Author Topic: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones  (Read 9884 times)

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Topic Start: December 10, 2012, 04:14:41 PM »
    Title: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zone shapes and borders
    Summary: Re-drawing some of the sea zone polygons in order to grant port importance equivalent to how things used to be prior to the implementation of the new sea travel code, a greater balance of sea zone uses and size, and connections that would better simulate realistic naval travel (cutting down useless detours).
    Details: Changes proposed:
  • Moving the Pana Gulf / Sapphire Deep limit north, either maintaining the same region connections or plugging it to the Maeotis peninsula. Reason: Equilibrating sea zone sizes.
  • Moving the Sapphire Deep / Sea of Silence limit south, from Raviel to Paisly. Reason: Allowing Port Raviel to connect directly with Paisly in a single sea zone, avoiding illogical detours and preserving historical importance of Port Raviel as a liaison to Paisly instead of forcing the role upon the townsland of Raviel.
  • Moving the Gold Sea / Sea of Silence limit south, from the middle island to Mistight (or Lavendrow). Reason: Equilibrating sea zone size. No impact on Port Raviel to Golden Farrow travel times. Would make the limit respect the logic that limits ought to be on cities or between cities, and not next to them.
  • Moving Ravielan Sea limits. Reason: Equilibrating sea zone sizes by enlarging the Sapphire Deep and shrinking the Sallowcape Drift.
  • Moving the Sallowcape Drift / Shattered Shores limit south, from Sallowtown to Qubel Lighthouse. Reason: Respecting the logic that limits should be either on cities/strongholds or between them, and not next to them (this logic stems from the fact that cities and strongholds are the most likely destination and origin points, and such placement minimizes travel detours due to illogical zone travel and distance from zone centers. Following this logic helps minimize cases where one has to go south and then west before being able to travel to his northern destination, as one would have to do in this case to do Sallowtown-Mimer)
  • Simplifying the Blossomer Sea / Shattered Shores limit. Reason: Equilibrating sea zone sizes to enlarge Blossomer Sea and shrink Shattered Shores
[li]Splitting up Shattered Shores into two zones. Reason: Cutting down excess back and forth for travel between Port Raviel and Port Nebel.
[/li][/list]
    Benefits: A better respect of the historical importance of ports as per the old sea lanes (making sure that a townsland like Raviel doesn't become a more strategic harbor point than a city like Port Raviel) and a shapes that allow overall more direct travel paths that reduce the odds of having to move in all kinds of directions before being able to travel towards one's destination.
    Possible Exploits: No possible "exploits". Of course, some realms gain from this change, notably D'Hara (which I'm part of and won't attempt to hide), but imo this is just compensating for what would be most logical and for how things used to be, so it's not giving it an advantage, but rather fixing an unintended handicap along with making sea travel more intuitive and realistic.

If redrawing the polygons is a hassle, I think I could do it for you. I drew polygons for BT once for you guys, if it's the same format I could easily do the same for sea zones. It'd be insanely quicker too, much less precision and many less regions. The Sapphire Deep sea zone's the one I got the most beef with, but I guess my geographer education pushes me towards an obsession of optimizing land divisions in order to minimize distortions (where one splits up a territory into regions to minimize distortions was a big part of the things I used to do). If it's a different format, you could just let me know what format it is, and I can check if my software is compatible with it.

For reference: start of discussion was here:

Really feels weird to have to take a huge detour by sea to get to Paisly or Paisland from Port Raviel, when it was always just a short trip away. I don't understand why the sea zones there weren't made to emulate how travel used to be. Otherwise it'd force us to board from Raviel... which is utterly akward, when we've always left from PORT Raviel right next door. Just seems like that's the place we ought to be building actual ports, not Raviel...

Port Raviel/Paisly is the only short sea route that seems to have been turned into a two-zone trip that I can see. Everywhere else, sea zones respect established sea routes. To compare, Port Raviel/Golden Farrow was made a one-zone switch, but Golden Farrow is much farther and travel between the two was always a lot more limited.

