How did devs choose date?

**melancholyroar** · November 27, 2016, 09:45 PM

Just curious on what made you guys choose the year in which the campaign starts.

Also has there been any discussion about adding other new scenarios after the Grand Campaign is done or would that really be the completion of the mod?

**WhatAnArtist** · November 27, 2016, 11:07 PM

They chose 202 BC because that's when the Battle of Zama happened, which ended the Second Punic War between Rome and Carthage. Apparently if you play as one of these two factions there'll be an introduction scenario where you must fight the battle.

**Argive Strategos** · November 28, 2016, 02:03 AM

Also because the map of Attila is not suited for 272BC because Sicily has a single settlement and Greece also lacks settlements. So the later date shows Rome having ended the Sicilian conflicts by conquering the island and in Greece, Corinth was an important city for the Achaean league, arguably the most powerful Greek state in the Peloponnese at the time. That is why there is no Athens or sparta, as well as the fact how the map cannot be modded so it would be weird to have many hordes in a tiny area.

**JohnnyShaun** · December 01, 2016, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Argive Strategos

Also because the map of Attila is not suited for 272BC because Sicily has a single settlement and Greece also lacks settlements. So the later date shows Rome having ended the Sicilian conflicts by conquering the island and in Greece, Corinth was an important city for the Achaean league, arguably the most powerful Greek state in the Peloponnese at the time. That is why there is no Athens or sparta, as well as the fact how the map cannot be modded so it would be weird to have many hordes in a tiny area.

This map neither suited for 202 because of Hadrian Wall, by the way.

**UMCenturion** · November 30, 2016, 02:28 PM

You are all correct - Also very interesting time period to start, in which gives a bigger possibility of a late roman empire campaign.

**Petellius** · November 30, 2016, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by UMCenturion

You are all correct - Also very interesting time period to start, in which gives a bigger possibility of a late roman empire campaign.

Well by late I think you mean Early, but I know what you mean. Not many mods actually push past the imperial point and AE does go all the way to trajan...

Yeah 202 is the year Rome gets catapulted into several different theartes of war at once, and starts encountering manpower problems. You have a climax between Selecuids and Ptolemaics and you have Macedon and Carthage coming to their ends. Spain is also VERY interesting shortly after the start and you also get social wars, cimbri invasions and marian reforms less than a hundred years away.

**UMCenturion** · December 01, 2016, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Petellius

Well by late I think you mean Early, but I know what you mean. Not many mods actually push past the imperial point and AE does go all the way to trajan...

Yeah 202 is the year Rome gets catapulted into several different theartes of war at once, and starts encountering manpower problems. You have a climax between Selecuids and Ptolemaics and you have Macedon and Carthage coming to their ends. Spain is also VERY interesting shortly after the start and you also get social wars, cimbri invasions and marian reforms less than a hundred years away.

Correct
Late Republic - Early Empire.

**Hydrall** · December 01, 2016, 05:46 PM

One thing I'm curious about, on the subject of Carthage - will they have units from 'after' their historical existence? The same with other factions who ceased to exist; will they have high tier / late history units despite not having made it that far? If you grow to be a powerful empire as a relatively minor power, will your roster evolve to reflect the presumably changing situation?

Or will you be stuck with early game / low tech units even if you play as them and reverse the decline?

It would presumably be ahistorical to just... Make up new units for the factions based on what might have happened, but I'm curious as to the team's thoughts on plausible alt-history stuff.

**ABH2** · December 01, 2016, 07:42 PM

This map neither suited for 202 because of Hadrian Wall, by the way.

This is true, though I'm hoping we will be able to remove it along with the campaign map wall.

One thing I'm curious about, on the subject of Carthage - will they have units from 'after' their historical existence? The same with other factions who ceased to exist; will they have high tier / late history units despite not having made it that far? If you grow to be a powerful empire as a relatively minor power, will your roster evolve to reflect the presumably changing situation?

Or will you be stuck with early game / low tech units even if you play as them and reverse the decline?

It would presumably be ahistorical to just... Make up new units for the factions based on what might have happened, but I'm curious as to the team's thoughts on plausible alt-history stuff.

Well, right now, in my view, Carthage has access to some upper tier units that aren't available right away for recruitment, but will be in the later stages. The African veteran unit which is Roman-esque along with the Sacred Band units. The other thing with Carthage that we have to consider is that they mostly relied on non-citizen troops, and we don't want to eliminate that unique component for them, either. One thing we tried to avoid, as well, was making it so every faction has access to every troop type in their core roster.

There aren't so many hypothetical units, but there's definite development the player can take that passes the line of what is historically accurate. So, taking the Gauls as another example, there's higher tier units that are in sort of a gray area.

**Causeless** · December 02, 2016, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by ABH2

This is true, though I'm hoping we will be able to remove it along with the campaign map wall.

Does Hadrian wall appear in battles?

**Haddon** · December 12, 2016, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Causeless

Does Hadrian wall appear in battles?

I fought a battle nearby with some distant building lined up, off in the distance beyond the actual battlefield, but it just looked kinda like small settlements (and barbarian, at that, despite being south of the wall), so I don't think so. Though the battle was probably closer to the Tyne than Hadrian's so it may have been I was just too far away. It was also in the AoC campaign, so that could make a difference.

**Petellius** · December 02, 2016, 09:11 PM

Not sure actually, does it in vanilla?

**Causeless** · December 03, 2016, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Petellius

Not sure actually, does it in vanilla?

No idea if it appears in vanilla, that is part of why I asked.

**Petellius** · December 03, 2016, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Causeless

No idea if it appears in vanilla, that is part of why I asked.

I would guess no, but I'd need to check.

**Charerg** · December 04, 2016, 04:49 AM

At least I've never seen Hadrian's Wall appear on the battle map, even in battles fought right by it. I think it's campaign-only.

**ABH2** · December 04, 2016, 12:46 PM

I believe initially the walls didn't appear in battles, but CA released a fix for it with their patches so that they did. They appear there. If my other post wasn't clear, there's more than one wall do deal with. The other one being in Central Asia.