Landblocks

Well if I remember correctly, Carthage and Rome went to war because both were expanding naval powers. So what if Egypt and Carthage are expanding naval powers? They should be blocked from going to war directly?

And if this naval invasion idea works, what is going to stop Egypt and Carthage (assuming both are AI) from launching "unnatural" naval invasion on each other?

I guess I see your point, that Carthage and Egypt shouldn't be at war every game, but you need to understand, I mean if Hannibal hadn't crossed the Alps with elephants, I'm sure you'd be here "well were going to make a landblock, because you know, its not like elephants ever crossed the Alps, that is not historical."

Basically that is the arguement your giving, however just because it didn't happen in history, doesn't mean its not historical. Invasions and such didn't exactly follow logical routes, and the invading armies were often lead for glory.

If Hannibal could get to Italy by land (from Spain) with elephants, he could cross the desert if his enemies were at the Nile.

Look, Carthage and Ptolemies go to war in every stinking game because they share a land border. That's the reason. They fight in the middle of the deserts. We don't want this to happen in every game, so we are going to do something about it by making there be less of a reason for them to feel the need to cross over into each others' "spheres of influence". If they attack by sea - that's fine. That would have been how they would have probably done it anyway. But all those little crossed swords in the middle of sand dunes isn't what we want to see every game.

Well you've convinced me.

I haven't exactly played an EB campaign so I have no idea how the factions go to war. If Egypt and Carthage can't go to war though does it affect Egypt steam rolling the Seleucids? What are the other options to landblocks?

Is there a way to make landblocks when both Egypt and Carthage are the AI, and take them out when one nation is a human (I don't think this is gonna work...)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Well you've convinced me.

I haven't exactly played an EB campaign so I have no idea how the factions go to war. If Egypt and Carthage can't go to war though does it affect Egypt steam rolling the Seleucids? What are the other options to landblocks?

Is there a way to make landblocks when both Egypt and Carthage are the AI, and take them out when one nation is a human (I don't think this is gonna work...)?

---

If you've never played EB then why did you go on about how a landblock would be a bad thing? How about playing the mod?

As for me, landblocks all the way. Not only would it be ashitorical for the pollies and carthies to start fighting in the desert, or the baktrians to launch Operation Barbarossa it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so.

I'll all for making many many areas uncapturable if it means there are more wars with the main powers instead of lots of rebel bullying going on. (Hint...make the huge middle province of arabia uncapturable...aswell as the saharan province).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuffy

If you've never played EB then why did you go on about how a landblock would be a bad thing? How about playing the mod?

As for me, landblocks all the way. Not only would it be ashitorical for the pollies and carthies to start fighting in the desert, or the baktrians to launch Operation Barbarossa it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so.

I'll all for making many many areas uncapturable if it means there are more wars with the main powers instead of lots of rebel bullying going on. (Hint...make the huge middle province of arabia uncapturable...aswell as the saharan province).

---

Thank you for attacking my previous views, I'm not sure why you can't just give your opinion without attacking my previous view that I gave up, but since you care about my views so much, I'll do my best answer.

However, I'm not really interested in getting into an E-pen1s measuring contest so you can make yourself look "good and cool" to everyone else by harping on someone who admitted they were wong, because it seems to me that is what you are trying to do, rather than actually understanding why I believed what I did.

But anyways, can you really not understand why I would go on about it? This is a mod based on realism, and there was no magical landblock in reality so why have it in the mod?

And now I'm quite satisfied with the answer that was given that opposes that view, and it is why I gave up that view. So you can stop flaunting your huge E-pen1s now, maybe it doesn't allow you think logically and see the above. Someday, maybe I'll be as manly as you online, and things like "How about playing the mod?", that do not contribute anything to the conversation, but only prove how manly I can be online.

Hmmmm.

I still think that putting the Sahara city at the very bottom left hand corner of the map would do some good things about the Carthage/Egypt desert battles.

Perhaps if the Sahara provence extended to the shores of the Mediteranian(sp) just at one small part, like where it's all desert-y anyway.
Just enough to make it so that egypt and carthage will never share a border, unless in the (unlikely) event that carthage marches all the way to the bottom corner of the map and attacks the rebels there...just an idea...don't know if it will work...you could also just put a landblock around that one city...

