Polished landscapes vs. Terrain system

Polished landscapes maps vs. the terrain system

  • Polished Landscapes

    Votes: 12 36.4%
  • Terrain system

    Votes: 21 63.6%

  • Total voters
    33

Users who are viewing this thread

vito397

Sergeant Knight
So we know the TW devs are planning to make a terrain system that would basically leave no space for automatically generated maps. The arguement for this that the maps in Warband were sometimes too wonky to be fun. But if that problem was remedied by the Polished Landscapes mod, which every major mod used. I prefer the generated maps for this reason, but i want to know what is the opinion of this forum about this matter.

My points:
1) This would only allow endless cheesing.
2) The prospect of choosing your own battlefield is fun in theory but I think it would quickly get boring as there would be a sense of constant confiement
3) The maps we already have are sometimes far too crowded or tight to effectively command armies. Such battlefields would never have been chosen by actual medieval armies except for ambushes.
 
OP, I understand your point but there's little we can do about it now; Taleworlds is going to do it whether we want it to or not.

To me it feels much more interesting to have the pure tile battle scenes generated randomly/procedurally. That said, a hybrid application would have worked better for Bannerlord in my opinion.

This hybridization of scenes would result in tiles that are attached to cities or bridges or high interesting landscape areas being tailor-made like the Taleworlds sceners have done. In these scenes, spawn would be conditioned by the relative position of the attacker and defender. On the other hand, the warband's tile-like battle scenes of forest, plains, etc. would be defined with a semi procedural/procedural genesis (I suppose that nowadays you can get better results than Warband's hills of death).
 
OP, I understand your point but there's little we can do about it now; Taleworlds is going to do it whether we want it to or not.

To me it feels much more interesting to have the pure tile battle scenes generated randomly/procedurally. That said, a hybrid application would have worked better for Bannerlord in my opinion.

This hybridization of scenes would result in tiles that are attached to cities or bridges or high interesting landscape areas being tailor-made like the Taleworlds sceners have done. In these scenes, spawn would be conditioned by the relative position of the attacker and defender. On the other hand, the warband's tile-like battle scenes of forest, plains, etc. would be defined with a semi procedural/procedural genesis (I suppose that nowadays you can get better results than Warband's hills of death).
Oh yes i agree. I also like the terrain system but i wanted to see opinions, just out of curiousity
I disagree with all your points, thus cannot vote on your poll.
Okay thank you!
 
So we know the TW devs are planning to make a terrain system that would basically leave no space for automatically generated maps.
Not sure if this is true, even if it is I still prefer the system TW is implementing (assuming it works decently). Why do you even want auto generated maps when the mod tools they provide allow for people to make higher quality custom maps.
If devs manage to make this feature work as I image it -- If they allow more than one map per region (select one map randomly or by trigger events) and the ability to change the shape and number or regions, which I assume they will, this has virtually no downsides.

The biggest advantage i can see is that this system fills the gap between the campaign map and scenes, it still isn't a seamless 1:1 transition but is the next best thing. And if devs are smart, or rather, if allowed to extend on this system, then the possibilities are endless, I mean, a truly tactical game can be developed by modders, (while in the original game you can have a balanced approach).
 
Not sure if this is true, even if it is I still prefer the system TW is implementing (assuming it works decently). Why do you even want auto generated maps when the mod tools they provide allow for people to make higher quality custom maps.
If devs manage to make this feature work as I image it -- If they allow more than one map per region (select one map randomly or by trigger events) and the ability to change the shape and number or regions, which I assume they will, this has virtually no downsides.

The biggest advantage i can see is that this system fills the gap between the campaign map and scenes, it still isn't a seamless 1:1 transition but is the next best thing. And if devs are smart, or rather, if allowed to extend on this system, then the possibilities are endless, I mean, a truly tactical game can be developed by modders, (while in the original game you can have a balanced approach).
That is a very fair point
 
To me it feels much more interesting to have the pure tile battle scenes generated randomly/procedurally. That said, a hybrid application would have worked better for Bannerlord in my opinion.
i don't know if you know/understand what i am talking about but Total war have a system to make every tile to be a unique map
they procedurally generated a campaign sized map then based on where the battle started it pick the coordinate of it as the battlefield

but as you said little we can do now, what we can h:lol:pe for is that it is possible to improve it with smaller grid


what is the opinion of this
i would say generated map is inconsistent especially when mountain and cliff is involved it could be so bad that actually funny
statics map TW plan to provide are not good either as it is too big for each area, in their demo battle got snared into a bridge that is far away
but at least not a "bad" change and maybe there could be improvement based on this new system
 
