Printable View
hello everyone,
just downloaded and played BE the first time. It is very good!!
I like playing a greek faction and thats my little problem, cause in greek there are only a few provinces.
Is there any possibility to mod the campaign map to have as many provinces as in Rome Total Realism?
I suppose you're talking about either the Makedonians, the Hellenoi, or the Epeirotai.
My solution to this would be quite straightforward: conquest.
But you want to mod things, don't you?
Well there's an campaign map editor available at TWCenter, you could try downloading and playing around with this tool...
(Besides, the mod is called EB... not BE... Probably a typing error.)
No mod has more provinces or cities than EB (because we are at the hardcode limit, like RTR is). What you seem to want is a redistribution. We have the map pretty much how we want it though (pretty close). We won't be doing major revisions - at most one or two province changes, but nothing really big.
While on this topics, I'll ask: Why are some major cities missing? Thessalonika, Ephesos, and Salonae mainly? I also miss Carthago Nova but understand why it was removed.
Another thing, why are some territories on both sides to the Danube?
EDIT: (me) whine whine whine :embarassed:
I blame Teleklos for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
:laugh4:Quote:
I blame Teleklos for this.
Missing? It's because there are hundreds and hundreds of cities that could possibly be represented. Salonika just wasn't as important in 272 as Pella was. It's the same with lots of other cities. Some are much more borderline, but we had to make choices based on a number of factors - we don't have all our factions in a small area so we don't want all our cities in a small area. There are different paths to take here - and RTR definitely has chosen one of them, as we have. We like our map better and think it provides a more accurate base for our factions and mod. They think the same for theirs.
Eadingas has talked in detail in some other places about why rivers don't always provide the best limits for certain peoples especially in north and central eastern Europe. If he wants he can point you to that or restate it, but that is the basic answer.
edit: and please save your breath if anyone wants to say "well, just get rid of this province (that I'm not very interested in) and add this other one in a totally different part of the map (which I am interested in)." We may make one or two other changes, but we may not. The cities and provinces will stay pretty much the same (though borders are being tweaked constantly).
RTR does not have more cities than EB. It's just that RTR's map covers a smaller area so that it can have more cities in certain regions.Quote:
Originally Posted by hafensaengerx
Yep, and there's a different dsitribution, for example, Britain has very few provinces compared to EB, while EB's Arabia is a lot bigger.
Different priotities. Hell, the start dates are different anyway.
I remember that when playing the maks in RTR, it was a siege after siege situation. The amount of cities in greece made it unplayable.
Try Metropolis/Naval mod. Adds a whole different approach to the game.
I think, don't quote me on this since I might have misread some of Dark89's comments, that they are going to implement the mods features(farming system, only important cities have walls, new navies, decreased mining income, etc) to 7.0.
... would unimportant cities be worth having in a mod, as opposed to the important one that have walls?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musopticon?
Would Pantikapaion have epic stonewalls?
Well?
Would any city have RTW's epic stonewalls?
Personally I never assault a city unless it is absolutely necessary. It seems a waste of men, was not historically accurate, seige battles are boring and also it slows down the campaign a lot (which I like).Quote:
Originally Posted by Musopticon?
Foot
^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I hate assaulting cities. I would rather they come out and fight like men.
So do I. The thing is sometimes you are forced to assault. For example I had just put Rome under seige with my half stack army, then my spy noticed a full stack army of Roman elites able to reach Rome in two turns, so I had to attack after my first turn of the city under seige to avoid a crushing defeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by vizigothe
One strategy I've started to grow fond of using, particularly in the wake of EB's reinforcement bug, is besieging a city with a relatively useless army (6-10 units of cheap troops) while my main force moves forwards and destroys enemy armies so they can't attack my sieging forces. That way, I maintain a good number of field battles so as to not get annoyed at the number of sieges, and the cheap armies can then also act as a garrison for the newly-conquered city.
Works a treat.
Sometimes I don't understand you guys.....:dizzy2:
I always assult a city when I know I can take it without loosing a lot of men. And I generally wait 1 turn, maybe 2. WHY??? Because having the field army seiging the city is costime me: 1. Turns. + 2. AI free to train troops in other settlements + 3. $$ I can make from taking the city + 4. $$ I the city can grinb in + 5. Troops I can train with additional $ + 6. Buildings I can make with additional $. + 7. Another settlements I can assult + 8. Another battle to crush the AI and reduce its armies.
Those are WAY too many costs.
Conerning sieges,
After reading Foot's point of view I have applied a new house rule:
- for stone walls, I cannot assault before the last possible turn (eg. after 7 turns if the city can hold for 7 turns) + only the last turn I can build siege equipment. This simulates the fact that preparation for assault was historically very long and complicated. This way, city assaults are still a possibility like it happened with Syracuse or Carthage IRL, but every thing is slowed down and made more difficult. Most times, the AI will provoke a field battle before.
- for wooden walls, I can attack whenever i want, except that the first turn I besiege, i cannot build siege equipment. This is just to avoid "cheating" since the AI does not know to build siege equipment the first turn it besieges.
Works well :) In particular I like that my besieging army routinely runs out of supply during sieges, which is in fact quite realistic...
You should always use a family member also. If you don't you won't get those supply lines to work of course. Plus it will make you think about which family member to send out into the field - preferably one whose organizational skills will allow him to keep supply lines moving for a longer time. I really try to never campaign in enemy territory without a character leading the stack.
TA,
Sure, actually this is an Iron rule I did not mention: depending on the faction I play, rules for who may lead my armies are very strict, and no army may launch a major strategic campaign without a top-ranking general. In my current HK campaign, only my current Spartian ruler has the "right" to lead armies into enemy territory. In a previous Carthaginian campaign, generals leading armies were designated "by the senate" for theatres of operations according to role-playing. I wish I could execute them though when they fail me, like it happened IRL... Or something like a carthie-specific trait killing generals after defeats... but i understood there was no way to kill FM so...
Now, since I speak about traits, here is an idea I got during my Carthaginian campaign :idea2: : could the faction "heir" be the real "faction leader"? I mean this trait would be renamed like "Sophet - This man has been designated for leading the major current operation... bla bla bla...", it would come with bonuses in command recruitment cost etc. This would allow the player to actually designate the current leader of military operations: Hasdrubal during a Sicilian campaign, Mago during a Numidian campaign... When 0.8 comes out, I think I will try to MOD something like that for my carthaginian game :yes: and if it works out i'll let the community know