My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

[Nicov55]

It seems many of us do not agree with the very high density of settlements in some parts of the map (mostly Britain, Gauls, Germania) compared with the feeling of relative emptyness in Greece, Syria and to a lower degree Egypt.
I understand the team justifies it's choices by the amount of research that has been done in these areas of western Europe. This is remarkable and deserves for sure it's concrete expression on the map but it seems it also affects the game too much with important factions becoming almost non existent in the long run, Macedon being the perfect example.

So. Would it be possible for Britain to loose 1 or 2 settlements, same for Gauls and Germany. Some settlements in desertic areas could also be removed in favor of historically more important ones. I am thinking about one of the settlements in Africa (the one under Leptis), one in Arabia, one in the Steppes, and Bostra in favor of Jerusalem.

So with Jerusalem, that would be 10 settlements to be distributed. I propose the following:
Greece and Macedon: Amphipolis, Megalopolis, Philippi and Naxos (on one of the small islands) added.
Syria: Jerusalem, Apameia, Laodicea, Sidon or Tyre added.
Egypt: Ptolemais Theron and Hibis removed in favor of Hermopolis Megale and Ptolemais Hermiou; Syene and Pelousion or Gazza added.

That's 10 settlements, that may seem a lot but i think a lot of us would agree and in fact wish these changes.
Can we hope this to happen? Could we have an alternative campaign map for those not really fond of the "barbaric" factions?

[QuintusSertorius]

Brennus has already agreed to reliquish one province from the British Isles, and he mentioned that there was a discussion within the team about redistribution more generally. So this may be an activity that's already going on behind the scenes.

But I agree, Greece and the wider Balkans have too many "minor" settlements and not enough proper ones, and Syria is absurdly thin on settlements. By contrast the north-west quadrant of the map is thick with provinces and very few minor settlements, even though it's population was tiny by comparison. Gaul I can kind of see having some focus because there were quite a number of significant settlements there, but Germany was mostly unpopulated forest with population densities likely as low as the steppe (alright, this may be an exaggeration!).

From a strategic and gameplay perspective, it doesn't make sense that Sweboz and Lugia both have lots of soft rebel options all around them, allowing them to pass that critical mass of four provinces with ease before meeting any serious opposition. Even then they often rub along peaceably each expanding in opposite directions before troubling each other (there's the same problem with the Aedui and Aruernoi, and Lusotannan and Areuakoi, who similarly have an unspoken non-aggression pact until much later in the game).

I get that EB has always had a philosophy of not treating the game as a study of the settled factions to the exclusion of the "barbarian". But in this instance I do agree that the distribution of settlements is skewed far too heavily in the opposite direction.

[Nicov55]

I agree, Gauls were heavily populated (not so much after Caesar's conquest there...) but after what i propose, there would still be 13 settlements on the left bank and that would still be at least appropriate if not a lot.

[Doulkus Pontikus]

As others have said before, eight settlements in Britain are way too many, both historically and gameplay wise.
I'd say that some of the provinces in Germania and Gaul are a reach as well. Having so many Celtic-Germanic tribes in the game and possibly adding Belgae in the future seems like the only reason to do so and a good one i may add. Don't get me wrong, i love me some Barbarians!

Still, Greece being the ground for so many wars between Epeiros, Macedonians, Koinon Hellenon and possibly Romans, Pergamon, Pontos, Getai, Seleukeia, Ptolemies and Bosporos shouldn't it be represented with at least one more city?
On another thread I made my case for Amphipolis on an area in the map East from Pella and West from Byzantion which is currently totally empty.

Syria and Phoiniki also looks underdeveloped. In antiquity this area was densely populated and the theater of constant warfare between all the major powers. In my opinion Sidon, Jerusalem and Gazza are must have. I'd like to hear the opinion of other players as well.

Once again i wish to congratulate the team who put such an effort to the game. I also like to hear from the developers if some minor reassignment of provinces is possible.

