How would I go about creating a new map?

[Halberdier]

The next step is add the off-boxes to all islands that you want in two main areas: West and East Indias. It cover all wars from 1750 to 1850.

This is my proposal to you:





West Indias:


East Indias:

[Halberdier]

Like this: the same map with east and west Indias.

[TheDoctorKing]

I downloaded a piece of freeware called Geoserver and I'm messing around with it to see if I can get it to produce the needed map files. I'll report back when I've gotten it figured out.

If anybody in the AGEOD community knows of a superior free GIS program that will do what I want I'd appreciate some suggestions.

[TheDoctorKing]

OK, I give up. I don't have the skills for this. If somebody wants to help with this project, I'd certainly appreciate it. Here's what I need:

A map, preferably based on satellite imagery, of Latin America from the Gulf Coast of North America south to about 200 miles south of the Plate estuary in Argentina. I will need larger scale insert maps of the islands of the Caribbean lined up on the upper right, oriented as can be seen earlier in this thread. The map needs to be a .bmp file, no more than 11,000 pixels on a side (but not much smaller than that). If anybody can make this file for me, I will go on to create a map file using the exmap utility, which I have some sense now of how to work with. Or maybe not, but anyway I'm not going to get anywhere unless I have the original map file to start with.

[PhilThib]

Could you start with a temporary map which looks good but not final? I can make you a cut out from some of my sources...then you'll use it in Exap to make your regions...

[TheDoctorKing]

Yes, that would be great. At least I could get a map file going and then start on creating units, structures, etcetera.

I realize this is going to be a long process but hopefully we can get something playable. I'd love to be able to have something I could use with students in a Latin American history class, for example.

[PhilThib]

OK, I'll prepare a map for you (your task to make a cut afterwards). It won't be top quality like a real artist would have, but it will look nice anyway and will be usable for a good prototype start...

Then if the game takes form, I'll find for you the "real" artist (not me) that will do something nice for you :

When one is ready, I'll upload it on a ftp and send you the DL link

[PhilThib]

Map done. Link to DL sent in PM

[TheDoctorKing]

OK, so now I have a map, thanks to Philippe. See you in about six months and hopefully "Libertad" will come a little closer to fruition.

[PhilThib]

Good luck then...don't hesitate to ask for help

[TheDoctorKing]

So I open up the map and I start creating regions. Right now, all I'm concerned about is getting the borders down. I figure I'll define the other stuff later. I create a half-dozen regions and try to save. Two error messages come up in quick succession:

TTransportLvls.Get Transport UID -1 too low

and

Violation de l'accès à l'addresse 004B2536 dans le module 'Exmap2.exe' lecture de l'addresse 0000000C

I also exported the borders I'd drawn as a .bmp and tried to extract the regions but got some other 'out of range' errors.

Then I quit, reloaded, and wonder of wonders, a few of the regions I'd drawn were on the map but others were not. Looking at the .bmp file, all the borders I'd drawn were there. So it is saving some of my regions but not others. The regions were renumbered also, and as I was loading I got an error message saying that the regions were not numbered consecutively. I did this a couple of times and each time, some of the regions I'd just drawn were saved successfully and others were not when I reloaded.

Questions: do I have to have all the parameters (like transport level, terrain, etc) defined for each region as I create it to avoid crashes? Were maybe the regions that weren't saved those that I had not defined some parameters?

I didn't do anything with the locations of towns, sprites, etc. Might this be a problem?

Why would there be a UID of -1? I have my regions numbered starting with 0. Unless that is a hyphen before the 1 and it is referring to region number 1.

Aren't computers wonderful?

[PhilThib]

... yes, they are...

What I suggest, if you are planning to use the WIA terrain and game structure, is to zip and upload for you the whole fonctionning Exmap utility with the map (and your UID 0 province, tell me where it is)

Exmap is a wild and unstable tool, like a woman...if you don't do like she wants you to do, she get pissed off and sends you away

For instance, you must enter the sprites positions for each region, lest it won't work and crash

[TheDoctorKing]

Ah, it must have been the sprite positions. I ignored them completely.

My 0 province is Havana. Basically the eastern half of the PoN province.

I was actually planning to use the RUS game structure, with amendments.

[TheDoctorKing]

All right! Progress!

I'm still getting the same error messages when I save the map, but now when I've defined all four sprite positions for each province, when I reopen the map, the regions are all there.

I exported all the regions and didn't get any error messages. When I looked at the directory, miracle of miracles, there were .rgn files for the 13 provinces of Cuba.

