1st Screens From "Antonov&CC's mod"

[Antonov]

I was just putting down the new textures and got so excited at what I saw that the only way to get my head back is to release some pics for you to see

Me and Caligula Caesar haven't been talking much about it but we are deep into the making of our own version of a realism-pointed mod. Here are some screens from the campaign map.

Some notes:
1. Notice that the map is completely zoomed out on those screens. You should be able to imagine its size
2. Small spots of Roma Surrectum textures might be visible. These will all be replaced with our 100% new textures.
3. I strived for realistic, colorful and detailed textures. This what I mainly want to demonstrate here.
4. The settlements are still under development.
5. The map_heights, as well as the contours of all the map files were generated with the Generic Mapping Tools, for maximum accuracy.
6. The water texture will probably be changed as well.

I can't wait to hear your feedback

[Quinn Inuit]

Looks good. The large size will help you implement Iskander's suggestions re: naval combat more easily.

Could you post the political map in more detail?

[Antonov]

What are his suggestions? I must have missed that thread. My main goal is to make the AI behave more realistically and I'm taking all possible steps to minimize its randomness, the map size being one of them. With a lot of scripting, I think it would be possible to make all factions expand historically if the player is playing with Rome, and make Rome expand historically if the player is with some other faction.

The political map is not completed yet, but here are the regions. We are starting from ExRM as a base. Actually while you were away we were thinking to release it as ExRM 3.5, following your to do list.

[Carac Caratacus]

really nice textures - looks pretty realistic compared to the default ones etc. And is the map much larger? I havent played ExRM for a few days(work stuff) but it seems this map goes much further east and the political map has how many factions?(it looks alot!). Nice

[Antonov]

The map goes a bit more east but the scale is increased about twice the size of ExRM. I think we reached an agreement on the factions so as to have enough factions in every geographical subregion of the map, but I don't honestly remember all of them

[Caligula Caesar]

Nice shots Antonov. Your doing good work on the textures. I'll sort out the Gallic regions now so you can reload them with the correct regions in place.

As for factions, well, I think Rome and Carthage were on the list


Edit: Antonov, can you copy these over to the first post?

I have made an effort to have every region and settlement in the right place and have all the major tribes represented. I have also added new rebel faction tags and have (where possible) the real leaders of the tribes as there were in Caesar's time (I know its a bit late, but its better than nothing).



Western Germania



Brittany



Massalia



The Marcomanni



Central Gaul



Belgica


Additional preview shots:



The Arverni!

They were the most important tribe in southern Gaul before the coming of the Romans. Luernios was their leader in the third century BC, during that time period. Vercingetorix was of the Arverni tribe.



Rebels pack a punch now! (the peasant unit card will go, BTW)

And finally:



The Regions!

Any comments?

-CC

[Quinn Inuit]

ExRM 3.5? Awesome. I can't say I want to take it in quite this direction (if I change maps, it'll probably be to RTR7's old map), but you guys are welcome to use everything I do.

Here are my comments:
1) You don't really need scripts to control AI expansion. Careful choice of capital city for a province or careful bridge/pass placement can really do a lot to redirect the AI. Look at the effect moving the capital of the Artaxarta province to Van had in the ExRM.
2) I recommend against having too many regions in Sicily, Greece, and Italy. That makes whoever controls those areas almost unstoppable because of the sea trade (the closer the ports, the more the trade is worth).
3) I'm also not a big fan of so many regions in India (don't forget to give the Mauryans Arachosia!). India never really tried to expand into Transoxiana or the Persian Plateau, so I'm not sure what you gain by focusing so much on their gameplay.
4) I would add more regions to Dacia, Mesopotamia, the Levant, and the northern Black Sea coast.

3&4 are just personal preference, and 1 is a coding preference. YMMV. However, I strongly recommend keeping an eye on what I said in #2. You could be setting yourself up for some real trade balance problems when you get to that stage.