Vote all you want, TW won't bring procedurally generated maps. I believe this has been discussed months ago. They said no. I don't recall the exact thread, I asked Dejan even if they were thinking to provide proper API for modders to create their own procedural terrains - they said no. Perhaps Terco find those thread(s)


Why do you even want auto generated maps when the mod tools they provide allow for people to make higher quality custom maps.
Because if you have generated maps, then no one would have to spend their precious time to create all these maps.
a truly tactical game can be developed by modders,
Your overall statement is relying on modders to create something magnificent but you are missing the point. This "node based system" they are thinking is highly static and bound to current Calradia map. Now when GoT mod wants to create a map ( which they did ) they now have to create another 140ish detailed map all over again. Why? Because the entire map layout is completely different. Same goes for all other mods that are aiming to change campaign map. Whether it's Crusader mods or Warhammer mods. It's just creating a huge amount of extra work.
And this is not just a waste of effort but also a waste of HDD space as well. Each of these map files is taking 10-15 MB. Currently, all battle maps are 3,5 GB or something like that. Now consider 148 maps. Around 10 GB just for maps. And their 148 map estimation is also very generous. Do you want to download a 40 GB mod? Because I don't.


By the way, Polished Landscapes was poorly optimized and wasn't actually that good and I remember I tried to avoid every mod that contains this OSP in it because of this exact reason.
 
Last year after a conversation with another dev on the discord channel, I already understood that a procedural genesis implementation of battle scenes would be improbable. Not long after, Dejan made an official statement about it; this is the statement you are referring to, right Bloc?

There are currently no plans on doing something like that. I've brought this up internally though and we'll look into giving modders access to terrain data through the scripting interface in the editor so that you can run your own procedural generation codes and save the scene afterwards. Based on community feedback, we can look into other options further down the line.
Sorry for the late reply, no final decision has been brought about this yet. It's too early to discuss it at this point though, let's see how the proposed solution works out when implemented and take it from there.
(source)

That's why I say that the cards are already on the table and there is little we can do about it, only wait for the result of its implementation to be a positive addition.
 
this is the statement you are referring to, right Bloc?
Yes exactly.

And another fun fact is that the "proposed solution" is still in the "proposal" state even though nearly 6 months have passed since then. And I'm not even going into detail that this "proposed" solution is somewhat strange and cannot be used in run-time so it's not actually a solution but more like a workaround.
 
Yes exactly.

And another fun fact is that the "proposed solution" is still in the "proposal" state even though nearly 6 months have passed since then. And I'm not even going into detail that this "proposed" solution is somewhat strange and cannot be used in run-time so it's not actually a solution but more like a workaround.
If there had been even the slightest chance, they would have answered by now. Nevertheless, Dejan is just the messenger, but I wouldn't insist on it...as with so many others, any glimmer of a chance has long since disappeared.
 
Your overall statement is relying on modders to create something magnificent but you are missing the point. This "node based system" they are thinking is highly static and bound to current Calradia map. Now when GoT mod wants to create a map ( which they did ) they now have to create another 140ish detailed map all over again. Why? Because the entire map layout is completely different. Same goes for all other mods that are aiming to change campaign map. Whether it's Crusader mods or Warhammer mods. It's just creating a huge amount of extra work.
And this is not just a waste of effort but also a waste of HDD space as well. Each of these map files is taking 10-15 MB. Currently, all battle maps are 3,5 GB or something like that. Now consider 148 maps. Around 10 GB just for maps. And their 148 map estimation is also very generous. Do you want to download a 40 GB mod? Because I don't.
I'm not saying this system relies on modders, perhaps I didn't explain myself well, I just think this system opens the horizon for a next level game, enabled by modding tools and modders, the original game benefits greatly from this implementation as well.

It won't be a problem if
If devs manage to make this feature work as I image it -- If they allow more than one map per region (select one map randomly or by trigger events) and the ability to change the shape and number or regions, which I assume they will, this has virtually no downsides.
If you have only 50 maps you should be able to distribute them in 100 regions, some regions would have the same map. If this isn't possible just reduce the region number to 50, to match the number of maps. The option of having several maps to one region should also be available. This doesn't look difficult to achieve.
Do you want to download a 40 GB mod? Because I don't.
40gb is what I would consider the limit :razz:
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying this system relies on modders, perhaps I didn't explain myself well, I just think this system opens the horizon for a next level game, enabled by modding tools and modders, the original game benefits greatly from this implementation as well.
No. There is no benefit to modders. It's actually a burden because it's forcing modders to fit into that weird system.
But without that system, a modder can also split the regions on his own and load the maps based on the coordinate they are standing on. So what TW proposed is actually simple to create. This is not rocket science to do. Which we also discussed with Piconi in one thread long before TW suggested this - perhaps they read that, Idk, but it's not hard to come up with anyway. Yet, the problem is still the same, you need maps. You need manpower. And if you want to change the campaign map in the future(i.e. add extra river) you are in trouble because this also means extra work for existing already existing region maps.
This doesn't look difficult to achieve.
No, but this does sound like a really horrible way to achieve it, isn't it? Now you have to squeeze the entire campaign map to 50 maps. Which obviously will make you feel like a giant or something else. Because spawn system in battle terrains are just weird at the moment.

