Ancient Empires: 222 BC
-
@Name I wouldn't be nervous about too much detail creating lag.
I think the main thing creating lag is the size of the map, meaning how many 256x256 images it will be made up of. I think the engine is totally indifferent about what these picture show (bit colors?), but the amount of 256x256 pictures needed to load seems to affect graphical rendering / tile-loading time.
Also AI lag seems to be very much affected by unit movement calculations. So I think it makes a whole lot of difference, wether your map has a lot of 3+ movement units or not, who would really put strains on the AI calculations of possible moves. Unless @redrum has upgraded the AI's brain at some point
I think this could still affect the map.@All ... Have anybody had experience with the amount of unit pictures, PU markers, decoration pictures etc. being a problem that resulted in loading lag? I don't think I have. I have only seen the tiles being slow to load up.
I have never used the engine zoom and forced my map to zoom to something specific. I am not saying that my approach is better, but I would do detail/graphical work in higher than 100%, then resize it to what should be 100% in game and use this to split into 256x256, not using map zoom. Reason for this is that placement system is not flexible in regards to map zooming. A territory cannot fit more units just because it is zoomed to be bigger. So I don't see a point in using another zoom. And I would guess that forcing the engine to zoom to something else that 100% puts a strain on the engine, even though probably small. I would use 100% units and 100% map, and if the player likes to use like 50% map zoom (proportionally shrinking units), that would be up to the player. But you could choose to "experiment" and prove me wrong, so that we all can take your solution into account for further map development. And maybe already now, make your map in a way where you were ready to redo some steps. (I have done this before by having Iron War map done in two different versions, on like 25% larger in territory size than the one I finally released)
Another topic; I hope whatever map zoom approach you use, that you avoid jagged edges in the detail tiles and even in the base black/white image. Its a real shame to see this in otherwise nice maps
"Penalties for attacking over rivers." I am sure if we cry enough about it, some dev would make some sort of connection options that modified unit attack stats or something
-
@Frostion I've loaded a slightly bigger map and it was ok. Not worried about that, but "XML overload" due to more units/territories to manage. AI things as well. Ships and Cavalry will be at around 3 movement, but those will be rather limited units requiring special resources, I guess no more that 10-15% of the units that can move.
On the zoom thing, it's designed for 100%, but because the map is huge and some territories rather big, it's advisable to play in a more zoomed out version for better view (I think 50% makes the units too small but a bit above it plays better than 100%).
I didn't get you on jagged edges (and their relation to zoom?).
Iberia
-
@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
I didn't get you on jagged edges (and their relation to zoom?).
No relation to zoom in the engine. It is just that maps that was made out of a territory border drawing that was originally smaller, then zoomed in to make larger territories, then made into 256x256 final detail tiles ... look awful. I know that some player do not consider aesthetics important, only gameplay, but I am not one of them
-
@Frostion I see. Don't worry, I did the borders after scaling the image to avoid this. Some parts may not be perfect but non of them look terrible imo. When I'm done and before restarting the XML I will upload the full map to get advice and feedback on minor details.
-
@Name I think what @Frostion is trying to say is... although your base map HAS to be done in a completely pixelated finish during the map making process... that is lines have to be completely black with no antialiasing, there is nothing preventing you from using a more pleasing image for the game itself. The original image does not need to be what the player looks at.
You can take the base map image and create a more pleasing finished image for the game...
So you may start with this...
Where all your lines have no blending at all......and turn it into something like this...
Where the lines look far more natural.Now bear in mind I just did this quickly as an example. The; weight, thickness, blurring, etc. can be played around with during the process.
-
@Hepps Learning to do something like that is in the plan
-
@Name LMAO! I kinda figured as much... hence why I was trying to get out in front of this given the progress you are making.
-
Mauritania
-
@Name Just in case if you will write it anywhere, it is Mauretania, not Mauritania (not 100% sure Mauritania might be a possible variation in English).
-
@Cernel
English:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mauritaniaLatin:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MauretaniaWhy should territory names all be written to reflect Latin?
Just because romans were there at some point? Might as well just use the name that best identifies a tribe/city/area in a historical context, be it modern English or some ancient language which word has stuck through time or is the only known word.In general all pre roman takeover definitions/names would be more fitting and "fair". And it would not "bind" a territory or tribe to somehow be original Roman or loyal to Roman rule ... but could instead belong to any empire that came across them (with an attacking army
) So maybe try to avoid suffix like -ni and -ia altogether, when posible? -
@Frostion said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Cernel
English:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mauritaniaThis entry is referring to the country of Mauritania.
