Printable View
Just reviewing the previews (thanks foot!) I noticed how many regions are in British Islands! Is the team really planning to give the Pritanoi so many expansion territory or is this just the wip? If it really is the intention to put so many cities in British islands´what would be the motives while so many other places would make good use od extra regions?
The British Isles have the same number of provinces as they did in EB (8). they have just been rearranged.
Even there, it seemed a little bit too much didn't it? (Personal opinion) :)
As far as i recall the EB team has stated that permanent forts will be depicting importand citys which because of the limitations of the engine could not be added as provinces. It is posible that some of the citys stated on the map are simply that, permanent forts. (corect me if i am wrong and sorry for the typos)
Leave the British Isles alone, they are lovely.
Not really, the population of Britain is estimated to be somewhere around 2-4 million people by 150BC, if you include Ireland, which historically has had about half the population of Britain you get a total of 3-6 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leão magno
Compare this with the population of Roman Italy (everything south of the Po Valley) at the start of the 2nd Punic War (218BC) which was around 4 million.
My point being that the British Isle were not some sparsely populated backwater as most people think, 8 provinces is perfectly justifiable.
Nice. Britain had the same population in 150BC as it did before the Normans came ashore. Who would have figured? (The question is: Why?)
There was a major population crash at the end of the Roman period, probably linked with the Plague of Justinian.
After that the island became something of a war zone, first between the Roman-British populations and the incoming Angles and Saxons, and then between the Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Vikings.
These wars were a lot bigger than anything that went on during pre Roman times and so a lot more disruptive to the islands infrastructure, which would have hampered any population recovery.
Britain reached a population of 3-4 million under Roman rule is widely accepted. I've not heard that was the level in 150 BC though. I thought that is more likely after 100 AD or at least 250 years later when most of Europe had also increased in population either with a warming period or under the pax romana or whatever it is attributed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Not sure I would buy that Britain achieved a population density equal to intensively agriculturalized Italy in 150 BC. Just curious what this is based on?
"Intensively agriculturalized Italy" in 150 BCE would support a higher population than Britain. Why a density comparison? Drainage in Italy isn't the problem it is in Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon
Cunliffe gives an estimate of 2-4 million for 150 BC and 4-6 million for the height of the Roman era, this is based on the huge increase in the number of settlements being found which have pushed up the population estimates dramatically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichon
Also it isn't the same density, the 4 million figure for Roman Italy is from 218 BC, thats 68 years before so it would have grown during that time.
Roman Italy in 218 BC was also considerably smaller in area and ariable land than Britain, not to mention that it experienced more population loss due to war and disease that Britain would have.
I respect that, but the numbers shown are 68 years distant one another as you already mentioned so it makes it dificult to compare, but I respect your point of view. what I am questioning is in terms of importance! I believe that many other areas were as populated and more important in global terms... I mean isn't there any other region in mediterrain, Egypt, middle or far east that would take advantage of those cities? Not to speak Germania, Greece, Thrace, etc? So What was, lets say... Irelands importance in that time frame, especially in the very begining of it, and let me clarify that I only ask that because I am ignorant in that art of the world history. But I can tell a lot of Sicilian, Iberian, Italian Peninsula and African importance.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
On my personal note there's no such thing as "unimportant" in history...
As for regions what they need to represent is the population, iirc Ireland in EBII will have only one region, that's quite a drawback, still it's pretty hard to cope with scarse information and the game's limitation...
But the British Isle must have a decent number of settlements in order to give them a comparable demographic weight as they had at that time...
Not necessarily. You might represent that as a lot of people in one town in-game. Besides, many or few towns in-game doesn't always have a correspondence with actual towns. It's like medieval Europe 9th/10th CE compared with 11th/12th. In the latter you see increase in towns. So I don't know how EB is going to do it. Will they put more towns where towns were, or will they put more because there were more people. In-game town need not necessarily correlate with in-life town.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
We were able to redistribute provinces to the needed areas without having to cut any from the British Isles, simple as that. Also we try not to think of it in global terms, we try to represent each area as well as we can, not choose one over the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leão magno
Ireland was quite important in its local region, it only gets one proper region though, the rest is part of the Eremos province, to represent the difficulty of controlling parts of the island (the highlands of Scotland also get this treatment).
Where is the Eremos province (I'm guessing it's an inaccessible province in the Sahara or something)? Does this essentially mean that no one will ever actually control parts of Scotland and Ireland?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Well usually the region represents the actual region not just a single city though many of the regions are named after the largest known city within that region.
More important is how the social structure is represented... do we assume most low urbanized/non literate cultures were tribal like later Mongols where a khan of khans could emerge and lead united tribes or does it take lots of work to expand and organize. IE- if you start as a 2 region "barbarian" faction do you get to conquest a couple regions and immediately get access to more units since its a broad shared culture or do you have to work at it as hard as Romans or Greeks laying foundation and converting over time the population. Often uniting people under common banner is quite difficult to achieve and even if a population is equal in actual numbers, the population which is divided and fractious will fall before the more organized faction. IE- Gaul against Rome. Because simply saying- well, Britain had as much population as Italy therefor it should have as many regions is a bit simplistic if the people in those regions were not going to easily unite and in the game get much more power than would have been possible historically. IE- British invasion and conquest of Gaul or something.