[saxnot]

10 settlements from the north/west seems excessive. Some redistribution is required, but certainly no more than 4 or 5. Taking ten would empty out germania and britain too much, even if gaul were spared.

[Nicov55]

10 settlements from the north/west seems excessive. Some redistribution is required, but certainly no more than 4 or 5. Taking ten would empty out germania and britain too much, even if gaul were spared.

I did not write 10 from western Europe but 6. Britain, Gauls and Germany loose 2 each. The 4 others would be taken as follows: 1 from Arabia, 1 from the steppes and 1 from Africa south of Carthage in the desertic areas. the last one would just be a replacement, Jerusalem instead of Bostra. I also propose some settlements to change in Egypt.
Britain would still have 6, Gauls more than 10, same for Germany. That is not what i call "empty". Greece and Syria are empty.

[Rad]

I did not write 10 from western Europe but 6. Britain, Gauls and Germany loose 2 each. The 4 others would be taken as follows: 1 from Arabia, 1 from the steppes and 1 from Africa south of Carthage in the desertic areas. the last one would just be a replacement, Jerusalem instead of Bostra. I also propose some settlements to change in Egypt.
Britain would still have 6, Gauls more than 10, same for Germany. That is not what i call "empty". Greece and Syria are empty.

Your "tax" on Gaul is not realistic. The factions located there are sandwiched between a huge number of factions. I still shiver when I remember my Arverni campaign in EB1. Enemies, enemies everywhere! Deny them two cities and they're in trouble. You need a strong economy to defend yourself and expand. Haven't played a lot with them now, things might have changed.

[QuintusSertorius]

Your "tax" on Gaul is not realistic. The factions located there are sandwiched between a huge number of factions. I still shiver when I remember my Arverni campaign in EB1. Enemies, enemies everywhere! Deny them two cities and they're in trouble. You need a strong economy to defend yourself and expand. Haven't played a lot with them now, things might have changed.

You need four settlements to have a viable enough economic base to support expansion. Not ten.

[Rad]

You need four settlements to have a viable enough economic base to support expansion. Not ten.

Maybe so, but they have enemies north (hey, it's possible lol), south, east and west. Also, there's kind of a "civil war" going on...

[malibu.stacey]

One more province (Akragas-Agrigentum or Enna, maybe?) in Sicily would be awesome. There were a lot of EBI AARs with factionX-as-Syracousai (usually Epeiros or KH and I had an ******** great campaign as Pergamon-Syracousai in EBII), so a bigger 'playground' would be much appreciated. Not to mention Roman/Quart Hadasht players who want to have more to fight for in the First Punic War.

[Moros]

Increasing the number of settlements in Greece would create an absolute siegefest though. There may be a few changes coming, but far from as extensive as this suggestion.

[Doulkus Pontikus]

Siegefest? With only one more city? I 'm not sure about that.
I mean there are eight cities in mainland Greece and six just in western Anatolia.
I firmly support the inclusion of Amphipolis. Since already Mytilene is left out.
Atleast give us a better reason about not including it. I'm not trying to push you or anything but I think it's a valid idea and a lot of players see some point in it.

[Moros]

Siegefest? With only one more city? I 'm not sure about that.
.

I only had a quick view of this thread, but I was under the impression that the suggestion added three settlements.
Now to my personal opinion, Greece is represented already well enough. Sure it was an important area and a lucrative one, but the provinces over there are already relatively small. If we compare this to most of the Eastern part of the map one could even say they were tiny.

[Doulkus Pontikus]

I only had a quick view of this thread, but I was under the impression that the suggestion added three settlements.

I'm sorry then. I had to make it clear that i was referring to a different suggestion. A few days back I started a thread about the inclusion of Amphipolis as a province and got a lot of positive feedback. You can find it here : http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-as-a-province

As far as Nicov55's proposal is concerned, I agree that some readjustments should me made especially in Syria and Northern Egypt but I'm not sure if such an overhaul is possible or even desirable. I'd be more then satisfied if a total of four settlements (e.g. 1 from Britain, 2 from Gaul, 2 from Germania) were replaced and added to Greece, Syria and Egypt instead.

