Ireland?

[Kilo11]

Hey guys, I've been playing a bit as Pritanoi (need something to do between crushing cities beneath the eagle standard) and I was psyched to move over to Hibernia, knowing that there is some good mineral wealth over there, only to find that most of Hibernia is part of the non-territory "Eremos". What gives? Why can't I conquer that? I know that there are hard limits to how many territories there can be, but who not then just have all of Hibernia as one territory?

[myarta]

Hey guys, I've been playing a bit as Pritanoi (need something to do between crushing cities beneath the eagle standard) and I was psyched to move over to Hibernia, knowing that there is some good mineral wealth over there, only to find that most of Hibernia is part of the non-territory "Eremos". What gives? Why can't I conquer that? I know that there are hard limits to how many territories there can be, but who not then just have all of Hibernia as one territory?

It might be related to the fact that La Tene finds have only been in the northern portion of Ireland. I can't recall anymore whether there was a second province there, but I remember the border was pulled up close to the northern portion, and it does leave a number of mineral resources inaccessible. The interior of Scandinavia is a bit like this as well. I think it represents that none of the represented factions on the map ever really were involved in those regions during our time period and thus they are inaccessible.

[Kull]

An interesting thing is that Rebels are much more active in Rebel-owned provinces than in those controlled by factions. So even though we haven't done anything in that regards, you could script Rovers into these Eremos-portions and the Rovers would at least wander about the borders causing devastation, and on harder difficulties might even invade. But yes, as Myarta points out, the larger reason is that these areas played no role during this time period.

[Kilo11]

But yes, as Myarta points out, the larger reason is that these areas played no role during this time period.

I guess that makes a kind of sense, but it still seems a bit odd to have territories so very close to the starting point of a faction that can't be controlled at all. I can understand it more for the Sahara areas and inner Arabia, places where having a settlement would be a less than simple affair (the same holds to a lesser degree in the far north of Scandinavia), but Ireland is not a harsh or unforgiving land in respect. It seems like it should be part of the map. My two cents at least.

I guess I also find it a bit mean to have the gold sitting right over the border, there for me to see, without me being able to go get it. I mean, if the region can't be taken, why have the resource there at all?

An interesting thing is that Rebels are much more active in Rebel-owned provinces than in those controlled by factions. So even though we haven't done anything in that regards, you could script Rovers into these Eremos-portions and the Rovers would at least wander about the borders causing devastation, and on harder difficulties might even invade.

And this seems extra mean! To make it so there are constant rebel sources right there, that I can't do anything meaningful about. Aaargh!

[I would like to stress here that these are minor complaints/annoyances for me; I am loving the mod, and the attention to detail and historicity, so do not feel like I need to be redirected to a more "playable" mod, or one with less accuracy in it]

[hlidskjalf]

And this seems extra mean! To make it so there are constant rebel sources right there, that I can't do anything meaningful about. Aaargh!

[I would like to stress here that these are minor complaints/annoyances for me; I am loving the mod, and the attention to detail and historicity, so do not feel like I need to be redirected to a more "playable" mod, or one with less accuracy in it]

seems like an interesting concept actually. an easily taken and very hard to defend rich region.

[NosPortatArma]

it never happened historically that britain was united under one tribe, but i think that if it was ever to happen, south ireland could be conquered just as much as north ireland. its not about historically accurate in this case, because no faction ever even sat foot on ireland as far as i know, but if any of them seriously tried to take it, why would they just take the northern part? it has to do with historical plausibility. it is not like south ireland was a wasteland comparable to the sahara (right??), which could never be settled or conquered. i can understand why northern interior of scandinavia is eremos, but irelad is an island, relatively small too. asserting enough influence over it to consider it "governed" is thus not super hard if a faction makes an effort.

[Blastaz]

it never happened historically that britain was united under one tribe, but i think that if it was ever to happen, south ireland could be conquered just as much as north ireland. its not about historically accurate in this case, because no faction ever even sat foot on ireland as far as i know, but if any of them seriously tried to take it, why would they just take the northern part? it has to do with historical plausibility. it is not like south ireland was a wasteland comparable to the sahara (right??), which could never be settled or conquered. i can understand why northern interior of scandinavia is eremos, but irelad is an island, relatively small too. asserting enough influence over it to consider it "governed" is thus not super hard if a faction makes an effort.

Strongly agree. One British tribe rising and unifying the isles is unhistorical but plausible, but, were that to have happened, there is no plausible reason why they would stop at Ulster, just because the Romans never managed to conquer Ireland.

It's not like the land is more inhospitable and therefore impossible to settle. The same goes for the tip of Scotland too.

[Kull]

The same goes for the tip of Scotland too.

The Roman Empire disagrees.

[NosPortatArma]

The Roman Empire disagrees.

is it not the case that rome could have conquered scotland, just that they didn't want to, because it was poor and lacked strategic value to them?

Why make it eremos just because rome didn't bother to conquer it? with that logic you might as well make germania eremos too. What should matter more is wheter britain united under pritanoi could plausibly conquer the scottish highlands, and i see no reason why they couldn't. To the pritanoi, scotland is not as worthless as it would be to rome. It is not as much of a distant wasteland as it is to rome. The natives are not as alien as they are to romans. etc.

[Roma_Victrix]

The Roman Empire disagrees.

