Lack of advancement for 'Barbarian' factions.

OK as a disclaimer: I love EB and would have had probably months of more productive activity if it weren't for this immense mod.

BUT why do barbarian (for wont of a better word) factions not have the chance to advance beyond a tribal coalition even when they get rich and powerful?

For example in my Getai campaign I have a decent-sized empire, a strong economy and I am the 2nd greatest power points-wise. I have conquered all of Greece and inhabited their huge cites. So why do the Getic builders still not understand that paved roads would be awesome?

Surely in history if a small tribe started an empire (like the Romans) and encountered the more advanced technology of other nations, provided they had the economy to support it, they would attempt to employ this new technology.

I understand that for some factions it would seem pointless (why would the nomadic Saka want huge walled cities and paved roads when they lived on the endless plains of Asia?) but surely if those factions who were underdeveloped in 272BC started to make it big, they would upgrade their technology.

To be fair it's mostly paved roads that bug me because I can just see no reason not to build them if it was possible. But I guess stuff like seige weapons would be awesome too.

Does anyone agree with me? Feel free to debate it and if you can satisfy my queries then everyone's a winner because I will be even more happy with my Getic Empire and my new AAR will be better.

I understand that for some factions it would seem pointless (why would the nomadic Saka want huge walled cities and paved roads when they lived on the endless plains of Asia?) but surely if those factions who were underdeveloped in 272BC started to make it big, they would upgrade their technology.


Actually, the Saka ended up settling down. Only the nobility was able to continuing their equestrian traditions. They became settled to the point that they had a written script (I think, kern, can you confirm this?).

I do agree to a certain extend. Though look at modern race relations; for the most part blacks like being separate from whites, and so on. Same thing, these tribes might have seen themselves being a part of a similar culture, but they saw the other tribes almost like another race. So, they wouldn't want anything to do with being ruled by an absolute dictator, monarch ect, from another tribe.

I agree, but I think it would be nearly impossible to set up possible units and buildings for every contingency--if not completely impossible in the game engine. I don't know, but I keep hearing things about hard-coded limits.

The Celtic factions do get more advanced technology--in reforms, as do the Germans (I think). (Time of Tribes, Bondsmen and Something else) Playing against the reformed Celts, I think that some of their units are pretty damn good. A match for anything else.

"Lack of advancement amongst the Barbarian Factions" is indeed a major concern. Embarrasingly, I must admit that 9 times out of 10, I end my Barbarian campaigns pre-maturely b/c of this. I too find it hard to believe that Barbarian Factions would not see the good in paved roads, but then again, we have plenty of history to prove that this is so.

I am imagining that the EB Development Team is trying to stay away from too many "what if's". Perhaps they have something in the works? Do all barbarian factions get the same abilities to ape the "civilized factions"? Now we begin to tread controversial waters. When 1 barbarian faction can make "X" but another one can not. It seems a very tricky situation.

However, you bring up a valid point, but one that needs to be discussed in seriousness without nationalistic fervor and with an eye towards the game and historical accuracy.

If you want an advanced barbarian faction, play the Aedui or the Arveni - they get paved roads.

The Casse, Sweboz, Getai and Lusotanns don't get paved roads. Probably because there is no record of them ever building paved roads historically, even after the fall of Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laevex

I have conquered all of Greece and inhabited their huge cites. So why do the Getic builders still not understand that paved roads would be awesome?

Surely in history if a small tribe started an empire (like the Romans) and encountered the more advanced technology of other nations, provided they had the economy to support it, they would attempt to employ this new technology.

To be fair it's mostly paved roads that bug me because I can just see no reason not to build them if it was possible.

---

If you want a realistic, role-playing reason why your successful barbarian faction doesn't build paved roads or stone walls, here's a couple:

1. Paved roads and stone walls are viewed as 'foreign' because the hated enemy used to build them. Your people want the conquered Greek/Roman cities to become like home, and that means knocking down and tearing up what the foul enemy scum built and replacing it with more homelike buildings and walls using natural materials like wood.

2. Religious reasons. Paved roads are man interfering with nature. Covering the soil that the gods or Mother Nature provided with cold, hard, dead stone. Your priests/druids decree that these 'scars on the land' are a blasphemy and an insult to the gods, and shall not be built. (Men of many nations have been known to make very stupid or very uneconomic decisions for religious reasons (even today some still do so!) so this is quite realistic.) Even though you are king of a great kingdom, and are lord of all you survey, as your empire expands, your High Priest has become more powerful. Your people are very religious and follow the teachings of the priests - so you can't oppose the priesthood because if you do they'll declare that you've betrayed the gods, and you'll lose the love (and obedience) of your people. (Equivalent to the Pope excommunicating an early Christian king.) Your people will rebel and you'll be deposed. So you have to obey the religious laws laid down by the priests even though you disagree with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

If you want a realistic, role-playing reason why your successful barbarian faction doesn't build paved roads or stone walls, here's a couple:

1. Paved roads and stone walls are viewed as 'foreign' because the hated enemy used to build them. Your people want the conquered Greek/Roman cities to become like home, and that means knocking down and tearing up what the foul enemy scum built and replacing it with more homelike buildings and walls using natural materials like wood.

