I told you so.. and assorted queries thereon

Hah! I had predicted that Armenia would be the next faction preview in my "Occultus Revealed" thread and you wouldn't believe me:

But seriously speaking it can only refer to the following factions that are left:

a. The three roman factions and the senate, though in my opinion highly unlikely at this point.
b. Thrace
c. Dacia
d. Armenia- the most likely faction in my opinion considering the last four factions have been from that general area- Sauromatae, Koinon Helleon, Pontus and Pahlava.

And I was proven right as I shall be proven right when I predict that:

Since the new Faction Preview- Hayasdan has been posted and Khelvan is still using his occultus sig, so it is definately not a Faction then. Since now we are square one, I am going to take a leap of faith and say the unthinkable- Occultus is the release date of the Open Beta, and going further on a limb I say this without any proof other than my faith in the spirit of Christmas that the BETA is coming out on December,25 as our collective Christmas Gift.

But speculation apart, on looking up the partial unit list one realises that certain factions like the Armenians, Pontus or the Baktria are defecient in melee infantry just as other factions are defecient in cavalry which is both realistic as well as historically accurate.That EB will follow historically corraborated unit lists was one of the stated objectives of the Mod from the very beginning and there can be no controversy or compromise on that issue.

However one also realises that these unit lists were drawn upon the basis of the historical realities existing in what may be termed as OTL (Orthodox/Our TimeLine) where the Tsorim are defeated by the Romans and the Armenians never expand past the boundries of Asia Minor. But the very premise of any TW game whether STW or MTW or RTW is to present Points of Divergence (POD) in the OTL which leads to an Alternative Time Line or ATL. An excellent illustration of a POD and its resultant ATL is given by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire where his POD is that Charles Martel loses the Battle of Poitiers in 732 AD, whereupon he aasumes the following:

A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the Rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet."

My query basically relates to the results of such a POD and its resultant ATL occuring in Game, for ex If as Armenia I conquer the area occupied by the western roman empire, now that since all units are region specific, will I be able to recruit my normal unit line after the conquered provinces are culturally integrated as in the CIV series, or will I be able recruit units from the Unit line of whatever Culture was predominant in that area, for ex. Iberian Units from Iberia. And finally will my unit line change according to such a POD since the units and tactics that suceed in the plains of Cappadocia will hardly be suitable for the forests of Germania, unless I have a pechant for pulling my hair in moments of despair and screaming "Quinctilius Varus, give me back my legions!" ~D or words to that effect.

So to sum up what I desire to know is that whether such POD's and their subsequent ATL are actually considered by the EB team when the Unit lists for each facton is drawn up and what is the attitude of the entire EB team regarding such events.

Wow.

Um, well you can recruit certaint troops from areas, but it depends on you're faction. If you're the Sauromatae, you'd be able to recruit fellow Iranians better than say Romans.

xmas? Hope not.

Um, well you can recruit certain troops from areas, but it depends on your faction. If you're the Sauromatae, historically Germanic tribes fought with Sarmatians, so you might be able to recruit more of their soldiers once you take over their land than say Rome would..

That is however but an partial answer only. You are still following the OTL (Orthodox/Our TimeLine), wheron the Sauromatae do not expand into say north africa. What happens in case of such a POD as illustrated above and its subsequent ATL, and does EB acknowledge the case for such POD and take measures for accomadating such ATL. That is the moot question.

Finally what is the official EB POV then??

well, i guess that in the east. practically every Faction can raise Pandotopoi..sinc ethey are very basic. and the units "sauromatae" woudl rais ein Africa will probably not differ very much from what romans can (in troop type) but just not as differse...
[/mode=speculating]

but it is indeed a weird issue, becuase if it's not treated 'good' factions could, quite possibly, not expand much further than they 'historically' did...

Hmmm... interesting question.

ATLs and PODs are, of course, a favourite topic of pop history "What If?" books which try to extrapolate beyond a particular event should things have gone a different. Classic questions such as "What if the Spanish Armada had landed?" "What if the Luistania had never been sunk?" "What if Archduke Ferdinand had fallen over, bruised his thumb and decided not to bother with Sarajevo after all?". It's all in fun, an amusing past-time and so forth.

It's rather more grist for the mill for the many alternative historical novels out there (alternative C16th century was in vogue a year or so ago, but I believe we've moved on since then). Who, for example, has read Orson Scott Card's Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus?

Now there's a book that takes the issues of ATLs and PODs and addresses them head on and comes to some quite surprising, though perhaps unsupportable, conclusions delivered in an easily-digestable style. EB, of course, is as historically robust as is possible given the pool of knowledge available, though inherently the open-ended nature of this game means that ahistoric situations are possible, even certain, to arise.

