View Full Version : Refitting the Map
ziegenpeter
09-16-2009, 16:57
I wonder if there will be changes about the distribution of the regions on the map. Since every demand for more regions in area X is crushed by the team members and the community, I beg you all to not crucify me for this thread. ;)
In my opinion, there are to many regions in northeastern europe. There are no factions and the sauromatae or sweboz seem never to expand into that area. So why not taking away a few regions there and distributing them where ever they are needed.
I had some similar thoughts for Britain. I dont want to erase it entirely, the casse have to live somewhere, but why do we need all of it up north to Scotland and even Ireland?
Did they ever move so far? Wouldnt it be cooler if they'd invade the continent directly instead of leading this silly 'unite the islands' campain?
Maybe some of you have even better ideas where the team could cut away some regions?
Although I have to admit that I dont know where these new regions should be put most appropriatly and if they are REALLY needed...
cya
Bucefalo
09-16-2009, 17:08
IIRC they already said in a twitter update that the EB 2 map is already done (province wise at least), and that it will be significantly different from the map of RTW. You can always ask for more details thougth... but another thing is that you get the information that you ask :clown:
I have a similar opinion, though it regards the Arabian Peninsula.
Though alot of work has been put into the Saba, I feel that their place in the history of the map is, besides trading, relatively limited. I could see maybe removing the Saba (free's up a faction slot), and then taking away the vast majority of Arabia's provinces. Leave a few on the coast for the Ptolies of course, but for the most part just make Arabia part of the vast desert no-man's-land province that already composes alot of Arabia, along with the Sahara.
I know there's a definite 'Equality for All' concept for the factions in the game, but the fact is the Mediterranean and the Turkey-Syria-Iraq-Iran-Egypt-Judea slice of the Middle East are far more important than the peripheries of the map, if nothing else because of the faction density in places like Greece and the Alps, or the broader area of Syria and Asia Minor.
athanaric
09-16-2009, 18:09
I have a similar opinion, though it regards the Arabian Peninsula.
Though alot of work has been put into the Saba, I feel that their place in the history of the map is, besides trading, relatively limited. I could see maybe removing the Saba (free's up a faction slot), and then taking away the vast majority of Arabia's provinces. Leave a few on the coast for the Ptolies of course, but for the most part just make Arabia part of the vast desert no-man's-land province that already composes alot of Arabia, along with the Sahara.
I know there's a definite 'Equality for All' concept for the factions in the game, but the fact is the Mediterranean and the Turkey-Syria-Iraq-Iran-Egypt-Judea slice of the Middle East are far more important than the peripheries of the map, if nothing else because of the faction density in places like Greece and the Alps, or the broader area of Syria and Asia Minor.
I do believe, sir, that you are missing the point of this game. Let me elaborate:
1) Sab'yn are there to represent the culture of their region, which is neither Hellenistic, nor Egyptian, nor Persian. The Arabian loyalists need an appropriate faction to revolt back to.
2) From what I hear, considerable work has been put into the development of this faction, resulting in some nifty, historically accurate units that didn't make it into EB I.
3) You said "besides trading". You do realize how important trade is, do you? After all, the English (for example) carved out a huge empire for themselves by little more than trade and piracy.
4) EB strives to represent all regions and cultures equally. Or so the developers said. Seeing as there is (some) relevant information available on this faction, it can be portrayed realistically.
5) It is not as if South Arabia were a region devoid of ancient culture or of conflicts.
6) I for one am looking forward to having at least one Arabian faction in EB II. And if it were only to crush them.
maybe it could be possible to merge some regions in northern europe(thus getting rid of 1-2 provinces) and one in each arabia and Britain but more would not be worth it imoas it would take away to much focus from regions that were added only by eb in the first place. an other option would be to declare large quantities of the european steppes "eremos" this would sound a bit silly tho
still I'm fine with the EB 1 map and anticipate the EB 2 map to be even a little bit better
Krusader
09-16-2009, 19:50
Some province redistribution has been done. We won't say from where and to where.
Except that Iran-area has received one extra province. Happy? :wink:
Yay! thats what i wanted to hear Iran was in desperate need of more provinces. I'm going to guess it was gotland that got the axe as i heard it was never intended to be captured by anyone but the player due to some quirk of the RTW region system.
Concerning the saba, i seem to recall a historical battle description where the arabs got the romans to invade parthia through their lands, and the romans got annihilated by parthia because of that. Maybe not quite in the time frame (not sure) but certainly shows arabs did play a role in things back then.
oh they want to chop of the map? sorry misread that as sticking regions together.
no never I like to invade mesopotamia from two sides! and the northern regions are imho somewhat important to have on the map aswell.
athanaric
09-18-2009, 20:25
Concerning the saba, i seem to recall a historical battle description where the arabs got the romans to invade parthia through their lands, and the romans got annihilated by parthia because of that. Maybe not quite in the time frame (not sure) but certainly shows arabs did play a role in things back then.
Those guys weren't Sabaeans though, they were just more or less local Arabs. Remember Carrhae lies to the North of Arab lands in EB's time frame.
Still, like you said earlier, the saba are there to represent their local culture.
king of thracia
09-23-2009, 06:52
They can just rebel to eleutheroi.
They can just rebel to eleutheroi.
Doesn't work like that. They rebel to the sub-faction that the province belongs to. So to ensure that all rebel provinces don't look western greek (the culture for the slave faction), we give each province a sub-faction.
Foot
athanaric
09-23-2009, 14:55
Hear, hear. That should put an end to the demands for Saba's removal.
Why, this is one of the top ten questions that pop up every two weeks, along with requests for LS and multiple Roman factions etc..
Cartaphilus
09-23-2009, 18:47
The Domain of the Sword mod will make a great use of PSF in the map to "break" in somw way the province limit, of course they will be only stone forts but could make a very useful simulation of cities.
So, maybe this could be interesting for some parts of EB map.
Do you mean Dominion of the Sword?
AFAIK the EB team is already using PSF's for that very purpose.
isn't there always a danger in making the provinces too close? i mean considering the AI's unwillingness to fight open battles, would this not result in total siedge warfare?
The map is being scaled up by 1.3x so there will be more space between cities.
Azathoth
09-24-2009, 00:43
Honestly, I would love EB2 to be Siege Total War. So much roleplaying...
The General
09-24-2009, 11:31
Honestly, I would love EB2 to be Siege Total War. So much roleplaying...
Ugh, wat?
I hope (/trust) you're being sarcastic. There's too few large decisive major field battles as it is and too much besieging cities, sitting on your ass for a few turns, defeating sally attempts and moving onto the next siege. Add a few stacks of 2-3 units wandering around there and that's Total War for you.
aye, as a matter of fact, the most often used way to engage in a major battle for me is lay a siege when there is a large army around and wait for it to try to relieve the city. otherwise they just retreat before any decisive fighting starts even when outnumbering you 1:1.5 . i've tried to pursue with horse skirmishers but the casualties inflicted in this manner are neglectable. traps work sometimes but only if the terrain allows it.
however if the new map is 1.3 times larger then maybe there is more room for maneuvering. has there been an official preview of the new strategic map?
The General
09-24-2009, 12:47
has there been an official preview of the new strategic map?
Not that I know of (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=106937).
ziegenpeter
09-24-2009, 14:53
Hear, hear. That should put an end to the demands for Saba's removal.
Not really. It could also start the demands for the removal of Arabia. At least the southern peninsula.
EDIT:
Honestly, I would love EB2 to be Siege Total War. So much roleplaying...
Nah, IMHO Sieges in the TW engine are badly done. Its always much less fun to me than field battles. Plus, among all the historical battles I know of, only a few were sieges.
Cartaphilus
09-24-2009, 22:57
Do you mean Dominion of the Sword?
AFAIK the EB team is already using PSF's for that very purpose.
Yes, sorry for the mistake.
I've seen some previews of the DotS map and it looks awesome.
Azathoth
09-25-2009, 01:16
So what then? The AI can't defend every PSF, so we'll just walk in. Also, the sight of so many cities and forts under my control would be very gratifying.
So what then? The AI can't adequately defend every PSF, so we'll just walk in. Also, the sight of so many cities and forts under my control would be very gratifying.
Fixed, I believe. The AI can always keep one or two units in every PSF. Very rarely have I seen the AI completely abandon a settlement. Plus, I don't think PSFs can rebel. Am I correct in stating this?