2. Religious reasons. Paved roads are man interfering with nature. Covering the soil that the gods or Mother Nature provided with cold, hard, dead stone. Your priests/druids decree that these 'scars on the land' are a blasphemy and an insult to the gods, and shall not be built. (Men of many nations have been known to make very stupid or very uneconomic decisions for religious reasons (even today some still do so!) so this is quite realistic.) Even though you are king of a great kingdom, and are lord of all you survey, as your empire expands, your High Priest has become more powerful. Your people are very religious and follow the teachings of the priests - so you can't oppose the priesthood because if you do they'll declare that you've betrayed the gods, and you'll lose the love (and obedience) of your people. (Equivalent to the Pope excommunicating an early Christian king.) Your people will rebel and you'll be deposed. So you have to obey the religious laws laid down by the priests even though you disagree with them.

---

I don't think there is much evidence for such conservatism as to limit the practicality of government like destroying roads from any successful empire.

Conquerors have always adopted bits of tech from the conquered nations, so road reforms might be in order.

Nobody in the ancient world was even remotely close to the levels of Roman engineering, especially in terms of building roads. It just isn't realistic that anyone at that time could build huge networks of paved roads stretching from Sparta to Oxus. Other factions who paved their roads did so for only short stretches in important and high-traffic areas, and ended up having to repair them rather often. Rome had already forgotten more about building straight, level, long-lasting roads than anyone else had ever known.

It's not just a matter of "I can examine it, therefore I can build it", or "seeing the benefit of it". Non-Romans were, quite simply, technologically and logistically incapable of doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobf

I don't think there is much evidence for such conservatism as to limit the practicality of government like destroying roads from any successful empire.

---

The barbarians usually didn't destroy paved roads where they already existed, they just didn't maintain them (so they fell into disrepair and disuse) and didn't build any more.

The Anglo-Saxon conquerors of Britain didn't build paved roads, Nor did the Visigoths in Spain, or the Huns in Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

Nobody in the ancient world was even remotely close to the levels of Roman engineering, especially in terms of building roads. It just isn't realistic that anyone at that time could build huge networks of paved roads stretching from Sparta to Oxus. Other factions who paved their roads did so for only short stretches in important and high-traffic areas, and ended up having to repair them rather often. Rome had already forgotten more about building straight, level, long-lasting roads than anyone else had ever known.

It's not just a matter of "I can examine it, therefore I can build it", or "seeing the benefit of it". Non-Romans were, quite simply, technologically and logistically incapable of doing it.

---

I think that what is being said is that if someone else conquered the ancient world, they would develop the logistics and technology to build reliable paved roads just as the Romans did because they would have to--just as the Romans had to. They didn't develop their road building technique because they thought it was fun; they did it to meet the demands of an ever-expanding region of control. The sentiment expressed in the original post and in subsequent posts is that others, faced with similar demands and in similar circumstances, would have as well. I tend to agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

Non-Romans were, quite simply, technologically and logistically incapable of doing it.

---

I wouldn't say that the Romans were technologically far superior to everyone else. I seem to remember reading the Getai did build and use paved roads. ( Honestly I cant remember where I read that right now) But I think you are correct many factions would not have had the logistical support to build and maintain large expanses of paved road networks.

Exactly.....and don't forget that, after the Roman Empire faded, it took more than 1,000 years before someone building paved roads again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

Nobody in the ancient world was even remotely close to the levels of Roman engineering, especially in terms of building roads. It just isn't realistic that anyone at that time could build huge networks of paved roads stretching from Sparta to Oxus. Other factions who paved their roads did so for only short stretches in important and high-traffic areas, and ended up having to repair them rather often. Rome had already forgotten more about building straight, level, long-lasting roads than anyone else had ever known.

It's not just a matter of "I can examine it, therefore I can build it", or "seeing the benefit of it". Non-Romans were, quite simply, technologically and logistically incapable of doing it.

---

Hogwosh, the Greeks and the Persians were both enthusiastic road-builders, one Macedonian King, Amyntas I (I think), built roads all over his kingdom to allow his army to move effectively and to increase comercial traffic. The network was the basis for later expansion and was in use up until the end of the Roman Empire, at least.

