Version 5.8

[DimeBagHo]

I'm planning to release XGM version 5.8.0 in a week or so. The main change, requiring a break in saved game compatibility, will be the addition of Suppanut's Extended Cultures traits and ancillaries.

If anyone has ideas for other changes that would require a break in saved game compatibility, now would be a good time to mention them.

[TM Is Back]

5.8 already. I got 4 campaigns running in 5.7 and 1 in 5.6

Dime you really are a machine

[Suppanut]

DimeBagHo: Please use core part of module for 5.8.X V2 (which updated and add epithet for Hellenistic Kingdom) for ethnic traits in XGM 5.8. Or at least add part of Hellenistic Epithet and barbarian special_temple trigger to your version.

[CaesarVincens]

I was thinking Carthage could get it's own colony, as it isn't exactly an "eastern" faction. Saba would also be a candidate for a new colony. Or least a barracks for those two, using the old colony.

And Suppanut's module is called Ethnic Traits.

Also, I don't know how you feel about the Circle of Elders in the real Extended Cultures, but I think that could be added for most barbarians, if not all.

[Dom9127]

Could you include these in the next version? They certainly make the strat map more interesting.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/downl...o=file&id=1761

[Hippias]

Dime

Any plans to do Provincial Campaigns for the Eastern Kingdoms? Poor old Colchis and Bithynia wouldn't stand much of a chance, but the other 4 might be interesting.

Numidia was always a tough campaign when they were a playable faction, but the landbridge to Iberia might help and/or they could be re-invented as the Mauri and moved a bit further West, away from Carthage?

Nabatea - probably get squashed by Seleucids or Ptolomies, unless they picked the right one to ally with?

Axumites and Mauryans would stand a better chance by starting on the map edge.

[Centurion44]

Are you going to include Extended Cultures or the Command sub-mod anytime soon or maybe give Armenia a couple new units?

[CaesarVincens]

For XC, I'll direct you to this post by Dime.

I've been thinking about it.

I think the horse factions should have their own barracks. It probably wouldn't hurt to add barracks for some other factions, though I'm not sure they are needed.

I also think the colonies should have faction specific descriptions ('Greek Colony' or 'Roman Colony' instead of just 'Western Civilised Colony' for example), but I'm not planning to add faction specific colony buildings at this stage.

Could you give me a brief description of the other building changes?

[DimeBagHo]

Hippias: Mauryan and Numidian campaigns are possibilities, but both would require the addition of a bunch of new units, so they won't be happening any time soon.

Dom9127: I've been meaning to add those as an option for a while - I'll get around to it sooner or later.

[Arcansson]

What about some map changes?
1. Cutting steppe regions
2. Move Corinth on Isthmos
3. Give Croton and Messena to IGCS
I know that this will need a lot of testing, but I thing it could give much on gameplay .

[amarok]

Sorry if this is out of left field...

But Zarax's Carthaginian Senate ideas are fascinating.

If you could you put in whatever the groundwork/ foundation necessary for that then that addition wouldn't require a new series (5.9 or whatever it would be).

I apologize if I'm out of date, as I'm not sure the current state of that project...

Just wanted to say that I love the idea
and it could only enhance what is already a fabulous game.

Thanks,
amarok

[Zarax]

Any implementation of the carthaginian senate will take quite a while, as you can see on that thread everything is still on a quite experimental stage.

[Doppelganger]

What about some map changes?
1. Cutting steppe regions
2. Move Corinth on Isthmos
3. Give Croton and Messena to IGCS
I know that this will need a lot of testing, but I thing it could give much on gameplay .

I tried this myself, works well, scytia becomes a kingdom and not a orange mob, also parthia puts more initial pressure on the seleucid empire.

[LucretiusTC]

I guess one of the problems with those steppe regions is that if they are too the few, then those regions will become too thin and vulnerable for the attacks (e.g. the Seleucids). In my recent Cyrenaican campaign the Scythians as an AI Faction have become real monsters that rule all Eastern and Central European regions including e.g. Patavium in northern Italy, but the Macedonians seem to stop them in Thracian regions, and the Gauls are waiting for them somewhere on the other side of Rhine. Maybe some of those Rebel Settlements between Scythia and Germania should be a little stronger to slow down the expansion.

If those steppe regions are cut somehow, then Scythia and Parthia might need some kind of compensation to survive in this game.

If there are any plans for map changes, then some possible and alternative candidates for new settlements could be these:

1. Pelusion (Pelusium in Latin), the easternmost city in Lower Egypt; it could be located on the coast nearly in the middle of the triangle Memphis-Hierosolyma-Petra, and it could fill some gap between those settlements.

