Tenochtitlan Solution (No longer supported)

[Gurtannon]

We concluded that this is not feasible as 3D army graphics couldnt fit into the island, as minimum 100 pixel is needed

Here is the 101 pixel which is enough for location sizes, (Island itself told to be 6 pixel by Pavia)

Remarks:

-There will be strait crossing between its neighboring locations (as there was bridges with chosen neighboring locations)

-Rest of lake texture will turn to land texture to simulate draining of Lake Texcoco once the engine is ready (as 3d graphic alteration tweak for engine during gameplay is confirmed in some time after game released) and strait crossing will be removed of course once lake is drained, and normal land borders will be in effect

-Overlapping with lake Texcoco is no issue as lake texture will continue to stay until lake is drained

-It seems like naval aspect of lake wont be portrayed, so there is nothing to worry about some pixel transfer from lake to Tenochtitlan, as lake is used as wasteland in terms of gameplay

-If there is a need of lake pixel between its neighbours, there is enough pixel in middle of lake to make up for 100 pixel anyways

-Venice is given location by making it artifically big despite its land area being smaller to Tenochtitlan is not fair
Venice:

~5 KM^2
Map is from Grand Canal, Venice page of earthobservatory.nasa org


Meanwhile Tenochtitlan:

Just curious here, Do we get double standart because Native Americans are unimportant and will lose 99% of games?

Because if one really wants Tenochtitlan to be represented it can easily be added like Venice


NOTE: this suggestion has nothing to do with making lake texcoco navigable, it will be a normal lake, straits crossing are only to represent -2 dice roll nothing else, location modifiers can handle that anyways

 

[Billybobbill]

I'm not sure I understand your gripe... Venice and Tenochtitlan are both represented by receiving neighboring land from the mainland to make them big enough to be seen and clickable

 

[Gurtannon]

I'm not sure I understand your gripe... Venice and Tenochtitlan are both represented by receiving neighboring land from the mainland to make them big enough to be seen and clickable

View attachment 1306157View attachment 1306156

Hi there! A casual screenshot of a map fix that we've just implemented in the game:

View attachment 1304382

We can't apply the same treatment to Tenochtitlan or other places for a simple reason: it's a matter of scale. I'm going to use the pixel map, that we use to draw the locations, to show what I'm talking about.

Here is Lake Texcoco, with the island of Tenochtitlan marked in - it's 6 pixels:
View attachment 1304722

This is what happens if I grow it to 100 pixels, the bare minimum threshold that we consider acceptable for a location to be considered playable in the 3D map:
View attachment 1304729
This looks more like modern City of Mexico than Tenochtitlan, as there's no Lake Texcoco anymore, I'd say...

On a personal level, I'd also love to have Tenochtitlan portrayed as an island; but project-wise, this is what we all think will work better for it from both a gameplay and a visual perspective

In Venice, we've been able to make an exception for two reasons: it already had the lagoon around it, allowing us to 'fake' its shape quite decently; and because of it being so important for gameplay reasons, as now it will have the behavior we want for it.

PS: Before anybody asks - we can't share the pixel map with you yet, sorry.

 

[Billybobbill]

Oh, it was in the feedback of the feedback

Well I now understand your gripe very well

 

[Thorum]

So you'd give up the lake. That still wouldn't make Tenochtitlan an island...

 

[Gurtannon]

So you'd give up the lake. That still wouldn't make Tenochtitlan an island...

At least it wouldnt include Tlacopan like it did currenty, and it will look like island since only 6 pixel will look like land rest of it will continue to look like lake

Tenochtitlan location will be 101 pixels and pass the criteria, there will be strait crossing between its neighbours, so it will behave like island and look like island, and once lake is drained it will look like land location (would renamed to Mexico)


This will also save the devs from making location changes for Tlacopan as current non island part of Tenochtitlan would be Tlacopan location instead

 

[Sebroar]

This is basically what I've proposed, but you went more in detail. The only thing I'd add is slightly increasing the visual size of the island to make it more visible and avoid any problems with buildings/units.