Just seems to me that the zones should have been like this, to keep short sea routes as a one zone hop, and longer sea routes as a two zone hop.


« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 11:42:27 PM by Chénier »
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Tom

  • BM Dev Team
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8228
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #1: December 10, 2012, 11:07:32 PM »
Two things to consider:

Size of sea zones has no effect whatsoever on anything. Since there are no resources at sea, the size of a sea zone is nowhere even calculated in the game.

What matters is the center points, because like for land regions, travel between sea zones is largely assumed to be from center to center (with exceptions for embarking and landing, so a next-region ship trip does not actually go via the center).

Shifting sea zone borders in within the same region (as in the Sallowcape/Ravielan case) does absolutely bugger all. Well, the center shifts a little, but it'll probably make no difference in travel times, and it doesn't change where you can embark or land, so it's purely cosmetic.

Finally, like region borders, most of the zoning was done with geography in mind, not political borders or historical importance, which can always change in the future. Likewise, the sea doesn't care where cities and strongholds are.


That said, these zone are probably not the last word and absolute perfection, I'll grant that. So I am willing to listen to input.

Penchant

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
    • View Profile
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #2: December 10, 2012, 11:18:36 PM »
Currently, I strongly dislike the current sea zone borders. It is true that the sea don't care where the cities are but since the seas have always been there, who ever made these great ports, would have made them in the most strategic location so as to border as many seas as possible, not the current setup.
“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”
― G.K. Chesterton

Tom

  • BM Dev Team
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8228
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #3: December 11, 2012, 10:54:17 AM »
would have made them in the most strategic location so as to border as many seas as possible, not the current setup.

Uh, no. Harbors are made where you can make them, not where it makes strategic sense. You can't just put a harbor anywhere you would like to. Many modern harbours have the problem that they are not ideally located for trade anymore.

Nosferatus

  • Testers
  • Mighty Duke
  • *
  • Posts: 1093
  • Too weird to live, too rare to die
    • View Profile
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #4: December 11, 2012, 11:19:12 AM »

Finally, like region borders, most of the zoning was done with geography in mind, not political borders or historical importance, which can always change in the future. Likewise, the sea doesn't care where cities and strongholds are.


The sea does not care where strongholds or cities are but it is important to acknowledge how the sea is and always was.
So i'd say we prevent  the new sea zones from changing travel times from previous sea routes considerably.
Thats how the sea was thats where the roleplay consistency is build upon.
If we change travel times suddenly it means the sea would have changed somehow, that does not regularly happen. 
So lets try to respect how things where as much as possible.
If cheniers changes make travel times closer to what they always where, i'd say yes.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 11:21:00 AM by Nosferatus »
Formerly playing the Nosferatus and Bhrantan Family.
Currently playing the Polytus Family in: Gotland, Madina, Astrum, Outer Tilog

vonGenf

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 2331
    • View Profile
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #5: December 11, 2012, 12:30:59 PM »
What matters is the center points, because like for land regions, travel between sea zones is largely assumed to be from center to center (with exceptions for embarking and landing, so a next-region ship trip does not actually go via the center).

Do you mean, for example, that for a trip from Port Raviel to Paisly the assumed boat path is outlined in red, but only the part in yellow is actually used for calculating the time, and the parts in red are fixed embarking/landing value?

That still makes it quite a convoluted path.
After all it's a roleplaying game.

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #6: December 11, 2012, 01:08:23 PM »
Do you mean, for example, that for a trip from Port Raviel to Paisly the assumed boat path is outlined in red, but only the part in yellow is actually used for calculating the time, and the parts in red are fixed embarking/landing value?

That still makes it quite a convoluted path.

This is exactly the kind of stuff I want to have fixed.



Though I'd do a minor tweak to Boiling Sea/Dancing tides, the inner sea's where all the major distortions are.