Next question: how large should a region be? Do all those icons have to fit inside the region depiction on the map without overlapping? Maybe 13 regions is a little too many for Cuba at this scale. If we're going to do the various Cuban independence struggles (and the Spanish-American War) as suggested by my esteemed colleague, we'll be needing that level of detail. But if we're stopping in 1860 or so, then probably not.

[PhilThib]

I would say the average WIA size of regions is good...don't make them too small (unless forced by geography, like in small islands, or by desire of creating special cases), this is all the more files to create....and then to load...

The size should also match your time scale: if you stick to the 1-month / turn scale which is good here, WIA is fine

For Cuba, I would say probably no more than 7-8 regions, may be 9...

[lodilefty]

IIRC, as you do each region, the vetices of adjacent regions must be perfectly overlying each other.

Without this, you won'tt get proper adjacency for movement, etc, and your in-game map may look "funky"

Look in your new .rgn files, be sure you're seeing things like:

Adjacency0 = 48
Adjacency1 = 45
Adjacency2 = 45
Adjacency3 = 45
Adjacency4 = 45
Adjacency5 = 53
Adjacency6 = 53
Adjacency7 = 54
Adjacency8 = 54
Adjacency9 = 54
Adjacency10 = 54
Adjacency11 = 52
Adjacency12 = 52
Adjacency13 = 52
Adjacency14 = 50
Adjacency15 = 50
Adjacency16 = 50
Adjacency17 = 48
Adjacency18 = 48

I think an "error" gives value 999
Note first and last value are same, indicating "closure"

...and for 2 regions to be adjacent, they must share at least 2 common and contiguous vertices...

..of course, you probably already know this, but I'd rather repeat it than see you do 500 regions and then find out

[TheDoctorKing]

Thanks!

Looks like "adjacencyX = -1" is the error message...

edit: actually -1 is just where it borders on an undefined place. So "adjacency10 = -1" might be fine if you haven't gotten around to drawing that region yet. Like, I'm drawing the land regions first, so all the oceans right now are region -1. Presumably, regions at the edge of the map are always going to be adjacent to region -1 unless they have long jumplinks to off-map boxes.

Questions: Does it make any difference at this stage if I am giving the city names, sizes, port sizes, and so forth? I notice that the program seems to delete that information when I change provinces.
Should I "extract current region" after I'm done working on each place?

[lodilefty]

You add cities, ports, forts etc. in each scenario's cities tab.

only need to locate the 4 icons in ExMap

[TheDoctorKing]

Thanks, that will make things go a lot faster.

I'm expanding some regions to go out to sea, especially those little islands in the eastern Caribbean, so there's enough room for everything. It looks a little funky but hopefully will get the job done.

Can you have regions numbered out of order? Like I noticed in the game files that all the ocean regions were numbered at the end or beginning. Should I be doing this or does it make any difference?

[lodilefty]

Thanks, that will make things go a lot faster.

I'm expanding some regions to go out to sea, especially those little islands in the eastern Caribbean, so there's enough room for everything. It looks a little funky but hopefully will get the job done.

Can you have regions numbered out of order? Like I noticed in the game files that all the ocean regions were numbered at the end or beginning. Should I be doing this or does it make any difference?

They'll get numbered in the order you create them anyway, but try to keep an area (to be defined after map is close to ready: a collection of regions) reasonably sequential. It just makes scenario building a bit easier, but does not have much difference in the game funtion.

Right now, it's all about region boundaries, vertices and adjacencies!

[TheDoctorKing]

OK, Halbardier, this one's for you:

Is the Sierra Madre del Sur from Michoacan to Oaxaca mountainous enough to be considered "mountain" terrain? Should they be separate regions from the coast or can there be one row of "mountain regions" south of the Balsas river valley (which I'm doing as a separate pair of regions)?

How about the mountains north of Guadalajara?

I'm doing Puebla as a "hills" region with a mountain region to the north and probably south.

Should southern Veracruz be a swamp? Or marsh?

[PhilThib]

FYI, 'Swamp' is more like the Louisiana Bayus or the Everglades....the terrain like on the Carolina's coastline or the Cheseapeake should be more like 'Marshes'

IMHO most swampy terrains in South America (besides Patagonia) should be made 'Swamps' which are more of the tropical kind

[Halberdier]

The war in Mexico was in general:
1-Guerrilla warfare in the mountains. Similar to revolution in Upper Peru (Bolivia):
2-Siege warfare in some cities. See this very interesting book

Here a Link to Map of mexican campaigns


The terrain in general:
1-North of city of Mexico DF: desertic-rough (similar California)
2-South of city of Mexico DF: forest-Jungle (similar Guatemala)

A map of Mexico:





Altiplanicie or planicie=Clear or rough
Sierra=Mountains+Hills
Cordillera=Mountains+Impassable

1-Is the Sierra Madre del Sur from Michoacan to Oaxaca mountainous enough to be considered "mountain" terrain? Should they be separate regions from the coast or can there be one row of "mountain regions" south of the Balsas river valley (which I'm doing as a separate pair of regions)?