If they manage to find a way to add Tlacopan as its own location and add some modifier to Mēxihco-Tenōchtitlan to represent the fact that it is indeed on an island I wouldn't be too mad, though. I understand that the island it was build on was very small, and the lake is too big to allow for such an exaggeration, so I get their point.

Edit: maybe something like this:

 

[Gurtannon]

This is basically what I've proposed, but you went more in detail. The only thing I'd add is slightly increasing the visual size of the island to make it more visible and avoid any problems with buildings/units.

If they manage to find a way to add Tlacopan as its own location and add some modifier to Mēxihco-Tenōchtitlan to represent the fact that it is indeed on an island I wouldn't be too mad, though. I understand that the island it was build on was very small, and the lake is too big to allow for such an exaggeration, so I get their point.

In order to portray draining of Lake, they have to increase the size of location, as current setup makes it impossible to portray draining as right now Tenochtitlan has 100~ pixel in lake surrounding and 6 pixel in lake, so they need to add locations to lake and most obvious solution is increasing the hitbox of the island and show it as island until it drains

I agree to slightly increase size of starting landmass of Tenochtitlan as Venice got bigger, Tenochtitlan land graphic part at start could be like 15-30 pixel


It would be waste of opportunity to not portray draining of lake Texcoco especially after hiring new programmers to simulate 3D graphical alteration, this seems like the perfect application of this future task


Btw did you also do the pixel counting on paint

 

[Aldaron]

There is also a problem that is not taken in account.

When @Pavía said that 100 px is the minimum viable, he forgot to say that the location should be coastal (and yes, I am aware that Benevento is inland and has roughly this size, but this comes no free of issues).

The biggest issues come with 3D art and specially clicking. While technically clickable, locations under 150 px are not super easy to click, they are literally in the limit. Even inland 150 px locations are not super easy to click.

What am I trying to say? That while technically locations this small are clickable and possible, they should be used with extreme care because the experience will not be amazing. Being coastal makes this a bit less dramatic.

In the specific case of Tenochtitlan, I am really not understanding why people are losing their minds.

First of all, if you move Tenochtitaln to the lake, the lake will most likely disappear. There is no other way. The sizes of the locations in the Valley of Mexico are already rather small, making them smaller to enlarge Tenochtitlan is not a smart move too as you are just moving the problem around.

Secondly, even if you add the city and manage to make it an island... for what purpose? You are not going to have a navy there. And even if you do, it will probably be a terrible idea for AI as it would need specific orders to make it not drain its resources creating a navy in a lake that has no place to go.

Overall, and with all due respect, I think this endeavour has little sense. I do understand that the depiction of Tenochtitlan right now in game is not 100% accurate, but in the bigger picture, this is totally unimportant and the consequences of adding it no matter what, do, in my humble opinion, eclipse the improvement in depiction of this place.

I know, hot take. I hope nobody gets mad at me, but knowing the game internally, I think it is a good insight.

 

[Galilleo]

There is also a problem that is not taken in account.

When @Pavía said that 100 px is the minimum viable, he forgot to say that the location should be coastal (and yes, I am aware that Benevento is inland and has roughly this size, but this comes no free of issues).

The biggest issues come with 3D art and specially clicking. While technically clickable, locations under 150 px are not super easy to click, they are literally in the limit. Even inland 150 px locations are not super easy to click.

What am I trying to say? That while technically locations this small are clickable and possible, they should be used with extreme care because the experience will not be amazing. Being coastal makes this a bit less dramatic.

In the specific case of Tenochtitlan, I am really not understanding why people are losing their minds.

First of all, if you move Tenochtitaln to the lake, the lake will most likely disappear. There is no other way. The sizes of the locations in the Valley of Mexico are already rather small, making them smaller to enlarge Tenochtitlan is not a smart move too as you are just moving the problem around.

