Refitting the Map

[ziegenpeter]

I wonder if there will be changes about the distribution of the regions on the map. Since every demand for more regions in area X is crushed by the team members and the community, I beg you all to not crucify me for this thread. ;)
In my opinion, there are to many regions in northeastern europe. There are no factions and the sauromatae or sweboz seem never to expand into that area. So why not taking away a few regions there and distributing them where ever they are needed.
I had some similar thoughts for Britain. I dont want to erase it entirely, the casse have to live somewhere, but why do we need all of it up north to Scotland and even Ireland?
Did they ever move so far? Wouldnt it be cooler if they'd invade the continent directly instead of leading this silly 'unite the islands' campain?

Maybe some of you have even better ideas where the team could cut away some regions?

Although I have to admit that I dont know where these new regions should be put most appropriatly and if they are REALLY needed...
cya

[Bucefalo]

IIRC they already said in a twitter update that the EB 2 map is already done (province wise at least), and that it will be significantly different from the map of RTW. You can always ask for more details thougth... but another thing is that you get the information that you ask

[Ravenic]

I have a similar opinion, though it regards the Arabian Peninsula.

Though alot of work has been put into the Saba, I feel that their place in the history of the map is, besides trading, relatively limited. I could see maybe removing the Saba (free's up a faction slot), and then taking away the vast majority of Arabia's provinces. Leave a few on the coast for the Ptolies of course, but for the most part just make Arabia part of the vast desert no-man's-land province that already composes alot of Arabia, along with the Sahara.

I know there's a definite 'Equality for All' concept for the factions in the game, but the fact is the Mediterranean and the Turkey-Syria-Iraq-Iran-Egypt-Judea slice of the Middle East are far more important than the peripheries of the map, if nothing else because of the faction density in places like Greece and the Alps, or the broader area of Syria and Asia Minor.

[athanaric]

I have a similar opinion, though it regards the Arabian Peninsula.

Though alot of work has been put into the Saba, I feel that their place in the history of the map is, besides trading, relatively limited. I could see maybe removing the Saba (free's up a faction slot), and then taking away the vast majority of Arabia's provinces. Leave a few on the coast for the Ptolies of course, but for the most part just make Arabia part of the vast desert no-man's-land province that already composes alot of Arabia, along with the Sahara.

I know there's a definite 'Equality for All' concept for the factions in the game, but the fact is the Mediterranean and the Turkey-Syria-Iraq-Iran-Egypt-Judea slice of the Middle East are far more important than the peripheries of the map, if nothing else because of the faction density in places like Greece and the Alps, or the broader area of Syria and Asia Minor.

I do believe, sir, that you are missing the point of this game. Let me elaborate:

1) Sab'yn are there to represent the culture of their region, which is neither Hellenistic, nor Egyptian, nor Persian. The Arabian loyalists need an appropriate faction to revolt back to.

2) From what I hear, considerable work has been put into the development of this faction, resulting in some nifty, historically accurate units that didn't make it into EB I.

3) You said "besides trading". You do realize how important trade is, do you? After all, the English (for example) carved out a huge empire for themselves by little more than trade and piracy.

4) EB strives to represent all regions and cultures equally. Or so the developers said. Seeing as there is (some) relevant information available on this faction, it can be portrayed realistically.

5) It is not as if South Arabia were a region devoid of ancient culture or of conflicts.

6) I for one am looking forward to having at least one Arabian faction in EB II. And if it were only to crush them.

[Ca Putt]

maybe it could be possible to merge some regions in northern europe(thus getting rid of 1-2 provinces) and one in each arabia and Britain but more would not be worth it imoas it would take away to much focus from regions that were added only by eb in the first place. an other option would be to declare large quantities of the european steppes "eremos" this would sound a bit silly tho

still I'm fine with the EB 1 map and anticipate the EB 2 map to be even a little bit better

[Krusader]

Some province redistribution has been done. We won't say from where and to where.

Except that Iran-area has received one extra province. Happy?

