Printable View
well dear ebII team, lets talk a bit about stone forts
i guess by now most of you have seen dominion of the swords way to arrange stone forts on the map
in MASSIVE number and as a substitute for smaller cities
while we all have not tried out yet if it really works, it at least appears! to be very good
any plans doing something similar?
here is one player who would love it :bow: (at least i guess so :D )
IIRC they were discussing it, because you can't have permanent ones and non-permanent...
I must say I can see pros for both: protection while marching or "mobile" border wall are very nice, but at the same time having forts representing minor cities and such is interesting aswell...
IIRC the team has said that they will indeed use stone/permanent forts for representation of smaller cities. Don't quote me on that one though. :sweatdrop:
/Arthur, king of the Britons
We will use PSFs to represent important settlements, I don't think we will have quite as many as DotS though.
So that means no more limes-type structures / removable border fortifications?
that makes me sad :(Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
So they are going to use the forts to represent towns like you wanted and that makes you sad.
Why not feel happy that they are doing what you asked for...
A lot of forts increace the "siege percentage" don't forget that :P
oh btw: will these settlements be walled?
Hopefully it will depend on the settlement. we can place different styles of forts, and we can remove the walls from some of these. However you will still need siege equipment to attack them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca Putt
Foot
That's very nice!
I was worried it will end up with only one style of fortifications, that's like too good to be true :P
Wow, I did not know that there could be multiple stone fort styles! Nice.
Personally, I would like to see stone forts used very sparingly, since (as Ca Putt mentioned) they mean less field battles and more sieges. I greatly prefer field battles.
Nice indeed, I presume this is dealt with via the culture, or not?
Something not used in The brittania campaign, for obvious reasons^^
i guess my great wall of the north strategy is doomed by this :\
Has it been confirmed that Permanent Stone Forts and the regular forts cannot be used in the same game/mod? :book:
Jah, well, some fort maps should not contain towns since a lot of battles were fought outside the towns...
I'm not very pleased by this. Minor cities were not very often places which could be defended successfully. On the other hand field fortifications and temporary fortified camps played an important role in many conflicts. Only remember the Pyrrhos campaigns. And I would prefer to be able to build my own border defenses. I played M2:TW mods with permanent castles and I really did not like it, the castles were next to useless.
PSFs won't be useless especially if they provide some income. They can be a good way to prevent the player from blitzing the AI's main cities, as well. Also, temporary forts are not very accurate for most factions and are very romano-centric.
PSFs will represent other cities in the region, this does not necessarily mean they will be minor settlements, in fact in many cases they were bigger than the regional capitals and important places in their own right.Quote:
Originally Posted by geala
I didn't realise PSFs can provide income, was this originally in m2tw or a new modded in feature?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustave
No, it's a trick we do with immobile merchants and resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios
Wouldn't it end soon as the merchant die?
I'd guess you can either script to respawn a deceased merchant...or script for the merchant reset age when it reaches 100? Who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
has this already been tested?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
They can also provide free upkeep to some units, so that's an indirect form of income.
Also, if I understood geala's comments correctly, he was concerned about stone forts being too heavily fortified to realistically represent a small settlement during EB's timeframe. But the team can mod how the forts are layed out, so it shouldn't be an issue.
Thats why we will write a script to respawn them when that happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjos
Not but is but other mods use similar methods and it works for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by fightermedic
My point was that the settlements that will be represented by PSF's were by no means small, if it wasn't for the settlement limit they would be capitals of proper regions in their own right.Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
Would it be possible to show culture trends in PSF by spawning religious agents at those locations? Would be interesting if occupying a PSF could speed up/slow down conversion. After all, Rome had many issues with controlling places like the Illyrian country side.
glad to hear that, looking forward to it very much!Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbin
hint: more psf = better :D
Not neccessarily. The perfect balanced amount = better.Quote:
Originally Posted by fightermedic
All I can imagine is if they go overboard with them and the map is swarming so that I have to navigate around bloody forts everytime I turn around.
the campaign map will be different according to culture and such, correct? as in we won't be running around medieval forts on the campaign map? it'd be cool if it can be done per culture
My guess is that the forts will share the model of cities, since they represent that...Quote:
Originally Posted by fomalhaut
Hope it's possible though :P
I'm not too sure, I think they'd all have a default look. I say this because if a foreign faction takes over and upgrades the city it'll change it's culture setting. It would give rise to (potentially) a different culture city and fort. Not sure if that's right, chat away.
here is btw a pic how it will look like in DOTS, for those of you who did not see the mods map blog:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
i very much like the combination of huge moving range + many forts
conquering new land and moving through enemy territory will be a slow grinding process, while you can move rapidly through your own, as it should be i guess :creep:
Unholy crap, that is absolutely ridiculous! No offense, fightermedic, but I will never play that mod for that reason alone. Not only do they look terrible being all over the map, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of EB2 fans have no interest in going through that many siege battles. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by fightermedic
I realize that conquering a region means more than just capturing one city, but I think that the team has found an abstract way of representing the continual subjugation of a conquered region through the Authority Buildings system they are implementing. I fully support using stone forts to represent extremely settlements in important strategic locations, but having tons of them spread all over every region just seems absurd to me.
Looks awesome. I have dreamt of this.
Agreed, forts for strategically important locations, but don't add too many, en EB 1 my most frequent battles are sieges/sally's/relief efforts already.Quote:
Originally Posted by B_Ray
Hmm, all this talk of castles has made me think. Will every single city have the option to build some form of massive wall for their settlements? It really, really got to me in EB, around 240BC no matter what city you tried to take, no matter what faction it was you had to take it from, it always had a stone wall, or the "barbarian" equivelant.
Can the building of anything higher than a thick palisade be restricted to like... Rome, Carthage, Athens, Alexandreia, Seleukia, basically just the capital city or any extremely historically important city within an empire that isn't its capital, like Babylon for Seleukids, etc? It kills me having to assault walls every bloody time I attack what ought to be just a minor settlement.
That wouldn't be very realistic now would it?
Stonefort spam. Thats insane, and not good insane. I was looking forward to DOTS but thats just not my style of play. A perfect case of overzealous implementation of a game feature ruining a game.
Where is this map blog? Can't seem to find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by fightermedic
here ya go: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=469217
@Blxz: quite the opposite in my opininon, well we'll have to wait and see how it turns out in the end, anyway
Thanks. Thought it would be about EBII, though. I actually thought DOTS was a reference to how the stone forts are sort of dots on the map.. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by fightermedic
I am sure the EBII team will make a slightly less "dotted" map.. ;)
from what i read over 2 years ago they said each region would only have 1 or 2 permanent stone forts
Question, can PSF be named differently? I.e. have individual and unique minor town/settlement names. Or will they all appear as the stone fort default name? Also just clarifying, the implementation of a 'permanent' merchant in these forts will represent a minor settlement increasing the weath of a region? So underneath each fort will be a resource icon which the 'permanent' merchant will trade from if the player has control over the fort? Another question, will units in these forts have free upkeep? Bit of a mouthful, but I hope it all made sense.
Yes, stone forts can be named (although the name only appears when you right click on them, iirc), you can see this feature in the mod Deus Le Vult. I don't know about the other points.Quote:
Originally Posted by stratigos vasilios
as far as i remeber the name already shows if you but mouse over the fort
no guarantee!
Hi.
If an enemy army conquers the fort/minor city, what happens to the merchant? Btw, it will be a very interesting feature especially since you can mode the campaign looks for the psf.
At last, i dont think the EB team will use near as many psfs as dots.
Thx