Finding a solution to the green/arid map problem

[the_iron_duke]

I wrote recently in 'The New Field of Glory' thread about my dislike of playing on historically/geographically "wrong" maps and offered a solution. In this thread I'd like to further discuss it, and any other ways people can think of, to address the perennial problem of green and arid battlefields.

This is what I wrote in the other thread:

Some players, myself included, are dismayed when playing on geographically anachronistic maps, in regard to their two "green" or "arid" flavours. Battles that do subsequently occur, like Hundred Years War or War of the Roses battles fought in the desert, just feel silly while Middle Eastern battles always feel more authentic on the arid maps. It's a shame when so much care has been put into period historical accuracy in other parts of the game that this peculiarity is still allowed to continue.

It seems as though the green and arid maps have been produced separately - there are maps that only appear in green and others that only appear in arid. It would be better if there was only one template for each map that would then automatically change to arid or green according to the players' choice. Then there'd be more overall maps and there wouldn't be any tactical advantages in competition terms for choosing a "green" or "arid" style of army.

As for the mechanics of how to introduce this, I see two avenues: top-down, by the game makers or bottom-up, controlled by the users.

If it was the former, then the game makers could perhaps divide all the armies into three camps. Firstly, "green only", being Central, North and East European armies; "green or arid", being a lot of the Mediterranean and perhaps some Steppes armies. And thirdly, "arid only" armies, being most of the Middle Eastern and North African armies.

If a "green only" army played another "green only" or a "green and arid" army then they'd play on a green map (and vice versa for "arid only" armies). If a "green only" and an "arid only" army faced each other then the choice would be green or arid as the match-up would be a bit of a fantasy, ahistorical one anyway.

Secondly, it could be implemented bottom-up by the users where, when players are setting up a game, they select an option for map flavour.

Personally, I think top-down would be the better option. It would settle the problem once and for all and I can't see it being that difficult to code. Bottom-up would mean it's another thing for every player to have do before every future game and I'm sure there'd be the occasional mistake by a player who doesn't know his geography and environmental climatology so well.

As I said there, I think the 'top-down' approach would work best.

In addition to what I wrote in that thread, I have been looking at satellite maps to further assess which armies would best fit into the three 'green', 'green or arid' and 'arid' categories:

Green

- All of North, West, Central and Eastern Europe.
- South Europe as far as Italy.

Green or arid

- The Iberian Peninsula
- Sardinia
- Sicily
- Cyprus
- Southern Greece
- Turkey (north and west)
- Armenia
- Central Asian Steppes
- India

Arid

- All of the Middle East (including Persia) and North Africa.

There will be some armies that fought far and wide and their available map choice should reflect that. For example, I think Italy (bar Sicily) should be green only (such as for the Condotta armies) but the Romans, who fought all over the place, should play on green or arid. The Carthaginians from arid only North Africa would be a similar case and should play on green and arid, excepting the Carthaginians in Africa and 3rd Punic War armies which fought exclusively in North Africa (as far as I'm aware) and should play on arid only maps.

So, it would be very feasible to sort all the armies in this way and I think the mechanism for how green or arid maps are selected for games is sound. The coding for this I'm sure would not be too taxing either.

The second issue I wrote about in the other thread was about having a single template for each map that could switch to green or arid as circumstances dictated by the army's default green, green or arid or arid setting. This way all armies would be able to play on all map designs.

I'm not quite sure of how the maps are organised at the moment. I think I've played on maps that have only appeared in green and maybe others that have been only in arid and possibly others that have appeared in both flavours. Maybe there are different maps for different Army Books, I don't know?

I can't see how it can be a big task to make a double green or arid version of each map. This could either be done by a bit of coding that changes the flavour of a map when selecting one (top-down again!). Or by changing each map individually by duplicating the existing individual map files and changing the arid/green setting for each (a bottom-up strategy) - it could be something as simple as changing a x=0 or x=1 parameter setting in each maps' code. Either method will be simple to implement logistically.

