EB II map ideas discussion

I wish to propose some suggestions for the map:
I think the map scale should be increased as some areas of the map seem a little cramped (asia minor, syria, greece). I think the EB team are going to increase the scale but I'm not sure. Not too large though, as I'm not a fan of those huge scale -one-million-miles-between-each-settlement maps.

The EB map also seems a bit too lush and green around asia minor, persia, africa and the middle east, whereas upon looking on a map (Space view), I saw that those areas had much more desert parts than the EB map shows, and I think it would be good to have some more desert-esque battle maps/strategic map to give a little variety.

I also think that there are way too many trees in the battlemaps, sometimes covering the whole deployment zone and making battles tedious and confusing. Spain and Macedonia are nightmare places to fight in because of this. I know that historically, armies did not usually deploy in the middle of a forest as it was often considered unpassable terrain, so maybe reducing the amount of forest battlefields will stop me bursting multiple blood vessels in frustration.

I feel that there are a bit too many resources on the map and they can sometimes clutter the area, and take away from the atmosphere, however this may not be a problem if the map scale is increased.

i would also like to request the removal of what i feel are pointless settlements: Some of those far north baltic settlements that the ai never bothers to conquer, that island settlement near germany that no one ever conquers, and chalkis. I feel that greece is already quite cramped and Chalkis just does not add to gameplay value, and in fact makes it more of a chore to take over than a joy. I feel that these settlements could be better used elsewhere, especially where new factions are being implemented.

Other than these points, I really love the EB campaign map, but some aspects are outdated and I hope they are not carried into the EB II map.

SO Discuss!

Quote:

---

I think the map scale should be increased as some areas of the map seem a little cramped (asia minor, syria, greece). I think the EB team are going to increase the scale but I'm not sure. Not too large though, as I'm not a fan of those huge scale -one-million-miles-between-each-settlement maps.

---

as foot said it will be aproximately 1,3x

Quote:

---

The EB map also seems a bit too lush and green around asia minor, persia, africa and the middle east, whereas upon looking on a map (Space view), I saw that those areas had much more desert parts than the EB map shows, and I think it would be good to have some more desert-esque battle maps/strategic map to give a little variety.

---

due to some climatic changes green and fertile lands became deserts

Quote:

---

I also think that there are way too many trees in the battlemaps, sometimes covering the whole deployment zone and making battles tedious and confusing. Spain and Macedonia are nightmare places to fight in because of this. I know that historically, armies did not usually deploy in the middle of a forest as it was often considered unpassable terrain, so maybe reducing the amount of forest battlefields will stop me bursting multiple blood vessels in frustration.

---

EB tries to be as realistic as possible, there were trees at 272BC, EB has trees

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumbass

I wish to propose some suggestions for the map:
I think the map scale should be increased as some areas of the map seem a little cramped (asia minor, syria, greece). I think the EB team are going to increase the scale but I'm not sure. Not too large though, as I'm not a fan of those huge scale -one-million-miles-between-each-settlement maps.

---

There is a limit to the size of the map .tga files, so we cannot scale to much. I believe the scale was going to be 1.3x, but I'm not uptodate on the latest map info.

Quote:

---

The EB map also seems a bit too lush and green around asia minor, persia, africa and the middle east, whereas upon looking on a map (Space view), I saw that those areas had much more desert parts than the EB map shows, and I think it would be good to have some more desert-esque battle maps/strategic map to give a little variety.

---

That large parts of the sahara used to be grazing land (not in our timeframe) should be proof enough that how the world looks now is not how it looked 2000 years ago. The most important change is soil erosion, which has left otherwise fertile areas barren after so much intensive farming.

Quote:

---

I also think that there are way too many trees in the battlemaps, sometimes covering the whole deployment zone and making battles tedious and confusing. Spain and Macedonia are nightmare places to fight in because of this. I know that historically, armies did not usually deploy in the middle of a forest as it was often considered unpassable terrain, so maybe reducing the amount of forest battlefields will stop me bursting multiple blood vessels in frustration.