2-How about the mountains north of Guadalajara?

3-I'm doing Puebla as a "hills" region with a mountain region to the north and probably south.

4-Should southern Veracruz be a swamp? Or marsh?

1-Oaxaca= Mountains+Forest or Jungle (Chiapas,Guatemala=similar to Colombia) . But in the coast, Veracruz should be Marsh (no Trees) and maybe Acapulco should be Swamp (+Trees).
2-North of Guadalajara=Mountains+Rough
3-Puebla=Hills OK. But not forest nor jungle. (see map)
4-Veracruz coast= Marsh 100%. Tampico coast= Desert.

Hope this help

PS I'm closer in language, but farther than you from Mexico

[TheDoctorKing]

Yes, thanks, that's just what I'm looking for.

I know that operationally, everybody who invaded Mexico City successfully either came from the North or the southeast through Puebla. The rest is pretty much impassable for armies. The American invaders had a choice of routes from the southeast but I don't know if I have the room on the map to show that level of detail. The city itself was surrounded by lakes and I think I will show that by using marsh terrain instead of trying to have lake areas (too small scale).

The Sierra Madre Oriental and del Sur I'll make mostly impassable mountains with a separate plains region for the coastal zone from Acapulco down to Chiapas. The Balsas valley also clear regions.

The northern regions will be larger and mostly desert or hills as you say. Not much of interest happened up there until the wars of the 1840s-1860s, which I don't know if we are covering or not.

I'll reserve swamp for Quintana Roo, maybe southern Veracruz.

Should be done with Mexico tomorrow or Tuesday. Then on to Central America, if you have any thoughts.

[Halberdier]

Yes please send me a little picture (mini-map) with your regions of Mexico and central America to see exactly what we are talking about.

PS I do not know how does the terrain editor works, but to exploit the map, it could be usefull not to think the geography of the regions in terms tactically. Better logistically and strategically. Then, try to restrict the impassable terrain in the map, instead of it, you can use high levels of attrition.

[TheDoctorKing]

I see what you are thinking. I don't want to make much terrain impassable, but to create choke points where any large army will have to pass. I will probably make much of the Amazon impassable, though, and the high Andes except at a few passes where it will be mountains with tracks, allowing passage with high attrition so the famous mountain crossing exploits of San Martin and Bolivar can be simulated. The Mexican mountains are not as impressive as the Andes so I'm mostly using mountain terrain for them.

I don't know how to put the map in other than in its entirety. I will send it to you when I have completed Mexico.

[Halberdier]

TheDoctorKing What if we asked to Mr. Thiabud about using hexagons on the map?. Is possible if I understood correctly. Read here:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=218776&postcount=25

[TheDoctorKing]

I'm going to use regions. I think that you can depict the operational environment more accurately and also that is what the AGEOD engine is used to dealing with.

Have you played the AGEOD WWI game? Its map looks like regions but when you look more closely, each region connects with the six neighboring ones, i.e., they are covert hexagons.

School just started and I have a big press of work so I haven't been able to work for more than an hour or so the last week. Plus, I threw away a bunch of stuff I'd already done in Mexico and I'm starting over to reflect the suggestions you made earlier.

[PhilThib]

I also prefer regions rather than hexes, but both can be envisonned...

If you wish, I could do something for you to help you save A LOT of time, which is to produce for you a lot of "regions" of hex-shape with our recent exmap tool, and send the whole thing to you...

The good thing is that you can then always take the hexes and add/remove points to change their shapes (but it is cumbersome IMHO)...

[TheDoctorKing]

I also prefer regions rather than hexes, but both can be envisonned...

If you wish, I could do something for you to help you save A LOT of time, which is to produce for you a lot of "regions" of hex-shape with our recent exmap tool, and send the whole thing to you...

The good thing is that you can then always take the hexes and add/remove points to change their shapes (but it is cumbersome IMHO)...

Actually, what I've been doing is following the existing boundaries that are on the map for a first approximation at the map, then deciding how to amend them by inserting an extra region in some states, putting in mountain regions, and so forth. So if you could send me the map with the PoN regions already drawn in then that would save me a lot of time (though I have already done a bit of this work there is plenty remaining).