So, amritochates, given the limitations imposed upon any mod maker, what would your approach be to reconciling the historical priority with the certainty of ahistorical development?

The unit and model limit seriously hampers any efforts to produce fully alternate timelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amritochates

Hah! I had predicted that Armenia would be the next faction preview in my "Occultus Revealed" thread and you wouldn't believe me:

But seriously speaking it can only refer to the following factions that are left:

a. The three roman factions and the senate, though in my opinion highly unlikely at this point.
b. Thrace
c. Dacia
d. Armenia- the most likely faction in my opinion considering the last four factions have been from that general area- Sauromatae, Koinon Helleon, Pontus and Pahlava.

And I was proven right as I shall be proven right when I predict that:

Since the new Faction Preview- Hayasdan has been posted and Khelvan is still using his occultus sig, so it is definately not a Faction then. Since now we are square one, I am going to take a leap of faith and say the unthinkable- Occultus is the release date of the Open Beta, and going further on a limb I say this without any proof other than my faith in the spirit of Christmas that the BETA is coming out on December,25 as our collective Christmas Gift.

But speculation apart, on looking up the partial unit list one realises that certain factions like the Armenians, Pontus or the Baktria are defecient in melee infantry just as other factions are defecient in cavalry which is both realistic as well as historically accurate.That EB will follow historically corraborated unit lists was one of the stated objectives of the Mod from the very beginning and there can be no controversy or compromise on that issue.

However one also realises that these unit lists were drawn upon the basis of the historical realities existing in what may be termed as OTL (Orthodox/Our TimeLine) where the Tsorim are defeated by the Romans and the Armenians never expand past the boundries of Asia Minor. But the very premise of any TW game whether STW or MTW or RTW is to present Points of Divergence (POD) in the OTL which leads to an Alternative Time Line or ATL. An excellent illustration of a POD and its resultant ATL is given by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire where his POD is that Charles Martel loses the Battle of Poitiers in 732 AD, whereupon he aasumes the following:

A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the Rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet."

My query basically relates to the results of such a POD and its resultant ATL occuring in Game, for ex If as Armenia I conquer the area occupied by the western roman empire, now that since all units are region specific, will I be able to recruit my normal unit line after the conquered provinces are culturally integrated as in the CIV series, or will I be able recruit units from the Unit line of whatever Culture was predominant in that area, for ex. Iberian Units from Iberia. And finally will my unit line change according to such a POD since the units and tactics that suceed in the plains of Cappadocia will hardly be suitable for the forests of Germania, unless I have a pechant for pulling my hair in moments of despair and screaming "Quinctilius Varus, give me back my legions!" ~D or words to that effect.

So to sum up what I desire to know is that whether such POD's and their subsequent ATL are actually considered by the EB team when the Unit lists for each facton is drawn up and what is the attitude of the entire EB team regarding such events.

---

Whoa. You sound like the mixture of a historian and Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. However, despite the validity of your point, I doubt that any changes will be made this late in the game.

Well this is very much what the AoR system in RTR6 does and I think its been previously made quite clear that EB includes something at least on a par with that.
I think the quote was something like "very complex and multilayered system"
So yeah, pretty sure they are all over this like syrup on pancakes.

Why the reference to Dr. Hunter S. Thompson?? - I had to look him up on the Wikipedia(the fastest though not necessarily the most accurate online source)
and found no connection between him and my article, so I am ~:confused: .
Also I expect no changes in EB through this article, what I am looking for is the official POV of the EB team on both POD and ATL.

Now getting on with serious business, referring back to the Post by Epistolary Richard, where he states that:
ATLs and PODs are, of course, a favourite topic of pop history, not only that they are the Lifeblood of CA. All their games are based on the creation of a POD and its subsequent ATL. To illustrate in STW one had to lead any one faction to secure the post of Shogun which meant that clans that were in OTL unsucessful contenders to ultimate power like the Takeda can now form the Shogunate. Similarly in MTW one had to conquer all of Europe, something that no nation has been capable of doing till date and continuing onto RTW where it is possible that the Aedui or the Casse end up ruling Rome instead of the other way around.

So as you rightly pointed out given the limitations imposed upon any mod maker what are his/her options- well in my opinion three possibilities are open to the Modder:
Firstly, to allow any faction to recruit faction units from any region after a suitable period of cultural integration or what I term as the CIV approach.

Secondly to create a sub structure of regional mercenary units based on the different cultures, for ex. Arveni recruiting Pezhetairoi in the Middle East or the Romans recruiting Indohellenikoi Hoplitai from the regions inhabited by Baktria.

Thirdly and finally to create a sub structure of assumed units- units that have no strong base in historical reality but are the logical assumption of a POD and its subsequent ATL, a good example being the Silver Shield Legionaries in Vanilla RTW.

