History of Rome

[luk3Z]

This is weird in the log:
"\\" in the path ?

Anyway you did not replace land.txt. It is still buggy when I play BIT:
from save game (find: eyr = {):

eyr = {
...
    landtech = {
        ANH = { 1.0000 1.0035 1.0123 }
        ARM = { 3.0000 6.0018 6.0103 }
        BIT = { -nan(ind) 6.0020 6.0050 }

You need to use vanilla files (+ Ab_Urbe_Condita\Localisation\English\technologies.csv) or delete land.txt & technologies.csv from Ab_Urbe_Condita\DB\Technologies to avid further crashes. Mods probably need all 60 lelevs of naval/land tech.

 

[Trmdrg]

This is weird in the log:
"\\" in the path ?

Anyway you did not replace land.txt. It is still buggy when I play BIT:
from save game (find: eyr = {):

eyr = {
...
    landtech = {
        ANH = { 1.0000 1.0035 1.0123 }
        ARM = { 3.0000 6.0018 6.0103 }
        BIT = { -nan(ind) 6.0020 6.0050 }

You need to use vanilla files (+ Ab_Urbe_Condita\Localisation\English\technologies.csv) or delete land.txt & technologies.csv from Ab_Urbe_Condita\DB\Technologies to avid further crashes. Mods probably need all 60 lelevs of naval/land tech.

Yes, I need more tests with the technologies. I am experimenting with them right now.
Then why there are no such regular crashes on the specific day in the other scenarios? And even in the Mithridatic one but without AI-Bithynia or without BIT or LYC in the starting war. How can this affect the technologies? Strange.

About the image: there were no telescopes in antiquity. And the map looks like the one from the late medieval times (see the names of the regions). It is not our theme.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

The new version (one more minor update focusing on fixes): https://www.mediafire.com/file/wt72hdutz47o6xm/Ab_Urbe_Condita_with_fixes2.zip/file

I have fixed the last issues found by the Validator utilite.
Three new Provinciae events, two new leaders (just Pharnabazus, the first King of Iberia (Caucasian), and Kuji, the King of Colchis). Minor changes in the scenarios and map for balance and historicity. More leadernames, colonynames, armynames and navynames.
I added two more countries to the "III. 89 ACN — Bella Mithridatica" scenario — the Daesitiates and Siraci. However, the crash of the 29th of august is still there. I am still in searching for the cause. The other two scenarios are stable now.
I fixed the events about the revolt of the Kedarites and the defeat of the Kedarites for the "I. 431— 404 ACN — Bellum Peloponnesiacum".

Kind of optimisation: I deleted all not-country tags, utilising the existed country ones for the units, leadernames, colonynames and sprites of the buildings.

For some reason (I do not know it) from the very first versions of the modification there were 448 fake provinces at the end of the provinces.txt. As far as I see, the game does not use them. I deleted them. Everything is OK.

I deleted RNGC from the modification, because I see no reason for its existence.

I deleted the option to disable the random events, because I found this in the readme of the AGCEEP:

I do not know what is the threat of disabling the random events, but I probably shall believe the creators of the AGCEEP. And I do not want to create annoying and meaningless "commercials".

In the debug logs I once caught this thing:

Why did the game duplicate the path?

Have you perhaps unzipped the mod to a subfolder of a subfolder accidentally?
Is there a folder mods below the folder of your mod?

 

[luk3Z]

How to make HoR/AUC as Vanilla:

1. Make copy FTG dir & rename it to "FTG_HoR" or to something else
2. Go to "FTG_HoR" dir
3. Delete all mods inside Mods dir - you won't need them anymore (CTRL+A & SHIFT+Del)
4. Delete AI, Map, Scenarios, config.ftg from "FTG_HoR"
5. Copy all files from HoR/AUC mod to the "FTG_HoR" dir and overwite all files
6. Run the game, click Settings, choose Ancient Shields
Done.