Roads aren't that technologically difficult to build but they're time consuming and logistically expensive because someone has to dig all the ditches and smash up all the rocks. The Roman innovation was to get the standing army to lay and maintain the roads, making them a state concern rather than a matter of private donations from wealthy citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HanBarca

Exactly.....and don't forget that, after the Roman Empire faded, it took more than 1,000 years before someone building paved roads again.

---

It took a thousand years for anyone to need them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aranor

I wouldn't say that the Romans were technologically far superior to everyone else. I seem to remember reading the Getai did build and use paved roads. ( Honestly I cant remember where I read that right now) But I think you are correct many factions would not have had the logistical support to build and maintain large expanses of paved road networks.

---

The scope of Roman roadworks were never surpassed by a single nation even up to the 19th century AD. I'm not exaggerating the Roman engineering advantage. If anything, I'm failing to do it justice.

Some people here seem to think this sort of expertise just "happens", or is some natural consequence of "having a large empire". Quite the opposite. This is what gave Rome its large empire, and was not a consequence of them already having it. So no, it makes no sense at all that had another power risen instead of Rome, they would have somehow (through osmosis?) learned how do this sort of engineering. Non sequitur, sirs. Non sequitur.

Royal Persian roads?

Also don't discredit other cultures. There were greeks who had designed steam engines. They were the original creators of Theathers. Or do you perhaps remember our Syracusan freind Archimedes? And this is not only true for the greeks. Parthians and Celts had pretty advanced astronomy and engineering too.

And let's not even go to the Indians and Chinese. When it came to logistics and organisation, the latter in particular made the Romans look like a bunch of bumbling amateurs.
...:shifty:
...well, during their peak periods anyway. The interregnums kind of sucked.

Watchman, any idea were Zak is? We need the head roman dude to put the Romanophile in his place.

*shrug* Could be he developed an aversion to the public fora due to much too many ingrate whiners in the wake of the 1.0 release. Wasn't the only one AFAIK.

:shifty:
...how come you're asking me like I would know, anyway ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

........
The Anglo-Saxon conquerors of Britain didn't build paved roads, Nor did the Visigoths in Spain, or the Huns in Germany.

---

nor did the Franks in Romanized Gaul

but anyways...... there many other factors that dameged these people, the Black Plage of Jusitinian (sp) in th 6th Century being one of them.

Also, Some empires were more open than others to the mixing of ideas and people. Just look at the differences between AS/Ptolemoi and Imperial Rome, one segregated the native population, while the other had means for the native population to become "romanized" (citizenship, anyone?)

But anyways.... to the Original Question.
-There is actually a script with a complex set of conditions for Hyadastan which increase their type I areas and expand them through the rest of Persia. (someone can elaborate on this). Here, the point is to illustrate the posibility of Hyadastan becoming a Persian power like it was on its way of doing, but the Parthians ended up doing it instead and made Hyadastan a "buffer" state of sorts with Rome. (our ThePersianCataphract can expand on this).
-Saka also has a Reform were they become a settled people and can train their own hoplites from their Greek subjects.
-Rome.... well that one needs no explenation.

So I guess there could be a posibility of making another HUGE script for each barbarian factioins to "absorb" other civilizations and their knowledge. HOWEVER:
--How should those conditions occur? What should they be? How would they be implemented by each different faction? When should it occur? At what pace? What evidence do we have that shows us how X faction "absorved" conquered people into their culture? Did they even bothered to so do?
This is where the S** hits the fan. This is where it gets complicated. For the Romans, and other major factions this is easy, as they left large empires and there is eveidence (writen and archeological) of how they absorved other people. But for other factions its not so easy. Hell even some of the larger ones didn't want to absorb anything.

In addition:
I believe what Original Question is proposing has already been implemented in EB thanks to the local MICs and the ability to train local units.
(I would highly recomend that u fellas "READ" the descrition of Type I, II, & III gov'ts it explains what they were for each faction, how they were implemented, and administered. This should give an "idea" of how each factions managed its conquered peoples)

Then, any chance of posting a stickied guide on the forum to adding the option of building something to a certain faction?

Fair enough. It seems that either that EB knows best after all or that such a script would be stupidly hard work to write and probably historically innacurate.
It's the old conflict between historical accuracy and 'what if?' scenarios which fuels this debate and I know that at the end of the day, historical accuracy is much cooler with regards to EB.

I need to do some research and thinking and come up with reasons to justify my factions lack of advancement, but that's part of the fun of roleplaying - coming up with smartass explainations for inconsistencies.

As I sayd, you can try manually adding paved roads and schools/academia to the build options for later use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

The scope of Roman roadworks were never surpassed by a single nation even up to the 19th century AD. I'm not exaggerating the Roman engineering advantage. If anything, I'm failing to do it justice.

