Speculations about map

[Dead Moroz]

All the text and pictures below are just my thoughts on how MTW2 map will look like according to current information about project and what it means for gameplay.

According to current set of factions it's logical to assume that the map will be stretched from Mexico (territory of Aztec empire) on the west to city of Samarkand (capital of Tumurids) on the east. Maybe CA will squeeze Atlantic ocean to make map look more compact. The southern edge of the map will be Northern Sahara, I suppose. The northern edge will be central Sweden and southern Finland, 'coz the land to the north of it are hard for life and war and always were out of main medieval wars. But it's possible that CA won't expand map so much east and north. Maybe they make it end on Caspian sea at the east and garble the situation of Tumurids factions as they do it with Parthia in RTW.

Though we don't know if CA plans to make 3 eras system in MTW2 (like in MTW1), many of us hopes that this feature will be included in the game. I suspect there will be these time periods:
1. 1080-1200 (Romanesque)
2. 1200-1400 (Gothic)
3. 1400-1530 (Renaissance)

So there are possible maps of these periods in game. I don't mention America, 'coz it's too small information to talk about it now, plus America will be available only in late periods of game so won't participate in most part of action.








You can see that there may be almost the same map of Europe as in previous TW game (personally I think that CA don't plan to expand map to east enough). The number of factions is quite small even on smaller (traditional) version of map. Many regions will belong to rebels, so they will be just source for quick building of super empires. You can notice another dangerous tendency: there are lots of small countries (many of them are just one region states) clamped between large empires. These countries risks to be conquered by their stronger neighbors in first 20-30 turns, especially if AI will the same as in RTW. So there will be even smaller number of "players" on map and gameplay will became more predictable and boring.

I suspect that CA will unite some of historically scattered states into solid factions in game: HRE, later Poland (as Polish-Lithuanian union) and Russia (as collective image of all former Rus states, or just some part of them maybe).

Another dangerous things are cultural/religious and geographical inequalities in set of factions. There will be 13 catholic, 4 muslim, 2 orthodox and 2 pagan factions. (Btw, I wonder how CA will handle question of Mongol's religion: in early period they were pagan, but later the majority of Mongols in Europe were muslims.) The majority of factions are catholic and most of factions are situated in western part of map while eastern part is almost empty.

So the things gonna be imho and if CA won't change their plans on this game we'll get almost the same gameplay as in RTW.

I suggest to make map larger enough to represent declared factions (*cough**Tumurids**cough*) more historically correct and to bring something new in traditional RTW/MTW gameplay. That's why I support idea about America, but don't think it will be enough, 'coz this part of map will be closed for players during major game action. Plus we need more factions to have more opponents and to distribute factions more equally in geographical and cultural aspects. It's also will be great if CA will make a set of emerging factions, so we will be able to play against "later" factions even if we start in early period.

Imho the proper map should look like this:

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I would hope a Crusader States faction might be in the game somewhere, maybe Kiev, the Cumans, Bulgaria, Genoa especially i personally think Milan will change and it will be the Genoese, maybe the Norse if there is an early period, maybe Flanders in the late period. An Irish faction or a welsh princedom would be great to see but it is doubtful. An Armenian faction at some period would also be sweet.

Nice looking map though and i would like to see the proper map you suggested. It would be great to see that many factions on the screen

[Anti-hero]

Man, these maps look apocalyptic. I hope you turn out wrong.

I'll comment on the second map of the second three:
~1200 - ~1400

First, I'm against this starting year (1200). Just four years later (1204) The Latin Empire was established in Constantinopole. What remained of Byzantium was the Nicea Empire and the Epir State (called Epir Despot-dom, its ruler was known as the Despot of Epir). I can't help but mention the absence of Bulgaria on any of the three maps - a laughable fact, as anyone with knowledge of Balkans' history will agree. I'm sure many other people will say the same for their own states, reduced to "owned by rebels" territories. And they will all be right.

Something CA has to understand is, that Medieval Europe is not 16th century Japan and we're not playing Shogun anymore, and there are no territories that are just "owned by the rebels". The map has to be completely coloured if this game is to have a finished look.

But, of course, this will not happen. Then it will be up to us modders, to do what CA should have done - tighten the scale, make a map encompassing central and eastern europe (for example), but this time every little faction will have its little province. "Unfortunetly" ;) this will take away the opportunity for the player to conquer Norway with the Turks. What a nice side effect if you ask me.

Let's just hope things won't turn out as bad as you're predicting. It will be very disappointing to play a fantasy campaingn where you can't tell for certain wether "all similiarities with actual states and leaders are completely unintended and accidental".

[Prince Cobra]

Good points Anti-hero (another Bulgarian )!!! Welcome to the org. !!!
I didn't like the absence of Bulgaria and some other factions too. And I didn't like the periods. And believe me that is not because we are from one country. I agree 1204/1205 is good. And I want to comment the Late period. In that version Byzantium (one of my favourite factions) is too weak and I think 1321 is a better start (and it is challenging too).

