Printable View
Does the campaign map have to be a rectangle, or can parts of it be cut out (e.g. the Qattara depression) so that they become effectively impassable?
Alternatively, is it possible to create flat, impassable mountains associated with desert terrain visuals?
The ideal would have been to make certain desert areas impassable to anything larger than an agent or maybe a lone commander with his bodyguard.
What RTW really needed was a robust set of rules for attrition.
I like the idea of the corners or edges of the map being unconquerable, though the EB team wants to allow you to conquer anything you want and not exclude something just because it is on the edge. Has anyone here played Rise of Persia Beta 2? They have a bunch of unconquerable areas around the edges of the map. As well as they, and many others, have a flat "mountain" area around some areas to represent uncrossable desert, and to keep the AI from taking those unconquerable areas.
It is all possible, but most people "poo-poo" the idea of unconquerable areas in this time frame.
I think some areas shouldnt be conquerable. For example the new city right in the bottom left corner of the Sahara would be about where Burkina Faso is today - on the far side of the Sahara desert. Im pretty sure no armies from europe/the mediteranean could or would marched that far, nor if they did, could an empire be stretched that far, across such hostile terrain. Its one thing to say 'we dont want to eliminate sand wars completely, as the Ptolies/Carthies *could* have declared war on each other', but it is something else to believe it likely that anyone would have tried to send an army south clear across the largest desert in the world...
A no mans land is what the desert should be, as who can own or control such country? Perhaps not impassible in its entirety, but I think scattering patches of impassible terrain (so it becomes like a maze, and takes ages to navigate through) would keep it as an option for launching surprise desert raids, but would make them suitably time-consuming, risky and wasteful, as they would have been in life...
Note that the map isn't really square. It goes farther south in the middle than it does in the west. Anyway, about that sahara province, Normally AI factions will not conquer it as it is too far. The player however can, unless there are unvisible mountains or something which block the armies. However I'm sure the AI won't they don't go after a settlement if it farther than a certain amount of pixels.
Are there invisible boundries completely surrounding the Sahara town? I've had a spy scouting the Sahara for awhile, and so far have been unable to locate a route to the town.
I´ve always argued for the "unpassable terrain idea since it´s really realistic and I can´t understand why players are against it. Let me make an example:
Egypt: In the ancient era Egypt was really accessable only from three main directions and all easily defendable and was so by huge fortifications: 1. In the east, following the coast and swing south following the Nile basin. 2. From the west same thing. 3. From the south also following the river. Sure you could also enter Egypt from the oasises west of the Nile and through the wadi´s from the Red Sea - but NOT with an army! Hell, Pharaoh´s soldiers even feared crossing the Sinai desert according to records.
It´s the same thing with heights. In EB you can "almost" take your armies to the "top of the world" - bah! It should be like in the original game where you can´t go high up on the mountainsides. Besides Hannibal´s feat of marching over the Alps and some parts of Alexanders quest in the east taking an army high up in the mountains were unthinkable. Remember, Hannibal lost some 50% of his forces and Alex suffered heavy losses too.
But we can't make you lose troops by crossing those areas though. If we could we would have lots of fun with it.
I know TA. That´s why IMHO the map needs to be realisticly modified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
But is it modified in version 0.8 so you can't conquer the Sahara? I've yet to find a path with my spies, but am I just missing something, or is there no route to find in the first place?
I'm pretty sure that the sahara city is unreachable. Now if only the center of arabia was uncoquerable...
I had a whole series of suggestions, pictures, bugs, and obsevations about the map I was going to make a thread about, but I don't have the time now.
Thanks :beam:
Did the fort+siege idea ever get tested? Or was it deemed implausible due to ability to apply affects in a single turn / way too heavy for most processors to handle.