Secondly, even if you add the city and manage to make it an island... for what purpose? You are not going to have a navy there. And even if you do, it will probably be a terrible idea for AI as it would need specific orders to make it not drain its resources creating a navy in a lake that has no place to go.

Overall, and with all due respect, I think this endeavour has little sense. I do understand that the depiction of Tenochtitlan right now in game is not 100% accurate, but in the bigger picture, this is totally unimportant and the consequences of adding it no matter what, do, in my humble opinion, eclipse the improvement in depiction of this place.

I know, hot take. I hope nobody gets mad at me, but knowing the game internally, I think it is a good insight.

Just give the location an extra fort level or some other modifier if people keep complaining but making it an island is complete nonsense gameplay wise.

 

[MasterPaw]

To me the main issue is not having the three cities of the triple alliance

 

[Gurtannon]

There is also a problem that is not taken in account.

When @Pavía said that 100 px is the minimum viable, he forgot to say that the location should be coastal (and yes, I am aware that Benevento is inland and has roughly this size, but this comes no free of issues).

The biggest issues come with 3D art and specially clicking. While technically clickable, locations under 150 px are not super easy to click, they are literally in the limit. Even inland 150 px locations are not super easy to click.

What am I trying to say? That while technically locations this small are clickable and possible, they should be used with extreme care because the experience will not be amazing. Being coastal makes this a bit less dramatic.

In the specific case of Tenochtitlan, I am really not understanding why people are losing their minds.

First of all, if you move Tenochtitaln to the lake, the lake will most likely disappear. There is no other way. The sizes of the locations in the Valley of Mexico are already rather small, making them smaller to enlarge Tenochtitlan is not a smart move too as you are just moving the problem around.

Secondly, even if you add the city and manage to make it an island... for what purpose? You are not going to have a navy there. And even if you do, it will probably be a terrible idea for AI as it would need specific orders to make it not drain its resources creating a navy in a lake that has no place to go.

Overall, and with all due respect, I think this endeavour has little sense. I do understand that the depiction of Tenochtitlan right now in game is not 100% accurate, but in the bigger picture, this is totally unimportant and the consequences of adding it no matter what, do, in my humble opinion, eclipse the improvement in depiction of this place.

I know, hot take. I hope nobody gets mad at me, but knowing the game internally, I think it is a good insight.

So draining of lake even after Engine upgrade for 3D graphic alteration during gameplay wont be a thing?

As current setup doesnt allow that, ( because Tenochtitlan have two seperate pixel block ) my setup was based on allowing draining to happen rather than making up for navy ( which you are right not feasible)

Also as naval warfare wont be a thing lake will only act as like wasteland in terms of gameplay, therefore making lake disappear in terms of hitbox doesnt seem like a issue and instead a good thing as I said it will allow to simulate draining.

Placing Tenochtitlan like in the pixel picture would allow for draining yo be simulated and transition of Aztec era Tenochtitlan to Mexico as map graphics gradually change

Also there is still enough pixel in east side of lake to make up for 150~ pixel limit I guess after that its hitbox will be close to neighboring locations in Valley of Mexico.

With all due respect too

 

[Sebroar]

There is also a problem that is not taken in account.

When @Pavía said that 100 px is the minimum viable, he forgot to say that the location should be coastal (and yes, I am aware that Benevento is inland and has roughly this size, but this comes no free of issues).

The biggest issues come with 3D art and specially clicking. While technically clickable, locations under 150 px are not super easy to click, they are literally in the limit. Even inland 150 px locations are not super easy to click.

What am I trying to say? That while technically locations this small are clickable and possible, they should be used with extreme care because the experience will not be amazing. Being coastal makes this a bit less dramatic.

In the specific case of Tenochtitlan, I am really not understanding why people are losing their minds.

First of all, if you move Tenochtitaln to the lake, the lake will most likely disappear. There is no other way. The sizes of the locations in the Valley of Mexico are already rather small, making them smaller to enlarge Tenochtitlan is not a smart move too as you are just moving the problem around.

