Ancient Empires: 222 BC

Cernel

@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.

redrum

@Name Yeah, I think you'll have to be careful around gameplay as if ships can invade potentially 10+ territories that makes whoever has naval superiority very strong though you could also make amphibious very weak. Also being able to move a large army from say athens to sicily to defend makes it so you can have way less land troops potentially defend a very large area.

Yeah there are still some bugs around limited combat turns but I'm very open to fixing these if you find any since we are planning to do this for PoP anyways.

Cernel

@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

@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.

Since all are supposed to be city names, what I suggested was just making a list of all territories for which the name given is:

misspelled or
post-ancient or
not possibly anywhere within the drawn borders.

I supposed that was not a big deal for you, as you are already searching for at least all 270BC names and much more, but up to you.

Cernel

@Cernel said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

@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.

Since all are supposed to be city names, what I suggested was just making a list of all territories for which the name given is:

misspelled or

post-ancient or

not possibly anywhere within the drawn borders.

I supposed that was not a big deal for you, as you are already searching for at least all 270BC names and much more, but up to you.

For example, looking at your Egypt naming, assuming all those are correct, then the 270BC names in the same area would be:

Paraetonium: acceptable
Alexandria: acceptable
Hermopolis: acceptable
Memphis: wrongly placed

Of course, I didn't mean to write down all of this, just the wrong ones (in this case, only Memphis), not listing all the acceptable ones.

Again, just a suggestion, and maybe a way for you to double check.

Cernel

@Cernel Actually, also Memphis might be acceptable, after all.

Hepps

Does this have anything to do with the map being developed?

Cernel

@Hepps "Anything", certainly, as far as naming goes. Going from the I to the II Punic Wars the names should be the same in most cases, beside different languages, mainly either English or Roman or Greek.

redrum

@Cernel I think it would be better to move any discussion around naming recommendations for 270bc to that map thread as while you could potentially take advantage of naming used in this map if its more accurate, I don't think its relevant to this map's development or that @Name is going to update 270bc.

Name

Ok let's keep this on topic and I'll pm @Cernel on the 270BC things.

@Cernel said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

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.

I consider generally increasing movement speeds but not sure yet. Say infantry from 1 to 2. Without blitz it will have a similar effect to that, ships have to be at least a bit faster though.

@redrum said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

Yeah, I think you'll have to be careful around gameplay as if ships can invade potentially 10+ territories that makes whoever has naval superiority very strong though you could also make amphibious very weak. Also being able to move a large army from say athens to sicily to defend makes it so you can have way less land troops potentially defend a very large area.

The way I envision it (and from tests so far), doing something like that will leave other territories relatively undefended, since you won't have too many units in total. I also think that naval superiority ought to be a large advantage in this era, when contesting coastal regions.

@redrum said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

Yeah there are still some bugs around limited combat turns but I'm very open to fixing these if you find any since we are planning to do this for PoP anyways.

Ok I'll report any I find when I'm at that stage again.

Cernel

@Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

Ok let's keep this on topic and I'll pm @Cernel on the 270BC things.

Not much point to pm me, this is what I initially said:
@Cernel said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

@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

If not, that's fine. Anyways, once this map is done, anyone can use it to compare its names with the one in 270BC, relatively to the drawings.

Name

Meanwhile I've been mostly busy with other things, but have done several minor adjustments to borders (not worth showcasing). Hopefully I'll have more time for this soon.

Hepps

@Name It went awefully quiet in here...

Name

@Hepps Yeah I'm still focused on other things for now. Once a music project is fully complete (a matter of weeks I think), but maybe earlier, I'll have more time for this.

Hepps

@Name Just checking in to ensure you're ok.