---

There may be some room to alter this, but I'm not uptodate on the vegetation files. However please please please use the strat map. If you fight on a tile with woods then you are going to run into issues on the battlefield. Right-click on the strat map to make sure of terrain you will be fighting on (I wish it showed more information).

Quote:

---

I feel that there are a bit too many resources on the map and they can sometimes clutter the area, and take away from the atmosphere, however this may not be a problem if the map scale is increased.

---

I agree somewhat, in fact I would prefer a smaller scale, but then it would be impossible to see. However don't expect the EBII map to look the same as the EBI map in any respect (except like provinces n stuff).

Quote:

---

i would also like to request the removal of what i feel are pointless settlements: Some of those far north baltic settlements that the ai never bothers to conquer, that island settlement near germany that no one ever conquers, and chalkis. I feel that greece is already quite cramped and Chalkis just does not add to gameplay value, and in fact makes it more of a chore to take over than a joy. I feel that these settlements could be better used elsewhere, especially where new factions are being implemented.

---

That is up to the historians for those areas, not a matter for gameplay. You will see some changes, some provinces will be removed, and some boundaries shifted.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

There is a limit to the size of the map .tga files, so we cannot scale to much. I believe the scale was going to be 1.3x, but I'm not uptodate on the latest map info.

That large parts of the sahara used to be grazing land (not in our timeframe) should be proof enough that how the world looks now is not how it looked 2000 years ago. The most important change is soil erosion, which has left otherwise fertile areas barren after so much intensive farming.

There may be some room to alter this, but I'm not uptodate on the vegetation files. However please please please use the strat map. If you fight on a tile with woods then you are going to run into issues on the battlefield. Right-click on the strat map to make sure of terrain you will be fighting on (I wish it showed more information).

I agree somewhat, in fact I would prefer a smaller scale, but then it would be impossible to see. However don't expect the EBII map to look the same as the EBI map in any respect (except like provinces n stuff).

That is up to the historians for those areas, not a matter for gameplay. You will see some changes, some provinces will be removed, and some boundaries shifted.

Foot

---

Thanks for the response. The map already sounds good, and a 1.3 scale sounds just right. I didn't realise soil erosion and pollution did so much damage to those parts of the world as to make them like the barren and desert places of today.

I realise that province change will be up to the historians, but wasn't chalkis quite a minor settlement? Whereas there are probably some less densely settlement packed places which have more major cities there. I also understand that you are probably removing settlements that are a few tiles away from each other such as babylon and utica. I think chalkis would fall into this category as it is only about two tiles away from athens. (PS I feel that Utica should be kept, as it adds quite a lot gameplay-wise to the area.)

Didn't you suggest the removal of Chalkis before? Do you have any new arguments to strengthen that suggestion?

Yes I did suggest the removal of Chalkis before, but I don't remember the discussion coming to a conclusion, so I wish the bring it up again whilst we are discussing the matter. Plus I think the points I have given are good enough to justify the possibility of its removal.

We're an open bunch of people and where something is brought up, we'll discuss it. Of course PSFs open up a whole new world (#A whole new world...#) for us, which we've already begun to take advantage of - something you'll find out about in the Gaza Campaign.

Foot

Excuse me for being a noob, but what is a PFS? :embarassed:

EDIT: I will have to disagree with you on the Chalkis-issue, Dumbass. Sure, Greece is cramped, but Chalkis was a rather important Macedonian base, if I'm not mistaken. Also, I don't think it detracts from gameplay at all, rather ads to it... Greece should be a quite complicated place to hold, given that there waere quite a lot of independent leauges and city-states there, and having to controll many cities is a good way of representing this.
(And I still think that the Aetolian leauge would be a great addition to EBII, despite not being super-important. I want City-state squabbles galore!!!)
Sorry, completely off topic...