If it stays similar to EB 1 then most of the factions should still take some work to expand beyond basic military/colonial type rule.
Due to amount of arable land and the crops able to be grown per season/year population density is a better measure of the ability to project a given populations power and culture. A numerous but dispersed population has much more trouble to match a lower population but more densly concentrated population in most cases. IE- steppe cultures in numbers were large measured from Siberia to Crimea and could constantly raid and conquest parts of China but leave relatively little lasting legacy or cultural imprint relatively. Or the reverse... Greeks were relatively concentrated or at least could act as that due to easy sea travel/mobility compared to Perisa but were hugely less in population. For Persia to mobilize an army took much more work than for Greece though Persia was relatively more wealthy as well and if mobilized only 25% of its available manpower for exmaple could still outnumber the Greek mobilizing 90%Quote:
Originally Posted by vartan
You've heard of the word hermit. It comes from the Greek eremos. Refresh my memory if I don't recall correctly, but it would refer to the men who would take retreats in Arabia. In-game Eremos would therefore correspond to the vast Arabian desert contained on three sides by the Arabian coastal regions.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII
The Eremos province is the large unconquerable province in EB that made up the Sahara and centre of the Arabian pennisula. In EBII it has been expanded to include the northern regions of the Russian steppe, inland Scandinavia, western Ireland and northern Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII
Eremos translated as "desert" or "wilderness" by the way.
Why is there actually a need for these void regions? why cant they be part of the regions next to them? to simulate foreign territory for the faction who owns the neighbouring regions? of course I am not talking about the terhazza region.
I think it has to do with the AI, though I'm not sure how or why it works better that way.
Because these were areas that no one ever exerted influence over or even tried to. Your proposal would also lead to unrealistically large provinces which is also something we don't want.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
I'm not certain but I also think rebel armies spawn more often in rebel provinces, which is a good representation of raiders from these isolated regions causing problems on the fringes of you empire.
For the same reason as the Terhazza region. These are not "foreign territory" but sparsely inhabited wilderness: difficult to control and not worth conquering anyway. I am not sure why western Ireland is included, though. Was it still unsettled at this point? Or do you simply want to create another point of resistance for the Pritanoi?Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
At least in EB prior to Dumatha being scrapped, the Saba would end up at war with the Ptolemaioi/AS at inopportune moments due to the AI's tendency to attack anything (among those bordering rebel provinces, of which Dumatha would be one for the AS right from the start). As a side effect of removing the Dumatha province, merging it with Eremos, there is a big slab of “nothing” that tends to work quite well in preventing stacks of AS/Ptolemaioi armies wandering around in the Arabian deserts.Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
I'm not to aquainted with the mechanics that dertermin the ethnicity of Eleutheroi troops, so just hope that we won't see any irish folks in the sahara :D
Thanks for the answer!Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
Yeah, I looked up eremos and got desert, which is why my guess was the Sahara, but I guess that does make sense to just use one province slot for all of the unconquerable wilderness areas of the time.
It's Computer Science. Kill more than two birds with one stone.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinsingtonIII
I think the opposite, we shouldn't see Saharan folks roaming arround in Ireland, but may tolerate Irish folks that wandering arround in Sahara... :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca Putt
Ok, well from this pov, I could even live with more Eremos lands... What about some asty Mountain regions (Capaths, Hindukush, Causcasian Mountains)? Or the steppe? I am just suggesting maybe there are some good reasons to NOT make parts of those regions eremos
I am afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say. The areas bobbin mentioned are the edge of the map (apart from central Arabia). This is essentially dead space anyway, so why does it have to be conquerable?Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenpeter
I think some people just want to conquer everything for the sake of completeness.
He asked if the Eremos will include more areas, beside those at the edges, like mountainous regions...
True.
I don't speak for the team, but I doubt that will happen because it will mess-up roads and trade-routes, as well as confuse the A.I.
No, besides mountainous regions are impassible and the areas he listed were claimed by various powers during the period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Ok! But how do you manage to think in regional terms and not in global while facing the games shortage of region slots? I always believed that to better represent the map you were looking from a global perspective and not regional ones, after all, greece for example, would have the need of more cities (regions) than many other places if we consider them in the regional terms, after all there were lots of regional important city-states. As far as I understand, the only way to deal with the limited number of regions e choosing wich regions wil be portraited and I believed that the choice was done considering many itens, including importance of the place in that given time, importance considering the factions presented, importance in terms of gameplay, etc; anyway, do not let me bother you with this curiosity and personal opinion EB is just great.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin