Landblocks

Well, we don't see it that way, GEL. It is the engine that has problems, not history. We see the game engine continually do one very naughty and illogical thing, and we are trying to use some other tricks to make it stop. There is no crisis of confidence in EB here - the members are happy trying some things out to see what works with least interference. If there is a lot of complaint, a worst case scenario might have us putting up an alternate small file that reverts it to the old problematic (in our opinion) way, but we aren't there yet. Don't get too worked up about it - we have no idea what our final decision will be, and even then there could be options for players. We'll just have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

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".

---

It's not so much that modders are trying to mould history, we're trying to mould realism and plausibility. It is plausible that the Epeirotes, if they had managed to get a general as skilled/ambitious as Pyrrhus shortly after his death that they could have survived and expanded significantly. It's entirely plausible that the Romans get wiped out by the Gauls, or the Macedonians manage to re-conquer their old empire in the East.

What isn't plausible is the constant sand wars of Africa. Even if the Carthaginians and Ptolemies in history actually wanted to invade each other, launching an invasion over the desert would have come close to being outright impossible.

As for making the Sahara harder to cross - it already is with the summer campaign season traits. But beyond that, it's simply not possible to limit all units' movement across desert. You can limit character movement, but not a captain's...

Either way, the team should be able to appease both crowds by giving the installer the option of having landblocks or not, in the same way that Gaesatae can wear dresses for those offended by nudity. It ends up being pretty much a non-issue. And hell, the landblocks may even turn out being something that you benefit from, even as another faction - instead of Carthage concentrating on its sand wars, it may turn its attention to you as the Roman player and fight to hold Sicily, for example. You may end up liking the change that landblocks bring...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheexsta

What isn't plausible is the constant sand wars of Africa. Even if the Carthaginians and Ptolemies in history actually wanted to invade each other, launching an invasion over the desert would have come close to being outright impossible.

As for making the Sahara harder to cross - it already is with the summer campaign season traits. But beyond that, it's simply not possible to limit all units' movement across desert. You can limit character movement, but not a captain's...

---

I agree, it was impossible to cross the lybian desert by foot... remember Cambyses campaigns in africa...

You guys make some very valid points. Seeing it not so much as preserving historical accuracy, but rather seeing it as the AI consistantly doing something absurd in every single simulation is quite understandable.

I'd like to see an army make a legendary march across the Sahara, sort of like Hannibal crossing the Alps. But if it is consistantly occurring... I see what you mean.

I've never played as the Ptolemies or Carthaginians, so I've never "suffered" from these continual "sand wars" between them. As almost a corralary, I notice how the Seleucids and Parthians share borders, but almost never go to war. The Parthians usually get super-powerful from conquering the Central Asian steppelands before they even think of duking it out with the Seleucids.

But anyway, if you can get the AI to do what you want without landblocks, I'd appreciate it, for one. I like the idea of one brave general with a vast army and a crazy plan: to march across a desert, marching from oasis to oasis, to deliver the greatest blow to his people's enemies that they have ever felt.

So, landblocks or not in .8 before it is release (assuming no other option can be found)? Or will this be done on for .9?

I like the idea of the landblock between Egypt and Carthage, but I always like the idea of the Parthians going north. It just makes more space for more empires. Who occupies the North east section of the map now? You have the Sweboz (sorta), the Sythians the Samaratians... anyone else up there?

Short answer: we don't know yet.
Long answer: honestly, we don't know yet :)

This is a most minor change in game files, so it can be changed literally minutes before release if we find something new out. Guess you (and we) will just have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fallen851

I like the idea of the landblock between Egypt and Carthage, but I always like the idea of the Parthians going north. It just makes more space for more empires. Who occupies the North east section of the map now? You have the Sweboz (sorta), the Sythians the Samaratians... anyone else up there?

---

The Scythians do not appear in EB. They are represented by the Eleutheroi. There is also Saka-Rauka in the NE region in 0.8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GodEmperorLeto

I've never played as the Ptolemies or Carthaginians, so I've never "suffered" from these continual "sand wars" between them. As almost a corralary, I notice how the Seleucids and Parthians share borders, but almost never go to war. The Parthians usually get super-powerful from conquering the Central Asian steppelands before they even think of duking it out with the Seleucids.

---

By some -ai tests, it seemed with some changes in core attitudes the Parthians were much more aggressive towards the Seleukids. However, we will wait till all the units are in with stats before making some more thourough tests. :2thumbsup:

In my Quadartism campaign I quiet enjoyed the "sand wars" across the desert. Ptolemy attacking me gave me a good excuse to invade Egypt! However I never had any continuous eternal sand wars with a battle every turn, they send a few stacks over every now and again to steal my towns, but that was it. Eventually they got so busy with the Selucids that they left me alone. That was what enabled me to invade Egypt.

I've been a major proponent of landblocks "behind the scenes", but never something as drastic as a wall that cuts egypt totally off from carthage. We have a lot of debate going on, but nobody wants to eliminate the chance of something happening, just to find ways to reduce the endless repetition of utterly ahistoric behaviour.

And if we can do that without landblocks, we will.

Well, Darthmod has an unconquerable province between the Carthies and the Ptolemies, and it has worked like a charm. The province, "Terra Incognita", comprises the extreme southern part of Africa, and it has prevented the sand wars between carthage and the ptolies very well.

https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3965/landjl1.th.jpg

Bye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

Well, Darthmod has an unconquerable province between the Carthies and the Ptolemies, and it has worked like a charm. The province, "Terra Incognita", comprises the extreme southern part of Africa, and it has prevented the sand wars between carthage and the ptolies very well.

https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3965/landjl1.th.jpg

Bye.

