Ancient Empires: 222 BC
-
@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Hepps Auto connection finder? I've been adding those manually in the XML. Does it work for land to sea and sea to sea as well?
Yes the map making program will do all connections automatically. There are just some situations where it misses things... one being what I just detailed.
More ideas:
- What if the river is assigned a territory, only to consume movement? (I probably won't use that due to visual and other concerns but it might evolve to something interesting). Fast units could cross it at once, slower ones would lose a turn.
Yes this is possible. The only issue you face is that visually if units move into a river territory that is only 3 pixels wide... graphically it will become an issue as the units will be visually in a territory they do not fit into. Can be very confusing to a player(s) if units end their turn in a territory that makes them look like they could be in any one of 3 territories.
- The river could be assigned a territory, only as flavor, displaying the river name on mouse-over.
You could make it an actual territory and have it with no connections. Then have the needed connections added manually as described above. Yes.
-
@Hepps / Everyone. What do you think of adding rivers/river parts as marked in green? Should I go for it for extra flavor or just ignore those?
-
@Name Well Hepps probably knows better than I do but my guidance is unless you want the rivers to be an actual territory, its easier to just do them in the relief layer as then you don't have to worry about it creating lots of little fake territories or messing up connection finder. That way you are essentially just drawing them over top of your base map and can visually represent them however you'd like.
If you want the river to actually be territories, then you'd probably need to make them wider to be usable (something like Civil War).
-
@Name The flavor is a sweet thing... just be ready for the work ahead.
I can tell you from experience that once you start... the journey is long and arduous... especially if you are anywhere near as OCD as me. -
What other edge cases besides (thin?) rivers does the connection finder have issues with? Islands/Territories with separated parts?
I like the idea of hovering over rivers to display their names, instead of having it display a wrong territory name or making the rivers too thin to be visible when zoomed out (game will be played at about 50-75% I guess).
I'm an often lazy perfectionist or something along those lines. If I can stay motivated (though I doubt I'll always have the time to work at the current pace) I can take a lot of punishment:p. I hope I'll stick to the task, after modding various games I think this one has the best ratio of desired features and flexibility I've found. Helpful knowledgeable people is a big plus as well:).
-
@Name The biggest issue is playability.
A severely small or thin territory is a nightmare from a gameplay standpoint because...
If you are trying to move into it... hitting it with your cursor can be very tedious and frustrating.
Trying to click on a very small or thin territory inorder to select all units is the same.
This problematic issue is compounded further if you intend your map to be played at a dramatically zoomed out view.
-
@Hepps Yeah that is out of the question already. I just threw around the idea to generate discussion on possibilities of the use of rivers. I'd only use something similar with much thicker river territories.
-
@redrum I think you accidentally edited my post instead of yours.
-
@Name Indeed. Reverted that
My bad here is my post:So the way the connection finder works is it searches a certain number of pixels away from a territory for other "adjacent" territories. And then if enough pixels of another territory are found then it considers it adjacent and adds a connection. You can adjust the distance it searches to try to handle different border widths (think your original wider borders vs the thinner ones you have now). But a larger distance means it might find incorrect connections especially around territories that say come together at like 4 corners. You can always manually adjust these or manually do all connections but it is fairly time consuming for a large map.
Territories with multiple parts are group together into a polygon definition: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/wiki/Map-and-Map-Skin-Making#413-polygon-grabber
You could use the thin rivers just for naming though it would probably be better to instead just write the names like TWW does in the relief tiles on the map itself as hovering over the 3 pixel river is going to be challenging anyways though you could do both.
-
@Name Here is a possible solution...
Add a circle (big enough to be clickable at any zoom)
Manually add the placements to ensure they fall along the river avoiding the circle so that it is easily clicked on.
Add some kind of colouration or detail to the relief layer to clearly indicate which units are in the river territory.
-
@redrum I'll think about it. Both ways have pros and cons and none seems clearly better or bad.
The way you present it made me realise that besides being challenging, hovering over the river won't display adjacent territory names if it is a relief, since that 3 pixel area would be a border on the original map. However now river borders might be in territories, so some black pixels will display territory names while others not. Plus I need to be carefull to exactly match borders and rivers. Quite small issues though. On the other hand not using them as reliefs has the extra connection work.
@Hepps It's interesting in this (show)case but still I don't think I'll use that feature. Some rivers will be too long for it to visibly make sense. Not sure it's a good idea to include a semi-confusing system and having to split the Danube in 20 or 30 territories.
-
@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Hepps Auto connection finder? I've been adding those manually in the XML.
Wow!:face_with_open_mouth:
My suggestion, run it at 2 pixels more than your boders' wideness, so you'll have no missing connections, then just manually remove those in the crossed borders, if you have any (usually those are only on sea-to-land borders, in the traditional maps).
-
How about just doing it like in Lord of the Rings? Also, on a map of these dimensions, you may want to allow ships to go into the big rivers.
I'm not sure how can it be justified not being able to walk over the Dardanelles/Bosporus, in the moment they are not really wider than what big rivers like the Danube or the Dnepr get to. Just talking from a realism stand point; not saying the map has to be realistic, unless wanted.
-
@Cernel I'll consider those. By LOTR you mean the Battle for Arda map or another one, and you mean make rivers like they did?
-
@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Cernel I'll consider those. By LOTR you mean the Battle for Arda map or another one, and you mean make rivers like they did?
I was actually talking about "Lord of the Rings: Middle Earth", but it applies to that one too.
-
I'm almost done with the coastlines. So since I was led to take designing the map more seriously and take my time, I'm considering to add things I intended to skip, like canals and navigable rivers. Any additional gameplay considerations related to those, keeping in mind the large map size, territory count, often extensive river length etc?
-
@Name Canals? Isn't the only canal the Suez canal (to use modern naming)?
I thought sometimes adding the Suez Canal to 270BC, since it was made shortly before, but that's really too unimportant.
-
@Name I think we've mentioned the ones I can think of. The biggest thing to understand is that you can adjust lots of things visually in relief tiles or from a gameplay perspective in the XML but the base tiles determine the "clickable area" and lead to area you have for placements so those 2 things are difficult to update once you've started building your map on top of it. So making sure things are large enough to easily click on for movement and have enough space for the proper amount of placements tends to be the key, most other things there are ways to adjust without having to change base tiles.
The only other thing is as you start thinking about drawing the territories, is try to generally avoid corners of territories coming together as it often makes it unclear if they are connected.
-
@Cernel I mean canal attachments, wouldn't that be the best way to do things like Dardanelles/Bosporus? I think something similar to Suez was active during a part of the Ptolemaic reign in Egypt, connecting Red Sea to the Nile, and through it to the Mediterranean. I'll search for details.
-
@Name If you are considering having sea canals, like Suez, for the Dardanelles/Bosporus, I believe that makes no sense. Only in late medieval, with very big cannons, was possible partially to do something like that. On the other hand, if you are planning making rivers, then maybe those might be closed, but probably not the very big ones. Practically, it needs to be small enough for a boom.
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