2. Ikonion (Iconium in Latin), the most important city in Lykaonia (Lycaonia) in Asia Minor; it could be located nearly in the middle of the regions Side-Ipsus-Ancyra-Tarsus.

3. Dura-Euporos, a Hellenistic and Roman walled city built on an the right bank of the Euphrates river; it could be used to fill the gap between Palmyra, Hatra and Seleucia.

4. Malaka, the modern Malaga on the southern coast of Iberian Peninsula; this ancient Phoenician city could be located between Gadir and Carthago Nova.

5.Napata, a city on the west bank of the Nile River in Nubia; it is possible Napata had always been the religious centre of the Kushite empire; it could be roughly located halfway between Pselchis and Mëroe.

About those geographical names, if there is a need for re-naming some of those settlements, it would be quite easy to give them more Greek names like Antiokheia, Seleukeia, Byzantion, Pergamon (-on, instead of -um), Kyrene (letter K instead of letter C), Korinthos (Corinth), Ephesos (-os, instead of -us), etc. But I dont´t know if this is a neccessary change. I just used to draw (or copy) historical maps for a fun many years ago, so those ancient cities and provinces are still quite fresh in my mind...

Finally I was wondering if there is any way to give some kind of traits when the General establishes a new minor settlement (formerly watchtower). Something like a trait of City Founder? In my recent campaign I have one particularly useless General that doesn´t do much as a Governor, and I don´t really need him to lead an army, so I have mainly use him to build those minor settlements in strategical positions.

Luc.

[DimeBagHo]

It looks like 5.8 will be delayed while I do some more testing of the loyalty mechanism.

LucretiusTC: Pelusion is a possibility, and some name changes wouldn't hurt either.

[Hippias]

Dime - What about some more forests on the campaign map in the 'barbarian regions'? Personally I like the feel of chaotic forest battles and they would give Gauls, Germans etc a better chance in a head to head against armoured Roman or Hellenic factions?

Also what about an uncrossable belt of forest along part of the border between the Germanic and Scythian regions, which might force the Scythian AI to do something different to a Golden horde style invasion of Western Europe?

[LucretiusTC]

Hippias, those forest ideas of yours sound promising...besides some units have this fighting bonus in woods attribute...more forests would make it more valuable attribute too. On the other hand so-called Pannonian Plain was quite attractive place for the nomads...

About those Greek names for certain settlements, here are some other names with that spelling: Pantikapaion (Panticapaeum in Latin), Khersonesos (Chersonesus in Latin), Kyzikos (Cyzicus in Latin), Nikomedia (Nicomedia in Latin), Paraetonion (Paraetonium), Trapezos (Trapezus), Thermon, Ambrakia, etc.

Luc.

[Stilgar CG]

Dime - What about some more forests on the campaign map in the 'barbarian regions'? Personally I like the feel of chaotic forest battles and they would give Gauls, Germans etc a better chance in a head to head against armoured Roman or Hellenic factions?

Also what about an uncrossable belt of forest along part of the border between the Germanic and Scythian regions, which might force the Scythian AI to do something different to a Golden horde style invasion of Western Europe?

That's a good idea, Hippias (+rep ). Golden Horde, indeed.

Perhaps, the problem is not that much (or not only) in Scythians advancing deep into barbarian Europe. I would not mind them meeting Germania somewhere near the Urals and keeping each other busy, away from the civilized Europe. Instead, Germanians and Scythians meet somewhere near the Urals, have a drink, make everlasting peace and move south. With Germania (on-going discussions, AFAIK) and Scythia (never ending discussion) held back, Ancient world will be a better place .

Furthermore, would be great to see in 5.8.xx Scythian advancement along the Black Sea coast (in both Europe and Asia) restrained as well.

Edit: Well, the Urals is a "bit" too east , I meant somewhere along the line connecting Baltic and Black sea.

[Suppanut]

Maybe very thick forest of old Lithuania/Belarus/Poland(Ancient "Białowieża Forest", passable but trickry to AI pathfinding) along with easy defense pass in Carpathians Range(with rebel stack in the fort on it would be good) would hold Scythia and German from met each other in Poland but still could face each other in Bastetania(today Moldavia).

[Stilgar CG]

Maybe very thick forest of old Lithuania/Belarus/Poland(Ancient "Białowieża Forest", passable but trickry to AI pathfinding) along with easy defense pass in Carpathians Range(with rebel stack in the fort on it would be good) would hold Scythia and German from met each other in Poland but still could face each other in Bastetania(today Moldavia).

Sounds like a good plan to me