Some people here seem to think this sort of expertise just "happens", or is some natural consequence of "having a large empire". Quite the opposite. This is what gave Rome its large empire, and was not a consequence of them already having it. So no, it makes no sense at all that had another power risen instead of Rome, they would have somehow (through osmosis?) learned how do this sort of engineering. Non sequitur, sirs. Non sequitur.

---

You do realise that Rome had a huge Empire across which to build roads, right? I.e. that level of planning was possible because the Romans controlled it all. The actual quality of the roads varried from excellant to horrific, as the Vindolanda Tablets record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

The scope of Roman roadworks were never surpassed by a single nation even up to the 19th century AD. I'm not exaggerating the Roman engineering advantage. If anything, I'm failing to do it justice.

---

Perhaps we should not talk of surpass, because it would be true that all of them including the Romans basically built on top of other structures made by others. Something for you to keep in mind: by the time the Han dynasty was gone China had roughly 10000km of various defensive walls. Each being accompanied by the required roadworks to supply the forts...

Quote:

---

Some people here seem to think this sort of expertise just "happens", or is some natural consequence of "having a large empire". Quite the opposite. This is what gave Rome its large empire, and was not a consequence of them already having it. So no, it makes no sense at all that had another power risen instead of Rome, they would have somehow (through osmosis?) learned how do this sort of engineering. Non sequitur, sirs. Non sequitur.

---

Actually I feel quite the opposite indeed: people all over the world have roughly the same level of intellectual capabilities. As various states have shown it just takes a good deal of workforce + resources + time to get things done. Something the Romans weren't exactly short on. May I remind you that by your reasoning there exist a minor but subtle complication when one tries to explain the rather major consequences of corporate espionage on companies in the UK during the Industrial Revolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

Nobody in the ancient world was even remotely close to the levels of Roman engineering, especially in terms of building roads. It just isn't realistic that anyone at that time could build huge networks of paved roads stretching from Sparta to Oxus. Other factions who paved their roads did so for only short stretches in important and high-traffic areas, and ended up having to repair them rather often. Rome had already forgotten more about building straight, level, long-lasting roads than anyone else had ever known.

It's not just a matter of "I can examine it, therefore I can build it", or "seeing the benefit of it". Non-Romans were, quite simply, technologically and logistically incapable of doing it.

---

So let me get this straight, you discredit the Silk Road, the Persian Royal Road, the caravansaries, and the fact that Isidorus of Charax wrote an entire treatise in Greek, describing in minute detail the intricate planning behind the Parthian infrastructure, or how the Parthians came to dominate the bulk mercantile trade in the Indian Ocean? That's right, I said the bulk. Charax was made into the de facto greatest port in the East, and this is verified by the fact that Charax just wasn't a single city, but instead consisted of several harbour towns nearby to maximize the bandwidth of commerce. It wasn't enough! The Parthians had to build another port city in Persis proper, Sirap, in order to not lag behind in deliveries. Between Rome, India, Transoxiana and China, there was a commercial colossus who enjoyed every single minute of being in this lucrative position. Ship-wrecks outside of aforementioned Sirap, were advanced Partho-Sassanian merchant vessels, using two rigs, in order to harness monsoon winds. Even the on-board vessels for transporting the goods and the commodities had to be changed in order to attain greater stability.

The Sassanians inherited a vast trading network spanning from the horn of Africa to the Champa ports in Vietnam, all the while by land, they had connections about everywhere in the known world. The Achaemenids, before the Parthians and the Sassanians had themselves discovered the bulk of the known world, under the voyages of Scylax and Sataspes. The Hyrcanian defense wall, some of the greatest adobe fortifications in the world, freeze-houses, underground irrigations, kârîz channels... Hell, Darius I The Great built a canal in Egypt linking the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, several centuries before the digging in the Suez. The Parthian battery preceeded the Voltaic pile equally be centuries, and even though the voltage is close to horseshit, it produces not only ample voltage for electro-plating by serial linking, but its construction stands the scientific test. Wind-catchers. Persepolitan architecture. The first windmill with vertical axles was built by the late Sassanians. By communication, fortification, city-planning, health-related structures, agriculture, commerce, military technology and contemporary popular culture, within dancing, crafting of music, the arts and theatre, the ancient Iranians were right at the level with the Romans. Is it a surprise that they are called "rivals of Graeco-Romans" by a vast academical majority?

Get off your high horse. We don't live in the Classicist age anymore. A successful empire needed a viable infrastructure, otherwise it would meet failure. Lest you wish to ascribe more than 800-years of Partho-Sassanian hegemony as a failure, I'd advise you to take a handful of minutes and spend them in... Google?

Wikipedia, even. XD

The Persian Cataphract speaks again, and when he does, even Grivpanvar fall off their horses in awe.

