on the map and they can sometimes clutter the area, and take away from the atmosphere, however this may not be a problem if the map scale is increased.

i would also like to request the removal of what i feel are pointless settlements: Some of those far north baltic settlements that the ai never bothers to conquer, that island settlement near germany that no one ever conquers, and chalkis. I feel that greece is already quite cramped and Chalkis just does not add to gameplay value, and in fact makes it more of a chore to take over than a joy. I feel that these settlements could be better used elsewhere, especially where new factions are being implemented.

Other than these points, I really love the EB campaign map, but some aspects are outdated and I hope they are not carried into the EB II map.

SO Discuss!

**XSamatan** · 09-25-2008, 22:35

I think the map scale should be increased as some areas of the map seem a little cramped (asia minor, syria, greece). I think the EB team are going to increase the scale but I'm not sure. Not too large though, as I'm not a fan of those huge scale -one-million-miles-between-each-settlement maps.

as foot said it will be aproximately 1,3x

The EB map also seems a bit too lush and green around asia minor, persia, africa and the middle east, whereas upon looking on a map (Space view), I saw that those areas had much more desert parts than the EB map shows, and I think it would be good to have some more desert-esque battle maps/strategic map to give a little variety.

due to some climatic changes green and fertile lands became deserts

I also think that there are way too many trees in the battlemaps, sometimes covering the whole deployment zone and making battles tedious and confusing. Spain and Macedonia are nightmare places to fight in because of this. I know that historically, armies did not usually deploy in the middle of a forest as it was often considered unpassable terrain, so maybe reducing the amount of forest battlefields will stop me bursting multiple blood vessels in frustration.

EB tries to be as realistic as possible, there were trees at 272BC, EB has trees

**Foot** · 09-25-2008, 23:04

Originally Posted by Dumbass

I wish to propose some suggestions for the map:
I think the map scale should be increased as some areas of the map seem a little cramped (asia minor, syria, greece). I think the EB team are going to increase the scale but I'm not sure. Not too large though, as I'm not a fan of those huge scale -one-million-miles-between-each-settlement maps.

There is a limit to the size of the map .tga files, so we cannot scale to much. I believe the scale was going to be 1.3x, but I'm not uptodate on the latest map info.

The EB map also seems a bit too lush and green around asia minor, persia, africa and the middle east, whereas upon looking on a map (Space view), I saw that those areas had much more desert parts than the EB map shows, and I think it would be good to have some more desert-esque battle maps/strategic map to give a little variety.

That large parts of the sahara used to be grazing land (not in our timeframe) should be proof enough that how the world looks now is not how it looked 2000 years ago. The most important change is soil erosion, which has left otherwise fertile areas barren after so much intensive farming.

I also think that there are way too many trees in the battlemaps, sometimes covering the whole deployment zone and making battles tedious and confusing. Spain and Macedonia are nightmare places to fight in because of this. I know that historically, armies did not usually deploy in the middle of a forest as it was often considered unpassable terrain, so maybe reducing the amount of forest battlefields will stop me bursting multiple blood vessels in frustration.

There may be some room to alter this, but I'm not uptodate on the vegetation files. However please please please use the strat map. If you fight on a tile with woods then you are going to run into issues on the battlefield. Right-click on the strat map to make sure of terrain you will be fighting on (I wish it showed more information).

I feel that there are a bit too many resources on the map and they can sometimes clutter the area, and take away from the atmosphere, however this may not be a problem if the map scale is increased.

I agree somewhat, in fact I would prefer a smaller scale, but then it would be impossible to see. However don't expect the EBII map to look the same as the EBI map in any respect (except like provinces n stuff).

i would also like to request the removal of what i feel are pointless settlements: Some of those far north baltic settlements that the ai never bothers to conquer, that island settlement near germany that no one ever conquers, and chalkis. I feel that greece is already quite cramped and Chalkis just does not add to gameplay value, and in fact makes it more of a chore to take over than a joy. I feel that these settlements could be better used elsewhere, especially where new factions are being implemented.

That is up to the historians for those areas, not a matter for gameplay. You will see some changes, some provinces will be removed, and some boundaries shifted.

Foot

**Dumbass** · 09-26-2008, 16:52

Originally Posted by Foot

There is a limit to the size of the map .tga files, so we cannot scale to much. I believe the scale was going to be 1.3x, but I'm not uptodate on the latest map info.

That large parts of the sahara used to be grazing land (not in our timeframe) should be proof enough that how the world looks now is not how it looked 2000 years ago. The most important change is soil erosion, which has left otherwise fertile areas barren after so much intensive farming.

There may be some room to alter this, but I'm not uptodate on the vegetation files. However please please please use the strat map. If you fight on a tile with woods then you are going to run into issues on the battlefield. Right-click on the strat map to make sure of terrain you will be fighting on (I wish it showed more information).

I agree somewhat, in fact I would prefer a smaller scale, but then it would be impossible to see. However don't expect the EBII map to look the same as the EBI map in any respect (except like provinces n stuff).

That is up to the historians for those areas, not a matter for gameplay. You will see some changes, some provinces will be removed, and some boundaries shifted.

Foot

Thanks for the response. The map already sounds good, and a 1.3 scale sounds just right. I didn't realise soil erosion and pollution did so much damage to those parts of the world as to make them like the barren and desert places of today.

I realise that province change will be up to the historians, but wasn't chalkis quite a minor settlement? Whereas there are probably some less densely settlement packed places which have more major cities there. I also understand that you are probably removing settlements that are a few tiles away from each other such as babylon and utica. I think chalkis would fall into this category as it is only about two tiles away from athens. (PS I feel that Utica should be kept, as it adds quite a lot gameplay-wise to the area.)

**Ludens** · 09-26-2008, 17:22

Didn't you suggest the removal of Chalkis before? Do you have any new arguments to strengthen that suggestion?

**Dumbass** · 09-26-2008, 17:33

Yes I did suggest the removal of Chalkis before, but I don't remember the discussion coming to a conclusion, so I wish the bring it up again whilst we are discussing the matter. Plus I think the points I have given are good enough to justify the possibility of its removal.

**Foot** · 09-26-2008, 18:35

We're an open bunch of people and where something is brought up, we'll discuss it. Of course PSFs open up a whole new world (#A whole new world...#) for us, which we've already begun to take advantage of - something you'll find out about in the Gaza Campaign.

Foot

**Ludens** · 09-26-2008, 19:27

Originally Posted by Dumbass

Yes I did suggest the removal of Chalkis before, but I don't remember the discussion coming to a conclusion, so I wish the bring it up again whilst we are discussing the matter. Plus I think the points I have given are good enough to justify the possibility of its removal.

The conclusion was the Chalkis was important as a strategic base, not as a population centre, and hence won't be removed (although it may be replaced by a PSF for all I know). Also, if you remove Chalkis you get the problem of whom to give Euboia to. It clearly wasn't controlled by the Athenians, but giving it to Corinth or Thessaly also isn't realistic.