This thread is a follow up from the "Full Campaign Map" thread. It is separate in the hope that it will catch the eye of a CA dev. econ, if you think I shouldn't have started a new one, I apologise in advance...
So we've seen the campaign map on radar including the Americas. Currently, south america is as close to Spain as it is to England, which somewhat diminishes that advantage the spanish had.
I realise how difficult it is to include the americas on the same map. To illustrate the difficulty, here is a map showing (approximately) the current M2TW map, extended to the West to show the accurate location of the US:
So, whatever happens, the Americas will have to be deformed and moved about to make the game possible. There are a couple of things to consider:
1. The latitude and the relative position of Europe to the Americas: I'm sure the geographical location of South America (to the south) was an important factor for the colonisation by the europeans, meaning the Spanish and the Portages were at an advantage. It would be good to keep South America as far south as possible, without taking it off the map.
2. The longitude and the width of the Atlantic: The Atlantic is wide - too wide to have it complete on the map (not only would it make the map strangely big, but for gameplay too)
3. The size - the Americas are big. Too big for the map, so we also have to deal with this.
4. The inconvenient location of the Aztecs. Why did they put themselves so far west?
Here are three solutions that I'd like to suggest (in decreasing order of width):
1: Both northern and southern america are reduced in width, but not in height. North America is moved east so that it can be on the map. The gap between the two (the caribbean and mexico) is made smaller so that the two can fit on the map. North America is moved north to make space on the map for the south. No change to the European map.
Pros - Lots of land in the America's and a wide Atlantic
Cons - Very wide map, North and South may be too close for good gameplay, Aztec territory is small compared to vast north america.
2: South America is much as it is above, but with slightly less land to the west and moved south. North America is moved west and shrunk considerably, so that less is on the map. The Atlantic is not so wide. The West coast of Africa is made steeper.
Pros - Still a lot of land in the south, quite a large Aztec area with links to the South. North America's coast is recognisable, but takes up little space.
Cons - Aztec land is small.
3: North America's width is reduced again and moved north. South America's width is also reduced. The West coast of Africa is made steeper.
Pros - The map is narrower still, the Atlantic is nonetheless wide
Cons - not much land in the americas, particularly the north
Personally I think option 2 is best. Note: in each case I have outlined the Aztec territory.
What do you think?
This may sound like a crazy suggestion, but I know the ins and outs of mapping in RTW, and M2TW is an evolution of the same engine. If you like, I can submit some example map_heights and map_ground_types. I think these alternatives are a good system wich doesn't compromise the size of the map.
I'd like opinions.![]()
Bookmarks