Permanent Stone Forts. They're used in the Kingdoms Britannia campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by socal_infidel

Permanent Stone Forts. They're used in the Kingdoms Britannia campaign.

---

I like it!!! :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumbass

Yes I did suggest the removal of Chalkis before, but I don't remember the discussion coming to a conclusion, so I wish the bring it up again whilst we are discussing the matter. Plus I think the points I have given are good enough to justify the possibility of its removal.

---

The conclusion was the Chalkis was important as a strategic base, not as a population centre, and hence won't be removed (although it may be replaced by a PSF for all I know). Also, if you remove Chalkis you get the problem of whom to give Euboia to. It clearly wasn't controlled by the Athenians, but giving it to Corinth or Thessaly also isn't realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithridates VI Eupator

I will have to disagree with you on the Chalkis-issue, Dumbass.

---

See, this is way I love your name Dumbass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithridates VI Eupator

Excuse me for being a noob, but what is a PFS? :embarassed:

EDIT: I will have to disagree with you on the Chalkis-issue, Dumbass. Sure, Greece is cramped, but Chalkis was a rather important Macedonian base, if I'm not mistaken. Also, I don't think it detracts from gameplay at all, rather ads to it... Greece should be a quite complicated place to hold, given that there waere quite a lot of independent leauges and city-states there, and having to controll many cities is a good way of representing this.
(And I still think that the Aetolian leauge would be a great addition to EBII, despite not being super-important. I want City-state squabbles galore!!!)
Sorry, completely off topic...

---

It was an important Macedonian base, but then there are lots of other important cities that are not represented on the EB map. And I don't think having lots of cities in greece makes it complicated to hold, if anything it just makes it too easy with the huge amount of trade income you rake in.
If you want city state squabbles, then couldn't the inclusion of a settlement for the achean league fill that criteria? I think that would make a good replacement for Chalkis. But there will no doubt be a need for more settlements where the new factions are going to be implemented.

And Ludens like you said, maybe a PSF would better represent Chalkis; as a strategic base, rather than a population centre. Giving control of Eubioa to thessaly would hardly raise problems and difficulties, seeing as it's really the settlements that matter in RTW, not the empty area around it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General Appo

See, this is way I love your name Dumbass.

---

lol it always sounds slanderous when people address me.

I feel that it would be for the benefit of the map to remove the northern eastern cites such as those situated around the Baltic sea. My reasons for coming to this conclusion are:

1. It will help divide the eastern and western factions such as Sweboz, Getai and Saro and prevent them from fighting each other in this land and will help them spread historically.
2. Again the impact with the Sweboz spreading in this area creates sometimes a monetary stronghold which then helps them over power the Aduei and Averni.
3. There is currently to the best of the fans knowledge, no faction planned for that region (lots of speculation but no definitive fact), so to have 4 settlements even with large territories is wasteful of the regions. (The four regions I speak of are: Sapmi, Seliun Gentis, Sembu Gentys, Neurije)

My suggestion would be to lump that land in with the Terhazza territory and use the four free settlements to better use in other regions that might need it.

I would appreciate any comments, opinions or facts that favor the opposite argument/point out any flaws in my reasons.

The thing is that in most of the recent AI progression maps that I have seen on the forums and in my games indicates that since 1.0 the Sweboz have been held in check from taking Poland and the Baltic region by the scripted eleutheroi armies that defend those settlements. By the time that they achieve the needed strength to conquer those regions, the time is much more appropriate. And the Sarmatians historically did eventually get to those regions as well.

As for any settlements that I think are more likely to be removed, I have already said in other threads that I think Augila and Tuat have been hinted at being replaced. These could be used in India or Asia Mikra to provide much needed settlements there.

On a side note: does M2TW have BI's naval invasion ability or does the AI behave more like RTW when it comes to fleets and maritime transit?

