Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Tinto Maps #7 Anatolia Feedback

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
matfer13 said:
Great job with the review! I have some questions I prepared:
- Can you change the colour of the greek and turkish culture to the purple of the Byzantines and the green of the Ottomans, or if you wanna be more generic to the blue and red of the modern greek and turkish flags so that they can be told apart by afar;
- Is Ahis a republic in game? Apparently historians refer to it as such because it was a guild;
- Do we know if the Dulkadirids were already enstablished by the 1st of April 1337? And if they were should they be an actual vassal of the Mamluks or just a nominal one?
- Are the Eretnids a vassal of the Jalayirids or the Chobanids and is there any mechanic that represent Eretna's title of Viceroy of Anatolia of the Ilkhanate?
- I don't think neither the Karasids nor the Ayadinids ever were vassals of the Germiyanids, why are they represented as such?
- Why isn't Alaye a vassal of the Karamanids, since they were it for all their existance?
- You forgot to two of the Canik beyliks, the Kutluşah based in Amasya and Taşanids based in Merzifon(I may have written their names wrong).
And finally some nitpiks:
- The Canik beyliks usually are referred as nominal vassals of the Eretnids so I'dont know how much sense makes to have them as such by 1337;
- Although it's not wrong I think the Saruhanids should be renamed fo Sarukhanids because their founder and ruler 1337 was called Sarukhan, also it's not technically wrong to have them as vassals of the Germiyanids since Sarukhan started as an emir of them but I'm pretty sure that by 1337 he was just a nominal vassal;
- The Inancids(which we know were vassals of the Germiyanids) should be spelled Inanjids.
Click to expand...

From what it looks like to me, the Eretnids share colour with the Jalayirids, except in dynastic map. So it is likely they are subordinate to the Jalayirids. Same goes for the Sutayids colour.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Kr4mpus said:
May we see the harbour suitability map mode?
Click to expand...
I plan to share the harbor suitability map mode of Europe and the Mediterranean soon (maybe next week, if time allows), with the criteria we've used, so it's easier from now on to address this type of feedback; that's why I skipped it today.
 
  • 31Like
  • 5
  • 2Love
Reactions:
I think Lapseki was actually controlled by the Byzantine Empire, still. Someone mentioned this in the first Anatolia-thread, too. There was also a whole list of potential location-renaming posted by someone else, which may or may not have been overlooked.

Also, holy shit I'm anxious about that Balkan/Carpathian rework which is coming up next! Very curious about the results.

EDIT: I was sincerely mistaken, Laodikeia is not the same as Latakya. My bad. The Pamukkale is not really a source of salt, either. Removed that part of my post.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
matfer13 said:
Great job with the review! I have some questions I prepared:
- Can you change the colour of the greek and turkish culture to the purple of the Byzantines and the green of the Ottomans, or if you wanna be more generic to the blue and red of the modern greek and turkish flags so that they can be told apart by afar;
- Is Ahis a republic in game? Apparently historians refer to it as such because it was a guild;
- Do we know if the Dulkadirids were already enstablished by the 1st of April 1337? And if they were should they be an actual vassal of the Mamluks or just a nominal one?
- Are the Eretnids a vassal of the Jalayirids or the Chobanids and is there any mechanic that represent Eretna's title of Viceroy of Anatolia of the Ilkhanate?
- I don't think neither the Karasids nor the Ayadinids ever were vassals of the Germiyanids, why are they represented as such?
- Why isn't Alaye a vassal of the Karamanids, since they were it for all their existance?
- You forgot to two of the Canik beyliks, the Kutluşah based in Amasya and Taşanids based in Merzifon(I may have written their names wrong).
And finally some nitpiks:
- The Canik beyliks usually are referred as nominal vassals of the Eretnids so I'dont know how much sense makes to have them as such by 1337;
- Although it's not wrong I think the Saruhanids should be renamed fo Sarukhanids because their founder and ruler 1337 was called Sarukhan, also it's not technically wrong to have them as vassals of the Germiyanids since Sarukhan started as an emir of them but I'm pretty sure that by 1337 he was just a nominal vassal;
- The Inancids(which we know were vassals of the Germiyanids) should be spelled Inanjids.
Click to expand...
1. We may review the colors of the cultures, yes.
2. Yes, it's a Republic.
3. We think so.
4. Eretnids are their zenith at this moment. And there are some mechanics linked to Ilkhanate, I'll talk about that on Friday.
5. I'll check with the team about the more specific country questions and feedback, thanks!
 
  • 26Like
  • 3
Reactions:
1725888235201.png



Steve Lacy - Static

0:12 -◍──────── 2:38
 
  • 9Haha
Reactions:
Gianvitus said:
I noticed a different map style from previous Tinto map, with tiny mountains "paintings" and so on...
It is a different map mode, a graphic option or it depends from zoom level?
Click to expand...
Are you maybe referring to the colored wastelands on the political mapmode? If that's the case, it's a setting that the player can select; the first two maps are the countries with and without colored mapmode, for comparison.
 
  • 22Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Syphse said:
Hmmm, Western Anatolia feels a little jarring, especially since it's the only area with that scheme

But I cannot think of a good alternative. If you were going off the Roman names (as seems to be the case eastwards) it would be Asia, which would probably be confusing.

Anyone else got any ideas?
Click to expand...
The only thing I could think of is "Asia minor", but that technically covers all of Anatolia.
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Syphse said:
Hmmm, Western Anatolia feels a little jarring, especially since it's the only area with that scheme

But I cannot think of a good alternative. If you were going off the Roman names (as seems to be the case eastwards) it would be Asia, which would probably be confusing.

Anyone else got any ideas?
Click to expand...
How about Aegean? Like the modern Turkish region's name? It's not precise but it's better than western Anatolia
 
  • 11Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
tsr-aph said:
What determines dynastic colours? Seeing the colour changing between map modes is strange when the countries have not changed.
Click to expand...
I just asked our color bakers, it's akin to the country color, and in the case of having a dynasty present in different countries, it takes the color of the most relevant country. However, there's a bug in the code, which has yet to be fixed.
 
  • 20
  • 4Like
Reactions:
ArVass said:
Already?? If we have a full locations, provinces, cultures and resources proposal pending for Hugary, do we still have the time to post it before it's too late?
Click to expand...
To be fair, it was posted two months ago, the first reviews were much closer to the DD release than this one. But yes, there's some time to post it before we start the in-depth review.
 
  • 28Like
Reactions:
Im really sorry but compared to the other reviews of the regions, Anatolian one has been extremely lackluster. Compared to the density of iberia, poland and even arabia, the provinces in anatolia feel too large and generic. There were a lot of great recommendations and reviews under the original thread too. Its a shame for such a geographically and culturally diverse region
 
  • 17
  • 13Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back