few suggestions for 4.0 (or 4.1)

[JaM]

Just few things i think would improve the feeling from this mod:

- remove the square cities and use new campaign map cities (like those in EB), They look much better than vanilla city designs and they give map better (realistic) look. It would be cool to see also eastern and barbarian cities of similar design instead of square/round design they have.

- Implement same thing as in EB City Mod - restrict the cities so they just cannot get huge. If you play long campaign, you end up with situation, where every city is a huge city with 25000+ inhabitants, which makes those few huge cities like Rome, Korinthos, Syracuse or Carthage look insignificant. No barbarian city was ever as big as Rome, so they shouldnt be allowed to grow that big.

(will add more later today)

[ajb]

What's ER city mod?

[JaM]

Sorry, a typo. it should be EB City Mod..

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=87828

[debux]

I agree with your first post (but only if you mean by changing the campaign map files)... I don't think it would be very time consuming or destabilizing. It's a minor touch, but a nice one.

Now, I really don't agree much with your second proposal... I really think that ExRM has great growth rates, and when not abused, it can simulate rather well city growth. And I've found that it's pretty much up to you if you want to allow your cities to keep on growing, as it's not like in vanilla where city growth is inevitable. Although capping all but a few to huge city levels does sound temping, it would sure make capitals and important cities really important.

[Carados]

I can see the appeal of changing the campaign map cities.

I completely disagree with the EB City Mod though. Personally, I get sick of modifications that unreasonably restrict mechanics of the game based on historical happenings as opposed to biological 'laws'. Not everything that happens in the game, happened in real life. There is a lot more fluidity and history is very unlikely to be repeated. As such, there is no justifiable reason to restrict the size of any settlement in the game. Under the correct circumstances, any of these cities can grow large. Just because it didn't happen does not mean it could never happen.

Let's assume that the Boii ended up with a particularly brilliant king with thoughts of great conquest - if this guy happened to be in power in 280BC, why should Rome be the only city that can still advance to huge status if the Boii decend on Rome, burn the city to the ground and enslave the whole population? Why? Under those circumstances, Rome is very unlikely to recover. What happens if the Celts also have a particularly brilliant architect? The information gained from Rome would be invaluable in improving the Celtic settlements. And with all those slaves and wealth, it is very likely that they would start building more houses to accommodate them all.

Yes, historically this did not happen. But the game is not history, the whole point of the game is to see if you can re-enact it, or change it. If you want complete history, read a book and do your own research. As such, possibilities such as the above needs to be achievable within the constraints of the system. That is what we offer and why we will reject any and all proposals to the contrary.

[JaM]

Then at least make those Celtic cities to look more like Romans, and not like Barbaric palisade villages.. Celts were actually quite civilized, and their architecture was not that behind Roman. WHole problem with this is mostly because once you conquer the City, you are stuck with its wooden Palisade look no matter what you do...

[JaM]

Carados: I thought this mod approach was extended realism... things you are mentioning are more suited for sandbox type mods..

[debux]

Well, I understand Carados' posture towards this. Usually some cities rose to prominence above others because of certain factors that can't be simulated. So far, the approximate maximum a city can grow to, and the rate it will grow at is regulated by the base growth level of each province, making some regions grow faster than others, and even some are heavily restricted in how fast or how much they can grow (like Petra, that unless with very low taxes, will remain stuck at any level above "Large Town"). So, in part, it would also be ahistorical to restrict certain cities to grow as much as they can, only because they were never able to grow to the level of a "Huge City" ingame, but due to external factors (Agrigento comes to mind, for example)

I'd say capping certain cities would be more for gampelay reasons, to make certain cities more important strategically (like Capitals, or influential cities like Athens, or Syracuse)

[JaM]

Exactly - restricting towns makes capitals more prominent. Problem with RTW engine is, its too much build for a sandbox play. CA chosen to give all faction same starting positions, same tech/building tree while balancing all factions to be equal... again, THis is ok for sandbox campaign, but its not anyhow realistic - certain factions were more prominent than others, they didn't started at the same starting line. (this approach was made ad absurdum in ETW, where Indian factions had same units, same ships and technologies as western factions, which combined with their rich resources made them expand everywhere... it might be fun for some, but its far from reality - they failed in unit design (failed to portray real Indian tactics and weapons, instead they made them copycat unit to western line infantry) which resulted in faulty gameplay (Marathas expanded into America in every campaign i have played the vanilla game!)

but back to RTW - same thing apply - if you give to all factions same starting position, it will get random, or (worse) based on few variables some completly lackluster faction will conquer the world, and i'd have nothing against such options for player, its not that interesting if it is done by AI every game you play, especially if you try to play historically.. So, why limit cities? Because certain places didnt allowed more people to settle in, especially barbarian cultures were impacted with this, which was the reason why they migrated into Rome occupied territories. But it doesnt has to be a negative for those factions - you can modify the building tree so they would profit from smaller development tree (they will get best units much sooner, which would actually made them more dangerous...


i really wish to see a mod, where Carthagians would challenge Rome for control over Mediterranean... not some germanic or dacian or who know what faction which only benefit was its borders were protected from two sides because of the end of the map....

[Carados]

Carados: I thought this mod approach was extended realism... things you are mentioning are more suited for sandbox type mods..

Extended Realism is not Total Realism.

I've got no time to argue any further, unfortunately. There will be no changes to the current set-up with regards to city sizes though by all means continue the discussion - if there is a reasonable idea then we'll think about implementing it.

[JaM]

Btw, same thing could be done indirectly without making it hardcoded restriction - all you have to do is to make squalor affect city growth more - Therefore if City is captured by more advanced culture, and it builds proper "health-care" buildings (sewers, public baths,hospitals etc) it will decrease the squalor which would allow it to grow higher.Right now squalor limits are too forgiving especially versus Barbarians, and while we agree that they didnt care about such things, it was the reason why they couldnt live in large populous areas, as it would be just too big invite for epidemies... problem is those higher level units wont be available to them...

[debux]

I disagree... what some call "barbarians" weren't really that uncivilized as one would think, even when one talks about hygiene. As a matter of fact, it was celts who introduced soap to other cultures, if I'm not mistaken. I think the fact that they lived in smaller communities (in comparison to metropolises like Rome or Carthage) has a lot more to do with the social structure of what would be "the barbarian tribes", rather than it being due to hygiene reasons. A proper way to represent this in the game would be to give Gaul, Germania and all the other geographical locations a lot of provinces (to represent the political disunity), but the province limit has been reached, and it would unbalance the game severely. And besides, I believe that squalor is a hardcoded "feature", and can't be modified at all.

And BTW... growth rates for certain cities are already determined by base growth levels: for example, Gaza can't grow above the "Small City" level unless given a competent and agriculturally-minded administrator. The same goes for many towns/cities that weren't considered as "possible huge cities in the future" by the dev team.