EB II map ideas discussion

**Ludens** · 09-26-2008, 17:22

Didn't you suggest the removal of Chalkis before? Do you have any new arguments to strengthen that suggestion?

**Dumbass** · 09-26-2008, 17:33

Yes I did suggest the removal of Chalkis before, but I don't remember the discussion coming to a conclusion, so I wish the bring it up again whilst we are discussing the matter. Plus I think the points I have given are good enough to justify the possibility of its removal.

**Foot** · 09-26-2008, 18:35

We're an open bunch of people and where something is brought up, we'll discuss it. Of course PSFs open up a whole new world (#A whole new world...#) for us, which we've already begun to take advantage of - something you'll find out about in the Gaza Campaign.

Foot

**Mithridates VI Eupator** · 09-26-2008, 19:07

Excuse me for being a noob, but what is a PFS?

EDIT: I will have to disagree with you on the Chalkis-issue, Dumbass. Sure, Greece is cramped, but Chalkis was a rather important Macedonian base, if I'm not mistaken. Also, I don't think it detracts from gameplay at all, rather ads to it... Greece should be a quite complicated place to hold, given that there waere quite a lot of independent leauges and city-states there, and having to controll many cities is a good way of representing this.
(And I still think that the Aetolian leauge would be a great addition to EBII, despite not being super-important. I want City-state squabbles galore!!!)
Sorry, completely off topic...

**socal_infidel** · 09-26-2008, 19:09

Permanent Stone Forts. They're used in the Kingdoms Britannia campaign.

**Mithridates VI Eupator** · 09-26-2008, 19:14

Originally Posted by socal_infidel

Permanent Stone Forts. They're used in the Kingdoms Britannia campaign.

I like it!!!

**General Appo** · 09-26-2008, 20:20

Originally Posted by Mithridates VI Eupator

I will have to disagree with you on the Chalkis-issue, Dumbass.

See, this is way I love your name Dumbass.

**Dumbass** · 09-26-2008, 20:27

Originally Posted by General Appo

See, this is way I love your name Dumbass.

lol it always sounds slanderous when people address me.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 09-27-2008, 04:42

I feel that it would be for the benefit of the map to remove the northern eastern cites such as those situated around the Baltic sea. My reasons for coming to this conclusion are:

1. It will help divide the eastern and western factions such as Sweboz, Getai and Saro and prevent them from fighting each other in this land and will help them spread historically.
2. Again the impact with the Sweboz spreading in this area creates sometimes a monetary stronghold which then helps them over power the Aduei and Averni.
3. There is currently to the best of the fans knowledge, no faction planned for that region (lots of speculation but no definitive fact), so to have 4 settlements even with large territories is wasteful of the regions. (The four regions I speak of are: Sapmi, Seliun Gentis, Sembu Gentys, Neurije)

My suggestion would be to lump that land in with the Terhazza territory and use the four free settlements to better use in other regions that might need it.

I would appreciate any comments, opinions or facts that favor the opposite argument/point out any flaws in my reasons.

**Dumbass** · 09-26-2008, 20:26

Originally Posted by Mithridates VI Eupator

Excuse me for being a noob, but what is a PFS?

EDIT: I will have to disagree with you on the Chalkis-issue, Dumbass. Sure, Greece is cramped, but Chalkis was a rather important Macedonian base, if I'm not mistaken. Also, I don't think it detracts from gameplay at all, rather ads to it... Greece should be a quite complicated place to hold, given that there waere quite a lot of independent leauges and city-states there, and having to controll many cities is a good way of representing this.
(And I still think that the Aetolian leauge would be a great addition to EBII, despite not being super-important. I want City-state squabbles galore!!!)
Sorry, completely off topic...

It was an important Macedonian base, but then there are lots of other important cities that are not represented on the EB map. And I don't think having lots of cities in greece makes it complicated to hold, if anything it just makes it too easy with the huge amount of trade income you rake in.
If you want city state squabbles, then couldn't the inclusion of a settlement for the achean league fill that criteria? I think that would make a good replacement for Chalkis. But there will no doubt be a need for more settlements where the new factions are going to be implemented.

And Ludens like you said, maybe a PSF would better represent Chalkis; as a strategic base, rather than a population centre. Giving control of Eubioa to thessaly would hardly raise problems and difficulties, seeing as it's really the settlements that matter in RTW, not the empty area around it.

**Ludens** · 09-27-2008, 18:44

Originally Posted by Dumbass

And Ludens like you said, maybe a PSF would better represent Chalkis; as a strategic base, rather than a population centre. Giving control of Eubioa to thessaly would hardly raise problems and difficulties, seeing as it's really the settlements that matter in RTW, not the empty area around it.

The territory does determine farming income and trade resources. Making it part of Thessaly is really unrealistic: historically it had little to do with that area, while it probably would have been under strong Athenian influence. I am not sure how forts work in M2:TW, but I recall reading that they dramatically affect income when placed on enemy territory, so I guess it would be realistic to make Euboia part of Attica and then place a Macedonian fortress there.

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I feel that it would be for the benefit of the map to remove the northern eastern cites such as those situated around the Baltic sea. My reasons for coming to this conclusion are:

1. It will help divide the eastern and western factions such as Sweboz, Getai and Saro and prevent them from fighting each other in this land and will help them spread historically.
2. Again the impact with the Sweboz spreading in this area creates sometimes a monetary stronghold which then helps them over power the Aduei and Averni.
3. There is currently to the best of the fans knowledge, no faction planned for that region (lots of speculation but no definitive fact), so to have 4 settlements even with large territories is wasteful of the regions. (The four regions I speak of are: Sapmi, Seliun Gentis, Sembu Gentys, Neurije)

My suggestion would be to lump that land in with the Terhazza territory and use the four free settlements to better use in other regions that might need it.

I would appreciate any comments, opinions or facts that favor the opposite argument/point out any flaws in my reasons.

I think that you cannot make conclusions regarding faction expansion in EB2 based on EB1. The Sweboz get too big too fast, but in EB2 this is most likely going to be different. Also, if they had expanded this far historically, they would probably have had a turf fight in the area. It's not the same as extending the Eremos province to prevent the Carthagian-Egyptian sand wars, since those would have been impossible. The Baltic was sparsely populated, but that would not have prevented the Germans or Sauromatae from fighting there.

Also, because we don't know whether there will be a faction in the area doesn't mean we must assume there won't. If there will be a Baltic or near Baltic-faction, those provinces suddenly become important. I doubt the team placed those cities there simply to fill the area up. After all, there are other places that need extra cities to.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 10-03-2008, 01:36

Originally Posted by Ludens

I think that you cannot make conclusions regarding faction expansion in EB2 based on EB1. The Sweboz get too big too fast, but in EB2 this is most likely going to be different.

That seems like a contradiction right there... how exactly do you know it will be different in EBII?

**Ludens** · 09-26-2008, 19:27

Originally Posted by Dumbass

Yes I did suggest the removal of Chalkis before, but I don't remember the discussion coming to a conclusion, so I wish the bring it up again whilst we are discussing the matter. Plus I think the points I have given are good enough to justify the possibility of its removal.

The conclusion was the Chalkis was important as a strategic base, not as a population centre, and hence won't be removed (although it may be replaced by a PSF for all I know). Also, if you remove Chalkis you get the problem of whom to give Euboia to. It clearly wasn't controlled by the Athenians, but giving it to Corinth or Thessaly also isn't realistic.