[Antonov]

It's really great to know we have your support

1. I want to control things even more than that. I want to have a special campaign for a player who is playing a historical Roman campaign. If the script "feels" that the player is expanding historically, then the other factions would also start to grow and shrink historically. I doubt I can achieve such level of control without scripting. We've got other ideas how to make the AIs behave more historically accurate, but I won't give them out right now because 1) we haven't tested them and 2) we're a team of two and it would be disappointing to see the things we're thinking of already working somewhere else. When we release, they'll be available to everyone anyway.
2. I was looking at the regions' map yesterday and I think we will have to make some revisions, especially after I got an email from Sardukar, whom I've asked to consult us on historical matters. By the way, we are in need of people with historical knowledge, any advice is welcome, as long as you cite your sources It's really interesting but, at least I, don't have the time to read through all the materials which would relieve me of the need for historical consultants.
3.,4.Dacia and the northern Black sea coast didn't see too much action either, as far as I know. I was really wondering what to do in order to keep eastern Europe from being conquered and the faction controlling it turning into a superpower. Maybe EB did it right with the spawning of rebels' full stacks there.

We'll be modifying population growth rates, as well as all sources of income for the factions, including sea trade. I'm determined to keep testing until I get it right because it's weird then every city you have has become a huge city. It just doesn't look realistic imo.

[Caligula Caesar]

Thanks Quinn

1. For the normal campaign, we will use some scripts (we aren't qwuite sure how much), but probably not too many. However, we have some quite complex ways of reducing AI expansion (which will hopefully work) but still have the AI posessing armies. It is going to take quite a while to implement them, and they will be revealed at a later point. But I assure you that this mod will not be released until we have got AI expansion to an acceptable level.

2. The regions aren't final. They are stiull subject to change if we can find significant historical evidence or really strong gameplay evidence.

3. The Mauryan Empire was one of the most powerful empires in the world. In fact, IIRC it had the biggest army (up to 800,000 apparently) and population at our starting point. Therefore I find it justified that India should have some more regions. However, should the Mauryan Empire be one of the factions in the release, it won't be easy for them to expand.

4. I fail to see why any of those areas should need more regions. Information is rather murky on Dacia at that time, but I don't think much happened then. The northern Black Sea Bosporus has three regions: Panticapaion (one Bosporan capital), Phanagoria (the other Bosporan capital, on the other side of the straits) and Neapolis, the Scythian capital. Surely that is enough for a relatively inactive and insignificant regions? As for the Levant and Babylonia, they have quite a few cities, and most of these will be either large or huge at the start of the game. This will matter more because we don't intend for cities to grow nearly as quickly as they do in ExRM or RTR.

[Quinn Inuit]

It's really great to know we have your support

1. I want to control things even more than that. I want to have a special campaign for a player who is playing a historical Roman campaign. If the script "feels" that the player is expanding historically, then the other factions would also start to grow and shrink historically. I doubt I can achieve such level of control without scripting. We've got other ideas how to make the AIs behave more historically accurate, but I won't give them out right now because 1) we haven't tested them and 2) we're a team of two and it would be disappointing to see the things we're thinking of already working somewhere else. When we release, they'll be available to everyone anyway.

Fair enough. That's definitely one way to set it up. I just prefer a slightly looser style, in case you're playing Macedonia and the Spanish piss you off.

2. I was looking at the regions' map yesterday and I think we will have to make some revisions, especially after I got an email from Sardukar, whom I've asked to consult us on historical matters. By the way, we are in need of people with historical knowledge, any advice is welcome, as long as you cite your sources It's really interesting but, at least I, don't have the time to read through all the materials which would relieve me of the need for historical consultants.

I fear I've forgotten a lot of my sources, but I can promise you that I've done Tribus Bastarnae pretty accurately. I found a good secondary source on that. Same with the area around Thrace and the lower Danube. You can check maps of ancient Thrace and the Roman expansion into that region to back up my claims on those, though. Those maps are pretty easy to find, it's just that finding info about where, precisely, the Bastarnae lived was pretty hard.