Stylistically, I don't think it would be a problem and I think all the map designs would work in both green and arid flavours. There are marshy areas in the the Middle East too (Marsh Arabs!). There exist already green and arid versions of all terrain types, including regionally-authentic trees.

So, I feel I have hereby humbly offered a case for a workable solution to the whole green/arid issue that I believe could be easily and successfully applied in practise.

I welcome any feedback and additional ideas for improvements or alternatives.

[Old_Warrior]

Some of the maps just plain out need to be junked. The one that has the orchards is ridiculous. One entire side of the map is all farmland. Who wants to fight a battle where your guys will be stopping to pick the strawberries instead of move?

I would prefer to see maps that make some sense. If the player that won the initiative gets to pick the map at least make sure that BOTH sides have some defensible terrain. The hills never seem to make much sense to me. Hardly ever is there a "east-west" ridge line. If the Initiative player has the choice of battle location doesn't it make sense that they at least should have a ridge that is more in their favor?

I also would like to see historical maps used in the MP games. Just borrow a couple and toss them in. Would be nice to fight a MP game on the Battle of Hastings map for instance.

Map variety would be nice. And map composition corrections too.

Hey! Why not run a competition for the best map for these MP games? The DAG format for online play is a blast. But the maps really get old.

How about varying them from time to time? Do not remove the map file - just vary the choices that come up in the DAG games. Would really like that and hey, we have a TON of maps now to choose from from the games.

Why not try this:

1. If the player chooses "can only use armies from x module" then the maps from those battles come up for the choice based on size. Just rate each for size and toss in some random ones to make up any lack of numbers needed for map choices if you run out of historical ones.

2. If the player chooses "can use ANY army from ANY module" then use a variety of maps from all of the current modules. And then when new modules come out just add in new maps and pull out old ones.

Variety for me in maps would be really nice. I am about to start building custom scenarios again just to get some variety back into my game.

And big time: DAG armies for custom scenarios. This really is a must. Being able to build a new army from the DAG list and to be able to pick one of the existing maps would be nice as well. The map data in the maps is static anyway ... just have the program remove the units ... ok, I probably just exhausted my tokens for the month!

[the_iron_duke]

I've been badgering behind the scenes and got the following response from the game creator:

Hi. I do agree about the maps. I was led by Dan to understand that they are on the list to be fixed.

I myself am not part of the development team, apart from doing the army lists for Wolves From The Sea and Oath Of Fealty.

As I recall, the necessary information for selecting arid or non arid maps is in the army list data, but has not yet been implemented in the game logic.

So, it seems that some of the groundwork has already been done. Does anyone know how the armies have been so far categorised within the army list coding? And what is the schedule for implementing and incorporating this feature within the game engine?

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, was thinking that a much simpler solution could work too.
Why not have MORE options when issuing a challenge?
Right now there are only 3 (fow, double moves, and any army from any expansion, or one single expansion)

What if every DAG army was reviewed and a realistic date range for each list coded
You could issue a challenge allowing your opponent to select any army say from 1450-1500, instead of by book.

and back on topic , option to select "green" only "arid" only or Either for the maps the program makes available for that battle

[voskarp]

It would also be good to have a free text option in the challenge where you could specify what army you'd like to meet, if you want a fast/slow pace, for example.

[the_iron_duke]

and back on topic , option to select "green" only "arid" only or Either for the maps the program makes available for that battle

This is the "bottom-up" solution but I see it as having its own complications.

It would give away some information about your army if you were choosing to play a game where you don't show the army name. Some Army Books would be mainly green with just a few armies in arid, for example. In Storm of Arrows if you selected "green or arid" then your opponent would know he's playing an Iberian army. The Iberian player might then select a "green only" map to counteract this and all Iberian-only battles would end up being played on green maps, when green or arid is more realistic and authentic to period flavour.