Sea "zones", imo, should just be cut-ups of a undividable body of water in a way to minimize such distortions. They aren't political, they are geographical. And they make travel intra-realm travel times atrociously long (on top of expensive) for island realms, once the old sea lanes get removed.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Tom

  • BM Dev Team
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8228
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #7: December 11, 2012, 01:37:22 PM »
With the system being as it is, you will always find some route that doesn't make sense. Someone will certainly come along if your changes are approved and find issues with them, for some other connections that they bother about.

Instead of feeling discriminated against, don't you see how much this makes your island realm MORE viable? Before you were tied to a small number of specific routes. A small alliance of realms could have easily boxed you in by taking control of all of them. Now you can go anywhere.


Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #8: December 11, 2012, 01:44:48 PM »
Honestly, I'm with Chénier on this. I see absolutely no reason for the sea zones to be set up deliberately to make the old sea routes take longer.

Sea zones are clearly not placed based on any particular geographical boundary. They are placed so as to split up the ocean reasonably evenly. There's absolutely no reason why the sea zone should make it take an extra trip way the heck out north to get from Port Raviel to Paisly.

Your argument, Tom, makes sense for land-based regions, and might make sense if there was some feel to the sea zones that there was some kind of actual geographic (hydrographic?) or meteorological reason for most of them to be split up the way they are. But with all the straight edges, they're clearly just, "Well, we'll call this part the Sea of Silence, and that part the Sapphire Deep. Where's the split between them? Oh, I dunno, how about....there."
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

Tom

  • BM Dev Team
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8228
    • View Profile
    • BattleMaster
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #9: December 11, 2012, 03:48:50 PM »
As I said: They are not set in stone, and yes they were drawn fairly arbitrarily. However, they WERE drawn on geography, for example often at narrow parts of a sea, or at a cape or hook.

One thing I intentionally ignored were existing sea routes. I don't see a reason to take them into account, because they were just as arbitrary. So the argument "this makes an existing route longer" holds no water to me, because at the same time it will make other (not-yet-existing) routes shorter, or even possible.

Also, the yellow zig-zag lines are not entirely true, and thus misleading. The actual routes are a bit more tricky, but shouldn't really matter. Judge travel times, not paths that don't have any in-game meaning.


Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #10: December 11, 2012, 03:58:23 PM »
One thing I intentionally ignored were existing sea routes. I don't see a reason to take them into account, because they were just as arbitrary. So the argument "this makes an existing route longer" holds no water to me, because at the same time it will make other (not-yet-existing) routes shorter, or even possible.

But this argument makes little sense.

The existing sea routes were, every one, drawn along what made good sense as trade routes. They were from city to city, and most of the city pairs were the closest 2 cities spanning a particular body of water. Now, obviously, long routes like from the D'Haran islands up to Morek/Astrum don't make sense to try to preserve as a single sea zone—but short routes like from Paisly to Port Raviel, or from Libidizedd to Eidulb, make perfect sense. (And I would note that Libidizedd's two sea routes have been preserved as a single sea zone.) I don't have a problem with upsetting the old order for good reasons, but upsetting the old order simply for the sake of it is silly.

In short, long-standing IC trade routes like the old sea routes should, in general, be shorter hops than other trips of similar distances. That's why they would be trade routes in the first place.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

fodder

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
    • View Profile
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #11: December 11, 2012, 07:49:28 PM »
with the current map as it is....why would anyone want to sail from paisly to port raviel anyway?

go from paisly to raviel then go by foot to port raviel.

similarly.. port raviel<->farrowfield. or port raviel<->sallowtown

saves a lot of time.

win some. lose some... 
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 07:53:03 PM by fodder »
firefox

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #12: December 11, 2012, 11:58:32 PM »
with the current map as it is....why would anyone want to sail from paisly to port raviel anyway?

go from paisly to raviel then go by foot to port raviel.

similarly.. port raviel<->farrowfield. or port raviel<->sallowtown

saves a lot of time.

win some. lose some...