Okay. On the OP's gameplay issue topic, I just have problems with the maximum settlement level of barbarian settlements being Large City. It just feels wrong when Avaricum in my Arverni campaign had more people than Roma and it was still a large city. :\

That's more of an hardcoded matter though: considering you need to have a settlement plan for the hughe city and ditto palace (model + skin) and accompanying strat map GUI elements. The large city is actually a feature from BI IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And let's not even go to the Indians and Chinese. When it came to logistics and organisation, the latter in particular made the Romans look like a bunch of bumbling amateurs.

---

Which of course explains why if you go to China, you'll set networks of paved roads built thousands of years ago, which are still in usable condition today.

Oh wait, you won't, because they don't exist. Dumbass.

Oh just shut up you dimwit.

:laugh4:

Oh wait, guess the Roman 'Limes' didn't really exist either... :laugh4:

...Jesus, why doesn't he just discredit the Grand Canal of China, or the Great Wall while he's at it? It's all a matter of maintenance, and it's not like all of the Appian Road can be used today, when much of its previous role has been succeeded by the quite recently built Appia Nuova. Ctesiphon was dubbed at one time the greatest city in the world by the Byzantines after it had been further cultivated by emperor Chosroës I, and today all that remains of it is an arch. Yikes, it must be impossible!

http://www.freewebz.com/brotrr/bigrigs-winner.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

The scope of Roman roadworks were never surpassed by a single nation even up to the 19th century AD. I'm not exaggerating the Roman engineering advantage. If anything, I'm failing to do it justice.

Some people here seem to think this sort of expertise just "happens", or is some natural consequence of "having a large empire". Quite the opposite. This is what gave Rome its large empire, and was not a consequence of them already having it. So no, it makes no sense at all that had another power risen instead of Rome, they would have somehow (through osmosis?) learned how do this sort of engineering. Non sequitur, sirs. Non sequitur.

---

I'm more of a utilitarian. Something is developed because there is a need for it. It is illogical to have developed advanced road building practices before there was a need for them.

And if there is a need, anyone can develop them. The Romans were not inherently superior to anyone else--they just had a need which others did not. Anyone with a highly centralized government will produce large public works. Decentralized or tribal governments will not.

No one is saying that the road building techniques would be picked up overnight. The Romans took hundreds of years to develop their techniques. The United States is over 200 years old and still hasn't learned how to build a proper road.

In similar circumstances, anyone would have developed the same techniques. It's just that the Romans had those circumstances and no one else did.

I don't buy into the "Romans are demigods" crap that so many historians shovel out--it's just masturbation, poor scholarship and not supported by objective observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

Which of course explains why if you go to China, you'll set networks of paved roads built thousands of years ago, which are still in usable condition today.

Oh wait, you won't, because they don't exist. Dumbass.

---

You do find ancient paved roads in Mesopotamia that were built by the Babylonians in usable condition. They date from over 3000 years before the Romans built theirs.

And guess where the evidence points to the Romans getting their irrigation techniques from?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Garamantes. Berbers! Oh, no!

Quotes TPC:

Quote:

---

A successful empire needed a viable infrastructure, otherwise it would meet failure.

---

Ain't that the truth. Now, we all need to forward this snippet to our respective governments.


On another point, it is always good to hear from TPC b/c he is rather informative in regards to a part of the world that doesn't have much of a voice otherwise. Thank you sir.

Quotes self :

Quote:

---

However, you bring up a valid point, but one that needs to be discussed in seriousness without nationalistic fervor and with an eye towards the game and historical accuracy.

---

Now, the EB Dev Team may come out and play with us, if we can manage to behave ourselves. I for one would love to hear if they have anything regarding Laevex's original question in the works. But I can understand that they don't want to stop their regular lives or the time that they devote to working on EB (for our enjoyment) to deal with nationalistic ... (fill in your word of choice).


I believe most would agree. Now, can we get back to the question at hand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fjkwgv43

Which of course explains why if you go to China, you'll set networks of paved roads built thousands of years ago, which are still in usable condition today.

Oh wait, you won't, because they don't exist. Dumbass.

---

Go away, please. Just leave, you're making yourself look increasingly stupid vs people who have degrees, Masters and Phd's.

Quote:

---

That's more of an hardcoded matter though: considering you need to have a settlement plan for the hughe city and ditto palace (model + skin) and accompanying strat map GUI elements. The large city is actually a feature from BI IIRC.

---

You can give the Barbarian culture large and huge cities in RTW after 1.3/1.5 as well, not just in BI.

:brood: Good to know.... <_<

I could see an argument for paved roads for the Lusotanna and the Getai.

I can't quote archaeological evidence. However, Iberia was a pretty well developed member of the Mediterranean world, you've got your Greek and Punic influences, a history of great native civilizations such as Tartessos, and the Celtic influences in the north (Aedui and Arverni already have roads) - in fact a lot of scholars think the Lusotanna themselves were Celtic or part Celtic.