You would also be restricting the armies you could play against in each Army Book. Take Immortal Fire where you have "green only" armies like the Thracians, "green and arid" like the Greeks and "arid only" like the Egyptians. Or in Swords and Scimitars there are probably only two "green only" armies - the Georgians and Bulgarians.

I also don't think it would be necessarily simpler than the "top-down" approach, where it's pre-coded in the game. If it was sorted by the developers then the whole issue would be done and dusted and there'd be no need for a player to have to select another option when setting up every future game or even have to think about it. Also, as I said before - human error would mean there would be mistakes from time to time.

So, I agree that user-selected map flavours is a good option but personally I feel pre-coded is the better one.

Other options, like selecting restricted time periods and being able to add a text comment are both things I've thought about before and if more game setup options were to be added they'd be good ones to consider. I also had a crazy idea to go through each army and select its real historical opponents. Then you could tick a "historical game" option box and the other player could only choose a real historical opponent.

[TheGrayMouser]

and back on topic , option to select "green" only "arid" only or Either for the maps the program makes available for that battle

This is the "bottom-up" solution but I see it as having its own complications.

It would give away some information about your army if you were choosing to play a game where you don't show the army name. Some Army Books would be mainly green with just a few armies in arid, for example. In Storm of Arrows if you selected "green or arid" then your opponent would know he's playing an Iberian army. The Iberian player might then select a "green only" map to counteract this and all Iberian-only battles would end up being played on green maps, when green or arid is more realistic and authentic to period flavour.

You would also be restricting the armies you could play against in each Army Book. Take Immortal Fire where you have "green only" armies like the Thracians, "green and arid" like the Greeks and "arid only" like the Egyptians. Or in Swords and Scimitars there are probably only two "green only" armies - the Georgians and Bulgarians.

I also don't think it would be necessarily simpler than the "top-down" approach, where it's pre-coded in the game. If it was sorted by the developers then the whole issue would be done and dusted and there'd be no need for a player to have to select another option when setting up every future game or even have to think about it. Also, as I said before - human error would mean there would be mistakes from time to time.

So, I agree that user-selected map flavours is a good option but personally I feel pre-coded is the better one.

Other options, like selecting restricted time periods and being able to add a text comment are both things I've thought about before and if more game setup options were to be added they'd be good ones to consider. I also had a crazy idea to go through each army and select its real historical opponents. Then you could tick a "historical game" option box and the other player could only choose a real historical opponent.

Nope, I was thinking MUCH simpler to preclude any of those outcomes happening
Just like when you issue a DAG battle challenge for FOW or D-moves, the opponent that accepts cant counter these, he is accepting the challenge as is, ie take green and like it or dont accept

[the_iron_duke]

Yeah, the points still stand in that you're giving away some army information and restricting the opponents' armies you can play against.

If you selected a green or arid map as a Crown of Aragon army then you could end up playing against a Wars of the Roses army on a desert.

If you played as the Romans and selected a "green only" map then you couldn't play any "arid" armies. If the Romans selected "green or arid" they could face an Ancient British army and have two arid and two green maps to choose from.

[TheGrayMouser]

Yeah, the points still stand in that you're giving away some army information and restricting the opponents' armies you can play against.

If you selected a green or arid map as a Crown of Aragon army then you could end up playing against a Wars of the Roses army on a desert.

If you played as the Romans and selected a "green only" map then you couldn't play any "arid" armies. If the Romans selected "green or arid" they could face an Ancient British army and have two arid and two green maps to choose from.

Ok, I see your thinking of a more comprehensive change where lists are tied to specific maps. I was just thinking of a restriction based soly on the person that issues the challenge, nothing else, and thus no "intelligence" would be give to your opponent.

