Even bigger map?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paramedicguyer

Personally I understand that there is a hardcoded limit to provinces, however, I do feel that there is a (likely unintended) baises to the west and mid east provinces. The farther you go out the larger the provinces get. I would prefer to see an even larger map so that this discrepency can be changed.

As evidence to this point I would direct your attention to the fact that in the west many armies can travel to multiple cities in one turn, while the farther east you go, this ability decreases. You can point out the the eastern armies are heavily reliant on cavalry but that still doesnt make up for the sheer physical differences in the province sizes.


When I say east I mean like the far far east and far north

---

with that name i will assume you have seen the image of the man painted base not on his looks but on his sensibility with enormous hands and extremly large lips wich for most people would make them consider that man a freak except for the explination on sensitivity where your human body is more sensitive

http://www.parismarashi.com/ppm/wp-c...homunculus.jpg

i believe we can draw an analogy beteween the previous example and eb, western europe expecially the mediterranean is the most sensitive area and therefore gets more "surface" then the regions where we know less about or isn´t so appealing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paramedicguyer

Personally I understand that there is a hardcoded limit to provinces, however, I do feel that there is a (likely unintended) baises to the west and mid east provinces. The farther you go out the larger the provinces get. I would prefer to see an even larger map so that this discrepency can be changed.

As evidence to this point I would direct your attention to the fact that in the west many armies can travel to multiple cities in one turn, while the farther east you go, this ability decreases. You can point out the the eastern armies are heavily reliant on cavalry but that still doesnt make up for the sheer physical differences in the province sizes.


When I say east I mean like the far far east and far north

---

Or maybe it is just because Europe and the Mid-East were far more densely populated?

I don't get why people want China. Its not like China cares about the rest of the world. It is the center of the world and wouldn't care about some dumb crap happening on a far away peninsula. It'd just sit at home and talk about how awesome it was and make all its immediate neighbors acknowledge how awesome it was. And then it would steal their lunch money to build walls to keep them out so it could bask in its own awesomeness and taunt all the non-awesome people from the tops of its awesome walls.

That and the fact that there is a huge high altitude desert where its extremely cold and hot sometimes at the same time due to the amount of radiant energy from the sun and the cold air temperature that you would have to cross. That or frigid steppe or the world's tallest mountains, or another giant desert if you actually wanted to get there.

On a totally less random note. Does anyone know if any celts ever wandered to China? I mean, they were absolutely everywhere.

I have no idea why im getting hammered here. I am not in favor of expanding the map, only making western europe and the middle east bigger. This is a massive problem with this forum, people are always ragging on each other, it really stifles conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

On a totally less random note. Does anyone know if any celts ever wandered to China? I mean, they were absolutely everywhere.

---

I think I read an article not too long ago about the possible discovery of celts in China. IIRC, the guys weren't 100% sure, but thought they had discovered a celtic burial site in north-west China.

Here's an article : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...es-413638.html

I've heard of those but always throught those weren't Celtic. That's pretty neat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I think I read an article not too long ago about the possible discovery of celts in China. IIRC, the guys weren't 100% sure, but thought they had discovered a celtic burial site in north-west China.

Here's an article : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...es-413638.html

---

While very interesting the writer of that article is making some astoundingly ridiculous assumptions/connections, they're talking about the Tarim mummies who are from European looking peoples who lived in the region and have been linked to the speakers of the Tocharian languages such as the Yuezhi/Kushans (possibly).
Calling these remains "Celtic" is completely false, the writer seems to assume that anything European looking is infact "Celtic" and then goes on to say that these eastern "Celts" spoke Tocharian which is like saying Italians are infact Indians because both their languages share a common source.
I don't think I have ever seen such a extreme example of twisting the facts of a story in my entire life:whip:

On another note concerning the possiblity of actual Celts in the region I do reacall reading somewhere about Celtic mercenaries being used by Baktria so its possible one or two could have travelled onwards.

Wasn't there that story about some Romans captured at Carrhae ending up somewhere in China?

That's one of the articles talking about that. It's not the one I read at first, but I couldn't find it anyway, so I linked this one, since it's from a somewhat known newspaper. I'm sure people from EB could comment on that for some more time.

Yeah its from the Independent which is one of the major newspapers here in the UK, its quite surprising such an article made it in as I always though they were quite good, the writer has got things so wrong it makes me worry about the accuracy of reports on topics I'm less knowledgable about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Wasn't there that story about some Romans captured at Carrhae ending up somewhere in China?

