Ancient Empires: 222 BC
-
-
@Name Entirely dependent on how you want them to function. If you want things like major rivers to create choke points... then yes. If you want them just to be sensible territorial division... then no just add it to the relief layer.
-
@Name What I recommend is to look at some of the existing maps that handle rivers and lakes in different ways...
Total World War for instance use rivers as purely decorative but many territorial divisions follow them where actual national boundaries ended up...
Whereas Dragon War uses them as decorations, but utilizes XML mechanics to limit movement via territorial connection.
And finally Middle Earth Battle for Arda has them as both. Where Major rivers are actually Sea Zones with crossing points as well as simply decorative features for minor rivers...
There are more exmples... Civil War comes to mind.
At the end of the day you have to decide what you want to include or exclude before you complete the map design. (Unless you want to restart again)
-
@Hepps So far I'm thinking the Nile, Danube, Tigris and Euphrates should be represented, at least as borders, probably not navigable. Then not sure on smaller rivers (or if I should consider more as major ones). Depending on what map artstyle I go for I might include them or just consider them when drawing borders. If there was an attack penalty for river crossing, things would be more interesting. Having a river territory effect now would only make sense if a territory was a river island.
On lakes I'm thinking on equivalent, similar ways.
Anyway I still need many hours of work on coastlines before this matters, till then I'm open to suggestions.
-
@Name Well, you can use canal attachments to simulate some aspects of rivers. For example, you could make it so some units couldn't attack over a canal (only non-combat move over them) by using
canNotMoveThroughDuringCombatMove. But yes, currently you can't have say a attack penalty over them like you can with territory attachments though this is something I'd eventually like to add.You could also create a system like civil war where the rivers are actual territories and you have to build bridges. Then you could have negative isMarine values to simulate lower attack power.
-
@redrum Then I think it makes most sense to add (many) rivers in detail and when/if you add something like this update the map to use it.
-
@Name I believe everything discussed thus far is already achievable.
-
@Hepps I was talking about the penalty when attacking over rivers thing. I'd rather not use canals for rivers, or buildable bridges.
-
@Name Gotcha! I missed one sentence.
-
@Hepps I think I wasn't too clear anyway. But the coastline calls for short replies:p
-
@Name Coastal design is a cruel mistress!
-
@Name But despite her demands... fulfilling her needs feels somehow just right!
-
@Hepps Yeah like 4 or 5 hours of work already and I might be at half of it done? Still feels kind of good to give it attention, and being pushed to improve the map in general:)
Here's a sample (ignore the dots on the wrong side, I'll mass fix them later).
-
I took a break from the coastline to try some things. What do you think about this style of borders and rivers?
-
@Name So if you have put the river into the base map are you intending to make the connection between the 2 territories impassable?
-
@Hepps No, it would be just a normal border. Then if at some point attack penalties over rivers are possible, I'll add those.
I wander if I should further extend rivers into terriotiries, or only use those (or their parts) that are useful as borders. In the example above the real river should probably extend a bit into the Sparta region.
-
@Name The image looks great BTW... a dramatic improvement.
It is really hard to say if or how that feature would be implemented. I would lean towards removing the rivers from the base map image and simply add them to your relief layer.
-
Talking about rivers, are the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits going to be treated as rivers, that now would mean simply being a connection?
-
@Hepps Thanks, I had good advice:)
Any good reason they shouldn't be on the core map? I think it won't be hard to understand that rivers are just decorative/normal borders. And then if at some point I can improve their function, they will be ready in place.
@Cernel I'm thinking to just treat the Propontis (Marmara) Sea as every other sea territory. So you would need ships to cross.
-
@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Hepps Thanks, I had good advice:)
Not often I hear that.
Thankfully it is in writing... so I have evidence for my wife! Any good reason they shouldn't be on the core map? I think it won't be hard to understand that rivers are just decorative/normal borders. And then if at some point I can improve their function, they will be ready in place.
I guess it really doesn't matter as you can just ignore these "Territories" while doing the map making process. In fact it is likely better that you leave them... because if you need a territory for the river if/when this were implemented... they are already there. If you do not they can be left ignored.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login