Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

  1. #1

    Default A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    Perhaps a few well-placed stacks of rebels, perhaps not full stacks, but very-experienced and/or well-equipped small ones will deter the AI from certain paths. Also, since it will undoubtedly diminish over time with the various assaults, the path will eventually open up.

    For example: 4 units of experienced Celtic Professional Swordsmen with cavalry support in the mountain pass north of Venice will keep the Romans at bay until the Sweboz and Getai can develop into that void north and east of the Alps. Then the three can struggle over Pannonia, I would guess somewhere around 180 BC.

    Only if there is a way to keep the rebels from moving, d'accord. Have them garrison a fort, perhaps? I think the general could be given a hidden trait that limits his movement to zero? It could be a lot of fun researching what minor tribes were in various areas and discussing which ones would help game-play. It beats having a permanent 'wall of forests', or invisible desert walls that are unrealistic. I can't imagine (though I may well be wrong) that historically Carthage left it's eastern border un-garrisoned, which is what the AI might do if it thought a barrier was there keeping Egypt out. I think Carthage should suffer to keep some sort of garrison to block a, however unrealistic, advance from the Ptolemies. Maybe that's a contributing factor as to why they didn't struggle there? Not my AoE.

    I imagine a huge force of experienced desert warriors south of Cyrene would keep the two major factions down there from engaging in this 'desert war' I have heard so much about.

    There are also 'region debilitations' such as troop losses to disease or heat available in MTW2, from remaining for extended periods of time in the desert or swamp (such as the Pripet Marshes or the desert crossings) Mountain passes in and around Bactria could have the same effect.
    Last edited by HistoryProf; September 24, 2007 at 11:49 AM.

  2. #2
    sirfiggin's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    smelly smelly fens, inglind.
    Posts
    1,382

    Default Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    The "block this land-from-the-AI-with-rebels idea never works, the best thing you can do is try to make the settlement hard to reach, or make the area violently rebellious, but even then the A.I is drawn large areas of unclaimed territory. If their was some way to undo this, maybe make the victory requirements more central to their motives, the computer will cease from simply stampeding into the steppes. Of course, in Medieval, this was less of a problem, since it was harder to even attempt this, due to public order and cost, Russia and the Mongols and Tumirids also helped fill the plain, so maybe a Mid-North_Eastern faction is necessary, maybe a minor unplayable Slavic tribe, or something similar.

  3. #3

    Default Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    Semigallians?

  4. #4
    Zaknafien's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Somewhere inside the Military-Industrial Complex
    Posts
    255

    Default Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    Why dont you guys just wait and see what the next version of EB plays like when its released?

    Rome Total Realism VII Roman Faction Historical Advisor

    It is foolish to incur danger for small results; He must be considered a reckless general who would fight before there is any need, while a good one takes risks only in cases of necessity." ---Publivs Cornelivs Scipio Aemilianvs Afrivanvs Numantinvs

  5. #5

    Default Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    And not obsess about it in the mean time? Not bloody likely!

  6. #6

    Default Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    I' ve stopped the (initial) Roman and Getai expansion towards the Baltics, while stopping (initial too) Sweboz expansion towards the south and the Russian steppes, with a highly efficient way that is guaranteed to make EB members apoplectic: gold chevron Spartans.

    Hellenic Air Force - Death, Destruction and Mayhem!

  7. #7
    sirfiggin's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    smelly smelly fens, inglind.
    Posts
    1,382

    Default

    why not make the weather conditions really bad? so that settlement pop barely goes over 400, the people are prone to revolt and the invading army is wittled to oblivion? If a faction never occupied a region, why should they be able to in EB2?

    yay! I made yeoman!!!!
    Last edited by MarcusAureliusAntoninus; October 01, 2007 at 02:30 PM. Reason: merged

  8. #8

    Default Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    What's a 'faction'? There were plenty of people in the region. Far as I know, there weren't any 'factions' in actual history.



  9. #9

    Icon13 Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    Quote Originally Posted by cherryfunk View Post
    What's a 'faction'? There were plenty of people in the region. Far as I know, there weren't any 'factions' in actual history.
    A "faction" represents a collective group of people under the same rule. So you should have said, "There were many factions in history such as Egypt, Rome, Athens, Sparta etc. but some factions represented in this game are historically incorrect, such as Gaul (Which was made up of many independent tribes).
    You're right, some "factions" are just people under leadership of a certain warlord or lord of some sort. The game developers wanted to join all these small tribes to an alliance (faction) so they can be played.

  10. #10

    Default Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    I understand what a faction is. My point is that this statement: 'If a faction never occupied a region, why should they be able to in EB2?' is nonsensical. All regions were occupied. None were occupied by 'factions' because that's a game term, not an historical term. Applying game logic to the real world makes no sense.



  11. #11

    Default Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    Quote Originally Posted by cherryfunk View Post
    I understand what a faction is. My point is that this statement: 'If a faction never occupied a region, why should they be able to in EB2?' is nonsensical. All regions were occupied. None were occupied by 'factions' because that's a game term, not an historical term. Applying game logic to the real world makes no sense.
    Then we reach an impasse. We have to apply game logic to the real world because we are making a game. What we need to make sure happens is that this logic is both consistent and reflects the historical situation of this time-period. There are of course many other constraints, but the statement you quote is not non-sensical, unless you reject any correspondence between historical reality and what appears in EB.

    There are three terms in the above quote that need to be clarified, not only in reference to the historical situation of our start time, but also in reference to how the rest of the game interprets these words: what is a faction? what is a region, and what does it mean for a faction to occupy a region?

    Thus not only do we need to debate the historical facts, but also how to intepret them into a game situation.

    Foot
    EBII Mod Leader
    Hayasdan Faction Co-ordinator

  12. #12

    Default Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    but the statement you quote is not non-sensical, unless you reject any correspondence between historical reality and what appears in EB.
    It's non-sensical to state that there was no 'faction' in, say Bohemia or Mauretania or any one of dozens (or hundreds) of other areas that were populated by distinct cultural entities.

    Yes, we need to attempt to make the game reality fit historical reality, but no, it can't be done perfectly and anyone claiming that such-and-such was not a 'faction' is missing the entire point. The game designers have to decide what does or does not deserve to be a faction, and there are as many opinions on that as there are game designers.

    So again, the statement that there were, historically, no 'factions' in a given area is meaningless. You can say that, in your opinion, non of the cultural entities in a given area are, within the limits of the RTW engine, deserving of a faction slot. But that's about as definitive a statement as can be made.



  13. #13

    Default Re: A (possible?) fix for the Roman/Baltic connection, et. al.

    Well here is a thought say your Rome and just some how conquered every thing one the map except the Sahara you keep having stacks of rebel Berbers attacking cathage and you locate there only settlement would you not take it just to get rid of that thorn in your back? Note I am aware that they are nomadic but control of their land could mean patrols and their destruction. Also the historical concept of a global roman empire would require something like an entire dynasty of Caesars and Alexander’s but It isn’t impossible just unlikely. Besides even though is desert people did live their and if nothing else that means taxes and money also their would be trade from mid African tribes rich in gold Hell I have heard theories that carthage had made contact with them throw circumnavigating the west African coast me I personally believe it they where possibly the greatest navy in antiquity and it would help explain a few things… like their enormous wealth.
    "Midway upon the journey of our life
    I found myself within a forest dark,
    For the straightforward pathway had been lost." Dante Alighieri

Posting Permissions

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