---

I heard that one too, supposedly something about a Chinese chronicle mentioning some captured foreign soldiers that fought in "fish scale formation" which is beleived by some to be a reference to the roman testudo.

from what i read those soldiers where building damms and roads and finally ended up defending the northern border of the parthian empire against the steppe people nothing mentioned about them going to the east

as for the tarrim basin mummies latest dna studies have proven that they had a very big mix of blood including steppe chinese and indian blood into them but the culture was almost centainly european if we conclude they used tartan cloth

I dunno bobbin, my experience with major UK publications is they fairly good most of the time but they get crazy overzealous every so often...

@Roman Prisoners - Its very very speculative as there are many different interpretations of this one line with the 'Roman Prisoner' one the most exciting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paramedicguyer

I have no idea why im getting hammered here. I am not in favor of expanding the map, only making western europe and the middle east bigger. This is a massive problem with this forum, people are always ragging on each other, it really stifles conversation.

---

I don't think ASM's comment was directed at you, but I'd like to know the answer as well. For the steppe provinces the answer is obvious, but for the eastern ones less so. It certainly is not a function of population, as India has only three towns. Perhaps the far east was more centralized, so that the capture of one major town would have a far greater effect on politics? Or is it simply because they are further away from the hub of EB's Empires?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Its not like China cares about the rest of the world. It is the center of the world and wouldn't care about some dumb crap happening on a far away peninsula. It'd just sit at home and talk about how awesome it was and make all its immediate neighbors acknowledge how awesome it was. And then it would steal their lunch money to build walls to keep them out so it could bask in its own awesomeness and taunt all the non-awesome people from the tops of its awesome walls.

---

That sounds rather like Terry Jones' description of the Roman Empire. The major difference being that the Romans didn't build as many or as effective walls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

On a totally less random note. Does anyone know if any celts ever wandered to China? I mean, they were absolutely everywhere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Wasn't there that story about some Romans captured at Carrhae ending up somewhere in China?

---

There are a couple of old posts by MeinPanzer debunking the story of the Celtic mummies and questioning that of the Romans in Bactria.

If I was to lead the next project on Total War, I would make it global scale, allow the player to choose his/her time period, and the map would be global, 3-Dimensional, and allow circumnavigation (e.g. sailing from America to Asia in short direction, not the long way). Scalable campaign map. Making use of DX11, very taxing on the systems of today. It'd be something I'd expect to come out later in this decade requiring also better screens, larger if you want anything fun. HD nonetheless!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I don't get why people want China. Its not like China cares about the rest of the world. It is the center of the world and wouldn't care about some dumb crap happening on a far away peninsula. It'd just sit at home and talk about how awesome it was and make all its immediate neighbors acknowledge how awesome it was. And then it would steal their lunch money to build walls to keep them out so it could bask in its own awesomeness and taunt all the non-awesome people from the tops of its awesome walls.

That and the fact that there is a huge high altitude desert where its extremely cold and hot sometimes at the same time due to the amount of radiant energy from the sun and the cold air temperature that you would have to cross. That or frigid steppe or the world's tallest mountains, or another giant desert if you actually wanted to get there.

On a totally less random note. Does anyone know if any celts ever wandered to China? I mean, they were absolutely everywhere.

---

Your comments might be right concerning late Chinese dynasties such as Song or Ming, but in EB era the reverse is true. In fact I suspect that in the last century before Christ the Han Dynasty has substantial military existence in the map of EB1, as they chased and hunted Hsiung-Nu all the way into the area of Talas river, if it is included in EB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I don't get why people want China.

---

Try and tell me that Phalanxes/Legions/Cataphracts/Gaesatae rampaging down the Yangtze isn't awesome, and believe it. Go on, I dare you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Its not like China cares about the rest of the world. It is the center of the world and wouldn't care about some dumb crap happening on a far away peninsula. It'd just sit at home and talk about how awesome it was and make all its immediate neighbors acknowledge how awesome it was. And then it would steal their lunch money to build walls to keep them out so it could bask in its own awesomeness and taunt all the non-awesome people from the tops of its awesome walls.

---

So? Rome and the various Hellenic Empires behaved the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

That and the fact that there is a huge high altitude desert where its extremely cold and hot sometimes at the same time due to the amount of radiant energy from the sun and the cold air temperature that you would have to cross. That or frigid steppe or the world's tallest mountains, or another giant desert if you actually wanted to get there.

---

This is the biggest actual problem. The plausibility is about in the nigh-impossible range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

If I was to lead the next project on Total War, I would make it global scale, allow the player to choose his/her time period, and the map would be global, 3-Dimensional, and allow circumnavigation (e.g. sailing from America to Asia in short direction, not the long way). Scalable campaign map. Making use of DX11, very taxing on the systems of today. It'd be something I'd expect to come out later in this decade requiring also better screens, larger if you want anything fun. HD nonetheless!

