EB II map ideas discussion

[Dumbass]

See, this is way I love your name Dumbass.

lol it always sounds slanderous when people address me.

[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.

[chairman]

The thing is that in most of the recent AI progression maps that I have seen on the forums and in my games indicates that since 1.0 the Sweboz have been held in check from taking Poland and the Baltic region by the scripted eleutheroi armies that defend those settlements. By the time that they achieve the needed strength to conquer those regions, the time is much more appropriate. And the Sarmatians historically did eventually get to those regions as well.

As for any settlements that I think are more likely to be removed, I have already said in other threads that I think Augila and Tuat have been hinted at being replaced. These could be used in India or Asia Mikra to provide much needed settlements there.

On a side note: does M2TW have BI's naval invasion ability or does the AI behave more like RTW when it comes to fleets and maritime transit?

Chairman

[General Appo]

On a side note: does M2TW have BI's naval invasion ability or does the AI behave more like RTW when it comes to fleets and maritime transit?

It did in the first version, but one of the patches fixed that. Now naval invasion are if not common at least not nonexistant.

[grwn]

I've just played a Brittania Campaign and Wales most definitely invaded me as the Irish, could have been a one of though :)

[General Appo]

It wasn´t. In my first MTW2 campaign with the 1.2 patch (or one of those patches) I thought Kypros (I´ve played so much EB I start calling places after their EB names) would be safe with just a single unit to keep the peace. Two turns later Egypt invades the island.
It´s been like that ever since.

In fact, some people complain there are too many naval invasion. I especially noted this in my Scotland campaign. I only controlled Scotland and Wales, but even so, in 10 years I recieved naval invasion from Portugal, Denmark, France and the HRE (Holy Roman Empire). It just gets ridiculous after a while
Especially Portugal has a love of invading Wales and Ireland with units that are sorely needed back in Iberia. It gets even worse when a lot of the times they just land an army in Ireland or Wales, stand close to the city and do nothing. As long as you keep a sizeable garrison they can stand there for 100s of years while their faction get annihilated, only to suddenly strike after you moved a single unit outside of the city. Annoying really.