Secondly, even if you add the city and manage to make it an island... for what purpose? You are not going to have a navy there. And even if you do, it will probably be a terrible idea for AI as it would need specific orders to make it not drain its resources creating a navy in a lake that has no place to go.

Overall, and with all due respect, I think this endeavour has little sense. I do understand that the depiction of Tenochtitlan right now in game is not 100% accurate, but in the bigger picture, this is totally unimportant and the consequences of adding it no matter what, do, in my humble opinion, eclipse the improvement in depiction of this place.

I know, hot take. I hope nobody gets mad at me, but knowing the game internally, I think it is a good insight.

I perfectly get your point.

The only thing that is, imo, of extreme importance is to give Mēxihco-Tenōchtitlan something to represent the fact that it was an island and, as such, harder to siege. If you can do this with a modifier it's perfectly fine.

Having Tlacopan as its own location would also be nice, but I can live without it. I've been analyzing the small bit of pixel map we have and I've noticed that the locations of that area are indeed extremely small (Azcapotzalco is 196 pixels, Tenōchtitlan only 151), so i understand why it's not represented.

But please, find a way to portray Tenōchtitlan's unique position if not on the map at least mechanically with a modifier or something.

 

[Streamlet]

There is also a problem that is not taken in account.

When @Pavía said that 100 px is the minimum viable, he forgot to say that the location should be coastal (and yes, I am aware that Benevento is inland and has roughly this size, but this comes no free of issues).

The biggest issues come with 3D art and specially clicking. While technically clickable, locations under 150 px are not super easy to click, they are literally in the limit. Even inland 150 px locations are not super easy to click.

What am I trying to say? That while technically locations this small are clickable and possible, they should be used with extreme care because the experience will not be amazing. Being coastal makes this a bit less dramatic.

In the specific case of Tenochtitlan, I am really not understanding why people are losing their minds.

First of all, if you move Tenochtitaln to the lake, the lake will most likely disappear. There is no other way. The sizes of the locations in the Valley of Mexico are already rather small, making them smaller to enlarge Tenochtitlan is not a smart move too as you are just moving the problem around.

Secondly, even if you add the city and manage to make it an island... for what purpose? You are not going to have a navy there. And even if you do, it will probably be a terrible idea for AI as it would need specific orders to make it not drain its resources creating a navy in a lake that has no place to go.

Overall, and with all due respect, I think this endeavour has little sense. I do understand that the depiction of Tenochtitlan right now in game is not 100% accurate, but in the bigger picture, this is totally unimportant and the consequences of adding it no matter what, do, in my humble opinion, eclipse the improvement in depiction of this place.

I know, hot take. I hope nobody gets mad at me, but knowing the game internally, I think it is a good insight.

I agree, I'm sure everyone would love to see every little detail, but this is still a game after all and it has limitations. I remember people saying that there were something like tens or hundreds of HRE states technically missing, which were simply too small to fit on the map, so it's something that's already being done and has to be done all over the world.

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

Secondly, even if you add the city and manage to make it an island... for what purpose? You are not going to have a navy there. And even if you do, it will probably be a terrible idea for AI as it would need specific orders to make it not drain its resources creating a navy in a lake that has no place to go.

This is what i have been saying all along. Ot would be terrible gameplay, i would hate it. But some people are so autistic in the stubborness they dont care they just want it for the lols, lmao

 

[Dongerino]

There is also a problem that is not taken in account.

When @Pavía said that 100 px is the minimum viable, he forgot to say that the location should be coastal (and yes, I am aware that Benevento is inland and has roughly this size, but this comes no free of issues).

The biggest issues come with 3D art and specially clicking. While technically clickable, locations under 150 px are not super easy to click, they are literally in the limit. Even inland 150 px locations are not super easy to click.

What am I trying to say? That while technically locations this small are clickable and possible, they should be used with extreme care because the experience will not be amazing. Being coastal makes this a bit less dramatic.

In the specific case of Tenochtitlan, I am really not understanding why people are losing their minds.

