Printable View
In M2TW ,besides Spy ,Diplomat and Assassin we have also Priests/Imams ,Princess and Merchants ! Considering the timeline of EB II I'm wondering what use they would have in EBII?
Well for merchants ,Of course they can continue their current role ,But princess and Religious characters I have no idea !!!
As long as religions will be implented, there will be also a use for religion related charakters, imo.
I've been playing M2TW lately and I really hope EB2 doesn't use pricesses, merchants and priests. Here is my reasoning...
The Total War series does some things better than others, when jusged by the standards of PC games in general (i.e. the things I could play instead).
The Good Stuff: Warfare.
RTW (especially EB) does the battlefield better than anything else I've played, and strategic maneuvring is OK.
The OK Stuff: Management.
Running your economy and recruitment is OK, seeing threats coming and deploying to be ready is interesting, but plenty of games do this at least as well.
The Ugly: Agents.
Spies who open gates (ridiculous). Diplomatic agreements that last about a nanosecond. Hitting end of turn and thinking "damn, did I move that diplomat another few inches across the steppe or did I forget". The absolute lack of a "show me all the agents that haven't moved this turn" button, which has been standard in other games for 15 years.
Now M2TW added added merchants who raise trivial amounts of money, and princesses whose diplomacy sticks about as well as the diplomats', and priests who need to be moved and monitored so you can watch a few numbers go up and down. They took the least interesting part of RTW and made it into a larger part of the game -- they made it bigger when they should have made it better. And it drags the average down.
Do not repeat this mistake EB2, EB team. Keep it lean and mean, concentrate on the good stuff. More is not automatically better.
Well, now that I've got Kingdoms there is a little thing that I want to work on which will basically use merchants (though not as they are now), so they'll have to be in. Princesses are quite interesting, and with a modifiable diplomacy engine (to some extent) I'm hoping that these will add a little something something to the game. For priests, we will probably not use if the case is true that any new implemented religions don't get access to their own priests.
Foot
I can agree with you on many things, Morte66. The new agents in M2 seem like a total waste. Merchants either have to be superpowered or dead. The AI will hunt down your merchants, even if they don't want the resource, and buy them out. So you either have to put tons of effort into merchants or none.
And the religious guys piss me off. The AI will cluster them around your town, and you have no way of getting rid of them. Why can't my priests denounce their Imams? Instead I have to send an assassin, who takes for ever to get them all, and then my faction leader is an evil man, because he killed them. I hate that trait system of making my leader evil for using assassins. Assassins are necessary to the game system. I've had my faction leader lose traits when I had an assassin assassinate an enemy assassin. Protecting your people from a killer makes you evil?
I also think that EB does not need those characters. Playing MTW2 i have never used princesses because they can not really change anything. Priests are not suitable for EB period and merchants are useless because of things explained by MarcusAureliusAntonius.
I doubt that. In history there were many attempts to make diplomatic relations better this way, but often it was futile (Seleucids and Ptolemaids unsuccesfully tried to make more firm peace by marriages).Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Well, it wasn't always done for firm peace....it was often done because the new husband might fall in line for the throne somehow, and then that empire would pass to the Seleukids (or Ptolemaios, depending on who the girl was....I know I've heard it before, but I can't remember if it was a Seleukid princess or a Ptolemaioi Princess).
Unsuccessful for the most part, but they still did it. It seems to have worked better for the Seleukids and Antigonids. Also, marriage between tribes was common and the Carthaginians, Numidians, and Iberians are strong examples that tended to be successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of Perun
I didn't know that. Carthaginians had kind of republic, so who did they have instead of princess? A nobleman's or merchant's daugther, perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Ancient peoples weren't usually to particular about their religion especially around the mediterranian since each culture had analogous gods/myths to each other's. The whole 'crusade' style religion system used for M2TW should be dropped unless you can find a different use for them.
We were thinking of the migrations of the nomadic people and celts for the jihad style stuff. As we are looking into making religion into culture, this makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Foot
Hmm interesting. Can you explain more please ???Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I was refering to the priests and stuff. It would be odd to denounce your leaders and stuff...Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
How are you going to handle the college of cardinals?