-
@Cernel @Frostion I was meant to write Mauretania (I thought so far it's only written this way) but was probably influenced by the "Mauri" tribe spelling without noticing. The Romans called Mauretania Tingitana and Mauretania Caesariensis the conquered regions of the Mauri and the Masaesyli (west Numidians) respectively.
This discussion brings in the question of how to name territories. So far I've mostly used tribal names for tribal regions, usually in the modernized English form of the Greek or Latin spelling. Then if I have spare regions I might use a tribal group name for example Celtiberia - or could be Celtiberi(i). Sometimes there are people of the same name in two regions, like Venetii in northeast Italy and Armorica/Brittany, so one will be Venetii, one Venetia. For "civilized" territories either a region or city name. And generally prefering (mostly) fitting single words (Volcae instead of Volcae Tectosages) for UI and ease of XML editing reasons.
-
I would stick to known ancient tribes firstly and secondly ancient city names (cities that were there pre-roman times. It's many times possible to Google these cities' histories and find even more posible names for territories. Many roman cities were build upon already native cities and thankfully romans sometimes kept records of who lived in the area originally).
-
I just love that there is a LOL on the map! :face_with_tears_of_joy:
And a territory called Heppses would be pretty cool as well.
-
@Name Since your map is set to start 222 BC, have you based the west african territories on Phoenician settlements of the time or names of tribes? I found this interesting info:
"(...) Phoenicians, they are known to have settled only thirteen trading centers between 1000 and 200 B.C., beyond the Strait of Gibraltar: five in Spain, including Karteia, Gades/Cadiz, Onoba, Gadeira and Tartessus; with eight in Morocco, including Tingus, Silis or Zilil, Asilah, Lixus, Thamusida/Kenitra, Sala, Anfa, and Mugador/Essaouira, which was the furthes south."
There is a nice map also:
http://nephicode.blogspot.com/2018/12/where-did-phoenicians-sail-part-iii.html?m=1 -
@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Cernel @Frostion I was meant to write Mauretania (I thought so far it's only written this way) but was probably influenced by the "Mauri" tribe spelling without noticing. The Romans called Mauretania Tingitana and Mauretania Caesariensis the conquered regions of the Mauri and the Masaesyli (west Numidians) respectively.
In ancient Latin, you say "maurus" singular and "mauri" plural, that corresponds to English "moor" and "moors".
So, I'm guessing "mauritania" might be allright, hence I googled some, and found this:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Mauritania#Latin
Maurฤซtฤnia f sg (genitive Maurฤซtฤniae); first declension
Mauretania (ancient Berber kingdom)So, it appears that "Mauritania" is an actual legitimate alternative form of "Mauretania".
However, I cannot recall having ever seen it written anything else but as "Mauretania", as long as not referring to the modern country.
-
@Frostion for the coastline I've used mostly phoenician/carthaginian colonies, and it was easy, many to choose from including several in your link (for example Shalat is Sala). The interior was often more difficult and I had to use tribe names we don't know much of, or that the first reference we have on them is after the start date, in some cases even a few centuries later (same is true for central europian tribes to a degree). In some cases I did a bit of reasonable guesswork or intentional slight misplacement to fit gameplay or fill an area.
@Cernel So no big deal anyway, especially since it will only be used if I add such (greater) region names on the relief, work for much later. But if anyone has preferences on spelling of anything I don't mind much to change things, especially for now that I don't have to change several files yet. Same for alternative tribe/city names for a territory, though I might be a little more picky on those. Maybe we could name Ipsos "Heppses", after @Hepps
-
@Name Just want to say, great work on the territory images so far. You are giving @Hepps and @Frostion a run for their money. For naming, generally I try to go for recognizable names (cities/regions/etc) then whatever I can find to make them historically accurate. I also lean towards using the "english" names vs regional/latin names. Especially for this time period, most players probably won't recognize 80% of the names so its not the end of the world if you have to do some guess work.
TripleA Developer with a Passion for AI: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/105/ai-development-discussion-and-feedback
-
@redrum thanks
I also lean towards using the "english" names vs regional/latin names.
I can interpret this in a number of possible ways, not sure exactly what you mean.
-
@Name So for example I'd usually choose Brittany instead of Bretagne or other options listed in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany
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 ๐
Register Login