This is where our research will be stored for our minor cities project. For discussion on the topic, let me know and I'll invite you to our discussion on slack.
What be this? :)
Check the slack for details :) jubal@rtrproject is your sign in
Will do at some point soon - sorry, ultra swamped at the moment and not terribly well so I'm lagging with everything.
For now, I am going to put this project on hold (I had added a few cities in Italy) due to the fact that it may not be a good idea to do this. Some cities like Ancona, Corfinium, Croton, etc are necessary and there would be room, but others like Tibur and Praeneste, Nola, Cales etc just are too small and too insignificant. Once Muizer and co. develop a working map we can revisit this.
Are you using permanent forts or trading resources?
The choice is fairly simple (unless RTW cannot handle permanent forts to start with):
- the AI cannot handle forts
- they create path finding problems due to their ZoC especially if too dense
- they will create massive income loss (devastation) for the AI if the region changes ownership and the forts are not taken (which the AI doesn't do)
Recommendation:
- use trading resources, it even simulates income from those cities. Simply change the model and the pip for the resource together with description.
The idea with trade resources sounds very reasonable. Maybe we should go that way and test it out with just Italy first?
I think it is a good idea too, however I still feel like the most imporant cities should have a fort with a garrison. I have committed and pushed a small portion of minor cities to the western half of the map:
region Area106A
famine_threat 0
fort 117 121 ; Brindisi
region Area107A
famine_threat 0
fort 114 112 ; Croton
region Area147A
famine_threat 0
fort 77 144 ; Taurasia
region Area115A
famine_threat 0
fort 98 107 ; Panormus
region Area119A
famine_threat 0
fort 83 102 ; Utica
;region Area120A
;famine_threat 0
;fort 87 91 ; Thapsus
region Area124A
famine_threat 0
fort 83 83 ; Tacape
region Area118A
famine_threat 0
fort 53 118 ; Palma
;region Area137A
;famine_threat 0
;fort 48 128 ; Tarraco
;region Area144A
;famine_threat 0
;fort 58 137 ; Narbo
region Area147A
famine_threat 0
fort 67 142 ; Arausio
region Area146A
famine_threat 0
fort 66 150 ; Lugdunum
region Area152A
famine_threat 0
fort 44 168 ; Condate
region Area151A
famine_threat 0
fort 61 168 ; Lutetia Parisiorum
region Area149A
famine_threat 0
fort 66 161 ; Alesia
The ones that are commented out are due to the fact that they are already present as forts.
Now they need a garrison to be effective, as well as the spy with an immortal and immobile trait but its something to start with. I think if we limit the amount of these garrisoned forts, and use the rest as ports and resources, itd be a good mix. A nice idea might be to put the forts on top of the resources so that they generate income as well as providing a chokepoint.
However, I fear Gigantus will be right due to his experience, and we may not be able to have any garrisoned forts without some bad gameplay, but it's worth a try.
I will add more after work today.
Keeping permanent forts at a limit is fine, having them at choke points however isn't a good idea as the AI tends to vacate forts asap and they will remain in the ownership of the previous occupant, regardless of region ownership. The AI hardly attacks forts, so putting one at a choke point is close to making the choke point impassable. You will also have to make forts unbuildable because otherwise you will end up with more forts then raisins in in Christmas cake.
Building forts on a resource is a classic M2 exploit: simply place 20 merchants into it and you have a safe source of income.
Well I don't want to purposely put them in choke points, but lets test to see if RTW differs from M2TW much, if at all.
It's too bad merchants aren't in RTW, or else that would be a neat idea.
Regarding resources: does stacking them (same co-ordinates) work in RTW? In M2TW only the last listed resource shows on the map but the other resources (same or different) are reflected in the trading screen.
We can definitely try it, but for what reason?
assorted resources: Setting a region as major trading hub with multiple resources without sprinkling the individual resources allover the place.
identical resources: increasing income for a specific resource without sprinkling the individual resources allover the place.
Limited application, I know, just a thought that crossed my mind when discussion the trade forts
Thats a cool idea, would be a lot easier for placing resources at least.
Anyways here are the rest of the minor cities for testing, honestly its just nine more. I don't want to add too many and then remove them all. Now we just need to garrison them, add a general and add an immortal/immobile spy. Then we can see how they really work. If they work okay then we can start sprinkling more in. I had an idea with all the ports. Many ports in our map are accurately placed cities. I think itd be cool to add a fort on the pixel next to them, so that they can truly be represented. You could take an enemies fort-port and blockade it to choke it, and vice versa. Plus it'd be an interesting layout for some siege battles having a port and fort on the battle map.
Like I said, it's all for just testing purposes.
If we were to use cities as a resource, what would you propose which resource should be replaced?
region Area199A
famine_threat 0
fort 142 111 ; Thebes
region Area200A
famine_threat 0
fort 141 105 ; Argos
region Area201A
famine_threat 0
fort 136 104 ; Megalopolis
region Area178A
famine_threat 0
fort 122 145 ; Sirmium
region Area192A
famine_threat 0
fort 133 160 ; Dacidava
region Area249A
famine_threat 0
fort 189 22 ; Napata
region Area253A
famine_threat 0
fort 211 148 ; Phasis
region Area278A
famine_threat 0
fort 286 104 ; Persepolis
region Area159A
famine_threat 0
fort 52 217 ; Devana
A few notes:
Napata needs to replace Axum as a city
Devana is a current city, these coordinates above are the accurate ones. Devana's current place is actually Alauna.
