Flashbacks a la Gal Civ II in 3, 2, 1...

Winty: "So I need to send my troops to protect City03. The better route would be through River02 and Forest04, altough Mountain01 would be slower, it would be also safer thanks to my Keep02 in that area..."

Obviously, it not just (and only) about the "looking cool world". It's more about the feeling of such world (while looking cool if possible ).

Why does Elemental need a cool looking world?

I've got another answer to that question : if it does not look cool (say, like galciv which was not so fancy) my girlfriend will not play it. And this would make me sad

I LOVED that game!  Played that one to death. 

The graphic as to be nice. It's like when I look at my girlfriend, I know she is very intelligent but on  top of it she's really nice to look at which makes her a lot more appealing.

The game is similar. I could play it but if it,s nice on top of it, man the game will be a lot more fun!

ah, the only catch is my world of D&D has wildly different governments based on region, rather than just kings or magical sovereigns.   My current game has a merchant league acting as the main system of power (at least until the PCs go north to the country of vega.  I'm not sure what system of government I'm going to employ there).   So this can't be MY world...  unless you can create neutral factions that are represented by things like theocracies, merchant legues, and other types of communs.

I suspect this zooming feature in Elemental might be one of those features that raises the bar for the entire genre.  (i.e. after it is done, hardcore fans will demand it from almost every large scale strategy game)  But we'll see.     certainly makes the mod options off the bat insane.   I can't wait to see.   (I'm more excited about the non-zooming beta thoug, because I'll have that 1st.)

I know one of our goals is to have the Elemental engine be moddable to the point where modders could make what you just described. I don't know if it'll be that way out of the box but I know that's the intent at some point.

I'm a little confused. Will we be able to label during the game or during the map customization process? I think it would be weird to be able to label geographical locations during the game. I understand the whole "making the world yours" concept...but I want the world to be for everyone. That includes common names for forests, mountains, rivers etc.

Maybe I just read this wrong...Can someone enligthen me? Thanks

Both. For pre-built maps you can put labels before game and share with everyone. Although they might decide to rp their game in which the empire renames a valley or mountain.

In game will be you deciding on labelling specific points on a map, if you feel like or had a very interesting moment there that deserves it to be remembered!

Given the above quote, I am curious how the following quote might be accomplished? Even an Evil ruler requires resources, such as proper Wood and edible Food stuffs for his Kingdoms people...

I do like the DnD analogy as well. As a past DM, creating those worlds is the best part, well other than the occasional party ambush... lol

Do you mean in the campaign game? In that case I could see map labeling being turned off (or perhaps you just can't edit the major landmarks or maybe you can only edit terrain under your control).

Outside of that, I absolutely love the idea of being able to mark the map with atmospheric names that reflect the experiences or flavor of the area.

Ok, but what about multiplayer? You have the same mountain range with 5 different names? I love the idea of naming things but It makes sense (to me) to have that pre-game. That way, there isnt confusion when talking to others about the terrain.

Player A: We'll wage war in the CapnWinky forest!
Player B: I see two forests, "DrGruppieisawesome" and "DrGruppieishellacool"

Player A: Um ok....well the one by the main mountain range.
Player B: OH! DrGruppieistheshizzle mountain range"
Player A: I dont see that on my map, I named it something else cause were allowed to name geographical locations in game.

I understand if you could draw on the cloth map to come up with battle plans or maybe put notes down for tracking...but shouldnt there be some constiency when it comes to names of geographical locations? Isnt that why we have names to begin with?

EDIT: And I should clarify that I'm not complaining. I just want to know how this type of situation would be handled? Or am I just missing something?

Maybe the first player that discovers it gets to name it and that name is used for all players. Intersting thought - so would you want to cover the map with "DrGuppiexxxxxx" and thus give away to everyone where you ahd been, or would you want to go with neutral names to keep others in the dark? Or would you want to name things after other players to further muddy the water and confuse the opposition? Ah the devious mind game possibilities....

It's not that uncommon for different civilizations to have different names for the same landmark, especially if they're at war.

So if I want to name the river "St. Tridus Brook" and you want to name it "Frogboy was here"... hey, the winner of the war gets to decide on the final name!

I completly agree with you Tridus. But Frogboy's comment doesnt discuss details as to how naming will work. And that's what I was confused on. Maybe they do it like Denryu was saying and the first person who discovers something gets to name it. Or maybe names can be fought out over war. Who knows...

For communication purposes in MP, It would be nice if every civilization has reference to the same names, regardless of how those names are chosen.

I can see the potential for confusion, but I've got a couple half-baked ideas for how you could reduce or eliminate that and I'm sure SD does too (and hopefully their's are a little more well done).

Thinking about it now, I see multiplayer as one of the best places for such a feature. Who wouldn't want to name the forest "DrGuppie's Fall" after utterly destroying my main army?