[cothyso]

Hello guys,

I had a quick read of the OP's thoughts, and I have a few quick observations to make regarding FoG(U) :
1) the terrain code has implemented a dual system for maps, in which there is a general tileset map setting, but there's also a specific tileset hex setting (ie for each hex)
2) maps can be instantly changed from one general tileset map setting to another (ie even at runtime)
3) the editor allows a one-click change of the whole map's tileset
4) MP map picking can be done on the whole existing map list (and can also include even the SP maps)
5) our aim is to add a terrain generator system (not for the initial release, but in one of the future addons) which should allow the players pick up features/contra-features before generating the map (for MP games)

That would be all for now

[the_iron_duke]

I think the method I have suggested would work best in practise, so it's up to someone else to try and think of a better one.

[the_iron_duke]

Well, I think the consultation period is over and, as no alternative method has been submitted, I think the method I have proposed offers the best workable solution to the green/arid map problem.

To re-cap, here is the formula for deciding map flavour allocation:

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

Formula for Green/Arid Map Selection

1) Every single game map to be renderable in both green or arid style, so all armies have access to the same map pool.

2) Every army has one of three pre-coded map style designations:

- green
- arid
- green or arid

3) The maps available for selection are determined by the map style values of the two opposing armies. Here are the various permutations and resulting map styles for selection:

Green army vs Green army = green map
Green army vs Green or Arid army = green map
Green or Arid army vs Green or Arid army = green or arid map
Green or Arid army vs Arid army = arid map
Arid army vs Arid army = arid map
Green army vs Arid army = green or arid map

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

I now propose going through all the armies in each Army Book and assigning them a green/arid map value. I have gone through the Rise of Rome Army Book (as well as the two armies included with the basic Field of Glory game) and have summarised them below. If you have any comments on the selections then please add them below.

Field of Glory

Mid-Republican Roman (early) - green or arid
Later Carthaginian (in Italy) - green

Notes:

- the Later Carthaginian (in Italy) army I have selected as green as they are fighting in Italy. The green or arid Later Carthaginian (post-235BC) army of the same period would cover Carthaginian battles in the (more southerly) Mediterranean.

Rise of Rome

Mid-Republican Roman (later) - green or arid
Mid-Republican Roman - green or arid
Mid-Republican Roman (Brutus & Cassius) - green or arid
Gallic (Early Lowland) - green
Gallic (Early Hill Tribes) - green
Gallic (Later Lowland) - green
Gallic (Early Hill Tribes) - green
Pyrrhic - green
Pyrrhic (in Italy) - green or arid
Pyrrhic (in Greece) - green or arid
Later Carthaginian (pre-235BC) - green or arid
Later Carthaginian (post-235BC) - green or arid
Later Carthaginian (in Africa) - arid
Later Carthaginian (3rd Punic) - arid
Illyrian - green
Illyrian (common) - green
Spanish (Iberian) - green or arid
Spanish (Lusitanian) - green or arid
Spanish (Celtiberian) - green or arid
Later Macedonian - green
Attalid Pergamene - green or arid
Numidian (Juba I) - arid
Numidian (Bogus) - arid
Numidian (Juba II) - arid
Later Seleucid (pre-166BC) - arid
Later Seleucid (post-166BC) - arid
Later Ptolemaic (Greek) - arid
Later Ptolemaic (Roman) - arid
Pontic (early) - green or arid
Pontic (late) - green or arid
Spartacus Slave Revolt (HF) - green
Spartacus Slave Revolt (MF) - green
Early Armenian - green or arid
Early Armenian (Tigran the Great) - green or arid
Early Armenian (Khosrov I) - green or arid
Parthian - arid
Parthian (Saka Campaign) - arid
Suren Indo-Parthian - arid
Hatran - arid
Later Jewish (Hycranus II) - arid
Later Jewish (48BC-47BC - arid
Later Jewish (Antigonus) - arid
Later Jewish - arid
Bosporan (early) - green
Bosporan (mid) - green
Bosporan (late) - green
Bosporan (218-284) - green