I've already said that priests will likely not make it in.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
won't exist. The papal states is going.
Foot
Carthage: prominent Carthaginians often married the daughters of prominent locals to gain their allegiance or sometimes even gave thier own daughters.
During the 2nd punic war the battle of great plains was possible basically thanks to two factors: Hasdrubal (might be the wrong name) giving is daughter in marriage to Syphax to regain allegiance of at least part of the numidians and 4000 celtiberian heavy mercenaries to reinforce the backbone of the army.
I would not deny the agents already, I'm happy with what Foot said. Merchants in M2TW can be useful if given a little love. Princesses were often a tool of politics and there was an influence on the relations. Of course some improvement above the vanilla M2TW must be done. To the spies: one of the better ways to take a town in the ancient times was to conspirate with a faction within the city; success was quite often, so see the spy + open gates as a symbol for treachery.
i think the papal states can be used to simulate casus belli and balance of power.
I think merchants can be quite interesting in EB, particularly if you can mod resources to give other advantages besides cash; I'm fairly sure you can.
It can be used to represent an active attempt by the ruling class to improve infrastructure and such, which is especially important, I think, for the success of the less developed factions.
There are already buildings to do this, sure, but if you're trying to get rid of some buildings to free up some slots for other factions... The only thing, though, I love reading descriptions. For me, it's an important part of the atmosphere in EB; puts thing into perspective. It'd be a shame to see too many missing.
I like the idea of Bellum of resources giving bonuses others than just cash. I'm only afraid that this will end up as, in M2TW, where 10stars merchant eliminating all of the player's merchants (at least mine...)
However, maybe making merchants less expensive(maybe) and by giving resources specific bonuses then it won't just end up as a war for the more lucrative resources while cheap ones are left wasting on the map.
And I am sure to that this can be done because I was already the case in BI where land with abundance of grains(a resource) received a bonuses to the population growth.
As if this could a global bonus for the faction or only for the region, I don't know the limitations to this modding
Princesses for Celts would be fine, and presumably Germans. Ariovistus had a wife who was the daughter of the king of Noricum (at the time a Roman client state).
All new agents can find its use in EB2, you only need to correctly implement them( first suggestion is strongly limit their amount to prevent flooding map with them).
I agree with an earlier post that one of my least favorite things about MTWII are the innumerable characters one has to keep track of. And merchants create incredible amounts of cognitive dissonance for me: something as endemic and pervasive as trade is going to be summed up in a few merchants? Not bloody likely. Better to use them for something else, if at all. Perhaps they could be used as Regents? They were fewer and had more impact politically, afaik. Double as diplomats?
Princesses I can get behind. <ahem> Marriage-created alliances I think can be proven to have been very important diplomatic efforts, successful or not. Not to mention the off-spring caused huge upheavals in the transferring of power.
Priests, my secular humanism aside, are particularly troubling. Someone lamented earlier at suffering the use of them merely to watch some numbers move. I concur. Perhaps they could be changed into philosophers? A good example would be Archimedes at Syracuse: +3 morale for the garrison, +2 stars for the general, etc. It'd be like a moveable ancilliary.
It's quite natural this temptation of using new possibilities. In case of M2TW we have priests, merchants and princesses. IMHO these characters are totally killing playability. Ridiculous trade wars ("duels in the sun" with pouches instead of guns), stupid endless journeys of princesses in search of ideal candidate to marriage. Finally priests who suddenly transform into zombie-heretics. Ekhm, Quo vadis Total War?
I love EB for role playing traits & ancilliaries system. It greatly supports atmosphere and doesn't affect negatively playability of game. I know that diplomacy inherited from CA is not funny retardation. We have so much fatigue with diplomats, please don't give us extra time-wasting strawheads.
ps. Sorry for emphasis ;)
It's kind of nice to marry a 3-star rebel general with nice ancillaries into your family. And if there were a young lady playing this game, and I am sure there are a few, I'd guess it would be received as very forward-thinking and welcoming. Perhaps the dev team is all guys and couldn't care less, but you guys are on the fence, I'd hope that would a consideration. It's not like princesses are totally useless. Merchants and Priests are, imo. I still like the philosopher-character idea.
I know girl gamers, and they could care less about such a thing. What is more stereotypical than marrying off to some guy you don't know 'cause your a princess? It's a dumb reason to utilize a game element anyhow. Girls would play EB for the same reasons we do....Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
Well, anecdotal evidence aside, I'd for one (being male, even) would like to see women represented in some way, however that happens.
I remember one of my first thoughts I had when playing RTW, "No women? Typical." Not only were princess influential, but female regents were, as well. Even faction leaders. The Iceni had this one, if I recall...
I don't think it's possible to affect generals' abilities with other agents.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
You're probably right, though an agent can affect a city: priests can effect religious adherence, merchants/income, etc. So perhaps the many brilliant minds at EB can use that characteristic to enhance gameplay.
Their is no mechanism to use the priests for earlier religions?
An example would be the Romani would recieve a priest who would attempt to spread the Romani Pantheon, the Greeks would recieve a greek priest, etc. etc.
Is there a limit on the number of different priests you can have in game? Could you have 30 different priests? Would this take away from the model and/or unit caps, thus be totally not worth it?
I just thought it would add a little flavor to have priests of Jupiter, Baal, Zues, etc. etc.
Something tells me that it either won't work, or isn't worth the unit spaces it will take up. I was just curious. :2thumbsup:
Can agents affect city income, you mean? You're not talking about the merchant income when staying on a trade resource? I don't think I've spotted any change to the city from agents staying there. Then again I haven't played the game all that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
I don't think there is a valid reason to use them, or even religion. Culture would be much better, IMO. Most peoples in those days just werent very worried about what gods other people worshiped, as far as I know. They were much more willing to accept other gods, or to compare them to their own.Quote:
Their is no mechanism to use the priests for earlier religions?
We couldn't in RTW, but we can in M2TW using the same conditional that makes witches and heretics affect other characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
So, The Papal States are getting tossed only because nobody can think of a good way to implement their unique ability?Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
I thought someone had the idea of having the Seleucid Empire be the Papal States and various Satrapies be the 'catholics' with varying start values of loyalty? Like the Maccabee and Bactrian rebellions would equate to excommunications. So if you were playing the Seleucids you'd have a few factions that were closely allied to you, but you had to maintain that relationship or they'd go to war with you.
Actually, I just came up with that off the top of my head. You guys are smart. You can't get this sorted out?
Have you guys asked any other mod teams what they thought? Seems like an awful waste of something useful. If nothing else, they can surely be a faction, right?
Well, Generals can affect the happiness of a town with traits and ancilliaries, there may be some mechanism for something similar with priests: they can make a religion go up, and that affects another value, in this case religion. But I am thinking scrap the works and replace it with religion, culture, language or trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
The current plan is to make M2TW religions into cultures. I don't recall what the hardcoded max is on religions, but hopefully it is more than 4.
Doesnt seem useful to me at all. sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
The idea has its merits, the problem is that the same principle would have to be applied at least to another faction (Carthage) and AFAIK papal abilities are unique...
Something like this would be excellent for an alexandrian era mod where the satrapal system was even stronger.
I agree with Bellum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellum
I've always had the impression that the average Roman took a very open and relaxed attitude towards religion....at least up until Christianity took hold. Kind of viewed as more of a tool to control the masses and/or a way to justify actions taken by the senate and later by the emperors. Excluding, of course, the occasional over-zealous general, politician, and emperor.
Hey, thanks Zarax. So I'm not a total idiot! LOL.
How Marcus can't see a single useful thing in the Papal characteristic seems frightfully obtuse. Someone out there has a brilliant idea for it.
The Papal States are at least going to be a faction?
Shifty, you're absolutely correct. A concerted effort was made across the Med. to link deities from different cultures. Zeus-Ammon is a perfect example.
But that would be an action against an enemy character, not joining up with him. Assassins already have an effect on characters, but AFAIK there is no trigger when a character joins an army or a conditional that he is staying with it? I'd love to be wrong here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BozosLiveHere
Maybe you could have "inquisitors" with extremely low chance of success giving traits upon "trials"?
Bovi: don't spies increase a Generals resistance to assassination? Some characters may have a similar line cause/effect that's just not being used?
I just can't shake the idea that Archimedes was so instrumental during the siege of Syracuse that that sort of character deserves more than ancillary status. Especially since there are so many characters that can be redefined and reskinned for EB2.
Philosophers were pretty important:
How many philosophers can the average grad. student name? Ancient Generals?
I believe that Priests are hardcoded to add one point of relgious/cultural conversion. If Priests were used to represent something other then religious figures, this conversion would still exsist.
Plus, you have to take into account how the AI handles Priests. They will have them standing around in territories adjacent to them, 'converting' their enemies, no matter what they are supposed to represent. Philosophers or something similar wouldn't be standing around in enemy territory, changing their culture. I've also seen the AI to increadibly stupid things with M2TW Priests, like clusting 19 in one of my territories (true story).
I don't recall speaking on behalf of any particular type of character for any particular purpose (except Princesses) since I have no knowledge of the process of teaching silicone rocks to display images on a screen. The thread title is "Merchant [sic] ,Priest [sic] and Princess [sic] in EBII" and, curiously enough, that's what's being discussed. Possible uses. Personally I would like to see them all totally done away with, and a random system of effects put into place instead.
Generals, Princesses, Diplomats and possibly Regents are all you really need. Priests, Merchants, Spies, Assassins are all rubbish. To think that one of those characters can represent entire 'networks' is fairly infantile.
That might be true, but it's the only option to represent the "darker" side of government operations, like state-sponsored assassinations and intelligence gathering.
I would prefer to keep spies, at the very least.
Bah, you're right. Just wish it wasn't so hokie.
Like the start map, for instance. Why the advanced factions don't have access to complete maps escapes me, at least of Greece. The leaders of Rome knew where Athens was, and what faction was controlling it at the time. Does anyone think Pyrrhus had to send a spy or diplomat to Lilybaeum to know it was a Carthaginian province? He was just there a few years earlier.
Forget that argument for a minute, even though it should suffice the most low-brow among us. Forget that a King (any King) might have access to decent maps or a functional, working knowledge of Geography, but consider this: ships plied not only goods, grains and amphorae around the world, but they also carried information with them. News got around as fast a galley in those days, and not a minute slower. As soon as a ship made harbor they were asked, "What news of Lydia?" or "I heard there was a great battle in Asia, know you who is the victor?"
The game begins in 272 BC; knowledge doesn't, and certainly not trade.
sigh...
This annoyed the team too. There was some nice work done on a trick that will alleviate this problem a bit for the next release.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
With some creative coding it can be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by docudemons
Good work, BLH.
Marcus, that's good news. I remember being impressed when I heard about the spies that were put on the startegy map, then 'killed off' before the game starts to increase the usable map by the player.
I just hope that culture takes a backseat to trade in the final run-up to the development of EBII.
The main reason is: trade has immediate effects if it is cut off: it can be extremely political. It works on a day-to-day basis, and has a year-to-year scale as well. Culture on the other hand is a generational effect, that changes over the millenia (historically anyway, pre-industrial revolution. Some (I'm not one of them) say it's even more immutable than languages.
And yet cultures and languages do change. :book:
Cultures, even for the ancients, could change very radically within one or two generations. Think of the difference between the Romans at the start of the game and Romans after the Punic Wars. Even money can change ones behavior.
Or, more recently, the Norman Conquest of England, which had an effect on both language and culture. Or the Greek conquest of Persia. There are all kinds of examples, I think.
Sure, language and culture change, but within the scope of the game is that as easily represented as trade?
Better question: Did young William make a concerted effort to alter the language (a case can be made) or even more improbably, British national identity?
It is true: certain key events, a sword-stroke, a well aimed dart, even moments in time down to a few seconds, nay! even a single word can have a lasting impression on the course of history, but I don't see those things being within the capacity of a video-game to represent.
Perhaps the AI could randomly generate events?
And Persia: exactly who absorbed who? The application of Hellenic cultural forces did not uproot the pre-existing language.
China, India and Greece have been absorbing entire populations for thousands of years, and frankly, not that much has changed.
If Rome did change over the course of some years measurably, is it perceptible (or exciting) enough to merit a time-consuming game add-on?
Keep the smithies of Athens from metals, or the drillmasters of Egypt from Horses. That is both measurable AND exciting.
My main point is that culture is too big, too chaotic, and too wonderful to be encapsulated.
May want to flip through "Colonisation and Cultural Resistance: Egypt and Iran after Alexander" by Donald J. Puchala if you are going to swing down the 'Hellenistic Influence' ideology. It was an article written in a journal, I think by the University of Kent.
Also:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a..._hellenism.php
is another good article.
Sure. I think the way it's done in Kingdoms: Britannia is fine, really. Give it an abstract statistic with some effects on law and be done with it.Quote:
My main point is that culture is too big, too chaotic, and too wonderful to be encapsulated.
I feel you. My point is, is that if it's between this or that, I'd rather see trade as the aspect used, since it has more relativo à guerra
Can you dig that?
I haven't had a chance to read the article, but I scrolled down to see what sources they used and noticed a very distinct absence of the most critical and recent publication on the Seleukids - From Samarkhand to Sardis. In fact, most of their sources seem to be very old. That worries me.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
Now, THAT'S what I'm talking about! Whoo hoo! Bust out the JSTOR...
You think those two sets of authors would disagree?
I don't. In fact, I think they both might be in agreement: the tenants owned the land, the landlord just had the palace.
You see, abou, the author of the article cited in Iranchamber is using the sources cited against each other.
Sir Mortimer Wheeler was a supporter of the idea that Hellenism had a long-range and profound impact on Iranian culture.
I'd bet Sherwin-White and Kuhrt would agree with me, that the Seleucids (200-ish years) weren't nearly as significant as either the Achaemenians before (300 years) or the Sassanids after (400 years).
:book:
I think saying the Seleukids weren't as "significant" as the Achaemaenids or Sassanids is, perhaps, a poor choice of words.
The impact of hellenic culture on the middle-east was far more "significant" than the aforementioned factions because it was so different....everything official was uprooted from persian to greek. There was significantly more change for the local inhabitants under the Seleukids than either the Achaemaenids or Sassanids, because the Seleukids were a "foreign" power, as opposed to the native dynasties of the other two.
Achaemaenids and Sassanids were hardly native. Sounds like a pretty eurocentrist view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
When it comes to organization, the positions of power, cultural leanings things only really seemed to change among the elites; down on the ground, things went on as usual, paying taxes and raising troops for foreign lords. Impact of the elites on the masses was rarely if ever significantly different from other elites, so if change is to be represented in culture it'd only really be applicable to the highest, ruling classes.
They were far more "native" than the greeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Although I fail to see how Sassanids and Achaemaenids weren't native to Seleukid controlled territory.
Both came from Persia, although I suppose an argument could be made that the Persians were as foreign to those of Asia Minor and the Levant as the greeks, perhaps even more so.
It's something of a grey area, really. But to say that the Seleukid's were insignificant seems incorrect, at the very least.
I didn't say they were insignificant, I said they were less significant.
Bootsiuv, that point mentioned would've received howls of laughter at your teams expense in my high school Debate Club. :smash:
But really, is your argument that the Seleucids, because they were from a different culture (or for any other reason, really) weren't mere short-lived, usurpers but in fact had more influence over Persian culture than that of the Achaemenians, who brought Persia one of the greatest Empires in history?
If only we could ask the Persian people of the time what they thought...
You have people in the most powerful, richest, information-laden society in the history of mankind who can't even point their own country out in a map of the world. What makes you think 3rd cent. B.C. Persian country-folk were any more involved?
Now...:focus:
What point would that be, friend?
I never said 'insignificant', I said less significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
The point of the thread, as I understand it, is to address the issue of what to do with the new characters from M2TW. Someone made a case for culture; I made a case for trade.
I contest that Trade is both more complaisant to the will of a faction leader, and makes for more exciting gameplay.
What say you? Emphasize Culture or Trade?
Ok, I'm still not quite understanding where I said anything that would validate "howling laughter", but we'll just move forward with the discussion, yes?
I really don't understand why we can't place a strong emphasis on both....as both are important in a broad game that spans centuries of human history.
That being said, if you have to emphasize one over the other (for some reason that I'm just not understanding right now), I would say trade, simply because it has the most immediate gameplay effects.
I help moderate a High School Debate Club, and I was commenting on your advancement of my statement from grey to black. You put words in mouth, so to speak, which when identified usually elicits hisses from the crowd.
I admit, I am a dork.
The reason for having one or the other, was an idea floated by someone else, that too much management hurts gameplay. I agree.
I see....well, apologies if I put words in your mouth.
Don't worry, I'm quite the dork myself, but I have kids of my own now, so I don't have to try and be cool anymore.
Right on!
What I'm afraid of, is that EB2 might become muddy with minutiae and micro-management. Too many processes to consider would detract from the simple elegance it attains in EBI. On the other hand: I don't mind triangulation. So, naturally I am a proponent of anything that I can use to affect debilities in my enemies. Trade comes to mind.
Strong treaties and alliances are another. Imploring an AI ally send an army to help attack my enemy would be historically accurate and open up a real diplomatic challenge in the strat map.
Perhaps princesses can be changed to represent hostages! The exchange of hostages was the ultimate in alliance. I'd have to see if that pertains to the Hellenistic Era. The princess disappears at marriage!
New thread.
Actually, how would a faction generate these hostages? I imagine the production of princesses are related to the family tree so... never mind!
Drats...
Wish I were a modder, I'd know these things before I opened my trap.
I'm seeing echoes of a less civil and informed MeinPanzer...
How so more native? Certainly both hailed from a (relatively) small area in the eastern side of the empire. As you yourself pointed out they would be far from native in Asia Minor and the Levant. Whoever the ruler was, it didn't really impact those working the soil anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
This is where I'm confused. I was talking about the religion/culture statistic that converts slowly after taking the settlement. I'm not sure how this would be used to represent trade. It doesn't seem to be a concept that is compatible with that feature.Quote:
The point of the thread, as I understand it, is to address the issue of what to do with the new characters from M2TW. Someone made a case for culture; I made a case for trade.
But if you were talking about agents, I don't know what they should be used for, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Less civil? How so.
Less informed? Perhaps, but I don't claim to be an expert. Everything I say on these boards are opinion, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
My original point was still correct, regardless of insulting overtones. Both of those dynasties were native to Seleukid controlled territory. Greeks were not native to Seleukid Controlled territory. This implies that their taking over of the reigns of government must have been something of an upheaval, even if it was Alexander, and not the Seleukids themselves, who caused it.
I just don't think we should downplay hellenic influence in the middle east. This was my original point.
Now, as to the less civil bit, I really fail to see where you get that from....but, whatever, guy.
I'm just here to enjoy the discussion.
That's just it: what to do with Merchants, Priests, and Princesses in EB2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellum
With religion, there are a number of interlocking aspects that could possibly be re-written to create a totally new and different representation. I don't think every aspect of the "religion factor" has to be used. Maybe just Crusades/Jihads for one thing and the enumeration of percentages of different religions represent something totally unrelated. Perhaps only one religion need be used to represent some common thread of society. I don't know, but I don't see any reason to limit the conversation to the expected. Let's turn this biotch out.
I haven't read most of this thread, but we will see how the AI can be configured in regards to agents.
As someone pointed out, the AI actually sends merchants around solely for taking down other merchants, and not to trade. If that can not be modded, we might just as well remove Merchants. One idea was to use them to represent governors and add a trade resource called Minor City or something like that, but would be unrealistic if a Macedonian governor showed up in Gaul and put a Gallic governor out of office ~:)
Priests. These would go towards culture, but all depends on how moddable it is. Would be strange to have one area go completely Hellenized in 10 years for example.
Princesses though can probably be used in same role as vanilla. There are references to many marriages between various courts and dynasties. Antiochos III had a Pontic princess as wife. Hannibal had an Iberian princess. A Numidian king married the daughter of Mark Antony & Cleopatra VII. Although Romans might not get princesses (they will probably not have a family tree either) as it seems it was a great shame if a Roman noblewoman would marry a foreigner.
Dude, my mistake in posting unclearly. I was not referring to you. Apologies for the misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Ohhhhh....my bad then.
Come to the tavern for a drink on me.
~:cheers:
Hey Krusader, thanks for adding to the conversation.
First, I must say I don't think culture was widely, consciously affected by state influence. It's hard for me to imagine any Iron Age faction leader making a conscious effort to turn a population from say, Celtic to Roman. Or from Macedonian to Germanic. A case can be made for Alexander, but was it measurable? Were his efforts effective? Does it warrant more micro-management? Does it warrant the same application to the Saka or Casse?
As for hellenization in 10 years:
It would be strange for Persia to go completely Hellenized after 200 years. Know what I mean? :book:
I'm as cerebral as the next guy, but this is a game first and foremost, and it should be fun. Anything not related to the acquisition of some tactical or strategic advantage (in a tangible way) should be avoided. This is after all, one reason why religion isn't being utilized in R:TW now, IFAIK?
Have you looked at Deus Lo Vult? (You could be part of the mod team for all I know, sorry!) But they have worked out some interesting applications of traits for generals/govenors you may want to check out.
I don't have time to rewrite right now so I will just point my POV: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=124675
I just picked up a bit from that thread:
We can have resources (both hidden or visible) affect the recruitability of units, for instance you can only recruit elephant units where they lived (except for Pyrrhos who imported and bred them at home). I think you're talking about having a shut down trade route making it impossible to recruit though? This can only affect the "home" territory of the resource, not the ones trading with it. I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
You can become a modder yourself fairly quickly. Simply sit down and choose one of the aspects you'd like to change in the game files, make backups, study the file in question (you can ask here which file to work on for a specific goal) and start hacking away to see if you can make the change you want. Computer knowledge is a plus for working on it, especially the script or traits, but not 100% necessary. Several current EB members simply started tinkering with the game files and were absorbed, like some who set forth to balance the AI money assistance, or myself who found the solution to a CTD.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
Well that seems to be an aspect of the game that is not being utilized. If I am blocking the roads to Athens, for example, and have the port blockaded, they should not only lose all trade and income, but unable to produce cavalry units. Really, as the map is now, it wouldn't be worth it to invest any time in a strategy like that: the map is too confined in relation to unit size, city proximity, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
If the map were larger... I know: before anyone says anything... :dizzy2:
But if there was more room for tactical movement, then it would be a serious consideration for the player: "Do I hold the nearby hill for battlefield advantage, or stay on the road, disrupt trade, recruitment, better foraging (maybe the player won't have a choice, and has to stay on the road for foraging, or near the coast for supply replenishment by sea (see Byg's Grim Reality Mod)
I was unclear. The resource requirement is the thing with only local effect, and not affected by trade.
Blockading a settlement will never affect recruitability anywhere.
O.k., so then on the strategy map, do the little commerce wagons on the roads not have anything to do with the destination to which they are headed?
In other words, if there were a way to block those wagons, could the city they were headed to be adversely effected?
And if an enemy force is sitting on the tile with the elephants on it, that force limits the availability of elephants to the nearest city?
Just trying to get stuff straight here. Merci.