Page 1 of 16 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 317

Thread: Political map changes

  1. #1
    Quinn Inuit's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,968

    Default Political map changes

    The twenty-faction limit is driving me crazy. If you could have another faction, who would it be? And if you had to get rid of a faction, who would it be?

    Me, I'd love to have three Gallic factions (Arverni, Aedui, and Insubres), another Germanic faction (not sure who), Pergamum, the Saka, Axum, and lots more.

    As for removing a faction, I'm not a huge fan of Illyria, and I occasionally wonder what would happen if we gave Sarmatia control of Arabia and Numidia and made them the world-wide horse raider faction.


    What about you?
    RTR Platinum Team Apprentice, RTR VII Team Member, and Extended Realism Mod Team Coordinator. Proud member of House Wilpuri under the patronage of Pannonian

    The ExRM forum: come for the mod, stay for the Classical History discussions. Or vice versa.

    My writing-related Twitter feed.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Political map changes

    Taking illiria out would make a huge power vacuum in the balcans just to make macedonia expansion more easy. Besides I love to play illyrians (I have a miniature army in 25 mm by the way). But if you take them out anyway make sure to give them HUGE rebel garrisons

    I would suggest elliminating at least 3 of the 4 the minning resources of the region though...(The factions that takes the balcans have access to a LOT of money)

    The unified horse archer faction is not a good idea. It is better to make them rebels with huge armys or make them nomads (is this still posible, BI has this feature i think) an leave the slots for more organized empires

    Fragmenting the gauls would make them an easy target for Rome, but it would be more accurate to play with them (The gaulish/german empire is good to play against as it reacts as a block but not accurate to play with because not one gaul king had the resources of ALL the tribes). You can say exactly the same about Iberians by the way.

    For new factions i would NOT like to have another nomads (the saka) or barbarians... I rather have Bithinia, Pergamun, split the greek faction in two (maybe be called Achaen League and Sparta) and even Rhodes (Yes, all helenistic states) this would make it a bit more clhallenging playing with ptolemaics and seleucids. The focus of the game will be in the conquest of the hellenic world.

    As a more reallistic desire i would like to make at least half of the cities in greece, macedonia and asia minor REBELS, to slow down the expansion of the hellenic factions.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Political map changes

    I would very much like to see Pergamon represented in the game (after all the kingdom was created exactly in 280 BC). Rhodes would also be nice to have as an independant faction but given the restrictions I would write this off as wishful thinking on my part. Perhaps a rebel province?

    The barbarian factions are fine with me, except Thrace. Iberians and Gauls do fine, the Germans should be OK after Quinn and Jamey are finished with them. I cannot say much of the Numidians and Britons though. The problem with Thrace is that right now it represents the dacian tribes. I don't know if dacians will be playable faction in the next ExRM release but the Carpathian region was not thracian. So I suggest giving Tylis to Thrace and taking at the very least the northern Carpates form them. Then again, this would misrepresent the Gallic incursions in the Balkans in the 280s BC.

    Now,Greece is interesting. From two Epirote, two Roman and one Pontic Campaign in the past few weeks I can say that the combination of half the Greek/Macedonian wealthy cities and the loyalty bonus from the Wonder in Corinth is a bit too strong. If I do not pay close attention to the region, one of the two factions tends to stomp everyone else.

    I would like to see the greek cities split in two - the Aetolian and the Achean league. This of course would make balancing a royal pain. Here is a map, showing the two leagues at ca. 200 BC:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...orld_c.200.png

    As far as I understand, the division was, with small exceptions, essentially the same in 280 BC. My ideas conerning the region:

    1) Macedon. Corinth goes to Achaen league. Bylazora should be a rebel province, since it was only for a short time (during Philip II's and Alexander's reign) under direct Macedonian control. Also, if I judge from the terrain map, Bylazora is in the place of Serdica (modern day Sofia, where I was born btw). Serdica was thracian city, although not part of the Odryssian kingdom, which is supposed to be represented in-game by Thrace. This should be a sufficient nerf and Macedonia would be off to a slower start I hope.

    2) I would split the Thermon province in two, the parts representing Aetolia (with city Delphi) and Boeotia provinces. Since a new city in the already dense and wealthy Greece is one too much I would merge the Antigonea region with Apollonia. It was part of the Epirote kingdom by that time anyway, seeing as how Pyrrhus was the one to name it (after one of his wives, IIRC).