[Prince Cobra]

Oh, I missed to put that in. Well, IMHO the separating of the map is not very good. The fight for the Medieval wold is what you think of when you hear Medieval Total War.

[King Yngvar]

Even if there is not going to be no Norway or Sweden in the game, I think they should make the map stretch at least up north to the botnia bay (between Finland and Sweden) to make a land passage between Sweden and Finland, which will perhaps prevent Russia from automatically being the controller of Finland every time.

[Anti-hero]

Oh, I missed to put that in. Well, IMHO the separating of the map is not very good. The fight for the Medieval wold is what you think of when you hear Medieval Total War.

Separating the map doesn't mean factions from outside the area will not be able to affect things in the area. For example if I'm Byzantium, you're Bulgaria, I'd conclude an alliance with the Kievan Russians to attack you even though they're from outside the map.
Just a thought.

If CA can't fill the whole map with playable factions (in the way Knights of Honour did) due to technical limitations, then the next best thing, in my opinion, is to separate the map into regions. It's also more realistic but from what I see, this is of lowest priority for the developers.

[King Yngvar]

If CA can't fill the whole map with playable factions (in the way Knights of Honour did) due to technical limitations

I wonder what those limitations could be.. that was one of the few things I liked about KoH.

[sapi]

I wonder what those limitations could be.. that was one of the few things I liked about KoH.

iirc they're raising the faction limit so i don't see why there'd be any limits...

[Anti-hero]

I wonder what those limitations could be.. that was one of the few things I liked about KoH.

Same goes for me. KoH's lacks athmosphere and diversity. It doesn't matter who you play for there. It has its nice touches but they're not enough to outweigh the fact that the game feels the same every time.

As for possible MTW limitations - think about the loading times you'd get if you had 42 factions instead of 21. You'll need about twice as much RAM, twice as much processor power. In many aspects it would be like running two MTW games on the same machine. I can't explain it in complete detail but I suppose that's the main reason the faction limit stays 21. If we ask CA, they'll be able to clarify.

[Anti-hero]

iirc they're raising the faction limit so i don't see why there'd be any limits...

Raising? Have you read the preview?

There's a full faction list there and to me it seems it's alredy decided. 21 factions, that's it.

[Samurai Waki]

21 playable Factions for MP, and that has yet to be fully decided.

[Orda Khan]

21 playable Factions for MP, and that has yet to be fully decided.

Yes, as yet there is no word of final list for SP. I'd prefer to see it as accurate as possible

.......Orda

[Voigtkampf]

It hurts to have so many countries and provinces, important factions that get to be reduced to the mere “rebel faction” label. But it seems that feature will be, once again, left for the modders to be altered. In regards to this, I only hope CA will make MTW 2 as moddable as only possible.

I am not all that well familiar with coding algorithms, yet the difference between 21 or 41 faction does not appear to me as something that will justify proportional increase in demand for processing power. The probable reason is the mere workload and lacking appeal in the “secondary” factions. If Bulgaria had as much paying customers as France or Germany, I assure you that this faction would be very well playable; as it is, there will be only few “marginal” factions and the main stream of them will be those that are well known and “truly” significant in the medieval period.

Of course, I am aware that this reasoning does not apply to Aztecs. Aztecs are an anomaly, IMDHO.

(As in “they have no paying customers”, not as in “they are not important”!)

[Mithrandir]

Any chance they divide the factions like that to keep it balanced?

Certain factions may have been important, but they may have lacked the resources, armystrength or land to be of any threat to other factions?

I don't know, I'm not a historian.

But your maps look nice, good work!

-Mithrandir

[Vladimir]

Yes, good job on the maps. I just wonder how you would adjust AI preferences and "auto calculating" so the Turks and Germans don't take over the world. I suppose France could counter a defensive mined HRE and the Turks could be given low income areas with poor loyalty.

[Dead Moroz]

I think that the only way to keep small states from being conquered quickly by large neighbors is to make significant amount of such small factions and programm AI to make small states unite against large empires. It means that we just need new really good diplomacy AI instead of that "Absence of Intelligence" of RTW.

[Ignoramus]

They need to improve the map definitely, but if the AI is not up to scratch, then it won't matter at all.

[PROMETHEUS]

I prefer if they make a map that goes to india instead of placing the aztecs....

[Prince Cobra]

I see your point Anti-hero. But I am still sceptic for separating the map. That will lead to fewer factions to fight with ( for example- I choose Balkan peninsula as a region- England has no place there) , not so complicated political situation ( not many large factions. ) and not a great variety of units. That's my opinion and you are not obliged to agree with me. But now I remember something that you will probably agree with- you can't go conquer Scandinavia if the Balkan region is not yours as the Byzantines so I think the Glorious Achievement( my favourite) will fit it. So if you want to conquer the world play offensive campaign if you want to be more historically accurate- you can sit in the region and develop your economy. And I hope in MTW2 there will be more factions (including Bulgaria ).