Map question

[icydawgfish]

Why is the map so heavily forested? It's next to impossible to find a good battle field to fight when playing as the Romans seeing as they need flat open terrain. Also, I don't know if this is me or not, but the map seems empty. Perhaps more landforms should be added such as mountains and maybe small town icons like the Metro Naval mod for RTR uses which can then be used to determine farming output.

[Ihatemonday]

The metro naval mod is already implanted in soundmod and Rio will implant it to the next version.

[Riothamus]

The metro naval mod is already implanted in soundmod and Rio will implant it to the next version.

Yes Thanks

Why is the map so heavily forested? It's next to impossible to find a good battle field to fight when playing as the Romans seeing as they need flat open terrain. Also, I don't know if this is me or not, but the map seems empty. Perhaps more landforms should be added such as mountains and maybe small town icons like the Metro Naval mod for RTR uses which can then be used to determine farming output.

I'm not sure I agree with this but give me some specific locations on the map and maybe I'll see what can be done

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

try Thrace. In EB a plain, now a heavily forested area....
its also annoying when it comes to rivers and locations, but that can be fixed....

[Quinn Inuit]

I hate fighting in forests. I can't see anything.

[icydawgfish]

I think that the perfect combination would be the map that IBFD uses or maybe a modified version of the IceTorque map like RS uses so you still have that large map with all the features that this mod has. The only other complaint I hav is about starting forces which don't seem realistic in terms of army placement and garrisons.

[Riothamus]

I think that the perfect combination would be the map that IBFD uses or maybe a modified version of the IceTorque map like RS uses so you still have that large map with all the features that this mod has. The only other complaint I hav is about starting forces which don't seem realistic in terms of army placement and garrisons.

Its an area that can be improved upon....Can you be more specific about about starting forces placements? Thanks icydawgfish

[icydawgfish]

I mainly noticed this with the ERE, they only have a couple armies when I believe at the time, they would have had an army in Thrace, one in Egypt, one in Asia Minor, and one or two in Syria/the Levant. Also, the garrisons seem noticeably weak.

[Riothamus]

I mainly noticed this with the ERE, they only have a couple armies when I believe at the time, they would have had an army in Thrace, one in Egypt, one in Asia Minor, and one or two in Syria/the Levant. Also, the garrisons seem noticeably weak.

Sorry for taking so long to answer this. The RTW game in itself is impossible to simulate the exact numbers per Army. This is one of the stuck in my craw or a modders craw sort of thing, but your point is well taking and to an extent I agree. It never the less can be represented by some ratio way. I did increase numbers in this newest mod to better represent that in a historical way...The mod although will require the player to build up its settlements but with the more noticeably well known cities and capitals as being much more advanced. The mod especially in 463AD tries to depict the incredible strain the standing army put on the Romans. And also to a point any other faction and how the Western Empire relied heavily on the foederate
as shown by Boniface and Aëtius. Players will be forced to pay attention on the games economics as did Rome did before pumping out huge armies and also while having huge armies.