artificial landblocks

[spqr_arcani]

What was the rationale behind the landblocks, eg. in the Libyan Desert and Asia Minor? Are any of these real?

I know there's an optional mod for RTR PE v1.8 to remove them, but I was just wondering why my spy would be blocked off by a bunch of trees going North/South at the eastern end of the Pountus Euxinus (Black Sea).

BTW, I haven't ventured down to Africa yet, so I'm not sure if the Libyan Desert landblock is artificial or geographically natural.

I saw on the downloads page that these landblocks are "AI enhancing", and that's what my question really is. How is it AI enhancing, and why are we putting artificial things into RTR when it's all about realism?

Merged the two posts. Use the edit button please.

[florin80]

I saw on the downloads page that these landblocks are "AI enhancing", and that's what my question really is. How is it AI enhancing, and why are we putting artificial things into RTR when it's all about realism?

We are, are we? You must be a lost member of RTRPE. They are there to stop the war between Carthage and Egypt which never happened in reality but was a nightmare in RTW and RTR 6/RTRPE. And it makes Carthage to expand rather in the westward direction as it did and concentrate on Iberia and Rome. It also gives Egypt more chances against the seleucids.
The other one is there to stop Bactria to go north each game and expand rather ahistorically. The problem was that instead of concentrating more on the seleucids it was going north into poor and mutinous regions where it was loosing money and troops. These are the reasons we did it like that. Of course, there is an optional with its own installer that takes out the land blocks. Easy as that.

PS: how come the equally artificial landbridges didn`t bother you?

[Darviathar]

There is one in place for the Parthians as well, preventing the computer with a pointless trek to Massagertes (sp).



I'm almost tempted to remove the one between Carthage and the Ptolemies....In my games Carthage never accomplishes a thing, and the Ptolemies ALWAYS knock out the Seleucids.

[spqr_arcani]

Fine, why are you placing landblocks...
Anyway, I'd never dare claim any credit for RTRPE.
Call it bad English wording on my part

Yeah, I figured it was the historical angle. Actually I tried the no landblock optional mod and prior to my 45 BC revolt ctd (or what I think is revolt ctd) that you've seen in other threads, noticed that my spy could get past the block east of the Pontus Euxinus but not the Libyan desert. It's all good though. Landblocks are the least of my problems now.

The landbridges didn't bother as much because from a logistical/engineering perspective, they've been implemented historically or at least considered. At the very least, they're realistically feasible. Example, small boats or real temporary land bridges. You don't need the Spanish Invincible Armada to move a stack across them. I could have lived without landbridges too.

But the landblocks feel, like I said, "artificial". Sure, it forces the Ptolemaic and Carthaginian factions to act more closely like history turned out. But let's say that there was enmity between those two factions in the past, there was really nothing stopping them from having war with each other. Well, maybe the Libyan Desert might have been prohibitive, but that should be modeled with things other than a landblock, say, no roads buildable in Libya. That's my angle, and I can definitely see the other rationale backing historical reality.

Now... if we could solve that revolt ctd problem

We are, are we? You must be a lost member of RTRPE. They are there to stop the war between Carthage and Egypt which never happened in reality but was a nightmare in RTW and RTR 6/RTRPE. And it makes Carthage to expand rather in the westward direction as it did and concentrate on Iberia and Rome. It also gives Egypt more chances against the seleucids.
The other one is there to stop Bactria to go north each game and expand rather ahistorically. The problem was that instead of concentrating more on the seleucids it was going north into poor and mutinous regions where it was loosing money and troops. These are the reasons we did it like that. Of course, there is an optional with its own installer that takes out the land blocks. Easy as that.

PS: how come the equally artificial landbridges didn`t bother you?

[florin80]

Fine, why are you placing landblocks...

It`s not actually my idea and initially I didn`t fancy it that much, but now I think it is the lesser evil from those two. True, there could be better ways, but we`re not developing this that much. It`s up to RTR 7 to come up with the radical solutions and better map.

Anyway, I'd never dare claim any credit for RTRPE.

I was of course kidding above.

Example, small boats or real temporary land bridges. You don't need the Spanish Invincible Armada to move a stack across them.

Yes, I know, that is what Candelarius used to say. I`ve learned it by heart a long time ago. Still, I think(personal impression of course) that going back and forward over a boat bridge with large armies about 4 times(if not more) a year and repeat it each year is a bit much and it really kills the point of having navies in those areas. Those boat bridges wouldn`t have survived without sea supremacy in the area, but in the game you can just skip this part.

I could have lived without landbridges too.

There is an optional for that too.

But the landblocks feel, like I said, "artificial".

Well, if you feel they`re ahistorical we won`t be offended if you use the optional add-on and take them out in your game.

Now... if we could solve that revolt ctd problem

Well, after you...
Seriously, I think that it has been at least reduced if not cured in RTRPE v1.8. I could be wrong though, as I haven`t really played in a long time.