Dacia, at least at the time of the Roman invasion, was no tribal backwater and probably had reasonably well developed infrastructure.

It would be logical enough to say these peoples possibly had the capacity.
However, to present a faction as definitely possesing paved roads is quite a claim to make without explicit evidence.

Maybe Saka Rauka should be looked into though, and given an ability to settle (and unlock an enhanced building tree), a la Pahlava.

I love it when TPC gets angry! :laugh4:

I hesitate to stick my head above the parapet in this thread, but...

I'm quite happy to accept that the real world historical Getai, Lusotann et al didn't build paved roads between 272BC and 15AD (or whenever EB ends). I would never dream of gainsaying the EB team about actual history. I fully accept that the historical Getai lacked the economy/science/engineering/infrastructure/desire to build them.

However, after I click that start button I'm not playing actual history, I'm playing alternate history. The historical Getai weren't the sort of group to build paved roads, but then the historical Getai weren't the sort of group to conquer from Massilia to the Bosphorous and from Sparta to the Baltic. The Getai in the alternate history in my game are the sort of group who do that. And it seems to me that any group with that sort of achievement level is a whole different animal than the historical Getai, and the capabilities of the historical Getai are simply not relevant to them.

I think EB (far and away the best full conversion mod I've ever seen for any game) is what RPG designers call "game-metagame incoherent". The gameplay is not consistent with the design goals. The gameplay gives the players the ability to choose their actions and make things happen, but the designers seem to want it to play out in one way, the historical way. [E.g. not only does the Hayasdan reform system harass players into going south (when Asia Minor is a softer and richer target), but the way the governments upgrade in clusters of 3 or four even tells them what order to conquer the provinces. I find myself asking "who's playing this game, me or the devs?"]

Really it would have made more sense for the EB guys to do the mod as a non-interactive flash animation and have it launch a series of custom battles, with no strategic map at all.

Just because a barbarian faction has a large empire doesn't automatically mean that it has to be technologically advanced in building paved roads and huge stone walls.

The Mongol Empire was the largest 'barbarian' empire in history, stretching from China to the Baltic, and never constructed paved roads!

Anyway, it's boring in EB if all the factions have exactly the same capabilities. The Aedui and Arveni are barbarian 'Celtic' factions that can build paved roads, the Getai are a barbarian 'Celtic' faction that can't. Variety makes the game more fun.

If you want paved roads, play the Aedui or the Arveni.

Or wait for your enemies to build paved roads, then take over their provinces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Just because a barbarian faction has a large empire doesn't automatically mean that it has to be technologically advanced in building paved roads and huge stone walls.

The Mongol Empire was the largest 'barbarian' empire in history, stretching from China to the Baltic, and never constructed paved roads!

Anyway, it's boring in EB if all the factions have exactly the same capabilities. The Aedui and Arveni are barbarian 'Celtic' factions that can build paved roads, the Getai are a barbarian 'Celtic' faction that can't. Variety makes the game more fun.

If you want paved roads, play the Aedui or the Arveni.

Or wait for your enemies to build paved roads, then take over their provinces.

---

The Getai weren't Celtic.

Either that, or mod the game to suit role-playing reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morte66

I think EB (far and away the best full conversion mod I've ever seen for any game) is what RPG designers call "game-metagame incoherent". The gameplay is not consistent with the design goals. The gameplay gives the players the ability to choose their actions and make things happen, but the designers seem to want it to play out in one way, the historical way. [E.g. not only does the Hayasdan reform system harass players into going south (when Asia Minor is a softer and richer target), but the way the governments upgrade in clusters of 3 or four even tells them what order to conquer the provinces. I find myself asking "who's playing this game, me or the devs?"]

Really it would have made more sense for the EB guys to do the mod as a non-interactive flash animation and have it launch a series of custom battles, with no strategic map at all.

---

First of all, the hayasdan reforms is not historical in the sense that it did happen in the real world, which i am sure you know. And it does not harass the player to go south, you can very well go north and conquer the steppes, it is a plausible reform that may have happened if the Armenians conquered Persia. harassing the player is not the word i would use to describe that, it&#180;s more of a reward for the player. harassing and rewarding are two very different things.
Not stating i know the teams views on this matter, I can only guess, but i believe that a historical 272b.c. is what they are after, after that it&#180;s as you said, a different world, which i am very certain the team knows too. And yes, maybe getai would get paved roads if they conquered the hellas if it would have happened in the real world, but if the was a reform for getai to get paved roads, what about casse? shouldn&#180;t they get paved roads if they conquered rome? and what about saka? And realistically, if the britons conquered the steepes, which may very well happen in the game, shouldn&#180;t they be able to evolve their military and stop using equipment from Britain and start fielding horse archer armies and stop fielding briton armies? (which in one way is really possible, with the regional barracks.) my point is, you can&#180;t really make reforms for every possible event in the game, it is simply impossible.