Game is working fine so far (copied land.txt & technologies.csv from vanilla to "FTG_HoR" coz mod doesn't have these vanilla files).
FTG\Localisation\English\technologies.csv
FTG\Db\Technologies\land.txt

https://images92.fotosik.pl/494/2b5df986e1ac03bb.png

@Trmdrg
\Mods\Ab_Urbe_Condita\DB should be \Mods\Ab_Urbe_Condita\Db

 

[Trmdrg]

Have you perhaps unzipped the mod to a subfolder of a subfolder accidentally?
Is there a folder mods below the folder of your mod?

No. Just "D:\Games\For the Glory\Mods\Ab_Urbe_Condita". And no more "Mods" folders.
Does anybody have such doubled paths in the debug logs? Not in every string. Sometimes.

luk3Z, I shall create the new full-fleged technology-system. We cannot just use the origial one. The system must meet (fit?) the antiquity. I hope that retaining the whole 60 levels will be enough to avoid the crashes. The old 10lvl system was created by one of my predecessors.

 

[luk3Z]

@Trmdrg
I created those 10 levels long time ago. Now I'm knowing that it was bad idea.
I agee that technologies should be rewritten. The question is - how to balance them.

technology = {
    id = 0
(...)
    infantry_fire = 0
    cavalry_fire = 0
    artillery_fire = 0
    infantry_shock = 50
    cavalry_shock = 400
    artillery_shock = 440
    land_attrition = 1.50
    land_morale = 1.50
(...)

technology = {
    id = 60
(...)
    infantry_fire = 250
    cavalry_fire = 10
    artillery_fire = 80000
    infantry_shock = 200
    cavalry_shock = 400
    artillery_shock = 9250
    land_attrition = 0.25
    land_morale = 6.00
(...)

Did cavalry & infantry had bows since the begining ?
Alexander The Great had archers in cavalry & Cretan archers infantry (this is for sure).
In the battle of Hydaspes (326 BC) Iranian cavalry archers (recruited form iranian tribes) were used against Indian chariots & cavalry.

 

[Trmdrg]

@Trmdrg
I created those 10 levels long time ago. Now I'm knowing that it was bad idea.
I agee that technologies should be rewritten. The question is - how to balance them.

technology = {
    id = 0
(...)
    infantry_fire = 0
    cavalry_fire = 0
    artillery_fire = 0
    infantry_shock = 50
    cavalry_shock = 400
    artillery_shock = 440
    land_attrition = 1.50
    land_morale = 1.50
(...)

technology = {
    id = 60
(...)
    infantry_fire = 250
    cavalry_fire = 10
    artillery_fire = 80000
    infantry_shock = 200
    cavalry_shock = 400
    artillery_shock = 9250
    land_attrition = 0.25
    land_morale = 6.00
(...)

Did cavalry & infantry had bows since the begining ?
Alexander The Great had archers in cavalry & Cretan archers infantry (this is for sure).
In the battle of Hydaspes (326 BC) Iranian cavalry archers (recruited form iranian tribes) were used against Indian chariots & cavalry.

I think that we should have bows (fire parameter) from the very beginning.

I think that our zero land and naval technological levels should correspond to the warfare of the 1 ab Urbe condita (751 BC)

Spoiler

according to the http://www.tabney.com/files/latin2semester2/date_convert.html?year=0

. So, in the future we shall be able to create more ancient scenarios than we have now. It was already an Iron Age in the majority of the regions, but some peoples still did not know iron. However, we hardly need to make countries from such undeveloped cultures. There were even siege engines already. The Assyrians had them. Many scholars think that Hellenistic siege machines had its roots in the Assyrian siege techs. Maybe, over time, the role of the cavalry should grow. Still, the leading role in the Macedonian successes was played by heavy cavalry (contrary to the popular stereotypes about the Macedonian phalanx). Not to speak about cataphracts and the leading role of the cavalry in the Roman armies of the very late Empire.