Here are the same Rise of Rome armies sorted by map type:

Gallic (Early Lowland) - green
Gallic (Early Hill Tribes) - green
Gallic (Later Lowland) - green
Gallic (Early Hill Tribes) - green
Pyrrhic - green
Illyrian - green
Illyrian (common) - green
Later Macedonian - green
Spartacus Slave Revolt (HF) - green
Spartacus Slave Revolt (MF) - green
Bosporan (early) - green
Bosporan (mid) - green
Bosporan (late) - green
Bosporan (218-284) - green

Mid-Republican Roman (later) - green or arid
Mid-Republican Roman - green or arid
Mid-Republican Roman (Brutus & Cassius) - green or arid
Pyrrhic (in Italy) - green or arid
Pyrrhic (in Greece) - green or arid
Later Carthaginian (pre-235BC) - green or arid
Later Carthaginian (post-235BC) - green or arid
Spanish (Iberian) - green or arid
Spanish (Lusitanian) - green or arid
Spanish (Celtiberian) - green or arid
Attalid Pergamene - green or arid
Pontic (early) - green or arid
Pontic (late) - green or arid
Early Armenian - green or arid
Early Armenian (Tigran the Great) - green or arid
Early Armenian (Khosrov I) - green or arid

Later Carthaginian (in Africa) - arid
Later Carthaginian (3rd Punic) - arid
Numidian (Juba I) - arid
Numidian (Bogus) - arid
Numidian (Juba II) - arid
Later Seleucid (pre-166BC) - arid
Later Seleucid (post-166BC) - arid
Later Ptolemaic (Greek) - arid
Later Ptolemaic (Roman) - arid
Parthian - arid
Parthian (Saka Campaign) - arid
Suren Indo-Parthian - arid
Hatran - arid
Later Jewish (Hycranus II) - arid
Later Jewish (48BC-47BC) - arid
Later Jewish (Antigonus) - arid
Later Jewish - arid

Notes:

- one could argue the Later Seleucid (pre-166BC) army could be green or arid as they campaigned in Greece but the Seleucids are mainly in the Middle East and so I think arid would be more appropriate.
- for the Pyrrhic armies I have selected green or arid for the (in Greece) and (in Italy) armies. The (in Italy) army includes campaigning in southern Italy and Sicily so I think green or arid is most appropriate. For the basic Pyrrhic army I have gone for green as I am assuming that it represents the "homeland" army in Epirus which is on the green Balkan Adriatic coast.

[the_iron_duke]

Storm of Arrows

ALL armies green except for:

Free Company - green or arid
Navarrese - green or arid
Condotta - Venice (outside Italy) - green or arid
Medieval Crown of Aragon (early) - green or arid
Medieval Crown of Aragon - green or arid
Medieval Crown of Aragon (later) - green or arid
Medieval Portuguese - green or arid
Medieval Castilian - green or arid
Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian - green or arid
Later Granadine - green or arid

[the_iron_duke]