To recap: I believe the EB teams intention is not to make a mod that follows history after 272 b.c., (then it would be very boring to play macedonia or lusotann among many others who got conquered by the romans) but to make 272.b.c as close to history as possible. Making a endless set of what if reforms for every faction is strictly impossible . the hayasdan reform is a what if reform, and a very fun one to try to achieve at that, but it is not necessary to play the game as hayasdan. but you complain over that one reform and claim the team wants to control how you play the game, and then you go on and suggest more what if reforms to be in the game?:dizzy2:


Not that I want to be a overzealous Fanboy, but a little courtesy towards the team is not really to much to ask is it? (not directed directly at you morty)

on a ligther note, creepy sig you got there Ayce, you can see my IP!!

If Titus is being serious I...
(or wait let me use the words of Ranika)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

... will laugh until I collapse on the ground crying. And then laugh more. And then die a little inside... Then laugh.

---

Good ol' Bartix. Where are the times. O tempora, o mores.

In Bartix they didn't have paved roads. Everyone travelled by transportix beamix.

ombudsman got it right. EB is not about playing history-on-rails, but there is a limit to how many reforms one can add. Apart from the unit and building limits (all but the vanilla reforms are effected by the reform marker buildings), once you start adding speculative features, you also have to determine where to stop. Should the Romans get cataphracts, should all hellenic factions get the reformed pikemen, should the Celts be able to recruit cataphracts, and so on. As it is, the team has decided not to venture far into the speculative history area. Speculative features are only included if factions did reform, or at least made a good attempt to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ombudsman

on a ligther note, creepy sig you got there Ayce, you can see my IP!!

---

No, he can't. At least, I don't think this particular sig collects data, it merely bounces it back to the viewer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ombudsman

on a ligther note, creepy sig you got there Ayce, you can see my IP!!

---

Actually it only shows the viewer's IP. But I could still find out what your IP is because it's a public Internet ID. You always transmit it when connecting to something.

Well, that answers it for me. I appreciate all the input from various viewpoints. As for myself, I'll still likely play the Lusotani next. I may wait for the Romans to advance enough to build paved roads and what not, but the Gauls will probably not be so lucky. Carthage is another story in itself. Regardless, they will all fall!!

In some ways, this will make for a better game. Once you become an accomplished EB player, you begin to look for different "role-playable" challenges. Let's face it, the AI has money and NO brains.

2 more things...
1 - I'm glad that the EB Team has already done the research and thought it through. And done so well. We get to enjoy those many hours of labor. For which I am grateful.

2 - EB Forum-goers get to discuss aspects of the game openly and I don't know about you guys, but I always learn a bit more everytime that happens. For which I am also grateful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

Hell, Darius I The Great built a canal in Egypt linking the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, several centuries before the digging in the Suez.

---

Very nice piece of information you got there, but not entirely correct, at least the part I quoted. As far as Herodotus states, Necho's Canals was initiated by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II, with the intention of allowing the large Red Sea fleet he built to operate in the Mediterrenean as well. He just gave up mid-way after over 100,000 workers had died. Darius merely completed what Necho had started. I suppose that canal is what we see in EB, linking the Red Sea.

I think we all need to take a hard look and remember how many times otherwise advanced civilizations have missed inventions that would seem obvious in retrospect. The Aztecs and Mayas, although light-years ahead of Europe in such things as sanitation and to a lesser extent, calendars, never invented the wheel. Similarly, the Europeans took centuries to figure out how to improve their plows. I applaud the EB team for not trying to assess all the possibilities and simply giving us an idea of how it played out. My humble opinion. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Very nice piece of information you got there, but not entirely correct, at least the part I quoted. As far as Herodotus states, Necho's Canals was initiated by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II, with the intention of allowing the large Red Sea fleet he built to operate in the Mediterrenean as well. He just gave up mid-way after over 100,000 workers had died. Darius merely completed what Necho had started. I suppose that canal is what we see in EB, linking the Red Sea.