Azathoth
09-25-2009, 03:26
Fixed, I believe. The AI can always keep one or two units in every PSF. Very rarely have I seen the AI completely abandon a settlement. Plus, I don't think PSFs can rebel. Am I correct in stating this?
That means small-scale minor front sieges, even better.
Though alot of work has been put into the Saba, I feel that their place in the history of the map is, besides trading, relatively limited. I could see maybe removing the Saba (free's up a faction slot), and then taking away the vast majority of Arabia's provinces. Leave a few on the coast for the Ptolies of course, but for the most part just make Arabia part of the vast desert no-man's-land province that already composes alot of Arabia, along with the Sahara.
Have you ever read books on Ancient arabia? If not, how can you judge their importance?
seienchin
09-26-2009, 07:28
Have you ever read books on Ancient arabia? If not, how can you judge their importance?
Well.... Tell us the importance of ancient arabia in the EB timeframe and why nobody ever bothered conquering all of it? I know the sassanids atacked the arabian peninsula a few times and defeated many arabian tribes, but still they didnt bother conquering it.
Or am I wrong?:juggle2:
Oh and the cultural influences as important as they may be are nothing, that are reflected in a total war game?
@Topic
I have great concerns about the new bigger map. I mean the Eb map was too big for the Ai to act at least a little bit intelligent. The ai factions were unable to defend their important cities form naval atacks, in my current Vanilla campain I was just flashed, when I atackes scipii carthago and they launched an counteratack with 5 fullstacks. Never seen anything like that in EB. Even the yellow death cant do anything against a full stack against alexandria.
But anyway maybe the Ai in MWII is different
:2thumbsup:
Macilrille
09-26-2009, 08:51
I have launched many a surprise invasion against little defence many a time in MTW II.
huh? everytime I conquer a capital via naval invasion the garrison may be pathetic(Coast hopping with 2 spartans 2 cretans 1 trakioi prodromoi ftw and one KH FM) but the attacked always sends almost all his armies to that location which gives my real armies the chance to push the front line further into enemy territory. worked with romans carthagians Ptolemaioi Lusotani and selekids(tho this was due to bribe)
the funniest invasion i've had in EB1.2 happened just yesterday. after capturing the Seleukid capitol of Seleukea and Babilon in a single turn (they were left deffenseless with only 2-4 units guarding them) i stopped all offensive actions against them and decided to camp outside the cities untill i can secure their deffences. after some 15 season i sent one army north and another east. both around 2200-2300 men (mixed composition as always-phalanx,spearmen,archers,skirish infantry and cav as well as lancers) knowing that the AI would avoid counter attacking a full stack at all costs. and then to my great surprise after my eastern army group stopped just as came to a bridge, the seleukid turn was something i've never seen before. 3 succesive counter attacks with stacks numbering 1800, 2600 and 3200 men accordingly. the end result was naturally a total rout for the enemy wit no more then 300 men lost (the bridge crossing tactics) but what surprised me was the AI's initiative. does this happen always when you are inside enemy teritory on a bridge crossing?
Fluvius Camillus
09-26-2009, 15:42
In my opinion the map is fine as it is...
~Fluvius
Well.... Tell us the importance of ancient arabia in the EB timeframe and why nobody ever bothered conquering all of it? I know the sassanids atacked the arabian peninsula a few times and defeated many arabian tribes, but still they didnt bother conquering it.
Or am I wrong?:juggle2:
Oh and the cultural influences as important as they may be are nothing, that are reflected in a total war game?
Alexander wanted too, he just died to early. The Parthians/sassanids did conquer the eastern parts, the Persians had done so before them. They even rivaled with the romans in Arabia to gain as much from trade as possible. The Romans tried to conquer Arabia felix but failed (they blaimed the weather and their Nabataean guide). So yes you are wrong. :yes:
A longer post would have followed, if I just had more time. Though if you search for it I'm quite sure you'll find a better awser as I have posted explainations for Saba''s inclusion before.
Griggori
09-27-2009, 07:43
My only concern about the revelation that the map is going to be 30% larger is that, IIRC, In Medieval 2 the zone of control is still small for an army. A larger zone of control is, to my mind, the only worthwhile contribution from Empire to the future of the Total War games. Will you be able to hold strategic passes, I wonder? Or will there always be room for an army to sneak past?
