Landblocks

[Christianus]

Will there be any landblocks in 0.8? For example between the russian steppes and parthia, and between the carthagenians and the ptolemoies?

[eadingas]

We are testing various solutions, including this one.

[iberus_generalis]

landblocks? care to explain? im not understanding...what is a landblock in RTW? sorry for my noobish ignorance...

[Conqueror]

I think it's about trying to make some parts of the map impossible to move across.

[fallen851]

No!

Please do not make landblocks! Do not try to direct history like RTR does, just let everything flow!

Doesn't this go against everything the EB team stands for like the "we are setting the table as it was, then you create the history"?

Isn't this something like having a character like Marius show up to do the reforms, when in fact anyone could have done it in a variety of ways?

Please no?

I'll have to learn map editing...

[GMT]

No!

Please do NOT make landblocks! Do not try to direct history like RTR does, just let everything flow!

Doesn't this go against everything the EB team stands for like the "we are setting the table as it was, then you create the history"?

Isn't this something like having a character like Marius show up to do the reforms, when in fact anyone could have done it in a variety of ways?

Please no?

What he said! Although I think he forgot the "not"

EDIT: nevermind lol, he edited his post

[Teleklos Archelaou]

We haven't really done it yet. It's got to be an option though guys - as carthie/ptolemy sand wars are not historical and would not have happened like they are in RTW's engine without some geographical hindrance (be it in terrain or strange territorial boundaries or whatever). We have a couple of other tricks to try first, but our mapping ability has been greatly hindered lately.

[Zaknafien]

I agree, I paticularly find annoying the constant war/peace treaties every turn over insignifigant pieces of the saharan desert...

[GMT]

I don't think the AI would handle these landblocks very well.

You'd just get a bunch of full stack armies who are just standing there because of pathfinding problems.

[fallen851]

I agree, I paticularly find annoying the constant war/peace treaties every turn over insignifigant pieces of the saharan desert...

It the pieces are insignificant, just let the AI have them and forget it. If you want them and the AI wants them... then they are significant. And this is the point. Sand wars may not be "historical" before, but if the player and AI choose to fighter over a peice of terrority, then so be it. Please represent the map as it was.

What are the historical odds of Alexander the Great or Hannibal being repeated? Not very good, but it happened. What if Ptolmey decided to pull a Pyhrrus and invade Carthage? It could have happened!

Many of these wars came down to one side saying "umm lets go invade somewhere for glory!" and the choice was theres, and it should be ours!

[abou]

Yes, it is very annoying when Carthage and Egypt go to war with each other very early in the game and you are playing as one of them.

[eadingas]

It the pieces are insignificant, just let the AI have them and forget it. If you want them and the AI wants them... then they are significant. And this is the point. Sand wars may not be "historical" before, but if the player and AI choose to fighter over a peice of terrority, then so be it. Please represent the map as it was.

It's not a matter of player vs AI, it's a matter of AI vs AI. It's not a matter of "chance", but of something that repeats itself in almost every campaign, something that is highly improbable historically, and we want to do something about it. Although we are trying to find a way to do this without actually preventing the player - if they want - to do that war. Which kinda makes the landblocks our last resort, as they would stand against that principle.

[Conqueror]

Not that a landblock in North Africa would stop a player anyway; players actually are able to use naval transport in a non-braindead manner.

[eadingas]

Well yes, but it would be annoying and unnatural.

[Discoskull]

It would be neat if you guys put the Sahara city at the very bottom lefthand corner of the map, so the desert would always be master-less and tan...

[Trithemius]

We haven't really done it yet. It's got to be an option though guys - as carthie/ptolemy sand wars are not historical and would not have happened like they are in RTW's engine without some geographical hindrance (be it in terrain or strange territorial boundaries or whatever). We have a couple of other tricks to try first, but our mapping ability has been greatly hindered lately.

Is it not possible to restrict the province-selection process for AI players, or is that stuff mostly in the inaccessibly code?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I've no idea what that even is Trithemius . Nikolai1962 did a lot of work on trying to figure out why the AI goes for certain cities. A lot of it has to do with visibility (can you see the next city) unless they are already at war with someone. But we really can't do much in directing the AI to certain places.

[Trithemius]

I've no idea what that even is Trithemius . Nikolai1962 did a lot of work on trying to figure out why the AI goes for certain cities. A lot of it has to do with visibility (can you see the next city) unless they are already at war with someone. But we really can't do much in directing the AI to certain places.

Ah. Pesky.

Personally I would prefer no landblocks, for the reasons other people have mentioned. However, if it is based on visibility perhaps you can "encourage" the AI to expand in certain directions by placing watchtowers and spies?

I'm really not sure how you can get the AI to expand over water - I suspect that Carthage will almost always want to take the Ptolemies on. In my recent Baktrian game I saw a Carthaginian full stack land near Tarsos, sit there for a while, then disappear. Very mysterious!

[Cheexsta]

We've done a fair bit of testing with RTRPE using various landblock methods and they seem to work in directing the AI where we want them to go (to a degree).

As for whether you'd want this to happen, I understand there are a lot of people who don't want the AI to be restricted to the historical expansion of a faction. I disagree with this view; it is important that the AI views certain enemies and certain provinces in the same way that the faction would have in history, given the appropriate situations and so on. If the Gauls and Germans were constantly at war in history, then it makes sense to have them likely to go to war in the game. Likewise, if war between Carthage and Egypt was unlikely due to the desert conditions making it near-impossible to transport an army between the two, then war should be avoided between the two in the game.

And lastly, we've done some experiments on naval invasions in RTRPE, with some interesting results: it's easy to get a faction to initiate naval invasions, though it's harder to direct who they go after (the AI tends to prefer attacking the player, for example). Most importantly, however, the AI does do naval invasions; I have seen Macedon, for example, attempt several times to take Rhodes, even without the naval invasions setting on.

Just some interesting findings some might like the sound of :)

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I personally think the next thing we need to try (from reading what nikolai the mad genius wrote up in his brief time with us) is extending the Sahara province all the way to the Syrtis Major. It would unfortunately keep roads from connecting from Syrthim to Kyrene, but that isn't too bad I don't think. If roads and a clear path to the next province's capital (and the Sahara province capital now is further away) aren't there to help, the AI seems like it is much less likely to "jump" a whole province and go on to the next one. Some trade will still leak through on land, and it would be possible for armies to cross, just less likely (esp. with AI). Dunno if this is all for sure how it would turn out, but that's my guess from what I've read so far. We haven't tried this yet, but we might.

[Cheexsta]

TA - that was one of the possible landblocks we tested a short time ago (before the forum downtime), it certainly seems to have its benefits. The only downside I could think of is how the player is capable of crossing this border while the AI is reluctant to do so, though the same could be said of any other block. And there's nothing to stop the AI from being able to react to a player's presence in his land once they've crossed...

I didn't note whether agents crossed this border or not, though I can't see any reason why they couldn't/wouldn't.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Well, I think our main focus is indeed to stop the AI from doing it. If players are foolhardy enough to do it, and want to be ahistorical, then let them. Hard to stop that. But if it will keep the AI from doing it (even just less frequently, though sometimes it might happen), then that's probably the biggest thing we are looking for. It's a nice side benefit that players can still do it if they start feeling antsy around that area.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I like the idea of the sahara territory being larger (maybe removing territories and using them elsewhere), unconquerable, and touching the Mediterranean southwest of Cyrene.

A little aside concerning the sahara and its conquest: Did Carthage ever expand inland historically? Were they interested in anything without a port?

[MSB]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, don't put landblocks in 0.8! PLEASE!!!!!! Landblocks ruin gameplay by stopping factions from going to war with each other. If you don't want people to go across the Sahara as it would have been hard let them do so, but make it difficult to do so. Make sure that all generals that are in the Sahara get a trait which restricts movement and that goes when they leave it. Brilliant solution!

[Musopticon?]

Landblocks all the way. And please get rid of the million desert provinces. There's a wealth of places where those extra provinces could be used.

[eadingas]

You must be playing wrong version of EB... There is only one desert province - Sahara (and one in Arabia). The rest are simply North African provinces. We might get rid of ONE of them. One day. That is the final word on that.

[CountArach]

I'm all for using Landblocks. Perhaps the EB team should put it to a poll as to what the public wants?

[eadingas]

It's not really a matter of what public wants or not. If it works like we want, we'll put it. If we find a better way, we'll put that one in. We have a certain goal in sight and we aim to achieve it the best (and most historically accurate) way possible.

[vizigothe]

I would rather have Carthage focusing on Italy than making sand castles along the bank of the Nile.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Even if generals in certain places got movement penalties, the AI still is stupid. They would just have stacks of slow generals standing in the desert. It would hurt them even more. We have to work within the limits of what we know is possible, considering how the AI will work with these changes.