Peace out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

Thank you for attacking my previous views, I'm not sure why you can't just give your opinion without attacking my previous view that I gave up, but since you care about my views so much, I'll do my best answer.

However, I'm not really interested in getting into an E-pen1s measuring contest so you can make yourself look "good and cool" to everyone else by harping on someone who admitted they were wong, because it seems to me that is what you are trying to do, rather than actually understanding why I believed what I did.

But anyways, can you really not understand why I would go on about it? This is a mod based on realism, and there was no magical landblock in reality so why have it in the mod?

And now I'm quite satisfied with the answer that was given that opposes that view, and it is why I gave up that view. So you can stop flaunting your huge E-pen1s now, maybe it doesn't allow you think logically and see the above. Someday, maybe I'll be as manly as you online, and things like "How about playing the mod?", that do not contribute anything to the conversation, but only prove how manly I can be online.

---

Man, what?

It was just am innocent question, I don't know where this whole e-penis thing has just come from.

Jesus that was sad fallen851. =/

Gentlemen, please keep this discussion civil, or else the moderators will have to close it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuffy

As for me, landblocks all the way. Not only would it be ashitorical for the pollies and carthies to start fighting in the desert, or the baktrians to launch Operation Barbarossa it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to do so.

---

Why impossible? Where there giant invisible forcefields in history as well? :)

Quote:

---

I'll all for making many many areas uncapturable if it means there are more wars with the main powers instead of lots of rebel bullying going on. (Hint...make the huge middle province of arabia uncapturable...aswell as the saharan province).

---

From looking at my maps it seems that the rebels/independents are doing alright! Why would you have a lot of independents around and then prevent them from being attacked?

I am curious about where these landblocks would be placed. I have not really played a lot of the factions (lots of Roman, one Casse, one Makedonian, and one Baktrian game(s)) so I am not really aware of where the problem areas are.

I am, however, particularly curious about tweaking access to the Steppes - wouldn't this sort of ruin things for the Saka? Or is the idea to force them back through Transoxiana?

We don't have them yet. We are thinking about it if nothing else works. Don't worry about it for now - we don't want them either, but if we feel like in the future we will have to have them we will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuffy

Man, what?

It was just am innocent question, I don't know where this whole e-penis thing has just come from.

Jesus that was sad fallen851. =/

---

The bold parts contradict the italic parts.

Anyways...

Why a landblock needed in Russia? Are other factions fighting that *shouldn't* be?

Many people hate seeing Bactria spread through the plains (or parthia spreading north and west rather than south), so it has been suggested that there be some way of stopping that.

Personnally I hate Bactria spreading at all.

If the landblocks should go anywhere, it should be right through the middle of Africa (just west of Kyrenaica?), and maybe across the Caucassus (I'm tired of the Armenian Steppe empires...). With the Saka faction, the eastern parts of the steppe should be well-contested enough to keep Baktria and Parthia in line...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trithemius

Why impossible? Where there giant invisible forcefields in history as well? :)

---

How about things like climate, terrain, lack of food and water to sustain a large army...the Sahara really was impossible to excercise any kind of control over...a landblock isn't the prettiest or ideal solution...but it does try to replicate the difficulties certain nations would have faced. And really, is there any need for the pollies and carthies to be fighting over the Sahara? :P

Quote:

---

The bold parts contradict the italic parts.

---

Look, I asked a question with no hostility behind it, neither was I trying to enlarge my e-peen or whatever you're going on about. I really don't see why you had to respond with 4 vitriolic paragraphs blatantly insulting me. If you saw something insulting or inflammatory in my post well, hey thats not my problem man.

