Printable View
Okay...in RTW..Northern Africa had 3 factions
-Carthage
-Numidia
-Egypt
Middle East had 4
-Armenia
-Parthia
-Seleucid Empire
-Pontus
in BI Nothern Africa will have
-Berbers
-Vandals
Middle East
-Sassanid Empire only
Did anyone noticed this unbalance ?
or maybe it will be more factions wich i don`t know....i know the Babylonic Empire existed leaded by Nabuchodonosor close to the BI period....is this faction going to be in BIs middle east too ? ~:)
Have you played the game yet? Do you realize that BI will have less regions and if Africa only has a couple of regions then there is no unbalance? Eastern Europe might be left empty to leave some nice pickings for the Barbarian Invasion.
besides the Vandlas were TOUGH
it took almost a hundred years and the combined might of the East and West Roman Empires PLUS help from the Huns to finally knock them down...
B.
WTF are you talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldfish
1.Carthage, Egypt, and Numidia were conquered by and became part of the Roman empire.
2.The Berbers are going to be in the deep desert provinces beyond the Roman borders
3.The Vandals migrate from where Bohemia is now to Africa.
In the east The Seleucids were conquered by the Romans and Parthians, Pontus was annexed by Rome too. Armenia became a Roman protectorate and buffer state between the Parthians and Romans. The Sassanids overthrew and took over the Parthians, they eventaully took over Armenia. This "Babylonic empire" your speak of is probably the Sassanid Persians. The original Babylon of Neducanezzar was conquered by the Assyrians. The Assyarians were over thrown by the neo-Babylonians, who were conquered by the Achmeniad Persians.
This "unbalance" you speak of is called history. I would suggest you google a map of the Roman empire in 364 AD, it might surprise you.
"This "unbalance" you speak of is called history. I would suggest you google a map of the Roman empire in 364 AD, it might surprise you."
U didn`t grasp the point..I just tryed to compare RTW with BI regarding the balancy issue,i was aware of that....anyway..its seems that Sassanid Empire will hold a huge piece of the eastern map...that`s great...i wonder what is the victory condition for the sassanids?..they will be the first faction i will play...and i will not stop until I win with them
The Sassanids won't be alone in the east. They have the eastern roman empire in there to keep them company ~;)
And the Eastern Roman Rebels or something like that, so they will far from be lonely. And that`s good. :charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by Conqueror
in the east there is also the arabs, and, if they have made it historical there should also be the iberian and armenia kingdoms in the east.
They have made not mention of Arabs. And you could make the case for the Sassanids having annexed Armenia at the time. It will probably be a rebel faction.
well they do have 20 faction slots for BI, and i know that the Arabs are in it.
Ummm.... is a thousand years "close" ???? ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldfish
There is a little problem with your assumed dates (I think it's "AD" vs. "BC")
See http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/N/Nebuchad.asp where it says
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylonia (c.605-562 BC)
Personally, I don't fault CA for ignoring the Babylonians in BI, but that's just me. :bow:
Shaun said there should be an Iberian Kingdom in the east. I thought Iberia was just Spain.
Proof please that the arabs are in it ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun
Maybe he means Siberian kingdom ? :dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by RTW King
Nah, that isn't east either.
But east is relative to where you are located. If Shaun is an american, then yes. Spain is eastward!
There was an iberian kingdom in the east, because the sassanids persecution of the christians in iberia started a war with the byzantine empire and sassanids
Ok,ok... you might be right about the Iberian Kingdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun
I'll sing a song or two in you honor at the campfire this evening!
*humbly bows head* :bow:
also, the arabs cood be a break away faction, or an emerging faction!
LinkQuote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
I don't think there is an arab faction. Faction list taken from demo's .pak-file:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun
More information including some faction descriptions and unit lists extracted from demo files can be found in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by dpack_0.pak
well CA only says that, appart from the playable factions, the only other factions are the celts,slavs, east and western roman rebels and berbers and romano-brits!
No Arabs in game, and there shouldn't be. Until the time of Mohammed (623AD if memory serves). The game if from 363 until 476. At this time the Arabs were nomadic tribes and a few trade cities. Mohammed was the one who unified them into one nation.
well if there is no- arab faction then the east will be pretty empty!
sassinids arent the only ones in the east, there is the eastern roman empire. That will probably make for a big power srtuggle.
shameless advertisment- anybody wanting to play as the arabs should check out imperium total war. :bow:
yeah, the sassanids and east roman empire are going to be enemies!
Nothing says as a barbarian that you have to invade the Romans - some might be tempted to invade the Sassanian Persian lands over the Caucausus land bridge.
This has happened a couple of times in BI games I've played.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grifman
Once, the Sarmatians were pushed aside by the Huns and headed south and east into Sassanid territory. On other occasions the Huns headed south towards the rich pickings of the Sassanid Empire, then on towards Constantinople. While we've biased the behaviour of hordes so that they head towards their historical destinations, there's no absolute guarantees that they'll do so if more lucrative intermediate targets are available.