I am not a coder in the least, but it would seem reasonable if after an army was stationed at a place for a while, its zone of control expanded, reflecting scouts and established control and lay of the land. I doubt though that the zone of control can be altered by programming.
Alexander wanted too, he just died to early.
Perhaps this is common knowledge, but I haven't heard it before. Source?
The Parthians/sassanids did conquer the eastern parts, the Persians had done so before them.
In the EB time frame? Source?
They even rivaled with the romans in Arabia to gain as much from trade as possible. The Romans tried to conquer Arabia felix but failed (they blaimed the weather and their Nabataean guide). So yes you are wrong. :yes:
Source?
Don't take this shit personally. I'm just interested in learning more.
Perhaps this is common knowledge, but I haven't heard it before. Source?
In the EB time frame? Source?
Source?
Don't take this shit personally. I'm just interested in learning more.
Then perhaps you need to learn how to ask in a less aggressive and confrontational way. Something along the lines of:
"Huh, that's really interesting. Where could I find out more about this?"
Most people seem to be able to do this, I would be suprised if you were unable to you.
Foot
Then perhaps you need to learn how to ask in a less aggressive and confrontational way. Something along the lines of:
"Huh, that's really interesting. Where could I find out more about this?"
Most people seem to be able to do this, I would be suprised if you were unable to you.
Foot
Or I could just say "source?"
I should be able to ask for a source without pussyfooting around to make a potentially sensitive person feel good. There is nothing inherently aggressive in asking for a source. And I even ended the post with "I'm just interested in learning more" in case he took it all as a challenge.
Why take it personally? This is an academic forum.
-Praetor-
10-01-2009, 21:28
It is just a matter or reciprocity, lobf. Politeness is returned with politeness, and what you call pussyfooting actually makes a debate enjoyable rather than confrontational.
Or I could just say "source?"
I should be able to ask for a source without pussyfooting around to make a potentially sensitive person feel good. There is nothing inherently aggressive in asking for a source. And I even ended the post with "I'm just interested in learning more" in case he took it all as a challenge.
Why take it personally? This is an academic forum.
Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you really this confrontantial? Do you really not see how it reads for us, those who have given our lives for this mod (quite literally in some cases). Are you so lacking in empathy, or is this some sort of vendetta, or something else perhaps.
I'm amazed. I really am. Your original post that I responded to really does sound like you have already formed an opinion and are simply assuming that we are talking bollocks. I can assure you that Moros knows what he is talking about, and to the detriment of his potential in other areas: he went out and found this information.
Foot
Bucefalo
10-02-2009, 12:06
What useful is knowing history, if you don´t have manners?. Knowing how to ask is as important (and sometimes more) as knowing what you are talking about. You can be completely clueless about something but ask it in a polite way, and learn something while you are at it. So Lobf you better rephrase your questions, or otherwise you will learn very few history.
The General
10-02-2009, 12:12
Perhaps this is common knowledge, but I haven't heard it before. Source?
From :http://arabiafelix.humnet.unipi.it/page_arabia/ancient_after.html
With the Asian expedition of Alexander, the Greek world has the occasion for a radical change of the Arabia's knowledge, because the peninsula is discovered. Alexander is attracted much more by geographical position of Arabia as a connection between oriental and occidental part of the empire, according to a "British" strategic vision, but his death (on 10th June 323 a.C.) is the end of a grand plan.
In the EB time frame? Source?
From the supreme authority in all things, Wikipedia:
Parthia:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/Parthian_Empire_248_%E2%80%93_224_%28BC%29.PNG
Sassanid empire:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Sassanid-empire-610CE.png
Sassanids of course well out of EB's time frame, but that's obvious enough for everyone who's ever opened a history book, now innit. However, both Byzantines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids) and Sassanids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhmids) sported an interest in Arabia as both supported buffer states of their own
Source?
