Cappadocia - Neareastern Badlands

[Gurken Khan]

The description for the map says first it's in Central Anatolia then it says it's in eastern Anatolia. I find that contradictory, so I suggest to change the first sentence to 'eastern' and to delete the second.

I also wonder if it's a good name, since 'Neareastern' is a Eurocentric but not a contemporary term.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

46 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

The description for the map says first it's in Central Anatolia then it says it's in eastern Anatolia. I find that contradictory, so I suggest to change the first sentence to 'eastern' and to delete the second.

Agreed.

 

46 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I also wonder if it's a good name, since 'Neareastern' is a Eurocentric but not a contemporary term.

Middle East too? 

But Cappadocia is a good name too.

[Gurken Khan]

34 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Middle East too? 

But Cappadocia is a good name too.

Yeah, I think with 'Middle East' it's the same as with 'Near East'.

I also thought that Cappadocia would be a good name.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I prefer Cappadocia, Near east tells me nothing.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Typically, I like two-worded names for things. So, Neareastern Badlands instead of just Badlands (Badlands could be fine if it's just generic). It's just more descriptive. Maybe Cappadocian Badlands instead of just Cappadocia. Honestly, I have a lot of disagreement with some on the team about how maps should work, but maybe I'll make an extensive proposal thread.

[Gurken Khan]

31 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Maybe Cappadocian Badlands instead of just Cappadocia.

I thought of that, too. Probably it would make it easier for players of earlier versions looking for that specific map.

I'm not aware of disagreements about 'how maps should work', so I'd be interested to see what your suggestion thread would bring up.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

37 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

I'm not aware of disagreements about 'how maps should work', so I'd be interested to see what your suggestion thread would bring up.

Mainly that maps should either be specific or generic, not both. So, if a random map is called "Corinthian Isthmus", then it should use the Aegean biome. If it's called just "Isthmus" then it can have more biome options. So, "Badlands" can have various biome options, but "Cappadocian Badlands" should use an Anatolian or Middle Eastern biome. I've gone rounds with @wraitii about this. I think he and I respect each others positions, but we still disagree. And in an open source project like this, either another programmer must champion my position and submit patches to make it happen in my stead, or I must submit the patches myself, and then the merits can be agreed upon by the collective. 

Honestly, I might just mod the maps myself and add them to Delenda Est to that end. I created the mod specifically so I wouldn't have to compromise.  

Edited November 6, 2021 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

 It's not exactly generic, I don't know what other locations there are in Cappadocia.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Lion.Kanzen

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Cappadocia could definitely use its on Biome and geological assets. 

[Gurken Khan]

Necro! I still think something with Cappadocia would be better than "neareastern".

[wraitii]

On 6/11/2021 at 8:21 PM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Mainly that maps should either be specific or generic, not both. So, if a random map is called "Corinthian Isthmus", then it should use the Aegean biome. If it's called just "Isthmus" then it can have more biome options. So, "Badlands" can have various biome options, but "Cappadocian Badlands" should use an Anatolian or Middle Eastern biome. I've gone rounds with @wraitii about this.

I vaguely remember this, but I think my argument was that this just doubles the map count for no real reason, right? And IIRC I disliked switching to generic names for random maps as I thought that was kinda boring.

Wouldn't necessarily be against setting a 'default' biome for those maps that can be over-turned by players to 'random' however.

Edit: or changing the map name based on biome tbh.
I'd rather just avoid all our maps having generic, boring names by default in RM.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

What's the use of having interesting names if the maps don't look like what their name suggests?

I don't think what I was suggesting doubled the map count. If anything there would be a small selection of general shapes and layouts (about a dozen), then you'd choose a "biome" which turns the map into somewhere specific. 

Seems more organized and more thought out than what we currently have.

Edited June 14, 2023 by wowgetoffyourcellphone
2nd paragraph; conclusion

[wraitii]

20 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

What's the use of having interesting names if the maps don't look like what their name suggests?

There's degrees to this, our Corinthian Isthmus isn't a 1-1 match for the real thing either.

20 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I don't think what I was suggesting doubled the map count. If anything there would be a small selection of general shapes and layouts (about a dozen), then you'd choose a "biome" which turns the map into somewhere specific.

Think we sorta agree on the 'biome changes map name' approach then. It's just that my default approach would probably be more to show interesting names (and thus maybe default biomes) than generic names in the map selection screen.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

So you have a "Deep Forest" generic map, then by choosing the available biomes you turn it into something more specific, like temperate = Hercynian Forest, india = Deccan, etc. Generic maps wouldn't have all biomes available. For instance, it wouldn't make sense for Deep Forest to have a Saharan biome option, or Islands to have a Steppes option.

[wraitii]

28 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

So you have a "Deep Forest" generic map, then by choosing the available biomes you turn it into something more specific, like temperate = Hercynian Forest, india = Deccan, etc. Generic maps wouldn't have all biomes available. For instance, it wouldn't make sense for Deep Forest to have a Saharan biome option, or Islands to have a Steppes option.

Yeah I think that's a good approach. The map selector might by default show specific biomes, or if you force 'random' just default names.

I'm not 100% sure on the biome-map availability thing, it's a trickier issue to me.
IMO you should be able to pick a map and get an expected RM experience, if the biome can completely change around to map in un-expected ways it's probably bad. However, knowing that there might be slightly less wood or it's configured slightly differently might be good. So it's kind of a case-by-case thing.

Deep forest is probably a good example that having a Saharan / steppe option might just not work yes. I'm less sure about e.g. Oasis - conceptually that can work with any kind of biome, sorta.

[alre]

Just now, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

What's the use of having interesting names if the maps don't look like what their name suggests?

if the map depicts a H-shaped terrain with square seas, I'd argue that it shouldn't be called Corinthian Isthmus whatever the biome. Isthmus is fine, it's not boring (then why would you think a better name should make a map look better, if it's only loosely related to it?).

[wraitii]

50 minutes ago, alre said:

if the map depicts a H-shaped terrain with square seas, I'd argue that it shouldn't be called Corinthian Isthmus whatever the biome. Isthmus is fine, it's not boring (then why would you think a better name should make a map look better, if it's only loosely related to it?).

I think flavourful names do a few nice things:

• They're cooler, which is more memorable
• They highlight potentially important places in history (depending what we choose), which fits the historical vibe of the game.
• They make 0 A.D. less like a generic RTS.

Contrast 'Arabia' on AoE 2 with 'Highlands' on AoE 1, despite it effectively nowadays having different biomes. Some names are more generic, I'll admit, but I don't see the harm in giving them cooler names.

(Not that this is the thread topic...)

[Gurken Khan]

41 minutes ago, alre said:

(then why would you think a better name should make a map look better, if it's only loosely related to it?).

I think it's a matter of taste. I would be fine to call an isthmus Corinthian when it has a Mediterranean biome and is only inspired by that location and not a real world map turned into a game map (like Ngorongoro).

Anyway, that is all very interesting and all, however I'd like to come back to my point that I don't think "Neareastern" is a good term to use in the game, because - to repeat myself - it is a) eurocentric and b) not a term used at that time.

[wraitii]

On topic, I do agree that Cappadocian is probably much better than nearestern, yes.

[Gurken Khan]

On 14/06/2023 at 5:02 PM, wraitii said:

On topic, I do agree that Cappadocian is probably much better than nearestern, yes.

Since nobody seems in favor of "Neareastern", is anybody making the necessary changes?