Ancient Empires: 222 BC
-
@redrum thanks
I also lean towards using the "english" names vs regional/latin names.
I can interpret this in a number of possible ways, not sure exactly what you mean.
-
@Name So for example I'd usually choose Brittany instead of Bretagne or other options listed in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany
-
@redrum I see. Was wondering about the second part. Regional as of modern languages or roman/latin versions of them (or even roman administrative regions),
-
@Name ah. I'd probably favor the Roman names as I think they might be more recognizable but tougher call there.
-
Even if you'd go with English names in this one, you would get "Rome" instead of "Roma", but very little else. Most English names would be the latin ones, anyways, by far.
-
@redrum said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Name Just want to say, great work on the territory images so far. You are giving @Hepps and @Frostion a run for their money.
Easy there tiger... lets not go crazy here.
@Frostion is still the undisputed Admiral of sexification! Though given the progress I'm seeing on this map I will be honest and say I am starting to get a little white knuckled. 
-
@Hepps said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@redrum said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Name Just want to say, great work on the territory images so far. You are giving @Hepps and @Frostion a run for their money.
Easy there tiger... lets not go crazy here.
@Frostion is still the undisputed Admiral of sexification! Though given the progress I'm seeing on this map I will be honest and say I am starting to get a little white knuckled. Hey let's not be competitive and just accept the truth in @redrum's statement.
Carthage & surroundings
Syrtis & Cyrenaica
-
So my next question is, are there any special considerations on sea territory placement? So far I'm thinking they should be slightly larger on average than land ones, and also following the coastline, with open seas impassable (makes sense with ancient galley navies, they were not really storm resistant so they avoided straying too far from land).
-
@Name If you have it as Carthage, that means you are going with English names, thus also Rome, and so on. However, I advise you not using English names if they derive not from the original one (for example, not using Naples if that derives from the medieval name Napoli, not from the classic name Neapolis).
For the high sea, you can have a bunch of canals making possible going into and out those sea zones only during non combat move, then adding a neutral combat units in them, and having your sea units able to move through it but not ending non combat movement with it.
-
@Name The biggest thing to think about is size and how much movement the various naval units will have. As an example, 270BC has fairly large sea zones but pretty cheap ships that have only 1 movement. Most maps have more average sea zones and most ships have 2 movement. So depends how you envision naval and amphibious gameplay.
-
@Cernel I wouldn't use Naples or Napoli in that case. What you see for now doesn't mean I've totally settled, but will probably go for english.
For the high sea that sounds too much imo.
@redrum My ships are fast at 3 or 4 movement. Again, makes sense with the fast, fragile galleys of the era. Since there are generally higher defense than attack stats, terrain bonuses and static defenses, there is a quite strong defenders advantage. So mixing realism with gameplay, I think it's a good idea to have fleets as a means to strike rather distant, less defended territories.
-
@Name By the way, since it is practically the same of what you are already doing, if you want to review all 270BC names, making a full list of all those that are wrongly named or wrongly placed (Siwa…), and post it in the 270BC thread, that would be helpful, in case at any point someone might fix that map too (the issue is that, names being images, one would need to remake all the work, unless @Hepps remembers and can tell exactly all steps to follow to recreate the naming images with different letter combinations, so to do it only for the new ones).
-
@Cernel I can I guess, maybe the right time will be while I'll be reviewing/settling on the final region names.
Egypt
-
@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Cernel I wouldn't use Naples or Napoli in that case. What you see for now doesn't mean I've totally settled, but will probably go for english.
For the high sea that sounds too much imo.
@redrum My ships are fast at 3 or 4 movement. Again, makes sense with the fast, fragile galleys of the era. Since there are generally higher defense than attack stats, terrain bonuses and static defenses, there is a quite strong defenders advantage. So mixing realism with gameplay, I think it's a good idea to have fleets as a means to strike rather distant, less defended territories.
I'm having a hard time envisioning how you could pull this off without it feeling really restrictive. I get what you are going for but it feels kinda excessively limiting on a map of this grand scale. I'd almost rather see you have 2 types of SZ... Coastal and Open Water... where if your fleet(s) ends its turn in an open water sea zone there is something like a 1/12 chance that each unit could be lost to Poseidon's wrath.
-
@Hepps Imagine something like this (from a previous version of the map). You can sail around the marked sea zone following the coastal seas. The chance for storms, even for coastal regions, has crossed my mind, but I'll skip it or leave it for later.
@Cernel I checked 270BC a bit. Many of the corrections would need redrawed borders to make sense, while others using the name of some obscure/low populated region.
-
@Name Yeah, I think you could do something like that though I would probably also color the impassible sea zones darker or grayer so its easier to see on first look.
-
@redrum I thought of marking them with a special icon, but this could also work.
-
@Name Also I'm assuming the sea zones will be smaller in your current version? Otherwise 3-4 movement would be able to sail across a very significant portion of the Med in a single turn with your example map.
-
@redrum I guess the above region would contain almost double sea zones. I was thinking of representing each turn as a month, which would be more than enough to sail from Athens to Sicily, but I think I'll have to tone it down for gameplay.
Another similar concern is with combat turn limit. I'll like to reduce it to like 2 per turn, to allow lengthy "sieges" and reinforcements, but during my tests it caused frequent territory ownership bugs (existing even without the change but rather rare).
-
@redrum said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:
@Name Also I'm assuming the sea zones will be smaller in your current version? Otherwise 3-4 movement would be able to sail across a very significant portion of the Med in a single turn with your example map.
That would be realistic. You can do half the Mediterranean in a couple months, while, in the same time, you can conquer only a few hundreds kilometres into an enemy territory, if you are very successful.
Though, in this case, he would need having much higher movement for land units, and likely a faster non combat than combat movement, so to keep their ability to move through friendly territory in line with the ability of ships to move on sea.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login