Idea for the world map

AamuZombi · Dec 17, 2014

I was playing a bit today and an idea popped in my head about the world map, not just only for viking conquest, but possibly something to consider for future TW releases. Instead of the 3d world map, why not replace it with a simple drawn 2d one? It could have potential to be even more detailed and visually appealing than the current one, considering the visual quality doesn't come even close to that of battle scenes, towns and whatnot. Not to mention the system reqs would literally be next to nothing.

What do you guys think?

kalarhan · Dec 17, 2014

I agree.

Look at Paradox games for inspiration. You have a flat/simple map and a cool 3d map with terrain textures. You just need to select which one you want to see. Both are available in-game with a simple press of a button (or shortcut).

3D with terrain:

604004-crusader-kings-ii-windows-screenshot-main-menu-viewing-terrain.jpg

Simple map:

Do not look here · Dec 17, 2014

The thing is, the feeling both games aim at in campaign map are different - while in Paradox games it's okay to have a feeling that you're just sitting somewhere with your advisers and decide the fates of kingdoms on the map that is unfolded in front of you, in M&B it's just supposed to be simplified model of player travelling with own party. IMO, changing it into moving your finger on map would only break immersion.

Not to mention that battlefields reflect your position on campaign map. I know that games of the franchise cope with this... moderately, but still, player is able to some extent to choose favourable grounds. Also, the lag that often happens in game doesn't have as much to do with its 3D model as it has to amount of parties on it - for which it wouldn't be a solution.

Making it switchable would be better option, but then it's just additional work for devs and modders, with little outcome (I know there were plenty people calling it meh idea last time it was discussed on forums).

kalarhan · Dec 17, 2014

Do not look here said:
The thing is, the feeling both games aim at in campaign map are different - while in Paradox games it's okay to have a feeling that you're just sitting somewhere with your advisers and decide the fates of kingdoms on the map that is unfolded in front of you, in M&B it's just supposed to be simplified model of player travelling with own party. IMO, changing it into moving your finger on map would only break immersion.

Not to mention that battlefields reflect your position on campaign map. I know that games of the franchise cope with this... moderately, but still, player is able to some extent to choose favourable grounds. Also, the lag that often happens in game doesn't have as much to do with its 3D model as it has to amount of parties on it - for which it wouldn't be a solution.

Making it switchable would be better option, but then it's just additional work for devs and modders, with little outcome (I know there were plenty people calling it meh idea last time it was discussed on forums).

The thread is not about real time or turn based map. Just about its look. Simple flat map, easier on the eye. Or a 3D map with lots of details (trees, mountains, grass, etc).

I think @AamuZombi suggestion is about the huge difference between native map and VC. VC is heavy on effects. Not everyone likes that.

Keep the ships/units moving around. But make the world map, towns icon, etc simplier. Flat. Thats why I mentioned CK2 maps.

Do not look here · Dec 17, 2014

I'm not saying about game mechanics either. I was pointing at the fact, that on campaign map player is supposed to "physically" be in certain point of said map instead of unspecified place, moving pawns around it.

kalarhan · Dec 17, 2014

Do not look here said:
I'm not saying about game mechanics either. I was pointing at the fact, that on campaign map player is supposed to "physically" be in certain point of said map instead of unspecified place, moving pawns around it.

Ok. And in what way a flat map, no trees/grass, but with borders colors, tows/cities/villages icons, and unit sprites moving around would be impacted?

Think like this if it helps: same map we have now. Replace the ground with a simple color scheme instead of terrain. Replace the icons for cities/etc with a new icon that makes sense. Rest stays the same.

AamuZombi · Dec 17, 2014

Do not look here said:
I'm not saying about game mechanics either. I was pointing at the fact, that on campaign map player is supposed to "physically" be in certain point of said map instead of unspecified place, moving pawns around it.

I dont really see how it would be any less immersive. the kind of map I have in mind could function exactly as it does now, except all interactable objects like towns, parties being sprites, from far out parties could be just colored dots and upon closer zoom be more detailed images of whatever they're representing. Not to mention that with a simple map editor, devs and modders could create far larger maps with a lot less effort, and thats enough reason to give it some tought in my opinion.

Idea for the world map

Users who are viewing this thread

AamuZombi

Recruit

kalarhan

Python Saint

Count

Do not look here

Duke

kalarhan

Python Saint

Count

Do not look here

Duke

kalarhan

Python Saint

Count

AamuZombi

Recruit

Similar threads