---

It already exists. It's called "Any-game" by Paradox Interactive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paramedicguyer

Personally I understand that there is a hardcoded limit to provinces, however, I do feel that there is a (likely unintended) baises to the west and mid east provinces. The farther you go out the larger the provinces get. I would prefer to see an even larger map so that this discrepency can be changed.

---

Europa Universalis and Europa Barbarorum combo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

It already exists. It's called "Any-game" by Paradox Interactive.

---

I just checked that out. There are no battles.

You didn't mention that in your description of the perfect game. And it does have battle, but they're represented more abstractly than in TW Games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

And it does have battle, but they're represented more abstractly than in TW Games.

---

I think "abstractly" is a deceptive description of Paradox Games' battles. :beam: At least from my experience with Crusader Kings and EU: Rome, which are the only ones I've played. Battles are completely hands-off and have no graphical representation other than numbers floating around. I think it's safe to say that Total War games' main draw is the fact that they offer the most involved and realistic battle simulations available, without completely sacrificing more grand-scale strategy elements (i.e., the campaign map). CK and EUR don't really provide better alternatives for TW gamers looking for more in-depth historical strategy experiences; you're just trading tactical depth for strategic depth (and good graphics for decent ones :yes:). It's a different kind of experience.

Having said that, I really don't have any desire to see the campaign map get any bigger. I'm more in favor of shrinking it. I think stretching as far south as it currently does, to fit the entire Arabian Peninsula on the map, is a waste of resources. I think an overall more enjoyable game would be had without all that empty space, even if it meant sacrificing Saba. But I'm hardly going to argue for such a change at this point in development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

Having said that, I really don't have any desire to see the campaign map get any bigger. I'm more in favor of shrinking it. I think stretching as far south as it currently does, to fit the entire Arabian Peninsula on the map, is a waste of resources. I think an overall more enjoyable game would be had without all that empty space, even if it meant sacrificing Saba. But I'm hardly going to argue for such a change at this point in development.

---

:furious3::furious3::furious3:

~;)

We've had this discussion like two hundred times here and over at the Total War Center. The team have always stated that Arabia and the Sabaean faction will remain. Some people would stop arguing by now. But why give up, when it is so nice to pester them with requests like "cut out teh Saba, they sucks" or "why is there no LS?!111", "can we has four Roman factions?", or "make Britain one province and scrap Casse/Germans/Romani/whatever"...

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Try and tell me that Phalanxes/Legions/Cataphracts/Gaesatae rampaging down the Yangtze isn't awesome, and believe it. Go on, I dare you.

---

Yes it would be a pretty epic reward to run down the Yangtze naked if you spent 10EB years wandering through all that empty inhospitable terrain. Except then the Qin era military machine would have sucked to have run into...

It would make more sense to add in the Sahel and a rich Proto-Niger civilization than China.

@paramedicguyer: Didn't see your post up there for the longest time. I was responding more to the OP than anything else if you still care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Yes it would be a pretty epic reward to run down the Yangtze naked if you spent 10EB years wandering through all that empty inhospitable terrain. Except then the Qin era military machine would have sucked to have run into...

---

That's why it would be fun. The Makedons probably thought that the Achaemenid's military machine would have sucked to have run into.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

YIt would make more sense to add in the Sahel and a rich Proto-Niger civilization than China.

---

Although, thinking ahead into the far far future, perhaps the trading zones in E:TW could be utilised for a similar-ish purpose, or for China?
(I know I'm being implausible, but I don't care :D)

except for adequate AI and naval battles (oh how i love them naval battles) i don't think the ETW engine gives much hope for a new EB :no:

The main problem with modding E:TW is that you can't. No modding tools have been released, so very little of the game is actually moddable. Never mind that the A.I. and engine presumably aren't optimized for melee battles.

So I'm being very implausible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

The main problem with modding E:TW is that you can't. No modding tools have been released, so very little of the game is actually moddable. Never mind that the A.I. and engine presumably aren't optimized for melee battles.

---

Eh, it gives you MTW moshpit type melee battles and the AI can do it well enough for whatever reason but really ETW =/= a good engine for EB.

It would only work well for Renaissance/Samurais/Rifle-Pike-Musket-Era/WWI and stuff like that...

I wanna make a WWI mod.

I think WW1 would be impossible to portray in a TW game correctly, infact anything after the Crimean war or American Civil war just wouldn't work.