1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

New map project

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall: Europe' started by AbsintheRed, Dec 11, 2011.

  1. Michael Vick

    Michael Vick #1

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    712
    Location:
    Cádiz
    RFCE 2 is including all of the features of RFCE++, including unions. I love the idea of city states, the only other entity big enough to be a German full civ other than Prussia and Austria is Bavaria. The rest should be either city states or independents. The "Germany" concept we have now can definitely be improved upon, while we won't necessarily include every little duchy and archbishopric, we can do better than the current two civs in Germany while we have four in Italy.
     
  2. urban

    urban Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    I'm just going to put in a vote that we don't include the Caucasus, and instead make the area between russia and the sea larger. This was we get more room for minor civs in the main play area. Wasn't that the idea behind RFCE2?
     
  3. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    The WIP map I'm experimenting with has 96 tiles vertically
    The 1.0 map had 73 tiles, on a very similar vertical representation. So it's a 32% increase
    Horizontally (only checking the common areas with the 1.0 map) the new map will have about 130 (1.0 area) + 16 tiles (eastern additions, if we decide to do that).
    1.0 map has 100 tiles, so that's also 30% tile number increase on the 1.0 area.

    I don't want to further increase tile density, civs will already have about 70% more territory, cities, everything.
    Small civs can have twice as many cities with a carefully planned map
    OTOH for bigger civs this will already be more than enough additional micromanagement to handle

    My point is, that those extra eastern tiles won't affect how much more room will the smaller civs get in the crowded areas
    This means that we will either have a ~ 96*130 map without Caucasus, Khazaria, etc
    Or have a ~ 96*146 map with those additions

    So it's only a matter of design/gameplay decision, and currently we are in favor of adding those additional cities and civs.
    They were at least indirectly important in the shaping of Europe's history - the same way North African territories and civs were
     
  4. urban

    urban Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Boston, MA, USA
    AtR, that makes more sense, especially now that I look at the new maps.
     
  5. Ambassador

    Ambassador Peacemonger

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    442
    Location:
    World
    Have you thought about the idea, not to enlarge the map proportionally but instead to highlight some regions at the expense of others? In my opinion the whole region east of Poland could be smaller and instead the Middle European war theater (Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Balkans) should be enlarged.
     
  6. merijn_v1

    merijn_v1 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,652
    Location:
    The city of the original vlaai
    This would look too weird. I prefer a larger map over a distorted map.
     
  7. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    I want to keep the map as realistic as possible
     
  8. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    I'm pretty upset with BtS right now
    The tile grid used by Firaxis is much more distorted than I initially thought... about 0.88*1 instead of being close to squares :/
    This makes map conversions from pre-made pics so annoying

    So, quick question:
    What is more important, tiles represening the same distance vertically and horizontically, or the aesthatic look of the map?
     
  9. Morholt

    Morholt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Swedish Empire
    I'd prefer representing same distance horizontally and vertically. I like to place an ice feature every 10x10 squares and put a corresponding grid on the picture, makes it easier.
     
  10. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    A little more detail, I'm not sure if I was clear enough:
    I always assumed that Firaxis made their tiles squares, or something really close to a square
    And when anyone looks at any Civ IV map, it would be natural that tile distances are the same horizontically and vertically, isn't it? It only make sense this way; just think of unit movements, city founding distance, etc
    Unfortunately that's not the case, in Civ IV 10 tile distance vertically equals about 9 tile distance horizontically. I guess it was made this way because of the way zooming works, but I'm still pretty upset about it

    So, our 2 choices mean:
    - Either the tile grid will be distorted.
    So, I will use a grid to the Firaxis version, and the map will look exactly the same as in the previews in the end.
    But this means distances between tiles will be strange

    - Or we keep the square tile grid I used on the example maps.
    The result of this will be that the main map will look stretched in the end.
    Because every 1*1 square will be represented by about an 0.9*1 tile, it will look like the preview map stretched vertically to it's 0.9
    Tile distances will work correctly
     
  11. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Btw, you can check the second version - when using an a square tile grid
    (very base version, only the shape of the coastline matters)
    When you look at the map, you can see that everything looks a little stretched vertically, despite the fact that all the distances are correct
    It's even more obvious when looking at the minimap
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Morholt

    Morholt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    440
    Location:
    Swedish Empire
    I think it looks fine actually. And at least on my screen the minimap is rendered at 186x121 which is the same ratio as 146x96 so there's no distortion there. If you turn on free camera and look straight down, or go to globe view, aren't the squares square then?
     
  13. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    No, I meant that ~ 0.9 * 1 "square" size when you look straight down - or when you are in globe view
    I'm curious how your minimap looks though, can you post a screenshot?

    Also, I would like to hear some other opinions on the map I posted
    If most players think it's fine, I will continue it with this grid size

    EDIT: Nevermind the minimap, based on GIMP it's 186*121 for me too
    But checked again, and the ingame tiles are somewhere between 0.85*1 and 0.9*1 IMO, so the main question still stands :/
     
  14. ezzlar

    ezzlar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,328
    Why not make the current area, but just bigger? But with more low yielding land?
     
  15. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    And how does that solve the grid size inaccuracy?
    It's "only" a display issue, as the pixel number is ok when checking in GIMP
    Anyway, it's quite annoying that the map look stretched on different resolutions...
     
  16. ezzlar

    ezzlar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,328
    Sorry, it doesn´t solve that problem. More of a general idea.
     
  17. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Oh, ok then
    Anyway, I don't really want to further increase the current area
    If you check the WIP map, there is already significantly more room for the crowded civs
    If we decide to further increase it, I'm afraid it will result in serious performance issues

    Whether to include the additional eastern territories or not, is a different question
    As I said earlier:

     
  18. merijn_v1

    merijn_v1 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    4,652
    Location:
    The city of the original vlaai
    I like the general shape of the map. I don't think that the map should be any larger, because it would create too much space between civs. (Even if we add that ones from ++)
     
  19. artyom

    artyom Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    268
    i'd love to see a bigger map even though it will have an impact on performance late game
     
  20. The Flame8

    The Flame8 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    557
    Location:
    United States
    Whatever allows more civs to be in without late game slow and crashing works for me =)
     

Share This Page