It's true that the Romans only invaded the Scottish Highlands and never settled it (for example, the Battle of Mons Graupius), but at the very least the Romans temporarily settled the Scottish Lowlands. This is evidenced by the surviving ruins of the Antonine Wall constructed during the reign of Antoninus Pius and later garrisoned by troops under Septimius Severus several decades later. It's significantly far north of Hadrian's Wall, located between the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde, running from sea to sea.

In either case, I can understand why you guys don't want to add another province to the British Isles and/or Ireland. I rather favor the solution brought here by others that Ireland should simply be one big province, instead of being divided between the territory contiguous with Northern Ireland in the UK and the Republic of Ireland that's covered by the giant, nebulous Eremos province that also includes Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arabian interior.

[Kull]

It's true that the Romans only invaded the Scottish Highlands and never settled it (for example, the Battle of Mons Graupius), but at the very least the Romans temporarily settled the Scottish Lowlands. This is evidenced by the surviving ruins of the Antonine Wall constructed during the reign of Antoninus Pius and later garrisoned by troops under Septimius Severus several decades later. It's significantly far north of Hadrian's Wall, located between the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde, running from sea to sea.

In either case, I can understand why you guys don't want to add another province to the British Isles and/or Ireland. I rather favor the solution brought here by others that Ireland should simply be one big province, instead of being divided between the territory contiguous with Northern Ireland in the UK and the Republic of Ireland that's covered by the giant, nebulous Eremos province that also includes Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arabian interior.

A few scraps of Eremos in the far northwest corner of the map has no effect on gameplay. Quite the reverse, it opens up some interesting scripting opportunities should we choose to pursue them.

[cowrecked]

Aren't they pretty close to the max number of settlements? I recall that being a thing, so maybe it's just that there's not enough possible settlements to give one or two to the strategically less important Ireland.

[NosPortatArma]

Aren't they pretty close to the max number of settlements? I recall that being a thing, so maybe it's just that there's not enough possible settlements to give one or two to the strategically less important Ireland.

that is true, but ireland is split between a conquerable province and non-conquerable eremos. What they could do is to just make all of ireland into a single conquerable province. That does not change the number of provinces. And if i recall, it used to be that way in previous versions, that ireland was a single province.

[Kull]

A few scraps of Eremos in the far northwest corner of the map has no effect on gameplay. Quite the reverse, it opens up some interesting scripting opportunities should we choose to pursue them.

[Colos1987]

Probably something to increase difficulty for holding that region. If you think about, normally you would sit on 7(?) provinces, surrounded by the sea, which is more than a convenient strategic position.

Also, once I read somewhere that changing regional borders reshuffles region IDs, which will likely screw up much of the campaign script (including most of the reforms).

[Cohors_Evocata]

Also, once I read somewhere that changing regional borders reshuffles region IDs, which will likely screw up much of the campaign script (including most of the reforms).

Yep, this is one of the biggest issues with campaign map changes. Which is why I usually ask people advocating border changes internally if they're also willing to do all the work involved with identifying the new ID's and updating all the relevant files.

[NosPortatArma]

Yep, this is one of the biggest issues with campaign map changes. Which is why I usually ask people advocating border changes internally if they're also willing to do all the work involved with identifying the new ID's and updating all the relevant files.

Argumentum potens pro status quo.

pardon my latin

[Genghis Skahn]

Yep, this is one of the biggest issues with campaign map changes. Which is why I usually ask people advocating border changes internally if they're also willing to do all the work involved with identifying the new ID's and updating all the relevant files.

The last masochist(or Herakles, I should say) who did all the region ID changes post-shuffle was Gigantus, who explicitly stated he won't ever do that again. There are supposedly more border changes to come in the future, but I can personally say that I both can't, and won't be the one who changes all those region IDs. And may Skod have mercy on the soul of whoever does end up doing the Region ID revision post-border change.

We can't use this alternative in the EDCT or EDA, though, they have to use region IDs.

So SettlementName entries in the EDA/EDCT will have to be changed as well, then? If so: Wew lad.

[QuintusSertorius]

The last masochist(or Herakles, I should say) who did all the region ID changes post-shuffle was Gigantus, who explicitly stated he won't ever do that again. There are supposedly more border changes to come in the future, but I can personally say that I both can't, and won't be the one who changes all those region IDs. And may Skod have mercy on the soul of whoever does end up doing the Region ID revision post-border change.

As above, this no longer applies to the campaign_script, so at least one source of them is now no longer change-able. But there still remain others.

So SettlementName entries in the EDA/EDCT will have to be changed as well, then? If so: Wew lad.

No, not SettlementName, but anywhere that IsTargetRegionOneOf or IsRegionOneOf are used. In the campaign_script, you can use the settlement name, region_nnn, with either of those two, but in the EDCT/EDA you have to use the three-digit region ID. Which is the change-able thing.

[Cohors_Evocata]

The last masochist(or Herakles, I should say) who did all the region ID changes post-shuffle was Gigantus, who explicitly stated he won't ever do that again. There are supposedly more border changes to come in the future, but I can personally say that I both can't, and won't be the one who changes all those region IDs. And may Skod have mercy on the soul of whoever does end up doing the Region ID revision post-border change.


So SettlementName entries in the EDA/EDCT will have to be changed as well, then? If so: Wew lad.

Oh yeah, Gigantus absolutely deserves praise for that monumental task. I'm not doing it either, I've had my fill after reworking the Celtiberian and Armenian name lists (not at the same time) some time ago.