Topographic base map for navigating - suggestion for self locating on the map

[William Doggett]

Hi Naval Action devs, I really like your game!  And I like the lack of a location indicator (i.e. "you are here") blip on the in-game map.  I find it really adds to realism.  However, i still find it can be quite hard to locate myself when not right next to a port.

 

One suggestion would be to add a topographic base to your map.  This would allow for players to identify their location relative to certain peaks, valleys, and allow for self-locating when you are quite a distance from the shor but in view of prominent topo features.  If you eventually added the spotting scope feature to the open world, the topo base would be all the more useful.  And you already have the other half of the orienteering component to this triangulation method (an in-game bearing compass).  I would argue that a topographic base would be better than a simple relief map, but a relief map of this large region may be easier to generate and more acessible to the broader community.  Hope this is useful!

 

[Capt. Rice]

it would still be hard to reference where you are at unless you were keeping a close eye near shore. this only help if you see land.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Capt. Rice

[Admaa]

Would be nice to see if x "mountain" on the coast was the one I see on my map - after already exploring the area possibly?? - Topograpical or something similar, rough estimates as best as they were at the time..

Do not want to see how deep an ocean is via topograpical however, I wish to navigate shallows via what little information I have, so that I myself know my frequent ports well.. possibly have a shallows map when zooming in closer to the port, once explored/visited in X time

Idk.. just brainfarts.

[SyberSmoke]

I suppose a topographic approach could be used to find a place in the sea.  Remember ships of the day would tak depth readings determining the number of fathoms deep and the content of the ocean floor (sandy, Sandy with shells, Muddy...dead fish).  So if you also had the map have variable depths, you could let the player take a depth reading and have some idea of an area they are in from that reading.

 

A thought.

[AKPyrate]

Another option is that a more detailed chart could become available once you've 'explored' the area before.  Possibly when zooming in, as Admaa mentioned, the chart could become more detailed if you've already explored the area.  This could be a good incentive to encourage exploration.  Little 'notes' and locations/relative shapes of mountains could be added.  Below are a couple of charts drawn by Capt. J. Cook, with a style that I think could easily add to the immersion of the game.  Additionally, they don't need to be exactly accurate, but at least giving a general shoreline/mountain location/shape would be helpful.

 

c. 1759-60

 

c. 1774:

 

c. 1775:

['Sharpe]

+1 to akpyrates idea. It would be cool if topography were added as you explore new territory.

However having topography on the map would really call out some of the inconsistencies in this game versus real life topography. Key West is not located atop a huge mountain, etc.

[AKPyrate]

+1 to akpyrates idea. It would be cool if topography were added as you explore new territory.

However having topography on the map would really call out some of the inconsistencies in this game versus real life topography. Key West is not located atop a huge mountain, etc.

 

I'll take a few inconsistencies, as long as they're represented somewhat accurately on the in game chart.  We could chalk at least some of it up to changing topography over time, and the rest to making a more interesting coastline and game enjoyment.

[SyberSmoke]

I am not that much of a fan of having to explore everywhere just to get the map.  I do this a lot in other games and it is just....silly.  I mean you have a place where people have been for a good long time, where they have put towns and stuff where ever they could...and you, the captain are going about redrawing a map that has been drawn a thousand times before instead of just buying a proper chart.

 

It defies a certain amount of sense.  I could see if this were a single player game where you are a lone explorer venturing into the unknown to return charts and treasure to a patron.  But not really in the age we are in in the game.

[AKPyrate]

I am not that much of a fan of having to explore everywhere just to get the map.  I do this a lot in other games and it is just....silly.  I mean you have a place where people have been for a good long time, where they have put towns and stuff where ever they could...and you, the captain are going about redrawing a map that has been drawn a thousand times before instead of just buying a proper chart.

 

It defies a certain amount of sense.  I could see if this were a single player game where you are a lone explorer venturing into the unknown to return charts and treasure to a patron.  But not really in the age we are in in the game.

 

First off, the basic chart (such as the currently available one) should be available to all.  However, there is something to be said for actual experience someplace.  And yes, officers during this era did draw their own charts (see above post for examples - and not just from Cook's explorations).  You really didn't just go into the nearest printers and buy the charts like we can do today.  They were either hand copied (usually by the officer who wants the new chart himself) from charts of others who were familiar with the area, or they were surveyed when time was available in an area.  Some more prominent areas may have had a chart in a publication, but these could usually just be used as reference and great care would be needed when you were actually in the area.  Additionally, there has been talk on here before about getting some sort of experience or bonus from actually exploring an area.  The more detailed charts could be one of those bonuses.