Campaign map

**GoreBag** · 07-30-2005, 22:55

Coming along nicely, but my comments from before still stand.

**Meneldil** · 07-31-2005, 11:27

Yeah, but I found a way to make Aquitaine and German province less huge. I just want to make sure I won't reach the 199 provinces limit.

**ScionTheWorm** · 07-31-2005, 15:25

who is doing the map? meneldil? or just researching?

**Meneldil** · 07-31-2005, 15:26

I'm just researching, mainly because I have nothing to do and like everything related to the normans/vikings age.
I'm not even part of the team

**Rodion Romanovich** · 07-31-2005, 16:21

Well, I disagree with NeonGod. I don't think province sizes and borders matter that much, the cities are the most important point. If there were not other important cities nearby, then the city inside the province of Aquitaine can be large without any problems. I think vanilla R:TW removes one of the more interesting aspects of the game by placing most cities evenly on the map. Great differences in city density, and province sizes, isn't a bad thing IMO. So please base the map on city importance, rather than feeling forced to make some provinces small enough.

I like the last version of the map, France and Spain are great, and HRE seem fine too IMO.

**GoreBag** · 07-31-2005, 18:22

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Well, I disagree with NeonGod. I don't think province sizes and borders matter that much, the cities are the most important point. If there were not other important cities nearby, then the city inside the province of Aquitaine can be large without any problems. I think vanilla R:TW removes one of the more interesting aspects of the game by placing most cities evenly on the map. Great differences in city density, and province sizes, isn't a bad thing IMO. So please base the map on city importance, rather than feeling forced to make some provinces small enough.

I like the last version of the map, France and Spain are great, and HRE seem fine too IMO.

That's just it, though; it's about having more cities. Plus, having huge territories based off one remote city doesn't make any sense; troops can't make it to the corners of the region, and you can't even see what's going on in most of it. In terms of game mechanics, it may not matter much, besides a little devastation in low-fertility areas and the interruption of some trade, but realistically, a region's people would not be inclined to be supported by a city that is simply too far away.

Edit: Oh, is it only 199 provinces? Hrrrmm. >:-(

**Stormy** · 07-31-2005, 20:25

Wow! We also get a piece of Greenland on this map.

Does this mean we will also have some Inuit rebel units ?

**Rodion Romanovich** · 08-01-2005, 10:27

Originally Posted by NeonGod

That's just it, though; it's about having more cities. Plus, having huge territories based off one remote city doesn't make any sense; troops can't make it to the corners of the region, and you can't even see what's going on in most of it. In terms of game mechanics, it may not matter much, besides a little devastation in low-fertility areas and the interruption of some trade, but realistically, a region's people would not be inclined to be supported by a city that is simply too far away.

Edit: Oh, is it only 199 provinces? Hrrrmm. >:-(

Well, in this period the control over areas wasn't as complete as it is today, so it's good enough IMO. But that doesn't mean I don't want almost as many cities as possible, just that I don't want them to be chosen based on location, but based on importance. I support trying to get as close to 199 cities/provinces as possible.