Arabia Felix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabia_Felix)
Aelius Gallus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelius_Gallus)
And from
http://arabiafelix.humnet.unipi.it/page_arabia/ancient_spedizione1.html:
After Alexander's dream of conquering the country of perfume, the only real attempt at military conquest was launched by Augustus. This ambitious plan which was again based on vague and contradictory geographical knowledge was launched under Aelius Gallus the Roman prefect of Egypt. The Roman army of ten thousand men moved into Arabia from the north from the Nabataean port of Leuke Kome. Crossing the Arabian peninsula proved disastrous for the Romans. Having set forth to conquer a country of knowledge, glory and wealth, they were decimated by hunger, thirst and heat. The overwhelming military superiority of the Romans that had brought them total victory in the clashes with south Arabian armies with practically no casualties of their own was completely useless. When they arrived within sight of the capital of Saba they had to turn back and retreat.
The return trip was much swifter - sixty days compared to the six months outwards and provided the chance to blame the Nabataean guide for the defeat and justify Aelius Gallus.
That's what a little googling finds, but I've read about both expeditions (Alexander's planned one and Aelius Gallus's unsuccesful one) but cba visit my local librabry to find what the names of the books were that I read 3-5 years ago, sorreh. I kind of thought that Alexander's plans for Arabia were relatively known since I recall some theories (hypotheses) about his death based on malaria catched in southern Mesopotamia as he was inspecting the work done to prepare for the invasion or something along those lines.
Well thanks the General that saved me some work. :bow:
Also Lobf while I could understand you demanding sources for a claim, this is rather basic knowledge when it comes to Ancient arabia, and you could have found out yourself merely using wikipedia.
a completely inoffensive name
10-04-2009, 09:01
Sounds like some people need to calm down. Let's not freakout over a pointless thing. We all know and love lobf for his skepticism, lets not get angry over it, especially since he has been posting with such skepticism for two years here.
Megas Methuselah
10-04-2009, 09:14
Lobf reminds me of myself when he's proudly rude like this. Luv it.
Lobf reminds me of myself when he's proudly rude like this. Luv it.
:no:
-Praetor-
10-04-2009, 19:47
Lobf reminds me of myself when he's proudly rude like this. Luv it.
:wall:
What's there to be proud of?
In my opinion the map is fine as it is...
~Fluvius
Seconded. Keep it simple. The AI isthe problem, not the map.
As for the Saba, unless you play it, it was mainly there so The Seulekids or The Ptolies could gobble 'em up in no time. A scapegoat.
Let's face it, if they get the AI right then I'm a happy player. But don't go all the way to indochina, just keep it simple but better quality.
Quality over quantity.
Lobf reminds me of myself when he's proudly rude like this. Luv it.
Or does Meth remind me of Lobf?
:dizzy2:
Also, stupid question, but is the province limit in MTW:II the same as in RTW?
Azathoth
10-09-2009, 00:53
Also, stupid question, but is the province limit in MTW:II the same as in RTW?
Correct on both counts. :smash:
antisocialmunky
10-09-2009, 02:32
I thought it was 2 less.
Azathoth
10-09-2009, 04:16
According to Krusader, it's 198. Huh.:sweatdrop:
The Fuzz
10-09-2009, 05:08
Well...Sab'yn is going to be the first faction I play, so...keep up the good work, Moros. :)
According to Krusader, it's 198. Huh.:sweatdrop:
I cannot find where he has written that. However, I can confirm that the the maximum number of provinces is 199 + 1 sea province making 200 in total. This is the same limit as is found in RTW.
Foot
That's odd. Does that mean the sea has a capital?
That's odd. Does that mean the sea has a capital?
No, because the the sea province is defined as a sea region, rather than as a land region. Different standards are involved.
Foot
Stupid Question, Are you planning to extend the map?
Azathoth
10-09-2009, 23:32
I cannot find where he has written that. However, I can confirm that the the maximum number of provinces is 199 + 1 sea province making 200 in total. This is the same limit as is found in RTW.
Foot
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1469470&highlight=limit#post1469470
That's what I get for not checking the date!
Krusader
10-09-2009, 23:35
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1469470&highlight=limit#post1469470
That's what I get for not checking the date!
Hey look at that!
But I think I made that comment before we did more thourough testing. Think we found out that it was still 199 provinces, but just that M2TW had two sea provinces.
a completely inoffensive name
10-10-2009, 06:45
Stupid Question, Are you planning to extend the map?
They are not. You can see in one of the previews there is a pic of the campaign screen and the mini map is shown in the bottom corner covering the same land area as EB1.