    3)Achean League. Gets Crete, Corinth and Boeotia. Perhaps with preferences set to naval invasions in order not to abuse the Wonder bonus (I'm not sure if this would work well though, it's just an idea).

    4)Aetolian League. Gets Sparta, Elis, Athens and Aetolia.

    5)Syracuse. This must be decided after some balancing tests. The way I see it, though, the city was hardly involved in Greek affairs by that time, so its either a rebel province or an Epirote one. If it's rebel though, it becomes only a sitting duck for the Carthaginians to kill. If it is an Epirote one, it would make the Helleno-Phoenician struggle for Sicily much more realistic. Also, Epirote-Carthaginian war would be truer to history, seeing as how Rome and Carthage were still allies by that time. Of course care must be taken that Epirus is still in bad economical shape, cause otherwise, with sustainable war effort in Italy, it will crush Rome.


    I feel these changes would represent much more accurately the fragmented state of Grrek affairs when Rome began its rise to power. Remember, until the actual conquering, Rome used to play one faction against another for decades.


    Also on the note of balancing - nerfing Cyprus would be nice, otherwise Egypt ends up steamrolling the Seleucids after 265 BC mark more often than not. A slower process would be more realistic, giving time for the other factions to grab larger chunks of the crumbling empire.

    Taking Illyria out would be of no benefit, I believe, as well as adding the Sakae. Just keep the whole lot of nomads in one faction (Scythians) and let them raid the southern weaklings. I know its not very realistic but there must be a compromise between history and gameplay.


    In this new map, eastern Crete is not owned by the Ptolies. I don't know the historical truth of that. Also, was the Maronia province also a part of the Ptolemaic kingdom in 280 BC?

    As for removing factions, perhaps the only one which could be deleted without causing too much trouble are the Britons, seeing as how they are far off from any action and in all my campaigns but one did basically nothing, and in that other one they just managed to snatch one province form Gaul only to lose it a decade later to Rome. I don't seem to remember them doing anything significant before Caesar's expeditions anyway.

    EDIT: On a second thought, the thracians were already in decline by 280s BC. Perhaps just rename Thrace to Dacia.
    Last edited by Iskandar; September 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Political map changes

    I agree with your appreciations except about giving crete to the Achaean league. Crete was in the orbit of the ptolemaic empire.

    Britons, that would be my first suggestion of faction to eliminate but i did not want to upset Quinn ;p

  5. #5

    Default Re: Political map changes

    Well, it appears that Cretans were actually squabbling among themselves most of the time, when they were not engaged in piracy. Perhaps give eastern Crete to the ptolies and western to the acheans, even though i'm not sure how historical that is. I don't want to nerf too much the Achean League, you see. We could give them Syracuse, but that makes little sense, either historically or gameplay-wise.

    Britons, that would be my first suggestion of faction to eliminate but i did not want to upset Quinn ;p
    Yeah, it passed my mind that this would be like kicking a puppy but what choice do we have? If you are not playing as them, they just sith there.
    We can always make a hotseat happy-go-nuts German campaign with Jamey and Quinn where we raid, pillage and plunder "in true barbaric fashion"

  6. #6
    Wien1938's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norwich, UK
    Posts
    395

    Default Re: Political map changes

    The main problem, Iskander, with Greece is that there are too few cities and factions (game limitations). The Aetolian league should have Delphi (religious wonder and source of income); Sparta should be an independent power; the Achean League did not develop historically until about 250 BC. This could be the "Greeks" but then Athens is also independent. And as I've discussed with Quinn before, the Boiotian League should be present, but there are too many problems with trying to redevelop Greece with lack of factions.

    Ideally, I would like to see a much larger map scale, so many more cities could be represented, the independent kingdoms and leagues be represented and an absorbtion of ports into coastal cities, so as the cities will actually be on the coast. But then that would be an entirely different game.
    In addition, I would love to see areas like Illyria and Thrace as "tribal" territories, without cities but then again, this would be impossible to run under the game.
    Lastly, I would love on a map with lots of cities to have cities switch sides or rebel based on loyalty modifiers affected by loss of battles or cities nearby. High stakes for war! But this would be a different game...