---

What you see is the restored version by Ptolemy (I? or II? can't recall atm), that is: the original hadn't been looked after too well so a good deal of maintainance was needed to render it usable again. AFAIK that's part of the description; don't nail me on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodotos I

I think we all need to take a hard look and remember how many times otherwise advanced civilizations have missed inventions that would seem obvious in retrospect. The Aztecs and Mayas, although light-years ahead of Europe in such things as sanitation and to a lesser extent, calendars, never invented the wheel. Similarly, the Europeans took centuries to figure out how to improve their plows. I applaud the EB team for not trying to assess all the possibilities and simply giving us an idea of how it played out. My humble opinion. :yes:

---

Don't forget that, as far as this thread is concerned, the problem is that less technologically advanced countries/factions have absorbed/conquered a technologically superior country without getting any obvious technological beneficts from it. The example you give are from two civilizations who didn't know each other. If the Aztecs hadn't been conquered by the Spanish on arrival, and if there had been commerce rather than war between both countries, I have no doubt that the Aztecs would have begun making the use of the wheel shortly. While the most cited example for the game, paved roads, took much time, effort and skill, much like...lifting weights... Creating a wooden wheel was like lifting a finger, in comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morte66

However, after I click that start button I'm not playing actual history, I'm playing alternate history. The historical Getai weren't the sort of group to build paved roads, but then the historical Getai weren't the sort of group to conquer from Massilia to the Bosphorous and from Sparta to the Baltic. The Getai in the alternate history in my game are the sort of group who do that. And it seems to me that any group with that sort of achievement level is a whole different animal than the historical Getai, and the capabilities of the historical Getai are simply not relevant to them.

---

It sounds like you want something like Empire Earth. Pretty good game that. The Romans get spaceships and the like if they survive into the space age, which I suppose is in the same vein as the Getai developing paved roads.. roughly speaking...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Don't forget that, as far as this thread is concerned, the problem is that less technologically advanced countries/factions have absorbed/conquered a technologically superior country without getting any obvious technological beneficts from it.

---

It's not always that case that a less-advanced conquerer gains technological advances from conquering a more advanced region.

It happened to the Goths in Italy and Spain after they conquered Rome, but this was largely because they had already converted to Christianity, and the Christian priests had the bulk of the surviving literature of the vanished Roman Empire, and became the teachers of the barbarians.

If the barbarians had not been Christian, and simply slaughtered the Christian priests and burned every book and scroll they could get their hands on, what would they have learned then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Good ol' Bartix. Where are the times. O tempora, o mores.

---

Where are the smilies, then?!!!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge:
:charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge:
:charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge:
:charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge: :charge::charge::charge:

I'm speaking from a purely technical perspective here: At this point cramming another reform into EB1 would be incredibly difficult to do. The file that controls the buildings can only be described as "packed to the gills." Finding space - and getting the changes to work the way we want them to work - is the very definition of diminishing returns.

Indeed blacksnail. We have pushed that file to incredible limits but I don't think there is a whole lot more that can be done with it. I wonder what the CA guys would think if they saw the code now (not the size only, but that plus all the other crazy stuff we've wedged in there). :grin:

Potentially, they might try to kill you for knowing too much... :wiseguy:

Or they might all commit sepukku in shame.

I like blacksnail's sig. 'Baseless Conjecturer' indeed. :D

It is my gift; it is my curse. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Very nice piece of information you got there, but not entirely correct, at least the part I quoted. As far as Herodotus states, Necho's Canals was initiated by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II, with the intention of allowing the large Red Sea fleet he built to operate in the Mediterrenean as well. He just gave up mid-way after over 100,000 workers had died. Darius merely completed what Necho had started. I suppose that canal is what we see in EB, linking the Red Sea.

---

I am aware of the previous canal-works by a number of Pharaohs, including the distinguished Necho II known for his gargantuan undertaking, and indeed, Darius' canal may only be the completing key to a series of projects in the area, but then again, the delta encourages any ruler, whether Egyptian, or not, to see the colossal benefits in seeing through the project; In such a case, the Suez canal is famous. Darius' canal is more than often overlooked, and previous works just as overlooked; Virtually no one knows of Ptolemy's restoration project.

So, what I said was obviously an abstraction, to be used as an argument against the unfair projection of non-Roman civilizations as back-water tribal societies with no sense of infrastructure. With the Pârnî (The Arsacids and their allied clans) settling into Parthia proper, inside of the Greater Iran, we literally see pastoralists abandoning their steppen roots, ushering themselves towards highly impressive fortification works, architecture and innovations in commerce and commercial infrastructure. They grew filthy rich and they knew precisely what earned them so much wealth in the first place.

They brought much innovation to statemanship, architecture and trade to a very politically fragmented area, consisting of variously Hellenized subjects of many ethnicities. They prevailed close to four centuries as a unified political entity. It must certainly merit for something?

Right, right. I myself was unaware of Ptolemy's restorations to the canal. But people who know nothing of it's history might have just assumed the whole friggin' thing was built by Darius upon his predecessor's conquest of Egypt. I merely stepped in to inform that Darius task was that of a completing and not building it from scratch. Indeed in such I topic, I'd love to see in what state was the canal when the Persians conquered it.