Are you planning to extend the map?We've just finished doing so. The change is modest.
a completely inoffensive name
10-11-2009, 00:24
We've just finished doing so. The change is modest.
I am guessing that was done after the preview pic was taken.
Megas Methuselah
10-11-2009, 01:22
They are not. You can see in one of the previews there is a pic of the campaign screen and the mini map is shown in the bottom corner covering the same land area as EB1.
They are changing the scale of the map, though. IIRC, the campaign map in EB2 will be 1.3x larger than the one shown in EB1.
Anyone is welcome to correct my faulty memory if neccessary.
You're correct.
Q: Is the campaign map larger?
A: Both Rome - Total War and Medieval 2 - Total War have the same hardcoded number of provinces (199), so no new settlements can be added to the game. However, the scale of map will increase (approximately 1.3x).
We've just finished doing so. The change is modest.
Ah, I see. No Asian/Indian faction that was leaked with your occulus sigs then?
:oops:
Said too much?
:beam:
Fluvius Camillus
10-13-2009, 21:51
Thanks for all the EB timeframe/pre-islamic history sharing, this expanded my knowledge about the region in this period.
I also never wanted Saba to be removed, they fill an important power vacuum and add a culture to a part of the world. Also they prove a challenge as one of the harder campaigns and can be used to roleplay when playing other factions. They are quite unique and just shouting that they are obselete is just a kick in the face of Moros and all other members who put their time in this to study this subject and develop the area/faction.
~Fluvius
ziegenpeter
10-13-2009, 22:37
They are quite unique and just shouting that they are obselete is just a kick in the face of Moros and all other members who put their time in this to study this subject and develop the area/faction.
Well I think that serious criticism on factions and their value within the mod shouldnt lower the esteem of the members who worked on that faction. IMHO it would be even very egocentric if they took this personal.
I've got the impression that some forum members put these guys on a pedestal (is this a saying?).
I really love their work but a king surrounded only by bootlickers is of no value.
Fluvius Camillus
10-13-2009, 23:11
Well I think that serious criticism on factions and their value within the mod shouldnt lower the esteem of the members who worked on that faction. IMHO it would be even very egocentric if they took this personal.
I've got the impression that some forum members put these guys on a pedestal (is this a saying?).
I really love their work but a king surrounded only by bootlickers is of no value.
Well then there are still the reasons above why the faction should stay, also I don't think members just start on a faction, I can imagine that there were numerous discussions about faction between the mod developers themselves.
Putting someone on a pedestal is a saying I think, I know for sure in the dutch language it is (iemand op een voetstuk plaatsen). Imagine that the Sab'yn member has this question all the time from mostly new members over and over again, sometimes typing the same essay again for the people doubting the decision of having Saba on the map. Wether you have facts or arguments or ask out of the blue, the team probably discussed in their own ranks why they should be included and will probably have a large pile of reasons ready. It should be perfectly reasonable then if you can sound a bit annoyed, especially if people ask information or doubt you in a very impolite way.
Also it looks to me that the hardworking EB members deserve a decent amount of respect after all their hard work (as explained before, EB modding consumes massive amounts of time). I don't think it is hard to understand why people who sacrifice a great amount of their life for modding a game, and offering this life-work as a free download should be praised.
People you call bootlickers are something that can keep the team going wether you call them bootlickers or fans. Finally, constructive criticism is not bad, the problem is people can take it the wrong way.
~Fluvius
Putting someone on a pedestal is a saying I think, I know for sure in the dutch language it is (iemand op een voetstuk plaatsen).
1) I believe the phrase you're looking for is "putting someone in the hot seat." That is, if I interpreted the original post correctly.
2) The EB team members have said multiple times that constructive criticism (the stress being on the term "constructive") is welcome. Look to this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=79193) post as a reference.
ziegenpeter
10-14-2009, 12:25
Fluvius, I agree, that there have been enough reasons mentioned for letting Saba stay in the game I just wanted to say that doubting their value for the game shouldnt be forbidden because of the EB members feelings.
And I don't want to deny that the Eb team members deserve some respect, especially because they created the game I'd call my favorite videogame of all time, but we all should differentiate between that and blind "fanboyism".
1) I believe the phrase you're looking for is "putting someone in the hot seat." That is, if I interpreted the original post correctly.
"Putting someone on a pedestal" is certainly a saying in Britain, it means elevating someone above normal people ie thinking they can do no wrong etc.
"putting someone in the hot seat." to me implies challenging someone to respond (ie by asking someone a difficult question your putting them in the hot seat) or putting someone in control.
Yeah, sorry, I interpreted the post wrong. My fault.
I've never played the Saby'n, but I've always liked the fact that I could. :shrug:
Do note that we will not only portray the Sabaeans in EBII, but we will also use the new exciting features of EBII and regional units to represent the many different peoples that lived in Arabia. So don't see the inclusion of Arabia just because of Saba', but for the sake of many interesting peoples and civilisations that played their part in history. It's not because a certain part of our map is often forgotten when it comes to the ancient period, that we should as well. The Sabaeans and the other ancient yemini had much influence, were technically advanced. But they aren't the sole reason for Arabia's inclusion. There were also other peoples. Some of them were traders, others were warlike nomads and some are rather unkown. And if we think of the influence the whole of Arabia had on the world, especially economically you can't just leave it out. Culturally it was the place were Africa met India, were Greeks met Arabians, were parthians met Romans. It was the place the latter two bordered and fought for. As not only the west of Arabia was a goldmine.
Eitherway while suggestions about and on Arabia are welcome, we will not even consider removing it. Not just for the sake of the Sabaean, but also because it would be plain silly. Also don't judge the Arabians in EBII before you have seen them. They will be quite different and more diverse from the ones you saw in EBI.
Will the Arabian desert (part of the unconquerable province in EBI) be any different in EBII?
No it will remain a part of Eremos. There are some province changes in Arabia though.
Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you really this confrontantial? Do you really not see how it reads for us, those who have given our lives for this mod (quite literally in some cases). Are you so lacking in empathy, or is this some sort of vendetta, or something else perhaps.
I'm amazed. I really am. Your original post that I responded to really does sound like you have already formed an opinion and are simply assuming that we are talking bollocks. I can assure you that Moros knows what he is talking about, and to the detriment of his potential in other areas: he went out and found this information.
Foot
I'm a pretty confrontational person. However, I don't find it rude to ask for a source. I suppose that's just a difference between you and I.
Besides it's not like Moros has an absolutely perfect record of truth and accuracy. He's espoused some rumor and hearsay in the past. (Moros, you have also put out a ton of great info in very lucid and easily comprehensible language, so don't take that the wrong way. I've said some bullshit myself, everyone does it. That's why I ask for sources.)
What useful is knowing history, if you don´t have manners?. Knowing how to ask is as important (and sometimes more) as knowing what you are talking about. You can be completely clueless about something but ask it in a polite way, and learn something while you are at it. So Lobf you better rephrase your questions, or otherwise you will learn very few history.
I really care about your opinion.
Well thanks the General that saved me some work. :bow:
Also Lobf while I could understand you demanding sources for a claim, this is rather basic knowledge when it comes to Ancient arabia, and you could have found out yourself merely using wikipedia.
I suppose I could have, but it can be hard to find info on something when you don't really know what you're looking for. Not to mention I assumed you would have some more interesting sources than Wikipedia.
Lobf reminds me of myself when he's proudly rude like this. Luv it.
Not trying to be rude. I just don't lick people's nuts. This is a history discussion not a lamaz class.
Also, hate to revive the controversy, but I figured I should address this now that I'm back.
Fluvius Camillus
10-21-2009, 20:30
Wow you really are hopeless, I will not even try to explain to you what common values are...
~Fluvius
Wow you really are hopeless, I will not even try to explain to you what common values are...
~Fluvius
Is this representative of "common values?"
Jesus you guys are touchy.
ziegenpeter
10-21-2009, 21:08
Hey guys, I think this is a thing between moros and lobf. Since no Admin or Mod has to interfere, leave it to them.
And you two could take it to the PM-level.
athanaric
10-21-2009, 21:15
Since no Admin or Mod has to interfere, leave it to them.
Um, I guess you wanted to say "has interfered"...
I don't have time to look at this thread properly tonight, so I am going to close it and check it out tomorrow.
Thread temporarily closed.
I had hoped that answering the question would have taken the confrontational tone out of this discussion. Since the question has already been answered, I see no need for this thread to be reopened. If you disagree, PM me.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.