Immortal Fire

Early Hoplite Greek - green or arid
Later Hoplite Greek - green or arid
Classical Spartan - green or arid
Later Spartan - green or arid
Early Colonial Greek - green or arid
Later Colonial Greek - green or arid
Thessalian - green
Early Achaemenid Persian (Cyrus) - green or arid
Early Achaemenid Persian (Darius) - green or arid
Early Achaemenid Persian (Greek Wars) - green or arid
Early Achaemenid Persian (Plataea) - green or arid
Early Achaemenid Persian (Later) - green or arid
Thracian - green
Early Gatae - green
Later Gatae - green
Thracian Client - green
Lydian - green or arid
26th Dynasty Egyptian - arid
28th-30th Dynasty Egyptian - arid
Kyrenean Greek (early) - arid
Kyrenean Greek - arid
Kyrenean Greek (later) - arid
Early Carthaginian - green or arid
Skythian - green or arid
Saka - green or arid
Classical Indian - green or arid
Maurya Indian - green or arid
Gupta Indian - green or arid
Late Achaemenid Persian - green or arid
Late Achaemenid Persian (Darius 331BC) - green or arid
Late Achaemenid Persian (Bessos 329BC) - green or arid
Early Syracusan - green or arid
Syracusan - green or arid
Later Syracusan - green or arid
Alexandrian Macedonian - green or arid
Later Alexandrian Macedonian - green or arid
Ipsos Alliance Successor- green or arid
Lysimachid Successor - green or arid
Macedonian Successor - green or arid
Ptolemaic Successor - arid
Seleucid Successor - green or arid
Early Sarmatian - green or arid
Rhoxolani Sarmatian - green or arid
Galatian (Macedonian Invasion) - green or arid
Galatian (Seleucid War) - green or arid
Galatian - green or arid
Provincial Galatian - green or arid
Hellenistic Achaian - green or arid
Hellenistic Eleian - green or arid
Hellenistic Spartan - green or arid
Later Hellenistic Spartan - green or arid
Hellenistic Athenian - green or arid
Graeco-Bactrian - green or arid
Graeco-Bactrian (Mounted) - green or arid
Indo-Greek - green or arid

Here are the same armies sorted by map type:

Thessalian - green
Thracian - green
Early Gatae - green
Later Gatae - green
Thracian Client - green

Early Hoplite Greek - green or arid
Later Hoplite Greek - green or arid
Classical Spartan - green or arid
Later Spartan - green or arid
Early Colonial Greek - green or arid
Later Colonial Greek - green or arid
Early Achaemenid Persian (Cyrus) - green or arid
Early Achaemenid Persian (Darius) - green or arid
Early Achaemenid Persian (Greek Wars) - green or arid
Early Achaemenid Persian (Plataea) - green or arid
Early Achaemenid Persian (Later) - green or arid
Lydian - green or arid
Early Carthaginian - green or arid
Skythian - green or arid
Saka - green or arid
Classical Indian - green or arid
Maurya Indian - green or arid
Gupta Indian - green or arid
Late Achaemenid Persian - green or arid
Late Achaemenid Persian (Darius 331BC) - green or arid
Late Achaemenid Persian (Bessos 329BC) - green or arid
Early Syracusan - green or arid
Syracusan - green or arid
Later Syracusan - green or arid
Alexandrian Macedonian - green or arid
Later Alexandrian Macedonian - green or arid
Ipsos Alliance Successor- green or arid
Lysimachid Successor - green or arid
Macedonian Successor - green or arid
Seleucid Successor - green or arid
Early Sarmatian - green or arid
Rhoxolani Sarmatian - green or arid
Galatian (Macedonian Invasion) - green or arid
Galatian (Seleucid War) - green or arid
Galatian - green or arid
Provincial Galatian - green or arid
Hellenistic Achaian - green or arid
Hellenistic Eleian - green or arid
Hellenistic Spartan - green or arid
Later Hellenistic Spartan - green or arid
Hellenistic Athenian - green or arid
Graeco-Bactrian - green or arid
Graeco-Bactrian (Mounted) - green or arid
Indo-Greek - green or arid

26th Dynasty Egyptian - arid
28th-30th Dynasty Egyptian - arid
Kyrenean Greek (early) - arid
Kyrenean Greek - arid
Kyrenean Greek (later) - arid
Ptolemaic Successor - arid

[Old_Warrior]

I think that the entire "Green or Arid" map choice is a waste of time. Whoever picks the map should just pick one that fits the two armies. By that time you know which army you are playing against.

This thread got too complicated and those that oppose it have my vote. By saying which map you want to fight on you limit the choices of your opponents.