But these are merely my opinions what I am still interested in and what has not yet being clarified is, since as Jerby so rightly points out that because if it's not treated 'good' factions could, quite possibly, not expand much further than they 'historically' did...as stated above:

Whether such POD's and their subsequent ATL are actually considered by the EB team when the Unit lists for each facton is drawn up and what is the attitude of the entire EB team regarding such events.

I was expecting either Khelvan or Mongoose to have commented on this by now. ~;).
But other Patrons I am equally intersted on your POV so do elaborate. ~:grouphug:

You have to know what he was like, and you can't find that out by reading some damn Encyclopedia. Watch "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", read his books... you'll get it.

Also, all these abbreviations are freaking me out.
POV, POD, ATL, OTL, EB, RTR, AoR, MTW, RTW... :dizzy2:
I'm getting scared.

See this thread for the Word of Khelvan.

I would wager that certain regions have certain mercenaries suited to that place historically and regionally.

For instance in vanilla if you were the Persians and you were invading the West you would use mercenary troops such as Thracians, Bastarnae, Merc Hoplites and Illyrians whenever you could for infantry, not your shitty hillmen and eastern infantry.

Considering the amount of thought the EB crew has put into this kind of stuff I would think they'd revamped the mercenary system to be much more dynamic then it was in vanilla and so foreign conquests will be all the more interesting for it.

In fact maybe thats what your 'occultus' is, mercenaries~D

Just pointing out the Occulutus have different color trimmings. I would venture a guess that the one with yellow/gold and red trimmings is Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

Considering the amount of thought the EB crew has put into this kind of stuff I would think they'd revamped the mercenary system to be much more dynamic then it was in vanilla and so foreign conquests will be all the more interesting for it.

---

Err, I'm not sure what you mean, here. What sort of revamping did you think was possible?

How about this:

Other units are "regional," in that they are not historically tied to our existing factions. They are available to people who conquer their regions, based on their historical or hypothesized (where they never interacted in history) relationships, determined through a number of factors, and again the instilled government type.As you can see, unit recruitment is quite complex.

emphasis on hypothesized (where they never interacted in history) relationships. or in other words a POD and its subsequent ATL. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

Err, I'm not sure what you mean, here. What sort of revamping did you think was possible?

---

More numbers of unique mercs, greater availability of them but increased cost, more regional varriability. That along with the similar new regional units available to different factions (just like mercs in effect but more selectively available to different factions). So for instance Rome conquers a certain province and gets a type of mercenary spearmen, but the Dacians conquer the same province and get an axemen unit or something.

Hey which raises a question I'd like to ask, are there going to be mercenary Siege engines in EB?, or failing that region specific siege engines?

In medieval times siege experts were usually mercenaries, what was the situation with this in ancient times?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

More numbers of unique mercs, greater availability of them but increased cost, more regional varriability. That along with the similar new regional units available to different factions (just like mercs in effect but more selectively available to different factions). So for instance Rome conquers a certain province and gets a type of mercenary spearmen, but the Dacians conquer the same province and get an axemen unit or something.

---

This isn't possible. We will have regional units available to different factions, as described above, but we can't fudge the mercenary code to do this. Either the mercenaries are available to all factions, or they're not mercenaries and they're recruited/built like any other unit. I don't think we can make mercenary availability based on anything but what is defined in the merc file either. This is one area that is pretty rigid.

There will be more mercenaries, but the vast majority of our models are going to regional units, not unique mercs. This is because the function of the mercenary as we know it was very different in Classical times than in more recent times, and they're better reflected, in most cases, as regional units to be built. Even if they fought for money, they usually didn't fight for just anyone at all, they fought for various causes and picked and chose who to fight for. The mercenary code can't handle this - if a unit is a mercenary, it is available to all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

This isn't possible. We will have regional units available to different factions, as described above, but we can't fudge the mercenary code to do this. Either the mercenaries are available to all factions, or they're not mercenaries and they're recruited/built like any other unit. I don't think we can make mercenary availability based on anything but what is defined in the merc file either. This is one area that is pretty rigid.

---

*shakes head*

I'm aware of that mate

"That along with the similar new regional units available to different factions (just like mercs in effect"

Pay particular attention to the italicised words (thats why I went through the trouble of italicising them) ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

*shakes head*

I'm aware of that mate

"That along with the similar new regional units available to different factions (just like mercs in effect"

Pay particular attention to the italicised words (thats why I went through the trouble of italicising them) ~;)

---

then, what was the actual question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

Pay particular attention to the italicised words (thats why I went through the trouble of italicising them) ~;)

---

This would make sense, if you actually did italicise them in the original statement. Which you did not.

Your post is open to interpretation, you must admit...

On a completely unrelated note, I think/hope/suggestively-let-it-slip the next preview is going to be Rome or the suitable substitute. Come on, EB, we also want to see some 'civilized' factions....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

On a completely unrelated note, I think/hope/suggestively-let-it-slip the next preview is going to be Rome or the suitable substitute.

---

i suggest the open beta as a suitable substitute. ~:)

Quote:

---

Come on, EB, we also want to see some 'civilized' factions....

---

:shocked3: :hide:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

On a completely unrelated note, I think/hope/suggestively-let-it-slip the next preview is going to be Rome or the suitable substitute. Come on, EB, we also want to see some 'civilized' factions....

---

The last three previews were of "civilized" factions. Hayasdan, Pahlava and Koinon Hellenon.

Well Phalava start out as the Parni, on the steppe, but whithin 20 years they become the Phalava. But they were more settled (I pefer that term to civilized) than the Sauromatae for example.

ok, ok, maybe not the best choice of words.... I still want to see Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

then, what was the actual question?

---

It was in regards to amritochates alternate timeline units stuff, in that regional units alike and along with mercs would pass to a degree for such in any case.

And Khelvan everything is open to interpretation, thats why the good Lord gave us context and language to sort it out.

"That along with the similar new regional units available to different factions (just like mercs in effect but more selectively available to different factions)."

Seems plain enough to me that I was comparing them to mercenaries and not calling them such.

If you didn't understand it then I see it as your problem and not mine, it was a simple misunderstanding of yours that I corrected with no malice or ill will.
The minor matter is closed as far as I'm concerned.~:)

Putting a smiley at the end doesnt stop it being bitchy ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greek_fire19

Putting a smiley at the end doesnt stop it being bitchy ~:)

---

Those looking for offence usually find it as I suspect you have done, I certainly don't see how anything that passed between Khelvan and myself in the now closed matter of the misunderstanding was any of your business.

And no, putting a smilie at the end of a comment doesn't stop it from being bitchy, thankyou for the stirling example you provided with your post.


---------------------

On topic, (which does after all have 'assorted queries') in the title.

Can we expect any previews of building changes in the mod?, I believe there are going to be new buildings which means they will have to be represented on the city battlemap, but are there going to be more general cultural and aesthetic changes to the architecture in the game?

I am of course mainly thinking of Egypt ~;) , the unit changes there have been very promising, so I am now more curious about the buildings. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

Those looking for offence usually find it as I suspect you have done, I certainly don't see how anything that passed between Khelvan and myself in the now closed matter of the misunderstanding was any of your business.

And no, putting a smilie at the end of a comment doesn't stop it from being bitchy, thankyou for the stirling example you provided with your post.

---

well, I'm not a great english speaker/writer but his 'smiley' was pretty ironical.
But since we dont know anything about you (is english your first language, how old are you, etc) you could very well have the same problem as me: english is not your native language and thus some posts get a very disturbing ,and sometimes offensive, tone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by you

If you didn't understand it then I see it as your problem and not mine, it was a simple misunderstanding of yours that I corrected with no malice or ill will.
The minor matter is closed as far as I'm concerned.

---

while this probably means: we disagreed, sorry for the confusion, but why dont we just call it a day.

for a true english speaker (or a very well trained one) your post practically says:
"i'm right, and your wrong, but thats your problem, so drop it"


but this is all, of course, just an assumption...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Es Arkajae

Can we expect any previews of building changes in the mod?, I believe there are going to be new buildings which means they will have to be represented on the city battlemap, but are there going to be more general cultural and aesthetic changes to the architecture in the game?

I am of course mainly thinking of Egypt ~;) , the unit changes there have been very promising, so I am now more curious about the buildings. ~:)

---

Battlemap building changes are low priority, as the three people we recruited to work on them all disappeared. Until we have new people, or our units are near completion, we won't have many new 3d buildings at all. The changes will be relegated to the campaign map.

Khelvan so does that mean that any new buildings created won't be represented on the battlemap? (I don't mean wonders and such), I'm more reffering to if there are going to be new structures IN the actual city.

That could present a problem making it impossible to destroy such buildings in sieges, perhaps just a standard building model could be used to stand in for the new building in the meantime and a person could see which specialist building it was by hovering the mouse pointer over the building?

An imperfect solution but at least a way to have new buildings in the city map and capable of being destroyed.

Oh and a while back I asked about mountable walls for barbarian factions, that is walls with parapets on which one could place troops, I recieved a cautiously optimistic response. Does those three people going MIA change that?

I'm unaware of what we'll be doing for battlemap models. I imagine that there will be placeholders for some, but there will be no perfect solution for the open beta. On the walls, we won't see anything for the open beta. All battlemap work is more long term than short term. We need more help in this area.