As for Mesopotamia, I'd have to see which cities you are including before I could argue for others. I do think you need more settlements there, though, just to recommend how rich that area was and how much control over it helped the Seleucids and later the Parthians. You'll be hard-pressed to replicate that without more regions.

Same for Syria, for that matter. Check out how rich the Palmyrene Empire was. I wouldn't cut too many regions there.

3.,4.Dacia and the northern Black sea coast didn't see too much action either, as far as I know. I was really wondering what to do in order to keep eastern Europe from being conquered and the faction controlling it turning into a superpower. Maybe EB did it right with the spawning of rebels' full stacks there.

Well, Dacia did see a lot of wars between the Dacians and the Greeks, the Dacians+Greeks vs. the Romans, and the Romans vs. Random hordes. It was a pretty hot area...plus, if you make the Dacians stronger, you can keep the Macs from expanding northward. As for the Black Sea colonies, they fought frequently amongst themselves and in wars between various steppe nomads. They also got peripherally involved in the Mithriditic Wars.

We'll be modifying population growth rates, as well as all sources of income for the factions, including sea trade. I'm determined to keep testing until I get it right because it's weird then every city you have has become a huge city. It just doesn't look realistic imo.

Agreed. You might try a "huge city" resource that allows the highest level to be built, and limiting growth in all regions except those by building a population negative into the town square or something.

Thanks Quinn

1. For the normal campaign, we will use some scripts (we aren't qwuite sure how much), but probably not too many. However, we have some quite complex ways of reducing AI expansion (which will hopefully work) but still have the AI posessing armies. It is going to take quite a while to implement them, and they will be revealed at a later point. But I assure you that this mod will not be released until we have got AI expansion to an acceptable level.

Cool, good luck. I recommend running a few automatic games early on in the process, just to watch where the AI goes when unfettered. You learn a lot that way.

2. The regions aren't final. They are stiull subject to change if we can find significant historical evidence or really strong gameplay evidence.

Ok, well, you've heard my piece on the subject.

3. The Mauryan Empire was one of the most powerful empires in the world. In fact, IIRC it had the biggest army (up to 800,000 apparently) and population at our starting point. Therefore I find it justified that India should have some more regions. However, should the Mauryan Empire be one of the factions in the release, it won't be easy for them to expand.

It's true that it was one of the largest empires in the world at the time, but its energies were directed almost entirely into the sub-continent. If you go with them, I would treat it more as the satrapy of Gandhara or something and let the player RP it as one of the regional rulers. Give them the more historical problem of maintaining Mauryan control in Gandhara with insufficient resources from home and beset by invaders of all stripes coming over the Khyber Pass.

4. I fail to see why any of those areas should need more regions. Information is rather murky on Dacia at that time, but I don't think much happened then. The northern Black Sea Bosporus has three regions: Panticapaion (one Bosporan capital), Phanagoria (the other Bosporan capital, on the other side of the straits) and Neapolis, the Scythian capital. Surely that is enough for a relatively inactive and insignificant regions? As for the Levant and Babylonia, they have quite a few cities, and most of these will be either large or huge at the start of the game. This will matter more because we don't intend for cities to grow nearly as quickly as they do in ExRM or RTR.

Oh, you did put in Scythian Neopolis? Ok. Is Olbia still there? (It's kind of hard to tell with that image.)

I can't tell from the image about the Levant, but it really looks like you took out about half of the regions in Babylonia. That's what's concerning me.

Slower population growth? That sounds like an excellent idea. In fact, you should take notes as you go and do an article for the Rome workshop on it. I don't think anyone's ever systematically analyzed population growth factors and how to counterbalance them.

[Caligula Caesar]

You know, Dacia actually has as many regions (I think) as it had in ExRM. Not that the green splotch is actually two regions with similar colouring. As for the Steppes and the Black Sea, well I ran out of regions there. I had intended for a few more regions, but the Steppes actually came second last on our priority list (above Terra Incognita. i.e. it needs some regions, but not too many). Olbia isn't there anymore.