[bobbin]

Yay! thats what i wanted to hear Iran was in desperate need of more provinces. I'm going to guess it was gotland that got the axe as i heard it was never intended to be captured by anyone but the player due to some quirk of the RTW region system.

[Moros]

Though alot of work has been put into the Saba, I feel that their place in the history of the map is, besides trading, relatively limited. I could see maybe removing the Saba (free's up a faction slot), and then taking away the vast majority of Arabia's provinces. Leave a few on the coast for the Ptolies of course, but for the most part just make Arabia part of the vast desert no-man's-land province that already composes alot of Arabia, along with the Sahara.

Have you ever read books on Ancient arabia? If not, how can you judge their importance?

[seienchin]

Have you ever read books on Ancient arabia? If not, how can you judge their importance?

Well.... Tell us the importance of ancient arabia in the EB timeframe and why nobody ever bothered conquering all of it? I know the sassanids atacked the arabian peninsula a few times and defeated many arabian tribes, but still they didnt bother conquering it.
Or am I wrong?
Oh and the cultural influences as important as they may be are nothing, that are reflected in a total war game?

@Topic
I have great concerns about the new bigger map. I mean the Eb map was too big for the Ai to act at least a little bit intelligent. The ai factions were unable to defend their important cities form naval atacks, in my current Vanilla campain I was just flashed, when I atackes scipii carthago and they launched an counteratack with 5 fullstacks. Never seen anything like that in EB. Even the yellow death cant do anything against a full stack against alexandria.
But anyway maybe the Ai in MWII is different

[Macilrille]

I have launched many a surprise invasion against little defence many a time in MTW II.

[Ca Putt]

huh? everytime I conquer a capital via naval invasion the garrison may be pathetic(Coast hopping with 2 spartans 2 cretans 1 trakioi prodromoi ftw and one KH FM) but the attacked always sends almost all his armies to that location which gives my real armies the chance to push the front line further into enemy territory. worked with romans carthagians Ptolemaioi Lusotani and selekids(tho this was due to bribe)

[Fluvius Camillus]

In my opinion the map is fine as it is...

~Fluvius

[Moros]

Well.... Tell us the importance of ancient arabia in the EB timeframe and why nobody ever bothered conquering all of it? I know the sassanids atacked the arabian peninsula a few times and defeated many arabian tribes, but still they didnt bother conquering it.
Or am I wrong?
Oh and the cultural influences as important as they may be are nothing, that are reflected in a total war game?

Alexander wanted too, he just died to early. The Parthians/sassanids did conquer the eastern parts, the Persians had done so before them. They even rivaled with the romans in Arabia to gain as much from trade as possible. The Romans tried to conquer Arabia felix but failed (they blaimed the weather and their Nabataean guide). So yes you are wrong.

A longer post would have followed, if I just had more time. Though if you search for it I'm quite sure you'll find a better awser as I have posted explainations for Saba''s inclusion before.

[Griggori]

My only concern about the revelation that the map is going to be 30% larger is that, IIRC, In Medieval 2 the zone of control is still small for an army. A larger zone of control is, to my mind, the only worthwhile contribution from Empire to the future of the Total War games. Will you be able to hold strategic passes, I wonder? Or will there always be room for an army to sneak past?

I am not a coder in the least, but it would seem reasonable if after an army was stationed at a place for a while, its zone of control expanded, reflecting scouts and established control and lay of the land. I doubt though that the zone of control can be altered by programming.

[lobf]

Alexander wanted too, he just died to early.

Perhaps this is common knowledge, but I haven't heard it before. Source?

The Parthians/sassanids did conquer the eastern parts, the Persians had done so before them.

In the EB time frame? Source?

They even rivaled with the romans in Arabia to gain as much from trade as possible. The Romans tried to conquer Arabia felix but failed (they blaimed the weather and their Nabataean guide). So yes you are wrong.

Source?

Don't take this shit personally. I'm just interested in learning more.