To stop the mess , here is a map of EuropE and the "M. East" in 400 ce - http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0400.htm
Africa , just tribes -
1. Mauri
2. Gaeiuli (???)
3. Musulami
4. Garamantes
"M. East"
1. Sassanid empire
2. Kingdom of PersArmenia
3. Kingdom of Albania
4. Kingdom of Iberia (not in spain for god sake...)
5. Kingdom of Lazica
And several Arab tribes -
1. The Nabatei
2. The Gassa-anidi (???)
3. The Lachmidi
Well , that is the history , BI ? far from it ?? hard to tell
:book: :bow:
well with the number of provs and faction slots in BI, this is hardly possible!
yeah i always wondered why there are to iberia's. iberia in spain and iberia between the black and caspian sea. whats that all about
Let's break this down a bit. The Mauri, Gaeiuli, Musulami, and Garamantes are all Berber tribes and thus covered by the Berber faction (Which 1 mister MacDonald says is a clone of the Numidians). The kingdoms of PersArmenia, Albania, and Iberia all appear by that map to be tributary kingdoms of the Sassanids and there fore will be part of their lands in BI. Lazica is waaaaay to small to be borthered with.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
It might have something to do with the fact that the Basques are related to some Caucasians (people from the Caucuses) and that created recognizable cultural similarities. Just a guess though. :bow:
well i think the basques are out of the timeframe! anyway, there is enough barbarians as it is!
Doubtfull, the Basques were already in Iberia when indo-europeans first arrived.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodidley
This biasing isn't hardcoded, is it? Hardcoded faction associations of any kind totally kill conversions to different periods or worlds. Currently the short campaigns in such mods make no sense, but otherwise they seem okay—the original RTW didn't have faction attack decisions biased on the basis of historical relationships, did it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fishpants
-Simetrical
I think the BI campaign map is wonderful, refreshing for a change. Big provinces, some historical accuracy, and hopefully, a better building AI.
Or have the
balanced
religious
trader
comfortable
bureaucrat
craftsman
sailor
fortified
remain unchanged? CA? Other campaign improvements?
i dont really understant your post, what are you trying to say?
he posted several faction attitudes. For example a faction could be comfortable napolean. That means they basically build a blanced army and buildings. If they were religious then they would build religous buildings.
He was wondering if those would be changed.
And I also fear what simetrical is saying and i think it was partly done in vanilla. Factions as a habbit dont attack rome, except they do try to retake their former lands. This can be seen in cisalpine gaul. Sometimes they crush roman invasion, but fail to strike back.
Correct . the AI is very very poor regarding invasions , btw it never ever invades from the sea (that is , never !!!) . Did any one saw a Punic invasion in to Italy ??? Damn
well i saw a pontic invasion to thrace! and a scipii invasion to carthage!and a brutii invasion to greece! and an iberian invasion to numidia! but very rarley, it is as if these factions were programmed to do that by CA.
Saw an invasion in to Italy (that is , from the sea) ?
i have, by the greek cities. the only problem was that the brutii and the greeks were not at war, so the greek armies just stood aroung italy!Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
The AI does invade by sea, although it seems that if there is an alternative route via land (even if that route is longer, more dangerous and generally less advantageous) then it prefers to march across land instead. Their neighbours might be hesitant to invade the Romans because the Romans are strong and so they would prefer to take some time to build up first. But this gives the Romans time to take the initiative and assault them first (and usually win).
i know, iv never seen any faction take a city back from the romans, but this shood chage with BI!
I'm seeing something weird in my current Brutii campaign. It's 243 BC and the Scips are doing very poorly... they're still trying to take the last Carthagenian city on Sicily and haven't expanded further. I was mousing over their home area planning on how I'd wipe them out in the pending civil war, when I noticed an Armenian ship had dropped a half-stack Armenian army at the coast, near Capua. They haven't done anything yet (I haven't advance to the next turn), and there's no official war declared between Armenia and the other factions. But that's a heck of a long way to go for an invasion, if that's what they're doing! I don't know why they picked Capua instead of more obvious targets closer to home.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
well, the armenians must be feeling adventureus, invading from armenia to sicilly!
Woops! I checked again, and I had it wrong... it was the Numidians, not the Armenians, which makes a lot more sense. I still think it's funny that they thought the Scips were weak enough to invade on their home ground.
:embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed: I have never saw anything like that , playing almost a year !!!!!!!!!!!!
Those invasions to Italy were when you are playing as the Romans ?
Back on topic......
I am happy with the campaign map and I am sure I would not want to see lots of small provinces as we did in MTW. That just became tedious
........Orda
do you not think that the BI map cood be doing with a few more provs, esprcially for greece.
I agree. I suspect fewer provinces might help the strategic AI (less options to ponder?). Plus it's less donkey work for the player micromanaging and I am not that fond of manually fighting endless petty sieges (however historical). I would like to see RTW evolve to the "fewer, more decisive" battles that we were promised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
RTR 5.4 had extra provinces and I am glad v6.0 switched it back to something close to vanilla. All it did was add tedium (and bring the 50 province victory condition to a more premature resolution). Off topic, for what it's worth, I am finding v6.0 pretty satisfying in terms of big decisive battles.
CA themselves said that most players find the Imperial Campaign too long to play.
Less provinces = less time to complete = good.
If only sieges were more enjoyable (less restricted), nobody would complain...
Size of the campaign map is all dependant on the feel of campaign play. In vanilla RTW I've switched to the Mundus Magnus map of the world. While nice in many respects, one of its drawbacks is the increase of money due to higher trade (which is based partly on distance between cities.) So hard for me to say whether I like fewer provinces or not until I see the game. (Opps, mean Expansion. ~:) )
But I think it's not necessarily good that there are fewer provinces if the cities are still going to take years to reach. Too much time is wasted just in moving armies from A to B, which makes for a dull game.Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsmountain
well fewer provs=more decisive battles.