Embarking costs gold depending on the infrastructure. What you propose forces one to build all of the harbors in Raviel instead of Port Raviel (which is stupid), or in both should you do Port Raviel-(Northern Cities) often, and adds an extra turn of travel because land roads take a minimum of 1 turn per region.

Cities should be the transportation hubs, the travel nodes. Encouraging people to split their harbor investments into a ton of townslands just serves no purpose at all.

Also, the yellow zig-zag lines are not entirely true, and thus misleading. The actual routes are a bit more tricky, but shouldn't really matter. Judge travel times, not paths that don't have any in-game meaning.

How are they not entirely true and thus misleading? Are sea travel times not based on centroids?

Most of the other sea zones create only minor distortions from what I could observe. The inner sea is where there are all the major distortions. The proposed changes I presented do not eliminate distortions, but they reduce them considerably, well-within the acceptable average found elsewhere.

Instead of feeling discriminated against, don't you see how much this makes your island realm MORE viable? Before you were tied to a small number of specific routes. A small alliance of realms could have easily boxed you in by taking control of all of them. Now you can go anywhere.

How do you figure this? Unless I'm mistaken, you said there were no such thing as blockades and naval battles. Whether there be 1 or 10 sea zones around D'Hara, I don't see how this changes anything as far as defense goes. All I see it doing is increasing intra-realm travel times dramatically.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

fodder

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
    • View Profile
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #13: December 12, 2012, 07:43:39 AM »
Cities should be the transportation hubs, the travel nodes. Encouraging people to split their harbor investments into a ton of townslands just serves no purpose at all.

i don't agree with that. take BT. i'm going to stick a harbour in avengmil, because that's where it makes sense. if you want to go the southern route via boats, then you go from Rines to Avengmil to take a boat. instead of embarking from Rines, then sail the long way around up melegra then down again.

if you take Raviel. It's obvious that you should stick a harbour there too. look where it leads.
laraibina, panafau, aveston, mattan dews, sallowtown, etc to the south and east, as well as paisly and all on the other side.

thus raviel to go sw/s/se/e, port raviel to go nw/n/ne.

gain so much as it is, so you lose port raviel<->paisly 1 hop trip. big deal.

how many harbours do you need in a single region? does stacking make things cheaper? i would have thought 1 is enough

also... until port raviel is the capital again, you won't even bother going there.
firefox

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Modification of southern Dwilight sea zones
« Reply #14: December 12, 2012, 12:47:12 PM »
i don't agree with that. take BT. i'm going to stick a harbour in avengmil, because that's where it makes sense. if you want to go the southern route via boats, then you go from Rines to Avengmil to take a boat. instead of embarking from Rines, then sail the long way around up melegra then down again.

if you take Raviel. It's obvious that you should stick a harbour there too. look where it leads.
laraibina, panafau, aveston, mattan dews, sallowtown, etc to the south and east, as well as paisly and all on the other side.

thus raviel to go sw/s/se/e, port raviel to go nw/n/ne.

gain so much as it is, so you lose port raviel<->paisly 1 hop trip. big deal.

how many harbours do you need in a single region? does stacking make things cheaper? i would have thought 1 is enough

also... until port raviel is the capital again, you won't even bother going there.

Not comparable... at all.

And I don't even see why on earth you'd bother. Both of your most important cities border the Sea of Four Cities, which is the only sea worth embarking to in your case. Sticking harbors in whichever is to be your permanent capital is the most logical choice, none of your other regions actually need a harbor (though you can put one in Melegra, there'd be no point to it).

And Riombara doesn't need to hop on a boat for intra-realm travel, because, you know, you aren't split up onto four land bodies?

Not to mention that there are no significant distortions in the sea zones around Riombara. They are all pretty much perfect, none of them force any kind of zigzag. Per linear mile, Riombarans will need to travel far less hours than D'Harans will. And yet, they'll also need to take the sea far less often.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron