Topographical maps

Hi!

I am wondering why the maps aren't topographical? meaning - units don't move the same distance through the Alps as they would through Hungary (for example).
also some penalties for movement of certain units on certain terrain (similar to Civilization)

That would add a bit more realism IMO.

I think that Middle Earth map has mountains, so why not world / Europe / etc maps?

sorry if this was discussed before

what do you think?

This has been talked about but i dont know what happened but i support something like this for map making

Hum, i don't support. Too complex. What's the necessity of realism ? If you start to add more realism... you complex the game infinitely, Today is your idea of topographic and may be tomorrow is limit to plane because it requires more fuel...

If you start to add realism... you complex the game again and again because your interest is the realism.

I would support this as an option for custom maps. I think adding variety is a good thing. If people don't like this feature, they won't play the maps that have it (or won't make maps with topography to start with!).

I think the way mountains are set up (impassable terrain) is OK and not too complex. Has someone made a version of the world map with mountains?

Well, this feature would be optional when creating a scenario or map based on classic world map in atWar.

نوشتع شده توسط J.Schumpeter, 23.07.2013 at 11:59

Hum, i don't support. Too complex. What's the necessity of realism ? If you start to add more realism... you complex the game infinitely, Today is your idea of topographic and may be tomorrow is limit to plane because it requires more fuel...

If you start to add realism... you complex the game again and again because your interest is the realism.

I don't necessarily agree that adding topographical maps adds to the complexity indefinitely. I specifically asked JUST about topography because it doesn't complicate too much does it? Yes, adding refueling tankers / limiting distance of planes because of fuel does seem a bit complicated and I am not for that. Don't put that in the same basket.

Realism by adding topography is just one point but not the only one. It would, in my opinion, make game play more interesting.

It's complicated to program it i think.

This is a thing for a realism button


-5 to tank range in mountains :::PPP

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 23.07.2013 at 12:40

It is complicated. instead of just a country and cities now we would have to have topographic layers and lots of new unit stats ex infantry -2 range in mountains , -1 range tanks in tundra :/

I think you're confusing topography and terrain type. It would probably be more like: crossing a 100m altitude line costs 1 movement point extra... Wait, now that I think of it, this would be complicated to implement as green movement circles would no longer be circular; they would have to be skewed by the topography lines to correctly represent movement range, and that does seem difficult to program. I change my vote to no support.
Anyway, the option to add impassable terrain already does exist.

2 Words: Risk like

نوشتع شده توسط Meester, 24.07.2013 at 04:06

2 Words: Risk like

what is your point? So it's ok to have stealth units, planes and other units not in original risk... capitals, cities, defense lines etc (also not in original game) but not realistic terrain map? Where is the boundary (and who sets it) of what should be added to the original risk game and what is too much?

I agree that movement penalties and range with terrain would be difficult to program. Then why not just add mountain ranges and make them impassable (to only ground troops?) - like we have currently for ground troops trying to get across water without transport

SUPPORT antagonists.....

نوشتع شده توسط Meester, 24.07.2013 at 04:06

2 Words: Risk like

I'm tired of this being used as an argument. First, the website lists Risk and Civilizations. Second, where is it written that being as close as possible to Risk is desirable? atWar is different from Risk (and Civ) so I don't see why adding features that are not present in Risk is automatically wrong.

To those in support of this idea, I'd repeat the main problem I have with it: How would you deal with the green movement range circles if topography were implemented?

Example: There is a tank next to mountain. The tank's movement over the mountain is reduced, but normal elsewhere as the terrain is otherwise flat. The tank's movement range (normally a circle) is now modified by the presence of the mountain. It would have to appear as a modified circle.

That seems difficult to implement.

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 24.07.2013 at 20:20

نوشتع شده توسط Grimm, 24.07.2013 at 18:27

First, the website lists Risk and Civilizations.