First of all, if you move Tenochtitaln to the lake, the lake will most likely disappear. There is no other way. The sizes of the locations in the Valley of Mexico are already rather small, making them smaller to enlarge Tenochtitlan is not a smart move too as you are just moving the problem around.

Secondly, even if you add the city and manage to make it an island... for what purpose? You are not going to have a navy there. And even if you do, it will probably be a terrible idea for AI as it would need specific orders to make it not drain its resources creating a navy in a lake that has no place to go.

Overall, and with all due respect, I think this endeavour has little sense. I do understand that the depiction of Tenochtitlan right now in game is not 100% accurate, but in the bigger picture, this is totally unimportant and the consequences of adding it no matter what, do, in my humble opinion, eclipse the improvement in depiction of this place.

I know, hot take. I hope nobody gets mad at me, but knowing the game internally, I think it is a good insight.

This makes a lot of sense. Maybe the best solution is a huge defensiveness modifier for the location and some events to make it easier to take when the conquistadors come knocking.

 

[Gurtannon]

I agree, I'm sure everyone would love to see every little detail, but this is still a game after all and it has limitations. I remember people saying that there were something like tens or hundreds of HRE states technically missing, which were simply too small to fit on the map, so it's something that's already being done and has to be done all over the world.

If there isnt space to portray it, I would agree, but there is space to represent it (getting to ~150 pixel ) which the very same space would be used to portray Mexico location too as lake gradually drains lake pixels of Tenochtitlan location could gradually change to land pixel once engine issue is solved

 

[Gurtannon]

There is also a problem that is not taken in account.

When @Pavía said that 100 px is the minimum viable, he forgot to say that the location should be coastal (and yes, I am aware that Benevento is inland and has roughly this size, but this comes no free of issues).

The biggest issues come with 3D art and specially clicking. While technically clickable, locations under 150 px are not super easy to click, they are literally in the limit. Even inland 150 px locations are not super easy to click.

What am I trying to say? That while technically locations this small are clickable and possible, they should be used with extreme care because the experience will not be amazing. Being coastal makes this a bit less dramatic.

In the specific case of Tenochtitlan, I am really not understanding why people are losing their minds.

First of all, if you move Tenochtitaln to the lake, the lake will most likely disappear. There is no other way. The sizes of the locations in the Valley of Mexico are already rather small, making them smaller to enlarge Tenochtitlan is not a smart move too as you are just moving the problem around.

Secondly, even if you add the city and manage to make it an island... for what purpose? You are not going to have a navy there. And even if you do, it will probably be a terrible idea for AI as it would need specific orders to make it not drain its resources creating a navy in a lake that has no place to go.

Overall, and with all due respect, I think this endeavour has little sense. I do understand that the depiction of Tenochtitlan right now in game is not 100% accurate, but in the bigger picture, this is totally unimportant and the consequences of adding it no matter what, do, in my humble opinion, eclipse the improvement in depiction of this place.

I know, hot take. I hope nobody gets mad at me, but knowing the game internally, I think it is a good insight.

I increased pixel sizes so that it will be slightly bigger than the location in the south

And I tried to follow the historical draining up until the end of Eu5 timeframe

So that draining can occur gradually and the size of Tenochtitlan seems appropriate considering southern location has 114 pixels


Btw
If anyone thinks making a draining mechanic for one location is pointless

The same method could be applied for Dutch polders and other coastline changes I am sure as the important issue is making tech handle turnin sea texture to land and land texture to sea during gameplay gradually, the location borders are unaltered

 

[Kvesir]

At least it wouldnt include Tlacopan like it did currenty, and it will look like island since only 6 pixel will look like land rest of it will continue to look like lake

I'm not sure if this is even mechanically possible in the game engine

 

[Gurtannon]

I'm not sure if this is even mechanically possible in the game engine

They recently opened new programmers recruitment , who will tweak engine capabilities in terms 3d graphics

Which includes deforestation, turning marshes to farmlands or draining lake to land

It wont be ready by release but will implemented at some point post release