In the end let the player to continue to decide. I often pick the arid maps as they offer a better contrast of units/map to my eyes. The green maps (forest in particular) are sometimes hard for me to pick out units letter code (D,F,etc). Maybe one thing that should be corrected is that the units should stand out better IN terrain and especially their letter status code. ALSO please fix the problem with the northern board edge to where you can actually read the data on the unit as it is displayed when you go to initiate combat. The comparison dialog of the units disappears out of play.

[the_iron_duke]

Whoever picks the map should just pick one that fits the two armies. By that time you know which army you are playing against.

How does that work when you are playing a DAG battle when you don't know your opponent's army? Are you saying that after one player has won the initiative one is given an option to select green or arid maps and then after that one is given a selection of maps according to the type chosen? That sounds more complicated to me. It is also open to human error. If I was playing a War of the Roses battle and someone deliberately chose to play with arid maps that would annoy me greatly.

By saying which map you want to fight on you limit the choices of your opponents.

I don't understand this sentence and why you think it limits your choice of opponent. According to the system proposed you don't say which type of map you want to fight on. It is automatic and in other respects the game runs exactly as before, and since all maps are renderable in both green or arid styles all armies have access to the same maps.

I often pick the arid maps as they offer a better contrast of units/map to my eyes. The green maps (forest in particular) are sometimes hard for me to pick out units letter code (D,F,etc).

If this is the case then it would be better to fix the game graphics and make it more accessible for the visually-impaired. It must be very hard for you as the game currently stands as there must be a large proportion of games where you don't win the initiative and your opponent selects a green map or when no arid maps are given for selection. If you find playing on green maps too difficult then the system would actually help you in that if you chose to play with arid armies you would never have to play on a green map.

[the_iron_duke]

I have just thought up a new alternative system that would satisfy Old_Warrior. That is that one could change the visual appearance of the map before or during the game according to one's personal taste and it would only apply to one's own side. So I could play a War of the Roses game against Old_Warrior and I would see the map as green and he would see the map as arid. The map "flavour" has no effect on gameplay so everyone would be happy.

I see two ways of implementing it. It could be done at map selection stage and the information would become part of the "game turn" file that gets sent back and forth between the players via the server. Or it is done locally on one's computer (perhaps via the options interface) and not part of the "game turn" file. I think the first option would be better otherwise there might be a lot of switching between map displays between games, unless the settings could be locally saved on the computer and switch automatically between different multiplayer games.

[voskarp]

Hello guys,

I had a quick read of the OP's thoughts, and I have a few quick observations to make regarding FoG(U) :
1) the terrain code has implemented a dual system for maps, in which there is a general tileset map setting, but there's also a specific tileset hex setting (ie for each hex)
2) maps can be instantly changed from one general tileset map setting to another (ie even at runtime)
3) the editor allows a one-click change of the whole map's tileset
4) MP map picking can be done on the whole existing map list (and can also include even the SP maps)
5) our aim is to add a terrain generator system (not for the initial release, but in one of the future addons) which should allow the players pick up features/contra-features before generating the map (for MP games)

That would be all for now

[the_iron_duke]

I think both systems could work together, actually. I think it would be good to have the automatic system I have proposed run as default and then at map selection stage have an option of viewing the maps locally as green or arid. In fact, if green maps are a problem for the visually-impaired then there should be an option to customise the visual display as it would not be hard to implemement and it would make the game more accessible for them. If Old_Warrior has problems viewing green maps then it is fair to say that others might be in the same situation.

Thanks for reminding us of cothyso's words, voskarp - as one can see, it would be very easy to get the map "flavour" to change to one's requirements. It is just about finding the best method of implementing this into the game framework. Most of the groundwork is already in place but there doesn't seem to be a system in place for putting it into practise.

[Old_Warrior]

To Ironduke - yes, I understand now that the armies are not shown before you pick the map. Thus I would just say to anyone here that wants the map to match to set up a game with an opponent - password protect it - and the player that gets to pick the map would just make sure that it matches the one that goes with the two armies.

Pretty simple solution ...