Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

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

  1. #21

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    Quote Originally Posted by Moros View Post
    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.

  2. #22

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    Quote Originally Posted by Moros View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Nicov55; October 15, 2014 at 10:36 AM.

  3. #23
    James the Red's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,631

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    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'.

  4. #24
    Dago Red's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" ~John Adams
    Posts
    3,095

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    Totally agreed. Haven't seen quite enough of the map, but Greece feels unloved.

  5. #25
    Lord Baal's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Republica de Venezuela
    Posts
    6,704

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    Oh... how I long for the memory editing to be done so we could have as many settlements and regions as required.
    PROUD TO BE A PESANT. And for the dimwitted, I know how to spell peasant. <== This blue things are links, you click them and magical things (like not ending up like a fool) happens.
    Visit my utterly wall of doom here.
    Do you wanna play SS 6.4 and take your time while at it? Play with my 12 turns per year here.
    Y también quieres jugar Stainless Steel 100% en español? Mira por aca.

  6. #26

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    Quote Originally Posted by James the Red View Post
    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?

  7. #27

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    Quote Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius View Post
    Both are major settlements of strategic importance with huge populations. Why does it make any sense to remove either?
    But they're also right next to one another in the central heartlands of the largest empire in the game. Don't get me wrong, the Seleucids are one of my favourite factions, but unless the player is playing e.g. Pahlava and conquering the Seleucids, in 99% of games the front lines are never going to get anywhere near Seleukia.

  8. #28

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    Quote Originally Posted by baldamundo View Post
    But they're also right next to one another in the central heartlands of the largest empire in the game. Don't get me wrong, the Seleucids are one of my favourite factions, but unless the player is playing e.g. Pahlava and conquering the Seleucids, in 99% of games the front lines are never going to get anywhere near Seleukia.
    You could easily apply that same logic to many other factions. Look how close together Roma and Capua are, both are big and rich in the Romani heartland. What about the cluster of Atiqa, Qart-Hadast and Adrumento? Look how densely packed with provinces Gaul is.

  9. #29

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    The celtic regions were full of people, it is a historical fact, but it doesn't mean that to enhence population density you have to add more settlements. Tweaking with buildings parameters can do that too.

    The only reason there is so much settlements in Gaul is because Ceasar wrote about them in full detail, where other regions had often only a name. It is not always the same, tough, thankfully.

    But the team has to chose exactly what this mod is about : is it Europa Barbarorum or is about the full spectre of action at those times ? Or is it Roman centered ?

    Because for now, what we have is clearly an occidental point of view : poor oriental regions and descriptions, and good/great occidental regions and descriptions.

    Chosing the line of direction of the mod makes the whole other decisions quite easy : just stick to the original decision.

    If you wish to make it a roman centered mod, makes the barbarians in Europa well made. If it is Europa Barbarorum, just do the same. If it is a more wider view and more historical point of view, work on the empty oriental and non-european (or non-european related) factions less "scarecrow" and more living.

    In the first and second point of view, Jerusalem is less important than Bibract.
    In the third, Jerusalem is more important than Bibract.

    Work with coherence and everything will be fine.


  10. #30

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    The Syrian Tetrapolis and Phoenice definitely needs a better representation, imo. Generally urbanization goes together with population density.

  11. #31

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    I agree with your point of view.
    I always thought this mod as a great opportunity to improve the gameplay of vanilla and to add a realistic feeling to the game.
    When we talk about "barbarians" it's the European ones that come to mind, since the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the East were considered by Romans, somewhat Greek.
    But in the Greek mind of that era, the Persians, Iranians, Traicians, Scythians, Hindus and even Romans were considered barbarian as well.
    So in fact is a matter of interpretation:
    Is it EUROPA Barbarorum or Europa BARBARORUM?

  12. #32

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    quisque est barbarus alio




  13. #33

    Default Re: My proposal to the team regarding the settlement distribution on the map

    Quote Originally Posted by Doulkus Pontikus View Post
    I agree with your point of view.
    I always thought this mod as a great opportunity to improve the gameplay of vanilla and to add a realistic feeling to the game.
    When we talk about "barbarians" it's the European ones that come to mind, since the Hellenistic Kingdoms of the East were considered by Romans, somewhat Greek.
    But in the Greek mind of that era, the Persians, Iranians, Traicians, Scythians, Hindus and even Romans were considered barbarian as well.
    So in fact is a matter of interpretation:
    Is it EUROPA Barbarorum or Europa BARBARORUM?
    For the greeks, a barbarian simply was someone who did not speak Greek, nothing pejorative there. The word was then used by the romans to call all those living outside the empire. Only later it had a pejorative meaning full of contempt for "less civilized people".

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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