[Nicov55]

I only had a quick view of this thread, but I was under the impression that the suggestion added three settlements.
Now to my personal opinion, Greece is represented already well enough. Sure it was an important area and a lucrative one, but the provinces over there are already relatively small. If we compare this to most of the Eastern part of the map one could even say they were tiny.

If i follow this logic, with the number of settlements being proportional to the size of provinces, then most cities would be located in today's Russia or in the Sahara.
My opinion on the contrary is that settlement density should be proportional to the population importance and urban density at that time of History, mitigated for balance between factions and gameplay reasons of course.
I understand some may find my suggestion a bit too hellenocentric. I am not being completely objective since i have a master degree in hellenistic studies so you guess i really like it
But i also really enjoy that mod and most of it's feature but feel a bit frustrated. Playing as Egypt, i have only one city to defend in Syria and do not even want to wage war in Greece since they are so weak, in fact i try to keep them alive (using cheats).
Everyone must enjoy the mod, including those who favor the Celts, Gauls and such barbaros (just kidding).
My point is that the mod went too far on the opposite direction of most other mods on the period which more or less do propose what this suggestion is about. I really think a couple more settlements in Greece (1/2) and Syria (1/2) + a switch of some cities in Egypt would'nt kill anyone and would respect historicity a bit more, making the game more enjoyable for hellenophiles whithout changing the nature of the mod.

[QuintusSertorius]

I agree, the addition of Amphipolis wouldn't increase the number of sieges in the crucible of the Pelopponese, and would make Makedon (especially AI Makedon) a good deal more survivable.

I think the settlement switches in Egypt are a good idea. And the addition of provinces in Syria (taken from Gaul/Germany, primarily the latter) would be an improvement in gameplay balance, and might give the Seleukids and Ptolemies something to fight over.

[Julio85]

It seems many of us do not agree with the very high density of settlements in some parts of the map (mostly Britain, Gauls, Germania) compared with the feeling of relative emptyness in Greece, Syria and to a lower degree Egypt.
I understand the team justifies it's choices by the amount of research that has been done in these areas of western Europe. This is remarkable and deserves for sure it's concrete expression on the map but it seems it also affects the game too much with important factions becoming almost non existent in the long run, Macedon being the perfect example.

So. Would it be possible for Britain to loose 1 or 2 settlements, same for Gauls and Germany. Some settlements in desertic areas could also be removed in favor of historically more important ones. I am thinking about one of the settlements in Africa (the one under Leptis), one in Arabia, one in the Steppes, and Bostra in favor of Jerusalem.

So with Jerusalem, that would be 10 settlements to be distributed. I propose the following:
Greece and Macedon: Amphipolis, Megalopolis, Philippi and Naxos (on one of the small islands) added.
Syria: Jerusalem, Apameia, Laodicea, Sidon or Tyre added.
Egypt: Ptolemais Theron and Hibis removed in favor of Hermopolis Megale and Ptolemais Hermiou; Syene and Pelousion or Gazza added.

That's 10 settlements, that may seem a lot but i think a lot of us would agree and in fact wish these changes.
Can we hope this to happen? Could we have an alternative campaign map for those not really fond of the "barbaric" factions?

I do agree, 100%

[QuintusSertorius]

I have to say, there are times I wish for the resurrection of the Central European Defense of EB1. Though obviously this wouldn't work the same with the Boii sitting right there in that region.

[James the Red]

After reading the description for Babylonia, and the close proximity to Seleucia, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to merge Babylonia with Mesopotamia and make Babylon a 'minor settlement'.

[QuintusSertorius]

After reading the description for Babylonia, and the close proximity to Seleucia, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to merge Babylonia with Mesopotamia and make Babylon a 'minor settlement'.

Both are major settlements of strategic importance with huge populations. Why does it make any sense to remove either?