    1. Bylazora represents the Agrianian and Paionians and there were cities in that territory. The territory remains part of Macedonia from Alexander's time, as Alexander formed the alliance with the Agrianians. The two tribes remain as loyal subject allies of the king, generally supporting the ruling monarch. In 280 BC, the ruler was Ptolemy Keraunos who was killed the following year.
    2. Thermon split in two is a matter I've discussed with Quinn, but won't work at present. Also there is a problem with Antigonea which should be closer to Apollonia and is in fact named Antipatria. I've argued for the city to remain in place and be renamed Lychnidos as the capital of Lycentis.
    3. As above, the Achean League did not exist until Aratos of Sikyon in 252 BC.
    4. Athens and Sparta were both independent powers. Elis (and that region) was made up of independent cities and towns. The Aetolian League did not extend into the Peloponnese; and ideally would have highly fortified towns and very aggressive troops.
    5. Syracusae as Epirote? Good idea, will pull Pyrrhus into Sicily.

    Maronia was ruled by the Ptolemies in 280 BC; I don't think anyone ruled Crete - it was more a matter of which faction backed by which imperial power favoured whom. Kydonia at one point was in the Aetolian League and Pergamum had longstanding arrangements for hiring Cretan archers.

    I would back the elimination of the Britons as a faction. They're too insignificant and can be protected by the removal of the Dover-Calais land-bridge. Without a navy - no invasions. Strong rebel armies though.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Political map changes

    In the realm of major faction changes, we could consider making Sarmatia a respawning horde faction. That way, it could be made to send waves of cavalry across the map. The devil would be in the details of doing this, of course. It's complicated by the fact that emergent factions can only spawn at map edges. That would mean that we'd need to have a good landing zone for them to funnel them into the areas we want to invade.

    -----

    If I were to remove one faction, it would be either the Britons or Illyria. The Britons just get stuck on the British Isles currently. Illyria tends to be completely irrelevant and is normally wiped out in 10-20 years of game time. Its units are inferior to the high end units that surround it, so it's easy meat for Rome, Macedon, or Thrace. Plus, I don't enjoy playing Illyria much (largely because they have no unit I fix on and go 'Cool!').

  8. #8
    Wien1938's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norwich, UK
    Posts
    395

    Default Re: Political map changes

    The trouble with Illyria is that the troop types support ambushing warfare, the country being mountainous and forested. But the AI is incapable of achieving this.
    It might be worth following Iskender's idea and stripping the provinces' down economically. The other idea that might make the area troublesome would be to radically lower the loyalty modifiers to represent the tribal rivalries and fierce nature of the peoples.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Political map changes

    I like Wien idea abou Illyria!!! Low loyalty, fierce revolts, an low income will keep the AI from taking easily the region and humans players wont use the balcans as a inexhaustable source of money as it is today.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Political map changes

    All right, so lets write off the Britons and the Illyrians. That frees up two faction slots, for which I'd suggest Pergamon and splitting the Greeks into the two leagues.
    As Wien1938 says, the second Achean League was created in 280 BC, but gained prominence after 245 BC. Still, for almost a century, the two leagues, along with Macedon, were the major players on this piece of the map (and Rome, backing one or the other). The Boiotian league seems to have been reduced to playing ground for the other greeks after the destruction of Thebes by Alexander. So, I think having the acheans and aetolians strikes a good balance between historical reality and gameplay. The question that is more important is who gets what. Spartans and athenians were independant/neutral by 280, cretan city states were going every which way with their allegiance, as usual.

    @Wien1938 That's too bad about Thermon, hope a way can be found.
    About Bylazora - that's good to know, I thought they were just independents with alliance with Macedon, not its subjects.
    Lychnidos is fine with me, I only suggested removing the region, cause one more province in Greece will make it too rich and the situation is bad enough as it is.

    Epirus having Syracuse becomes more appealing by the hour, but care must be taken that the kingdom does not grow too strong. Right now, Rome seems to overpower the Epirotes after the 260 mark in all my campaigns where I don't play one of them. Adding the income form Syracuse will make this harder and the one thing that can even the odds is a war with Carthage. Perhaps Epirus should start in a state of war with both Rome and Carthage?

    There was also a discussion in another thread about Macedon and the galic invasion by the start time of ExRM. I think having roaming rebel armies of galatian units or even some of the macedon cities being rebel with galatian garrisons would be the way to go. Giving them straight to Galatia would be A ahistorical and B too much strength for them, gameplay-wise.

    If we take out Illyria as faction, their provinces should have large garrisons, low loyalty and perhaps not so much economic potential. Otherwise they'd be easy pickings and quite valuable at that.