I can assure you that whoever has control of Mesopotamia and Syria will be pretty rich if they can control it. The cities I have in at the moment are Damaskos, Apameia, Antiocheia, Tarsos, Palmyra, Zeugma, Arbela, Doura Europos, Seleukeia, Babylon, Susa and Charax Spasinou. I wouldn't exactly say thats a lack of regions and there is a definite case for more, TBH.

As for the pop growth, I haven't started on that, but I first need to see how much impact the base farm rate has before I do any work on it.

[Quinn Inuit]

You know, Dacia actually has as many regions (I think) as it had in ExRM. Not that the green splotch is actually two regions with similar colouring. As for the Steppes and the Black Sea, well I ran out of regions there. I had intended for a few more regions, but the Steppes actually came second last on our priority list (above Terra Incognita. i.e. it needs some regions, but not too many). Olbia isn't there anymore.

I can assure you that whoever has control of Mesopotamia and Syria will be pretty rich if they can control it. The cities I have in at the moment are Damaskos, Apameia, Antiocheia, Tarsos, Palmyra, Zeugma, Arbela, Doura Europos, Seleukeia, Babylon, Susa and Charax Spasinou. I wouldn't exactly say thats a lack of regions and there is a definite case for more, TBH.

As for the pop growth, I haven't started on that, but I first need to see how much impact the base farm rate has before I do any work on it.

Hmmm, there should be a way to quantify pop growth precisely...I wonder if you could put population requirements on health buildings so you couldn't build them earlier on and grow faster.

Dacia has that many regions? Ok, I stand corrected. I must be missing some that are colored similarly.

That looks like a pretty good list for Mesopotamia and Syria, although I agree with you that more would be better if you can swing it. (Like I said, I think you're going to have to remove some from Italy, Sicily, and Greece just to prevent the owner from getting uber-powerful, but that's your call.)

Two things:
1) Do you still have Samosata?
2) I would just call it "Charax," not "Charax Spasinou." I think the latter might be an anachronism for our time period.

[Pat89]

Looks very good guys

[Antonov]

Thanks We both did our best. But it will look even better when we fix at least most of the glitches and change the textures. I just have to get off my lazy period. And finish my EB campaign (109 BC) And that's just the map we are talking about so far.

[Caligula Caesar]

Well, to be fair, there are quite a lot of regions in Thrace, which is where all the action will be happening. About Greece and Italy, we'll see.

1. No, at the moment I have Amida in Sophene.
2. Well, there were several Charaxes, and that is what they called it.

[ricka83]

Guys, this looks and sounds fantastic, i will definately keep an eye on this one.
Good luck

[Quinn Inuit]

Thrace is a good place for a lot of regions, I agree. Are you including Paionia? If so, what are you doing about their troops? A lot of mods include Paionian horsemen and infantry as excellent skirmishers, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of the Paionians as a group being active after the Gallic invasion of the region.

You might want to rename Amida to Amid, as the 'a' seems to have been a much later addition.

I did some research on Charax and, if I'm reading the Pliny correctly and associating it with the proper kings, it should be called Alexandria in our time period (and least until it gets rebuilt and renamed Antiochia in the 170s or so). There's already enough Alexandrias, though, IMO, so want to call it Alexandria Charax?

[drus45]

Why dont you just extend the map all the way to China and Japan? Now that would be something.

BTW I have also balanced the auto-battles and will make a report soon.

[Caligula Caesar]

Because of hardcodes. Extending the map that far is possible, but the map would be rather small and somewhat depopulated of regions, since we are at the limit now and I still found it difficult to get enough everywhere. Also, there aren't enough faction slots.

@Quinn: About Charax's name, how about Alexandria in Susiana? Charax means "palisaded fort" apparently, which doesn't really make sense if you have Alexandria in front of it. I think I removed Paionia because I had too many regions there and I couldn't find anything which said they were important in our time period. If there are unit slots left over, we may put in some Paionian mercs though.

[Quinn Inuit]

Alexandria in Susiana sounds like an excellent idea.

Hmmm...I may have been thinking of Agrianians there when I said I couldn't find any reference to their military after our time period. Not sure about the Paionians.