QuoteIf we were to use cities as a resource, what would you propose which resource should be replaced?
Fish, I think one can safely assume that any port should have some fishing industry - and you have to place the resource on land anyhow to make trading use of it. Mildly superfluous I would think and therefore ideal for the cities.
Neear balkhash and Issykol lakes must be horse, huge sources of copper between the balhash lake and the Aral sea (modern central Kazahstan)
the source known from bronze age .
If we can to add new source: to south (or SE) from Aral sea and modern Afganistan also can be Lazurite or just 'Gemstones' in the game.
And saka can make trade cannabis.
The number of trade resources is hard coded - you can only rename them.
Just noticed with the empty forts that the rebels have a very limited selection of symbols (empty\FoW settlement symbol) - this article (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=539149) would help to resolve it.
I'd need to go through all of the symbols, but can you check to see if it is possible to do this in RTW? I thought that only 7 Rebel Symbols were allowed, one per culture.
I think we should should use forts to represent both permanent and non-permanent fortifications instead of cities: for example the seleucids had some fortifications in the eastern part of their empire that could be represented via permanent forts.
Quote from: ahowl11 on October 09, 2016, 08:17:34 AM
I'd need to go through all of the symbols, but can you check to see if it is possible to do this in RTW? I thought that only 7 Rebel Symbols were allowed, one per culture.
Before in TWC we talk about. And i made few symbols for nomad rebels. One of this symbols can be for rebels of NE part of map.
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/Xeo_the_Fox/symbols111%20copy_zpszfabdac4.png)
Quote from: ahowl11 on October 09, 2016, 08:17:34 AM
I'd need to go through all of the symbols, but can you check to see if it is possible to do this in RTW? I thought that only 7 Rebel Symbols were allowed, one per culture.
You are mixing up the culture based flag symbols in descr_cultures, where you can obviously have only as many as you have cultures (7), with the 'rebel_symbol' entry in descr_sm_factions. The two 'symbol' entries in descr_sm_factions define the symbol that shows over an empty fort\settlement and in the FoW mode over known forts\settlements.
About Khorezm area. Need to delete Dzhanbas (Toprak more old and big)
And main city in this region wil be
ToprakMinir city
Kalagyr
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/Xeo_the_Fox/20161020123056_1_zps8cxmanch.png)
But here problem with toponyms also. It`s modern names of ruins.
I think
no name in source or not interpretation.
I think we can use saghdian words:
In saghdian "kanѳ" mean city,
"uštəmāx" mean paradise.
"nəβdē" -dewy (or wet).
"ksep (ksep)" - it`s mean forsaken
"Mard" - dead.
"zāy" (?) or "kōs" in soghdian mean place or area
"γər" - hill |
Toprak-kala (or
Toproq) - it`s mean Dusty (sandy), kala - city.
In soghdian can be:
Uštəmāxkanѳ, Nəβdēkanѳ, Nəβdēzāy Kalagyr (or
Kyuzeli-gyr) - gyr it`s mean Hill, second name Kyuzeli-gyr -Hill with pots (Hill with ceramic fragments) Thanks to Serik Akylbek (https://www.facebook.com/serik.akylbek)
Problem of KALGYR it was dead city in RTR time.
can be
Ksepkōs or Mardkōs (or Ksepzāy or Mardzāy) or zāy Ksepkanѳ or Mardkanѳ :)
or early medieval (Idrisi map) we can try to interpretation:
Topraq like
Dargas (dargash)
Kalagyr like
Garas or
Kardan
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/Xeo_the_Fox/YDKRvrsmOFNUnsum_zpslfgnnepa.png)
We arent going to use native languages so Toproq is what we will go with.
Quote from: ahowl11 on October 20, 2016, 04:57:01 PM
We arent going to use native languages so Toproq is what we will go with.
Ok.
Toprak and
Kalagyr.But I`ll try to find to chage minor city expectant "Kalagyr" (not good time for mod)
Let`s back to archaeolgy...
If we can use modern native toponuyms we can see this picture:
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/Xeo_the_Fox/20161021172033_1_zps5onmmkfj.png)
This points good dating for mod time.
P.S.: Two Sanctuary of nomads - "Baite" more famous.
About Ptolemy...
If we have name of Kashgar like Kasia (Ptolemy source) we must have same name of this regeon "Kasia"
If we show some part of Taklamakan desert in new map we can call it "Serica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serica)"!
(https://s20.postimg.org/bgsgg3b9p/serica.png)
About
Rakhat (
modern toponym, but known elite
saka (posible tigraxauda) settlement).
Photo (from video). I can`t show the video (copy rights)
Spoiler
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/Xeo_the_Fox/kadr_utro.mp4_thumbs_2016.11.01_01.05.51_zpsppdeb5b2.jpg)
map
Spoiler
(http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/Xeo_the_Fox/20161101005949_1_zpsqgfciju6.jpg)