Water under the bridge?

i would like to see a stop the the desert wars, however if there is another way to do this other than landblocks then i think that way would be better... i think that if the player feels like sending his armies through the deserts then he should be allowed to, however perhaps players could get a trait slowing them down or something... :juggle2:

wouldnt it be possible through some tweaking to give a plague-like effect to armies travelling through the desert, killing soldiers? or is this hard coded to cities only?

maybe they could add a series of 'mini blocks', all along the Sahara so you can travel accross, but it would be nearly impossible (like a maze of impassible terrain to represent having to follow oasises) and the longer you stayed in the desert the more doomed you became (ie, every turn your army becomes more and more dehydrated, -1 morale and -1 General's HP). You CAN cross the desert, but you have a slim chance of making it accross with your army intact (fill the desert with rebels so you fight your way through the maze). That would be cool, Hannibal-esque :2thumbsup:

sadly the AI would undoubtably just throw army after army into the death trap of heat and rebels...:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuffy

How about things like climate, terrain, lack of food and water to sustain a large army...the Sahara really was impossible to excercise any kind of control over...a landblock isn't the prettiest or ideal solution...but it does try to replicate the difficulties certain nations would have faced. And really, is there any need for the pollies and carthies to be fighting over the Sahara? :P

---

I was thinking, specifically, about your remarks about the impossibility of people advancing over the steppes.

Quote:

---

Look, I asked a question with no hostility behind it, neither was I trying to enlarge my e-peen or whatever you're going on about.

---

That wasn't me, please be accurate in assigning your quotations.

Quote:

---

I really don't see why you had to respond with 4 vitriolic paragraphs blatantly insulting me. If you saw something insulting or inflammatory in my post well, hey thats not my problem man. Water under the bridge?

---

See above, ie. that wasn't me, man. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheexsta

If the landblocks should go anywhere, it should be right through the middle of Africa (just west of Kyrenaica?), and maybe across the Caucassus (I'm tired of the Armenian Steppe empires...). With the Saka faction, the eastern parts of the steppe should be well-contested enough to keep Baktria and Parthia in line...

---

That might depend on where they are going in exactly...
The Yuezhi don't seem to be able to keep them in line now (or had that more to do with the Yuezhi's pretty weak troop options?).

We don't want to AI to simply not be able to cross the desert. We want the AI to NOT WANT to cross the desert.
If the AI wants to get somewhere but is not able to, it creates chokepoints in which stacks upon stacks of AI armies simply get lost trying to go where they shouldn't.

In RTW 1.5 there are a few lines in some .txt document that tells the AI what invasion strategy to prefer. Basically it tells the Greek Cities to use fleets whenever possible, and Romans to hate them. It's very straightforward and unsophisticated, but at least the AI will think twice about what way to invade it's neighbours...

I believe you can find the lines in the strat.txt in your campaign folder, but as I have been playing EB, I haven't seen them for a long time... :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

In RTW 1.5 there are a few lines in some .txt document that tells the AI what invasion strategy to prefer. Basically it tells the Greek Cities to use fleets whenever possible, and Romans to hate them. It's very straightforward and unsophisticated, but at least the AI will think twice about what way to invade it's neighbours...

I believe you can find the lines in the strat.txt in your campaign folder, but as I have been playing EB, I haven't seen them for a long time... :laugh4:

---

As I said in the second post of this thread, we are investigating many possible solutions :) Just because I mentioned we're testing landblocks doesn't mean it's the ONLY thing we're testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Discoskull

Hmmmm.

I still think that putting the Sahara city at the very bottom left hand corner of the map would do some good things about the Carthage/Egypt desert battles.

Perhaps if the Sahara provence extended to the shores of the Mediteranian(sp) just at one small part, like where it's all desert-y anyway.
Just enough to make it so that egypt and carthage will never share a border, unless in the (unlikely) event that carthage marches all the way to the bottom corner of the map and attacks the rebels there...just an idea...don't know if it will work...you could also just put a landblock around that one city...

---

Would this work??? I'm just curious...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eadingas

If the AI wants to get somewhere but is not able to, it creates chokepoints in which stacks upon stacks of AI armies simply get lost trying to go where they shouldn't.

---

This is exactly why I'm against landblocks because it'll confuse the AI and create loads of pathfinding problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eadingas

As I said in the second post of this thread, we are investigating many possible solutions :) Just because I mentioned we're testing landblocks doesn't mean it's the ONLY thing we're testing.

---

Just me hoping that you're not going to use them, that you can circumvent them by those lines I mentioned. IMO AI is having enough of a problem with actually moving anywhere at all, so for gameplay reasons (it isn't fun if the already poor AI isn't even able to move it's characters and armies around properly) it would be a very bad thing to make it more difficult by adding blockades.

