Suggestion on map

[King of Atlantis]

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but i thought there should be a place that the public can voice their opion about the map. I know i am looking at the old map, but i still believe the points are valid. I know greece alread has alot of places but the amount of provinces shuld be proportional to population(hence all the places i named)

anyways, i know it is an old map but my main point is the mm map just goes to far south and uses up valuable city slots that could be used to make heavy populated areas more realistic. P.S- Please add atlantis(just kidding)

[khelvan]

Sorry, why exactly should the amount of provinces be proportionate to population? What purpose does this serve?

[Sheep]

Sorry, why exactly should the amount of provinces be proportionate to population? What purpose does this serve?

Who cares, just add Atlantis and everyone will be happy.

[King of Atlantis]

Sorry, why exactly should the amount of provinces be proportionate to population? What purpose does this serve?

This serves a very big purpose. Heavy population=more cities and bigger cities.

For example a small region in greece might have a lot larger population and a big city while the whole southern part of the map below eygpt would have had almost no population and no major cities. So who should be represented with a province a place with no population or one with a large one?

I know greece has many cities i was just using it as an example. And people please stop spamming about atlantis i really didnt start this thread to get atlantis and though it is funny i am sure it is getting on peoples neveres.

[khelvan]

Reducing the size of the populated areas and increasing the size of less populated areas will do three things:

- Break the AI/trade routes in the large provinces, causing longer turn times, less movement in these areas, and trade that does not flow properly

- Make it very difficult, if not impossible, for us to recreate political realities outside of these populated areas. The world was not Rome & Greece, and everywhere else as an afterthought.

- Create Siege: Total War in the populated areas, making it tedious to take and hold territory there, not to mention unrealistic. There is no opportunity for the strategic holding of bridges and such - armies can take territory three cities behind enemy lines with the turn structure.

The first note was a dealbreaker for us, nevermind the next two.

[King of Atlantis]

Those all sound like good reasons and i see what your talking about, but the provinces in lower africa still seem pointless to me especially without numidia. In mm eygpt gets tied up in these areas. Anyways thanks for the responses and

[jerby]

I agree, with khelvan. making greece or Rome denser (with city's) wont help much.I'd be very please if they fill up the huge gaps in teh east that RTR left open ( no offense)

[Greek_fire19]

From the Ptolemaic preview it looks to me like the South-Eastern African provinces will be useful as they will probably contain all those interesting numidian axemen units that the Egyptians want. However they're probably quite difficult to take for the same reason.

Lets not forget that this is not the same all conquoring Egypt with the super-killer-pharoh's-terminators and infinite wealth (though Im sure theyre still gonna be pretty rich) of Vanilla RTW.

For all we know Ptolomeic Egypt may in fact be weak and underpowered in EB, and will need to take those Ethiopian provinces just to survive.

[Praetorian Sejanus]

Reducing the size of the populated areas and increasing the size of less populated areas will do three things:

- Break the AI/trade routes in the large provinces, causing longer turn times, less movement in these areas, and trade that does not flow properly

- Make it very difficult, if not impossible, for us to recreate political realities outside of these populated areas. The world was not Rome & Greece, and everywhere else as an afterthought.

- Create Siege: Total War in the populated areas, making it tedious to take and hold territory there, not to mention unrealistic. There is no opportunity for the strategic holding of bridges and such - armies can take territory three cities behind enemy lines with the turn structure.

The first note was a dealbreaker for us, nevermind the next two.

On that note... Has anyone seen NTW 2's Campaign Map? Provinces are very much distributed along population criteria... Not saying either way is right or wrong. Just an observation.

As for conon's observation... I dunno if the EB guys have looked into this, but each province is assigned a point value in the data files. They're called 'glory points' or something vaguely similar... I wonder if, by adjusting this, we could give the AI enough incentive to pursue provinces that aren't backwaters?

[eadingas]

triumph values are useless.

[Simetrical]

Has anyone seen NTW 2's Campaign Map? Provinces are very much distributed along population criteria... Not saying either way is right or wrong. Just an observation.

RTR's, too. I don't know that it will cause any AI problems . . . the provinces aren't 50 tiles wide, I'm quite sure.

triumph values are useless.

I always suspected that. You've tested?

-Simetrical