Where?

here

نوشتع شده توسط eleven, 24.07.2013 at 06:22

نوشتع شده توسط Meester, 24.07.2013 at 04:06

2 Words: Risk like

what is your point? So it's ok to have stealth units, planes and other units not in original risk... capitals, cities, defense lines etc (also not in original game) but not realistic terrain map? Where is the boundary (and who sets it) of what should be added to the original risk game and what is too much?

I agree that movement penalties and range with terrain would be difficult to program. Then why not just add mountain ranges and make them impassable (to only ground troops?) - like we have currently for ground troops trying to get across water without transport

You can already do that. Make your own default map and make no-go areas at place you don't want units to pass through. Air units can fly past them though.

نوشتع شده توسط Grimm, 24.07.2013 at 18:27

نوشتع شده توسط Meester, 24.07.2013 at 04:06

2 Words: Risk like

I'm tired of this being used as an argument. First, the website lists Risk and Civilizations. Second, where is it written that being as close as possible to Risk is desirable? atWar is different from Risk (and Civ) so I don't see why adding features that are not present in Risk is automatically wrong.

Game system stays the way it is in Risk. Just instead of using dice we calculate based on att and def. Add topographical maps to the default map will make game play a lot different. Imagine fighting China with the Himalayas in the middle. Not to mention you can make your own map with no-go areas. Just do your research and get to work.

If u do no go areas U CANT FLY OVER THEM!!

نوشتع شده توسط Grimm, 24.07.2013 at 18:34

To those in support of this idea, I'd repeat the main problem I have with it: How would you deal with the green movement range circles if topography were implemented?

Example: There is a tank next to mountain. The tank's movement over the mountain is reduced, but normal elsewhere as the terrain is otherwise flat. The tank's movement range (normally a circle) is now modified by the presence of the mountain. It would have to appear as a modified circle.

That seems difficult to implement.

The same as you deal with a tank that is near the ocean. It is still a circle, no modifications, only you can't go into the sea. In the same way, tank near the mountain range would still have a circle only you couldn't move across mountains. Just around them.

نقل قول:

Game system stays the way it is in Risk. Just instead of using dice we calculate based on att and def.

you see? this can be JUST instead, but not topography... a bit hypocritical, no?

نقل قول:

Add topographical maps to the default map will make game play a lot different. Imagine fighting China with the Himalayas in the middle.

Yea! to me it is a plus not a minus because it would make things more interesting (challenging)

نوشتع شده توسط Meester, 25.07.2013 at 00:29

Not to mention you can make your own map with no-go areas. Just do your research and get to work.

Actually, that's what I wrote above:

نوشتع شده توسط Grimm, 23.07.2013 at 12:22

I think the way mountains are set up (impassable terrain) is OK and not too complex.

نوشتع شده توسط eleven, 25.07.2013 at 05:24

نوشتع شده توسط Grimm, 24.07.2013 at 18:34

To those in support of this idea, I'd repeat the main problem I have with it: How would you deal with the green movement range circles if topography were implemented?

Example: There is a tank next to mountain. The tank's movement over the mountain is reduced, but normal elsewhere as the terrain is otherwise flat. The tank's movement range (normally a circle) is now modified by the presence of the mountain. It would have to appear as a modified circle.

That seems difficult to implement.

The same as you deal with a tank that is near the ocean. It is still a circle, no modifications, only you can't go into the sea. In the same way, tank near the mountain range would still have a circle only you couldn't move across mountains. Just around them.

Fair enough, except a land unit can actually move across topography, albeit with reduced range. Wouldn't it be hard to figure out how far the unit could go? You'd have to actually issue the movement commands every time to find out...

I think we could add basic topography, nothing more, like mountains, and deserts plus we already have water

I want rivers to

Right i'll start making the a map with mountains and rivers. Message me an image of what river/mountain range is needed. Please avoid sending in river/mountains the size of a city. Make sure it at-least 1k km longs.