  11. #11
    Wien1938's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norwich, UK
    Posts
    395

    Default Re: Political map changes

    Broadly, Iskander, I find myself in agreement with you.
    Strictly speaking, the Achaean league does exist in 280 BC but remains insignificant until 252 BC (Aratos of Sikyon).
    The Boiotian League more or less remains tied to the Antigonid kings of Macedon - backing them against the other Greek states, until Philip V loses control of the league following his defeat at Kynoskephalai. In game terms, it should be treated as part of Macedonia and relatively loyal; however, it does not convert to Macedonia-style arms until late 3rd century (becomes an ally of Macedon in 245 BC) and were armed as theurophoroi (either peltasts or lighter hoplites) until reorganized on Macedonian lines.

    I would retain the region with Lychnidos as it is historically a border region of Macedonia and disputed between the Illyrians and Macedonians.

    I'm with you on Macedonia at the time of the Gallic invasions, although given that there was a rival claimant to the Macedonian throne at the time, I've have the Macedonian cities (Pella, Bylazora, Phillipi and Thessalonika) garrisoned with Macedonian rebel troops and two large (10-15 stack) Galatian rebel armies wandering Macedonia.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Political map changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Wien1938 View Post
    I'm with you on Macedonia at the time of the Gallic invasions, although given that there was a rival claimant to the Macedonian throne at the time, I've have the Macedonian cities (Pella, Bylazora, Phillipi and Thessalonika) garrisoned with Macedonian rebel troops and two large (10-15 stack) Galatian rebel armies wandering Macedonia.
    Nice.

    I would suggest also making al the cities in anatolian and the isles wich currently belong to the the Ptolemaic empire VERY LOW LOYALTY or even directly rebels.

    Wich should be the status of cyrenaica? I would suggest something similar.

  13. #13
    Wien1938's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norwich, UK
    Posts
    395

    Default Re: Political map changes

    Kyrene was intermittently independent or in the orbit of Ptolemaic Egypt, but I don't think it was ever an actual province. There's no record of Kyrene troops fighting for a Ptolemy.

  14. #14
    Delvecchio1975's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Taxandria
    Posts
    3,518

    Default Re: Political map changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Wien1938 View Post
    There's no record of Kyrene troops fighting for a Ptolemy.
    Dude, you're freaking me out! How do you know all this stuff??? Are you a highly evolved species of encyclopedia? Like an 'encyclops'???

  15. #15

    Default Re: Political map changes

    Please no more Gauls noooooooooooooo

    I think there is too much focus on europe and specially the Gauls (maybe there is a French conspiracy to take over RTR ) please NO MORE EUROPEAN FACTIONS look at the east or africa

    Put the Mauretania faction or an arab faction or the Mauryans (two guys made this faction but it needed balanace and reeskin, but basically was great)

    Dont touch illiria and sarmatia, macedon must be contained in order for other factions to survive.

    Mauritania will be reallistyc ro the time frame and will put a check to carthage (latelly in my recent campaings carthage has -slap Numidia in few years, so put mauritania.

    the arabs will be a great faction it will make the east even harder to conquer and will make seleucia, partia and ptolomeics's lives harder

    mauryans will be a great plus to this game... so please no more GAULS OR GERMANS history and RTR its full of them...

    (if there is a French conspiracy going on the I suggest a Mexican conspiracy and make AZTEC FACTION , even though I'm not from mexico but it will be awesome to see)

  16. #16

    Default Re: Political map changes

    Quote Originally Posted by MEGAS ALEXANDROS View Post
    mauryans will be a great plus to this game... so please no more GAULS OR GERMANS history and RTR its full of them...

    (if there is a French conspiracy going on the I suggest a Mexican conspiracy and make AZTEC FACTION , even though I'm not from mexico but it will be awesome to see)
    I'm trying really hard to see where this is coming from. In stock RTR, there is one Gallic faction. ExRM adds another, the historically important Galatians in Asia Minor. In both RTR and ExRM, there is exactly one German faction, which was very important in the Roman sphere of influence. One might even say that the Romans fought wars with the the Gallic and Germanic tribes for centuries if one were trying to be historically accurate. So, color me confused by your objection. :hmmm:

    Ultimately, this is a mod based on Rome Total Realism. The game is centered on the major conflicts in the Mediteranean and the nearby regions. Expecting anything else seems a bit odd.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Political map changes