For some reason, you are forcing too hard about this. It's not a good system and having a procedurally generated map beats all these problems. Eliminates extra work for both devs and modders. Eliminates extra space issues.

Procedurally generated maps don't mean that you will get a random map each time by the way. Warband's system was poor in that way. It was creating a seed based on your coordinate and some random value if I recall it. So it was creating 3 seeds per coordinate which you could cycle. You don't need that type of randomness. You can divide the map into boxes ( imaginary ) and create seed out of it and generate great maps out of it - this will also result in you seeing the same map from different angles and distances. Whenever you go there, you will always see the same map. This is exactly what they are trying in the current "proposed system". But with this, you don't need extra work or force modders to create hundreds of new scenes for their mods. Its generated automatically.
Total War is also using something similar - they are using coordinate to fetch the heightmap information and creating map out of it and applying biome data based on the centre coordinate of that square region.


"..but slim what if you create a warband map, wouldn't it be weird.." some might say. No. Warband had weird maps, that's for sure. But that's because it's generation algorithm was simple and outdated. There are countless research and research paper based on how to generate proper terrain. Even if they read one, they can figure it out. So either they are lazy and don't want to change this poorly decided pointless design or there is something technically problematic. And since they haven't explained or accepted the second point, I will go ahead and say they are lazy and don't want to change this poorly decided design because they think changing this will be more costly to them than forcing the poor art department to create 148 maps.
 
I've always said that not making procedurally-generated maps was one of the most idiotic decisions TW made So you can guess my answer.
But really, it's stupid beyond all reason (cf what Bloc said about this issue, it's just wasting needlessly tons of work and making the game much more rigid and wasting a lot of HDD place for absolutely no benefits).
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess I can agree that having procedural-generated maps would be beneficial, if it saves work and space it's a nice feature, even more if it could be an additional option to this system, really helpful in case of small modding teams with big projects.
Still, with the modding tools, I don't think is that much of an effort to create a map of the same quality of a procedural-generated map. And does anyone know if it's possible to use an external software to create maps and import them to the game/modding tools, i'm sure there are some good software that create procedural-generated maps.
 
I don't agree with OP's points. Generally speaking I like the idea of handmade battle maps.
But I think they are a bad idea for another reason:
If you would want to make a total conversion mod with a new worldmap you would also have to painstakingly make all the necessary battle map tiles for it. This would take months of work alone and would probably stop alot of these projects dead in their tracks.
 
The arguement for this that the maps in Warband were sometimes too wonky to be fun. But if that problem was remedied by the Polished Landscapes mod, which every major mod used.

Polished landscapes didn't affect random map generation because it was mostly hardcoded. The only thing you could change without hacky workarounds was the amount of trees, the terrain type, and whether or not there was a river on the map.

By the way, Polished Landscapes was poorly optimized and wasn't actually that good and I remember I tried to avoid every mod that contains this OSP in it because of this exact reason.

Polished landscapes was about as well optimised as the base game, its developer even went on to make the landscapes in Shogun 2 total war. But most modders of that time weren't very knowledgeable about optimisation and either put too many trees in, or didn't follow the mod instructions (which were kind of buried).
 
Well I'd like to see how they turn out before I decide if it like it. My only desires for maps are bigger please and of course pre-battle placement and formation.

1) This would only allow endless cheesing.
How, what do you mean? Like I'm going to kite or chase and enemy into a region I want to fight on? That's effort and extra campaign time spent, so it's good.

The prospect of choosing your own battlefield is fun in theory but I think it would quickly get boring as there would be a sense of constant confiement
What's this from? Is this part of the terrain system or you mean just moving to a certain region? I would love to choose the map right now, there's few really good ones and the rest are kinda wonky. Sometimes I just retreat out to get a different map.

The maps we already have are sometimes far too crowded or tight to effectively command armies. Such battlefields would never have been chosen by actual medieval armies except for ambushes.
Yep, feels like they were made for like a 400 or under sized battle. I dislike larger battles anyways though.
 
Back
Top Bottom