The Settlement In The South-Western Sahara. [Archive]

Badass Buddha

03-12-2010, 00:05

Hey, many times lurker, first time poster. Is there anyway to conquer the settlement (Teherazza, I think) in the south-western corner of the Sahara? I sent a spy, but there's impassible terrain, and I don't want to send an army down there only to find out after 20 turns that it's impossible to get to. While I realize it's probably not worth it, I'm an completist about these things, and having that one settlement free when I've got everything else in Africa is bugging me. Thanks.

Belisarius II

03-12-2010, 00:11

You can only take the settlement by modding the files. Your not supposed to take it anyway, because many of the triggers in the game are set in this settlement.

Arthur, king of the Britons

03-12-2010, 00:52

Or use the move_character console command.

vartan

03-12-2010, 06:04

You can only take the settlement by modding the files. Your not supposed to take it anyway, because many of the triggers in the game are set in this settlement.
Seconded. Question to add: Will taking the settlement "ruin" the game by stopping certain scripts from running?

Titus Marcellus Scato

03-12-2010, 07:48

Yes. Make sure that Tehrazza is the VERY LAST settlement you ever want to conquer in your campaign.

You should take that town, save the game, and then not reload it again unless it's simply to gloat over your conquest of the entire known world.

Megas Methuselah

03-12-2010, 08:23

Why would someone blitz the map, anyways? Talk about BORING, you know?

Duguntz

03-12-2010, 08:34

WEell, for a good LOL i'd like to see some Duguntiz or Botaroas in the south sahara! hahahahaha! Just imagining their face... ''Heu... chief... the guys and me... were just wondering if you didn't pursued the celts... a bit far?''

Fluvius Camillus

03-12-2010, 15:50

Hey, many times lurker, first time poster. Is there anyway to conquer the settlement (Teherazza, I think) in the south-western corner of the Sahara? I sent a spy, but there's impassible terrain, and I don't want to send an army down there only to find out after 20 turns that it's impossible to get to. While I realize it's probably not worth it, I'm an completist about these things, and having that one settlement free when I've got everything else in Africa is bugging me. Thanks.

Been there... Did that (Maks):clown:

BTW, how come I can see the city, like I own a watchtower around there or something?

~Fluvius

Badass Buddha

03-12-2010, 23:39

Cool. Thank you for your help.

vartan

03-13-2010, 06:02

Why would someone blitz the map, anyways? Talk about BORING, you know?
Didn't FC do this with various factions, though? I'm sure FC is a bit infamous for that, nowadays!

Ludens

03-13-2010, 13:52

WEell, for a good LOL i'd like to see some Duguntiz or Botaroas in the south sahara! hahahahaha! Just imagining their face... ''Heu... chief... the guys and me... were just wondering if you didn't pursued the celts... a bit far?''

:laugh4:

Actually, I don't think taking the city will interfere with the script as long as you leave the "buildings" standing. However, you are not supposed to go there anyway, so...

vartan

03-13-2010, 18:36

:laugh4:

Actually, I don't think taking the city will interfere with the script as long as you leave the "buildings" standing. However, you are not supposed to go there anyway, so...
Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say "you are not supposed to go there anyway" ? I understand that not touching the buildings will leave the scripts alone, and that one cannot MOVE his or her armies there without cheating, so WHY is that exactly? Is it a "historic" reason? Because I wish to rewrite history!

Ludens

03-13-2010, 18:45

Because it's impossible to march an army across the Sahara and then embark on a campaign of conquest. Even if your army managed to survive the trek, they would be in no shape to fight a battle.