---

Now thats a pretty simple, yet brilliantly good idea.

That is quite a good idea; the only problem is that EB is at a max for provinces. Which one does the team remove to pull that off?

Couldn't the 'sahara' territory be made into a "Terra Incognita", and include the central arabia territory too, freeing up one?






\/ :shame: \/

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...

Peace out

---

Why do I bother:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Discoskull

Why do I bother:shame:

---

I was beign ilustrative at what you said, no need to be so bitter about it. :sweatdrop:

A while ago I read in an article about the North African front of WW2 that during the positional warfare stage the armies' inland flanks were anchored against a nigh-impassable depression somewhere between Egypt and the Libyan desert proper (I'm afraid the article wasn't terribly detailed). Anyone know anything about this ? Certainly a geographical barrier uncrossable for armies backed up by the logistical might of modern warfare would seem to be a major obstacle for ancient ones that apparently didn't even have camels for pack animals if I've understood said animals' history west of the Nile correctly...

Oh, we already have the actual deep desert made uncrossable, in the same way deep forests or mountains are uncrossable. That's not the problem here.
Anyway, I don't think we have to worry anymore about that one. We have found a couple of ways of limiting those african conflicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

A while ago I read in an article about the North African front of WW2 that during the positional warfare stage the armies' inland flanks were anchored against a nigh-impassable depression somewhere between Egypt and the Libyan desert proper (I'm afraid the article wasn't terribly detailed). Anyone know anything about this ? Certainly a geographical barrier uncrossable for armies backed up by the logistical might of modern warfare would seem to be a major obstacle for ancient ones that apparently didn't even have camels for pack animals if I've understood said animals' history west of the Nile correctly...

---

Quattara depression. It was a partially dried out sea, impassable for heavy vehicles and difficult for pack animals.

http://www.nielsen-norenforlag.se/pa...ara-pan_01.jpghttp://www.tu-berlin.de/~kehl/projec...quattara-2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trithemius

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

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

---

I know it wasn't you and nor was I implying it was you, nowhere did I put 'Trithemius said this'.

Please be careful in reading my quotations. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuffy

I know it wasn't you and nor was I implying it was you, nowhere did I put 'Trithemius said this'.

Please be careful in reading my quotations. ;)

---

My name is the only attribution in that post; please take greater care in making your quotations.

Why don't you just put an entire landblock around the Sahara province? You don't need it, and it would help stop AI armies being stupid.

If there is a need for more provinces, just get rid of one of those over- powering and useless sea islands on the aegean which just pump even more trade cash into the treasury, but are not significant.

:sweatdrop: So, which solution did you use for disabling the desert wars?

Did you use the solution of the hill and LOS one?

Is it secret? :sweatdrop:

Not determined 100% just yet. Sorry. Our next internal release (this weekendish?) will have a new arrangement in that area for our beta testers to see how it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

Well, Darthmod has an unconquerable province between the Carthies and the Ptolemies, and it has worked like a charm. The province, "Terra Incognita", comprises the extreme southern part of Africa, and it has prevented the sand wars between carthage and the ptolies very well.

---

We had looked at something similar involving the Sahara, but EB is not trying to recreate history "as it happened". Just because there wasn't a war between Carthage and Egypt doesn't mean that it could never have occurred. In EB v.74 you get a war every game - that is unacceptable. Darth's province means there would never be a war, and that's just as bad. We are seeking to limit the chances of such a war occuring, and if it does, to at least ensure it would be fought in a historically accurate context - at sea and along the coast.

But this is not yet solved, and we'll have to see what the testing shows.

The simplest way to make the AI do that, would be using only coastal cities in that part of the world.

But it's probably not historically accurate though, giving that an average oasis was far more important in those day's than the average fishing village that had grown to a point where it's possible to consider it a proper town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kull

We had looked at something similar involving the Sahara, but EB is not trying to recreate history "as it happened". Just because there wasn't a war between Carthage and Egypt doesn't mean that it could never have occurred. In EB v.74 you get a war every game - that is unacceptable. Darth's province means there would never be a war, and that's just as bad. We are seeking to limit the chances of such a war occuring, and if it does, to at least ensure it would be fought in a historically accurate context - at sea and along the coast.

---

The thing is that that war was close to impossible with the means of that age. The logistic requiered to travel from Cyrene to Leptis Magna (Some 500 miles roughly) is inmense, and the means requiered to carry water, supplies, etc. through a barren wasteland would have rendered the cost prohibitive.

Off course, there are examples of comparable feats, such as Alexander`s army travel through the Markan desert (but with the logistical support of the fleet). One should also not forget the results of that travel: the army was decimated.

This is not the crossing of the alps. These are 500 miles of a barren desert... and that only from Cyrene to Leptis Magna...

Dont forget Cambyses expeditions too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by k_raso

Dont forget Cambyses expeditions too...

---

Which ended up in a sand blizzard, just about one hill from their target... :grin:

Especially with the Sahara it wouldn't have been all that impossible. People at that time had a very good idea of how to cross it, simply because dozens of generations had done so before them. Trade routes through the desert, and such.

Believe it or not, but many a war has been fought over a stretch of desert...

The only thing about it that's so impossible is the way RTW AI tackle's fighting far away from your home territory: little stacks wandering in a vast area, with nowhere to go, seemingly unaware of the fact that had it been real, the insides of their skulls would have been rotten, by now, years ago. :wall:

That's, I'd say, one of the reasons why EB must try to lead them alongside the more easy going routes: that is, those pretty close to the cost and with an allied fleet nearby.