    If you take the illyrians out you might consider using a different approach for macedon. I.e., instead of making them a unified powerful country you make the faction be the antigonids. This means that the faction will start with Corinth and Chalchis and that the macedonian homeland would be rebel with Ptolemy Keraunos as a rebel character. Antigonus and Keraunos were never a united faction nor could they have been one happy family ever. Antignonus did not control Macedonia in 280 BC and Keraunos would only live 1 more year historically. This leaves the faction weak enough in southern Greece to not be such a big threat and it will need some time to expand in the Balkans by which time other factions will be strong too. Besides, if a number of rebel cities are grouped together(illyria in this case), a small ai factions will have a tough time in getting them. So hopefully this will take care of the Balkans if you weaken the greeks too.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Political map changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamey View Post
    ExRM adds another, the historically important Galatians in Asia Minor.
    See? more GAULS everywhere (sarcasm)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamey View Post
    In both RTR and ExRM, there is exactly one German faction, which was very important in the Roman sphere of influence. One might even say that the Romans fought wars with the the Gallic and Germanic tribes for centuries if one were trying to be historically accurate.
    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamey View Post
    So, color me confused by your objection. :hmmm:
    I though that me saying that they should add an Aztec Faction was clear enough... I was joking man relax

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamey View Post
    Ultimately, this is a mod based on Rome Total Realism. The game is centered on the major conflicts in the Mediteranean and the nearby regions. Expecting anything else seems a bit odd.
    see here I will make a serious objection, I think that the focus of the game shouldn't be the romans only, if thats the case then remove the sarmatians and bactrians, since it was not until the empire that rome was in "conflict" with them... so it will be unrealistic to have sarmatia and bactria don you think?

    About Gauls: I really think that with Gauls and Galatia, as you yourself pointed out, are enough...

    About Germans: I think that making the Germans the Next Gaul its a waste of a great oportunity to add a NEW faction never seen before.

    About Roman Centralism: it plianlly sucks... I love the romans, the own the game from the title to its conseption, but the game shouldnt be only about them. If we let roman centralism then add the senate faction and other roman factions, since the romans where in constant civil war in the end of the republic its realistic... dont you think?

    About Mauryan Faction: I believe it will rock to have a more extravagant faction and there is even the space to put it. I know it will never be realistic with the western factions but if you play with seleucia, parthia, bactria, sarmatia, pontus, ect it will be a great add and a great challenge... dont you think? not every thing has to be about rome

    About Mauritania: I agree the romans had contact with them do you?... will it be realistic enough and roman enough?

    About the Aztec FAction: I was joking, I wanted to make it crystal clear, even though I will love an America Total Realism, but in no way I'm asking to add this faction to RTR.

    About the French Conspiracy: I dont believe it exists...

    Say no to the Italian and French conspiracies!!!! jajajajajaja i could help myself jajajajajajajajaja
    Last edited by MEGAS ALEXANDROS; September 17, 2008 at 12:25 PM.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Political map changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Wien1938 View Post
    Kyrene was intermittently independent or in the orbit of Ptolemaic Egypt, but I don't think it was ever an actual province. There's no record of Kyrene troops fighting for a Ptolemy.
    They were occupied by a general of ptolomy monoftalmos as soon as he arrived in egypt after alexanders death, that is all i know. I guess that by 280 AC they were in the orbit of the ptolemaic emire still, but surely not very fond of it as they were greeks.

    They should be rebels or polemaic with very low loyalty.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Political map changes

    I would like to see changed:

    Britons to another Gallic faction (Cisalpine Gauls maybe) (A shame of the britons though, but they aren't really... important )

    Illyria to another greek faction to have more competition for the rich greek lands. I doesn't really matter what factions, as long as it is in the Greek mainland...

    Galatia to Pergamon, simply because it is more fun

    Further should Parthia be better protected from Bactria, since they get whiped out every time

    Numidia Could become a sort of wasteland... A "no-go area"... Too hot and too much sand and "nothing to conquer there". Resulting in a free faction slot (the Numidian one) being used for another fun faction... Maybe one somewhere East of Egypt... I really would know what though... But that region is sort of "Ptolemy and Seleucid only"... A kind of boring area...

    That's it

    Oh, yes... one more thing!
    I think it is mentioned before, but maybe the lands above Macedon are so rich in mines and other stuf, that maybe that is a reason for Macedon to go North...

    Edit:
    Quinn... Could you maybe send me a list with stuf that still has to be done for the new map? Like removing that region in Greece and such... I kind of lost track of all things I have to change... Thanks!
    Last edited by Pat89; September 18, 2008 at 04:57 PM.

Page 1 of 16 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •