The land that EB forgot

I understand why it was taken out, but I miss Dumatha, useless and all as it was. I think the minimap looked better, especially for a faction like Sab'yn, when you didn't have that gaping hole in the middle of your territory.
Plus I think there's good logic for including it. People did live in the region, and a strong regional power could well have tried to gain their submission and claim the desert as part of their sphere of influence.
Bear in mind vast tracts of most regions in the game would have been impossible to actually control, except in a nominal sense, i.e. the ruling faction's claim being recognised by the other factions.

Then what about the Sahara you might ask.
Well, none of the factions depicted could or would claim sovereignity over it, realisticly. Arabia is different in that a faction controlling all the surrounding provinces would probably claim the interior as nominaly within its domain as well.

Also by occupying the chief town, Dumatha, the inhabitants of the whole terrirtory would effectively have to work with this faction; so in a sense the claim would be more than just imaginary.

Augila could be merged with Libye, or better yet Gaetulia with Sahara to make room.

Not bad.. I get a feeling that part of the reason it was disposed of was the fact that al-Najd (the area you're refering to) wasn't held by a single one of the major powers in 272BC.
but ya, I too miss Dumatha (they could have replaced it with Najran or al-yamamat):shame: :shame: :thumbsdown:

Reason 1) It simply does not make sense to have this area under your control? I mean who's gonna police it, eh? "Well guys, today we're on patrol duty; erhm that is we're to cross the entire breadth of the desert and we better be careful or we won't get there." "-Tell me again, why did we join the army?!"

Reason 2) Now the AS and Ptolies don't come after Saba the instant they share a border; or rather vice versa. (In 0.8 the AS would conquer Dumatha and subsequently the Saby'n would attack it. In a matter of years the Saby'n would be wiped out; impaled on some nasty 6ft pikes.)

Reason 3) Now we get an extra province which is actually more useful and important. (Babylonia / Atiqa.)

Thus: everybody wins! :balloon3:

And when there was a town there, the AI would just march across the desert. Since there isn't a town there, the AI doesn't want to walk through someone else's territory and will walk around the edges of the Arabian desert, as they would have to have done historically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

I too miss Dumatha

---

Im afraid we may be alone! You seem to know your Arab history, anything else from the books to support this province's inclusion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Reason 1) It simply does not make sense to have this area under your control? I mean who's gonna police it, eh? "Well guys, today we're on patrol duty; erhm that is we're to cross the entire breadth of the desert and we better be careful or we won't get there." "-Tell me again, why did we join the army?!"

---

The same could be said for large areas of the map which are counted as being under a faction's control. As I said, ownership of territory, as represented on any map, is very often only a nominal claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Reason 3) Now we get an extra province which is actually more useful and important. (Babylonia / Atiqa.)

---

True, but there are still some useless provinces on the map which we could swap for Dumatha. E.g. Augila, Gaetulia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Reason 2) Now the AS and Ptolies don't come after Saba the instant they share a border; or rather vice versa. (In 0.8 the AS would conquer Dumatha and subsequently the Saby'n would attack it. In a matter of years the Saby'n would be wiped out; impaled on some nasty 6ft pikes.)

---

Well the AS and Ptolies didn't ALWAYS attack Say'n, I remember many campaigns where they'd get bogged down fighting each other, and only one time when the Sabeans got impaled as you describe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

And when there was a town there, the AI would just march across the desert. Since there isn't a town there, the AI doesn't want to walk through someone else's territory and will walk around the edges of the Arabian desert, as they would have to have done historically.

---

Can't argue with that. Except maybe to say that plenty of walking through deserts already goes on in the game, even though historically, naval transports would have been used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack

The same could be said for large areas of the map which are counted as being under a faction's control. As I said, ownership of territory, as represented on any map, is very often only a nominal claim.

---

Which areas of the map do you mean? Ownership usually represents possession of the major town or towns of the area. This gets iffy when an area is not urbanized, i.e. the steppe or too a lesser extent the German forests, but the factions that start there do not think in terms of towns or borders either. However, all factions in the Arabian area are urbanized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack

Well the AS and Ptolies didn't ALWAYS attack Say'n, I remember many campaigns where they'd get bogged down fighting each other, and only one time when the Sabeans got impaled as you describe.

---

True, but if you play the Sabaeans, the AS, the Ptolemies or both practically always come gunning for you. The A.I. is programmed to specifically target the player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack

Can't argue with that. Except maybe to say that plenty of walking through deserts already goes on in the game, even though historically, naval transports would have been used.

---

Again, could you specify where? There used to be major "sand wars" between Carthage and the Ptolemies, but changing the borders of the Sahara sorted that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Which areas of the map do you mean? Ownership usually represents possession of the major town or towns of the area. This gets iffy when an area is not urbanized, i.e. the steppe or too a lesser extent the German forests

---

Those would be the best examples (along with mountainous regions), but in practice anywhere outside urban centres in any region is only under a government's authority in an imaginary sense, a nominal claim.
Such a claim could be made over Arabia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

True, but if you play the Sabaeans, the AS, the Ptolemies or both practically always come gunning for you. The A.I. is programmed to specifically target the player.

---

To this I say either grasp the challenge or turn down the dificulty!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

Again, could you specify where? There used to be major "sand wars" between Carthage and the Ptolemies, but changing the borders of the Sahara sorted that out.

---

My point is not just that movement through deserts is happening anyway, but all kinds of unrealistic maneouvering because the AI dosn't understand fleets. Not that it takes from the game or anything, it's just since that happens, what's so bad about AI armies crossing Arabia instead of taking the more realistic route along the coasts.

Go Makedonia!!!! one of the greatest factions un Europabarbarorum!!!!!:balloon2: :balloon2: . In my current makedonia campaign, i have the AS confined to persia, and the ptolies are hiding deep in southern egypt, and the Sabyn constantly attack me, im guessing because i control what used to belong to those wanna-be heirs of megas alexandros called the Arche Seleukia and the Ptolemeias.:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack

Not that it takes from the game or anything, it's just since that happens, what's so bad about AI armies crossing Arabia instead of taking the more realistic route along the coasts.

---

It kills off Saba way too fast ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack

Those would be the best examples (along with mountainous regions), but in practice anywhere outside urban centres in any region is only under a government's authority in an imaginary sense, a nominal claim.
Such a claim could be made over Arabia.

---

It's not the same. In an urbanized area the towns officials can have a good idea what is going on in the countryside, and would be able to respond quickly to any uprising or bandit activity. They also tended to control the economy of the surrounding area. Authority can stretch beyond the location of your garrison, you know.

However, this does not apply to Arabia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack

My point is not just that movement through deserts is happening anyway, but all kinds of unrealistic maneouvering because the AI dosn't understand fleets. Not that it takes from the game or anything, it's just since that happens, what's so bad about AI armies crossing Arabia instead of taking the more realistic route along the coasts.

---

EB is a realism mod, and although inherently limited by the R:TW engine and videogame conventions in general, it does strive to give an as accurate representation of history as possible. Armies marching straight to desert into hostile territory do not fit in that picture, and can be avoided (to a degree). Retarded strategic A.I. unfortunately cannot.

Yeah, of course. Conquer Dumatha, and gain the whole Arabian interior, and all the relevant things within... heck, even today Saudi Arabia struggles to control the tribal elements in the region and the only worth it has is oil. What would it's point have been then in EB's period?

AFAIK everyone's usual procedure was to leave the deep deserts the Hell alone, bribe the nearby nomads to not cause trouble, and occasionally stomp flat those that did anyway. Those "oceans of sand" just weren't worth, nor really allowed for, much more "territorial control".

Afaik EB can enable/disable the possibility to build roads. Why doesn't it make use of this possibility in the provinces of Garama, Hibis and Ammonion? It annoys me to have roads there! It's just a heap of sand like Arabia, there would be no possibility to build roads there in reality.:huh:

Then how do you think Alexander intended to bet buried in Siwa, if there weren´t even any roads to that place? There were roads in those provinces, even if they weren´t quite as sofisticated as the ones further northin Italy, Hellas, Asia Minor etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

Afaik EB can enable/disable the possibility to build roads. Why doesn't it make use of this possibility in the provinces of Garama, Hibis and Ammonion? It annoys me to have roads there! It's just a heap of sand like Arabia, there would be no possibility to build roads there in reality.:huh:

---

No, they're not.

No they are not? What? :huh: Not a heap of sand?

So you mean there could've really been roads?

Building basic roads isn't a big deal, you can do it on the Moon with ease, never mind in the desert.

OK, but there is no water, right? I've read that even marching from Gaza towards the Nile delta is not easily undertaken, because there is not much water along the way. And I've read that Alexandros got trapped in a sandstorm on his way to Siwa. How can you build a road in an ocean of sand? How do you feed the slaves that have to build the road, especially if it is to be a more sophisticated one, made of stone? How do you feed, and more important, water an army on a march through the desert from Siwa to Hibis? Most of Alexandros army died on the trip through the Gedrosian desert, which is not the biggest one, how can you build roads there? Are roads there today, in times of motors, cellphones and GPS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

No they are not? What? :huh: Not a heap of sand?

So you mean there could've really been roads?

---

Deserts tend not to be 'just a heap of sand', and more often than not 'sand' is the last thing you'll find in a desert area. I guess that's what he meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

No they are not? What? :huh: Not a heap of sand?

So you mean there could've really been roads?

---

I've never mentioned roads and find them irrelevant for this particular matter. The areas you mentioned have what could be considered areas of population - not even necessarily settled, but people were capable of living within the borders in large enough numbers. That, or they produced something worthwhile or formed an economic hub for the region. The Arabian desert offers none of this. It's big, it's hot, and only an extremely small amount of people travel there, let alone live there, even now.

And in the case of the original argument, the nomadic types who could serve rulers in the region are already brought under the provinces around the edges of the desert, as can be seen by the borders extending quite a way from the city limits. There is simply no reason for anyone to own the desert: no people, resources, or even ability of anyone to 'rule' it. That is patently not the case for various regions in North Africa, but again is for the Sahara.

I don't if this is on topic but I'll say it.
I have to say that many greek names "in english characters" have several mistakes.
Especially using declensions (nominative,genitive,dative,accusative so on).
Exempli gratia: Thraice=? and others names of units and bulidings.
I think I should write them down to show you and also the correct form of them. Because being a greek I don't like seeing mistakes...:beam: :beam:
If you need any help i will gladly give some.:beam:

It is off-topic so would suggest you start the subject elsewhere.

I can however assure you that quite a number of other people have made their first introduction to the forum by saying they're Greek and the EB team has it wrong. It tends to end messily since it comes across as a little rude, and people seem to have difficulty accepting that the language has changed a lot over time, but if you can back it up with a clear knowledge of ancient Greek I'm sure the team will listen.

OK, I understand that there can live more people in Libya than in Arabia.

But do you think there could really be roads?

Depends on where and you build them (the main thing is they tend to get kind of crawled over by dunes in the sandy parts, preventing which apparently requires some clever precautions), but if it's nothing more than the basic-level "dirt road" (AKA beaten path) regular traffic along the best routes between "waypoints" of interest - settlements, oases etc. - will in practice develop a more or less equivalent form over time.

AFAIK the actual deep deserts were only traversed by the nomads, the occasional camel caravans engaging in some pretty decent navigation to find their way in the largely featureless wasteland, and the random camel-mounted light war party. Not exactly what might be termed "regular traffic" basically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus

But do you think there could really be roads?

---

No - but that goes for many, many rocky or mountainous portions of the map. As with many things in EB, it's an abstraction.

But try viewing it like this: the Arabian desert, and the Sahara for that matter, may as well be the Atlantic ocean to traverse in this period. Small groups knowledgeable in such matters may be able to traverse parts (certainly not whole armies!), but the dangers are great and at the time there was little to nothing to be gained. Still isn't, except for oil. No manpower, no resources, just a lot of sand and some rocks. At least Africa north of the Sahara had pockets where people could live or worthwhile resources - similar areas in Arabia are already represented by the provinces present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

It is off-topic so would suggest you start the subject elsewhere.

I can however assure you that quite a number of other people have made their first introduction to the forum by saying they're Greek and the EB team has it wrong. It tends to end messily since it comes across as a little rude, and people seem to have difficulty accepting that the language has changed a lot over time, but if you can back it up with a clear knowledge of ancient Greek I'm sure the team will listen.

---

well I there is no offence for sure...
But you may know that every greek who has gone to a school in Greece
he is "obliged" to learn ancient greek.
And to be more specific ancient greek at the time of hellenistic period.
Well I'll start it as a new thread waiting more comments there.:yes:

Uhm... what is wrong with Thraikia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abou

Uhm... what is wrong with Thraikia?

---

Well let's talk about this...

Thraikia...in greek there is not such word
If I try to make a comparison due to geographical reasons
I would say it is about the word "Θράκη or ΘΡΑΚΗ".
Try writing this in latin characters.
Another example
You are fan of the faction "arche seleukeia"...
In this phrase there are syntax errors.
Arche ~ ΑΡΧΗ ,Seleukeia ~ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΙΑ
both of the words are written in nominative which is wrong
the first arche is right
but the second must be reformed
I think there are 3 ways of forming the words but
with 3 different translations.
a) ΑΡΧΗ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΙΑΣ but little difficult because when we use the word
arche~ ΑΡΧΗ usually refers to the goverment of the faction's people
and with that way comes the 2nd
b) ΑΡΧΗ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΕΙΔΩΝ and here is another problem
because Seleucus~ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΣ was the founder of this state so
it could be said in a 3rd way
c) ΑΡΧΗ ΣΕΛΕΥΚΟΥ ,maybe the more accurate.

In any case the second word must be in genitive case.

About Arabia and lybia+ the greek stuff:

1-not all of Arabia and lybia is deserts-the coastal bits of lybia is actually fertile and can be farmed, and paved-why else would greeks have settled there? and not all Arabia is sand; most of it is mountain (hijaz, asir, jabal 'uman regions), or dry plains (thin-ish layer of sand-has shrub cover); there are even some subtropical areas in Saudi Arabia, Oman and yemen, thanks to summer rains. and there are paved roads in them all-the sand dunes are mostly in al-nafud and al-rub' al-khali...otherwise kuwait woudn't have a frog species of it's own.:laugh4: :laugh4:

I ought to know I lived there for 16 years, & all but one year of school was there:laugh4: :laugh4:

2-what if Seleukeia is an adjective-like seleucid in english?being an inflected language, the adjective can come after what it is describing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

1-not all of Arabia and lybia is deserts-the coastal bits of lybia is actually fertile and can be farmed, and paved-why else would greeks have settled there? and not all Arabia is sand; most of it is mountain (hijaz, asir, jabal 'uman regions), or dry plains (thin-ish layer of sand-has shrub cover); there are even some subtropical areas in Saudi Arabia, Oman and yemen, thanks to summer rains. and there are paved roads in them all-the sand dunes are mostly in al-nafud and al-rub' al-khali...otherwise kuwait woudn't have a frog species of it's own.:laugh4: :laugh4:

I ought to know I lived there for 16 years, & all but one year of school was there:laugh4: :laugh4:.

---

Exactly. The point I was hoping to make is that those fertile, or otherwise inhabited or useful areas are already represented inside EBs provinces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaywalker-Jack

Im afraid we may be alone! You seem to know your Arab history, anything else from the books to support this province's inclusion?



The same could be said for large areas of the map which are counted as being under a faction's control. As I said, ownership of territory, as represented on any map, is very often only a nominal claim.



True, but there are still some useless provinces on the map which we could swap for Dumatha. E.g. Augila, Gaetulia.



Well the AS and Ptolies didn't ALWAYS attack Say'n, I remember many campaigns where they'd get bogged down fighting each other, and only one time when the Sabeans got impaled as you describe.



Can't argue with that. Except maybe to say that plenty of walking through deserts already goes on in the game, even though historically, naval transports would have been used.

---

I said I too miss dumatha(out of sentimentality); I actually have to agree with the others (remember when I said that najd was never conquered? sorry!:laugh4: the part where I mention Al-Yamammat and Najran has to do with the fact that it would simulate the pain in the rear time the Saba'iyyin had to survive, plus himyar.

I forgot: armies can march through, on thse conditions:

1-Go via Al-Hijaz

2-say bye-bye to horses for transport-say hello to camel corps

3-several towns are within a day to 3 days march from one another in Al-hijaz, and most are very fertile, and have large water wells

4-if your not a local: march in the spring or Autumn-try not to march in winter (flash flood hazard), or summer (obvious)

5-ditch all/most body armor

What is it with people's fascination with the most oddest of things?

We removed Dumatha and put in Babylon instead. For what reason someone would want to go back is beyond me.

Babylon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dumatha

Babylon FTW!!1!

haddi! haddi! (calm down)...people like unusual things....don't you?:balloon2: for consolation