Chairman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chairman

On a side note: does M2TW have BI's naval invasion ability or does the AI behave more like RTW when it comes to fleets and maritime transit?

---

It did in the first version, but one of the patches fixed that. Now naval invasion are if not common at least not nonexistant.

I've just played a Brittania Campaign and Wales most definitely invaded me as the Irish, could have been a one of though :)

It wasn´t. In my first MTW2 campaign with the 1.2 patch (or one of those patches) I thought Kypros (I´ve played so much EB I start calling places after their EB names) would be safe with just a single unit to keep the peace. Two turns later Egypt invades the island.
It´s been like that ever since.

In fact, some people complain there are too many naval invasion. I especially noted this in my Scotland campaign. I only controlled Scotland and Wales, but even so, in 10 years I recieved naval invasion from Portugal, Denmark, France and the HRE (Holy Roman Empire). It just gets ridiculous after a while
Especially Portugal has a love of invading Wales and Ireland with units that are sorely needed back in Iberia. It gets even worse when a lot of the times they just land an army in Ireland or Wales, stand close to the city and do nothing. As long as you keep a sizeable garrison they can stand there for 100s of years while their faction get annihilated, only to suddenly strike after you moved a single unit outside of the city. Annoying really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dumbass

And Ludens like you said, maybe a PSF would better represent Chalkis; as a strategic base, rather than a population centre. Giving control of Eubioa to thessaly would hardly raise problems and difficulties, seeing as it's really the settlements that matter in RTW, not the empty area around it.

---

The territory does determine farming income and trade resources. Making it part of Thessaly is really unrealistic: historically it had little to do with that area, while it probably would have been under strong Athenian influence. I am not sure how forts work in M2:TW, but I recall reading that they dramatically affect income when placed on enemy territory, so I guess it would be realistic to make Euboia part of Attica and then place a Macedonian fortress there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I feel that it would be for the benefit of the map to remove the northern eastern cites such as those situated around the Baltic sea. My reasons for coming to this conclusion are:

1. It will help divide the eastern and western factions such as Sweboz, Getai and Saro and prevent them from fighting each other in this land and will help them spread historically.
2. Again the impact with the Sweboz spreading in this area creates sometimes a monetary stronghold which then helps them over power the Aduei and Averni.
3. There is currently to the best of the fans knowledge, no faction planned for that region (lots of speculation but no definitive fact), so to have 4 settlements even with large territories is wasteful of the regions. (The four regions I speak of are: Sapmi, Seliun Gentis, Sembu Gentys, Neurije)

My suggestion would be to lump that land in with the Terhazza territory and use the four free settlements to better use in other regions that might need it.

I would appreciate any comments, opinions or facts that favor the opposite argument/point out any flaws in my reasons.

---

I think that you cannot make conclusions regarding faction expansion in EB2 based on EB1. The Sweboz get too big too fast, but in EB2 this is most likely going to be different. Also, if they had expanded this far historically, they would probably have had a turf fight in the area. It's not the same as extending the Eremos province to prevent the Carthagian-Egyptian sand wars, since those would have been impossible. The Baltic was sparsely populated, but that would not have prevented the Germans or Sauromatae from fighting there.

Also, because we don't know whether there will be a faction in the area doesn't mean we must assume there won't. If there will be a Baltic or near Baltic-faction, those provinces suddenly become important. I doubt the team placed those cities there simply to fill the area up. After all, there are other places that need extra cities to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

I think that you cannot make conclusions regarding faction expansion in EB2 based on EB1. The Sweboz get too big too fast, but in EB2 this is most likely going to be different.

---

That seems like a contradiction right there... how exactly do you know it will be different in EBII?

We have greater control of the campaign AI with which we can curtail expansion if we see the Sweboz getting too big too early.

And its not a contradiction at all, because he is not basing his prediction of expansion in EBII based on EBI, but rather based on what he knows about the moddability of the MTW2 campaign AI and other associated data files.

Foot