Discussion: The Map

[ahowl11]

Mmmm, I still think for the grand campaign that the aral and caspian sea should be fully represented. I believe the map should extend as far east as Alexander traveled and as far north as where the Saka nomads resided. Remember, eventually the Saka will be a faction, as well as an Alexander campaign and the Mauryans. That's why I only cut it to a certain extent.

[Bercor]

Mmmm, I still think for the grand campaign that the aral and caspian sea should be fully represented. I believe the map should extend as far east as Alexander traveled and as far north as where the Saka nomads resided. Remember, eventually the Saka will be a faction, as well as an Alexander campaign and the Mauryans. That's why I only cut it to a certain extent.

Ok, I didn't knew that the Mauryans will eventually be in the grand campaign. Granted the point about Saka, it's a problem of the rotated map, but I still think the the left line and the under one should mark the west and south limits, respectively.

[Bercor]

Something like this...

[ahowl11]

Yeah. It won't make much of a difference. The Grand Campaign is just the base, we can really focus on detail for regional campaigns such as the Punic Wars.

[Bercor]

Every little part that we can cut will make the map more zoomed, and thus help us with the detail, even in gc.

[Bercor]

[ahowl11]

Here is my concern with that set up:
How important is Arabia and the Sabean Kingdom for this mod? Are they relevant? Some could argue yes, some could say no.

Also what that cut does is disable any trade from the red sea to indian ocean, which was a big source of income, not only for the arab states, but for the Ptolemies.

I'm fine with the north west and east cuts, but the south needs to include the rest of Arabia so that Saba can be represented and so the red sea can connect to the Indian ocean.

I know that it will include more of the sahara, but like I said before, with a terra_incognita province, that area will only be there visually. No armies or agents will venture into the abyss and no settlements will be present. The regions will also be moderately set up they that they aren't huge chunks.

[Bercor]

?

[ahowl11]

Perfect. The red line marks the border of the terra_incognita region and the red dot marks our terra_incognita settlement that will be unconquerable.

Border and city location is open to change.

[Bercor]

Seems good. Maybe you should send it to Gigantus then.

[Mausolos of Caria]

Agreed, that's a good solution

[The Sloth]

Just my usual piece of nitpicking...

Aren't there, like, way too many settlements in the campaign? Just because we can have 199 settlements doesn't mean we have to. Right now, the density of settlements in some areas is such that a general could visit four to five settlements in one turn. That leads to a number of problems:

- siege fest: From what I read, most players don't really like the huge number of siege battles they have to fight, and would rather fight open-field battles.
- repetitiveness: Having this many settlements pretty much means throwing the micromanagement aspect of the game out the window. Even someone like me, who usually autoresolve battles and spend my time watching my settlements develop and grooming my family tree would just set it all on automatic after 30 or 40 settlements. Also, the more settlements you have, the earlier you'll get the AI's inevitable stack spamming, where the player fights four or five identical battles per turn, none of which have any real meaning.
- balancing: I know it's historically accurate to have some areas with a much higher density, but this means that other areas have no chance whatsoever to keep up with the factions that own the more populated areas. Ahowl, you have played RTRPE, right? Remember the black death?

[Bercor]

Just my usual piece of nitpicking...

Aren't there, like, way too many settlements in the campaign? Just because we can have 199 settlements doesn't mean we have to. Right now, the density of settlements in some areas is such that a general could visit four to five settlements in one turn. That leads to a number of problems:

- siege fest: From what I read, most players don't really like the huge number of siege battles they have to fight, and would rather fight open-field battles.
- repetitiveness: Having this many settlements pretty much means throwing the micromanagement aspect of the game out the window. Even someone like me, who usually autoresolve battles and spend my time watching my settlements develop and grooming my family tree would just set it all on automatic after 30 or 40 settlements. Also, the more settlements you have, the earlier you'll get the AI's inevitable stack spamming, where the player fights four or five identical battles per turn, none of which have any real meaning.
- balancing: I know it's historically accurate to have some areas with a much higher density, but this means that other areas have no chance whatsoever to keep up with the factions that own the more populated areas. Ahowl, you have played RTRPE, right? Remember the black death?

Well, we don't know, right now, how many settlements will have in the final release, but I'll try to adress your concerns:
- siege fest: Yeah, that's right. With a great number of settlements comes, inevitably, a great number of sieges battle. I agree that they are repetitive and, if you exploit the AI weaknesses, easy to win. However, there's some areas that need to be properly represented to assure historical realism and to give space to the AI factions to breath (for example: the Peloponnesian peninsula can't only consist in Sparta settlement). But, as I said, the final number of settlements it's still in discussion and will depend of the historical research.
- repetitiveness: True, but that will always happen, not only in sieges aswell in field battles. Let's face it, you can win every battle with minimal casualties by engaging the infantry, destroying the enemy cavalry and hammer and anvil the armadillo out of the enemy units, it's pretty repetitive. That part of the game and we can't do much. Yes, we can try to make it less noticiable, but, in the end, it's still there and I don't think it deserves the elimation of some important settlements in Antiquity. Also, we will try to remove the AI spam fest by assigning longer recruit time for units.
- balancing: Well, this would be a mod design decision. Yes, it will make the Britons and Germans weaker, probably you won't see them dominating the map, but, personally, and I think most of the people, I prefer to see Rome, Macedonia, the Seleucids or Carthage become the major powers, than the formers. It's both realistical and historical, as you said, and will give more plausible result. Obviously, the player will be capable of winning the campaign with them, because the AI isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. Adding to this, it's far easier to research and be certain about historical settlements around the Mediterranean than to that in North Germania or Caledonia.

I hope I was able to adress your points. And remember, everything is subject to change, with a good justification of course.

[The Sloth]

I just wanted to say that you can't entirely sacrifice gameplay for the sake of historicity (nor the other way around). Of course, the end result depends largely on balancing, so maybe I brought this up too early.
Just keep in mind that there are other ways to reflect the significance of an area, such as the quality of its settlements.

[Bercor]

I agree, and we won't send balance out of the window, but we'll put more focus on historicity than in balance between different factions.