Physical map problem

[Simetrical]

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.

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

[caesar44]

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

[Dux Corvanus]

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.

[hoom]

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)

Of course there would be substantial (probably fatal ) difficulties in doing that & I can offer no help other than the idea

[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.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

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?

[hoom]

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

[caesar44]

@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...

[Greek_fire19]

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.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

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).