And I perfectly well understand that this isn't the only solution you're trying: I just thought if this hasn't for some reason (the very obvious solutions are the most common overlooked ones) not been thought of yet, perhaps I could be of some help.

In any case: I wish you all the best of luck with solving your problem and I hope you won't need those blocks.

i've been doing some thinking and researching on this (mainly due to boredom :laugh4: ) and this is how i would to it:

from this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=63614 it has been found out that hills blocking other factions view will dissuade them to attack into that area but eventually with no other route they will advance that way... so perhaps the carthaginian cities should have hills to the east and the ptolmaic cities to west thus stopping or slowing down both of these factions' advancement to those provinces

https://img521.imageshack.us/img521/...locktd6.th.png
the red represents a landblock or where an extenstion to the sahara province should go (thus ensuring that the carthies and ptolmys never have a sharing land border)

also i think that the raspa should be gotten rid of and an innaccessable city to be placed in the distant corner of sahara... it wasn't as if you could recruit anything in raspa anyway and it kinda ruined the look of the map when it turned into a huge swathe of white or yellow

GMM

on an asside note... i haven't seen khelvan post recently, is he away or am i blind?

Guys interested in helping 'encourage' certain AI expansion should really read this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=63614 (as I see GMM has already quoted)

and then get serious about it. You've got the map, try tweaking it in the different ways and see what works - I'm sure the team would be interested in your results. This isn't the Backroom, this is a mod forum - that means that we can actually find solutions to our problems and not endlessly dissect them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheexsta

As for whether you'd want this to happen, I understand there are a lot of people who don't want the AI to be restricted to the historical expansion of a faction. I disagree with this view; it is important that the AI views certain enemies and certain provinces in the same way that the faction would have in history, given the appropriate situations and so on. If the Gauls and Germans were constantly at war in history, then it makes sense to have them likely to go to war in the game. Likewise, if war between Carthage and Egypt was unlikely due to the desert conditions making it near-impossible to transport an army between the two, then war should be avoided between the two in the game.

---

Up until now, I was always under the impression that you guys wanted to maintain historical accuracy up to the point of the game's beginning. Hence, you are axing the Yuezhi.

However, if you are going to add landblocks to direct the historical flow of the game, then you should, by all means, severely handicap Epirus so it is basically wiped out and made a non-entity, just like Epirus really was, and then add scripting so that the Yuezhi arrive on time, just like it really happened.

What I am trying to say is, if you add landblocks, then your aims are schizophrenic and contrary. Epirus was honestly only powerful for the first five or six turns of the game, then they are historically nullified, but you include them in order to "see what could have happened".

Well, if you don't want the Ptolemies and Carthaginians fighting over worthless desert, make that desert harder to cross. But don't add landblocks. Make the tribesmen harder to conquer. But adding landblocks is effectively saying that Hannibal shouldn't have been able to cross the Alps.

Armies marched far and wide during this time period. Roman armies marched against Sabaea and Queen Candice of Ethiopia. Although that was too far for them logistically to be successful, they still tried it.

Besides, it matters little to me if I capture Carthage and all of North Africa, but the Karthadast are still active in the Sahara. And I don't necessarily see why the Ptolemies might not become embroiled with the Carthaginians in a war over key oases and caravan stops throughout the Sahara.

In other words, with the exception of a few events that should take place (like military reforms) your job as a modder ends when Turn One begins.

Otherwise, I'm going to expect Julius Caesar, Augustus, Antony, and Sulla to show up in the final version. If you are really that set on the gaming running through as historically accurate, then I'd expect nothing less.

Cheer up :) I think we have found ways to do what we want without relying on landblocks (except the deep desert). Still testing them, though.

As for the historical accuracy "in the beginning" vs "later on" - well, they are connected. If we make Rome too weak and too poor to ever achieve anything later in the game, we've obviously done something wrong. If we make Ptolemy and Carthage mortal enemies struggling endlessly over a strip of desert, we're obviously doing something wrong. If we make Casse able to become the most powerful nation in the world -every-single-time-, we've obviously done something wrong. We can have Rome sending armies to Arabia some times, but it shouldn't happen in every campaign no matter what. See what I mean? So it's not all that easy. We can't just completely ignore what AI is doing after the game starts, content with the fact that we "set up everything properly in the beginning".