The history of the naval development is, of course, also a very interesting topic. At first, naval battles were just land battles on boards of the ships, but by the time of the Greco-Persian Wars the new technics had developed: ramming. By the Hellenistic times and, especially by the times of the Roman Republic and the Empire, the naval ram and ramming tactics had become outdated. The role of bows, ballistae and boarding (again; see Roman corvus) increased greatly. Siege machines were installed on boards of ships in that epoch. So, I see three main naval periods. (According to several historical works on the naval development in antiquity. I can be more specific (can name them)).

 

[Trmdrg]

Yeah. From clashes of tribal levies and phalanges of citizen hoplites with insignificant role of cavalry to the "professional army" (the reforms of Gaius Marius) and big role and power of cavalry. The moral should have high role: there were so many battles in which one side panicked and was totally cut out with little to no losses on the winning side.
That is how I see it.

It is a difficult task. So many difficulties.
The Germani had no war machines (so, their land lvl was much lower), but they were able to counter the Romani. Maybe we should raise the role of terrain in the terrains.txt. Or will high morale help the Germani? The difference between technical levels should be significant, but, probably, not very large. On the other hand, the Romani in other battles destroyed tens of thousands of barbarians.
When should artillery be introduced into the game? We could ahistorically deprive the Assyrians from their siege machines and introduce "artillery" in the Hellenistic period.
The tech system must fit the development in China: from the battles of chariots (chariots = cavalry? or = infantry? as a convention) to the battles of huge infantry armies during the late phase of the Warning States period. And then to the copying of the Xiongnu and Donghu warfare — heavy cavalry. And professional heavy cavalry with Chinese crossbows.
What should represent FtG warships? Galleys can represent light ships, while warships can represent quinqueremes and bigger ships. But the northern peoples (Veneti, Germani,..) had other types of ships. And in the Imperial times, the Romani had almost no ships bigger than triremes (only two quinqueremes — the flagships of the two Italian fleets) and used liburnae.
We can agree that one ingame ship will represent ten real ships. Because each ingame warship can transport 1000 infantry or cavalry (= 1 in defines.txt), it is ridiculous. If / 10 than it is OK for that times. But then fleets will be smaller. (The game does not understand fractional numbers in the Transport Capacity parameter in the defines.txt, I tested that). So, this is the only way. Or accept.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Yeah. From clashes of tribal levies and phalanges of citizen hoplites with insignificant role of cavalry to the "professional army" (the reforms of Gaius Marius) and big role and power of cavalry. The moral should have high role: there were so many battles in which one side panicked and was totally cut out with little to no losses on the winning side.
That is how I see it.

It is a difficult task. So many difficulties.
The Germani had no war machines (so, their land lvl was much lower), but they were able to counter the Romani

[/QUOTE]

They were able to hold their own in their own country - facing only 1/8 of the roman might when they destroyed the 3 legions of Varus.
The Romans were overextended - sure Rome was the largest city outside Asia, they served 20 years in the legion and the raised a whole lot more people from the population than nowadays (around 4% of the roman population was military) - but the Roman Empire was huge and streched wide from Antoninis wall to Mesopotamia and all of it had to be garrisoned, especially the dangerous eastern border with the first Seleucids, later Parthers that threatened the high populated and rich eastern provinces.

And they achieved that by learning from the Romans. Arminius (the roman name of the germanic leader that beat Varus) served in the roman auxiliares in the cavalry. He observed firsthand what and how the romans fought and were successfull. That was the reason that he lured Varus into the deep wayless forests where the well disciplined, highly organized roman legions could not use ther main advantage: cohesive fighting as a unit.
The same fight on plains would have been a slaughter for the germanic forces.

. Maybe we should raise the role of terrain in terrains.txt. Or will high morale help the Germani?

[/QUOTE]

It is not one thing but a combination. Arminius would be a leader that defects the romans and joins the germanic forces - trained by the romans themselves and knowing his home terrain he should be more than a match for Varus (who afterall was deceived to march into dense forests and throw away his supply lines and room to maneuver). The germanic units should already have a higher morale than the romans as long as the sliders work the same way as in the vanilla game. While having some slaverey too, the germanic tribes would be more "free men" than the Roman Empire that thrived on slavery unlike the early Republic that had free farmers in the legions.

The difference between technical levels should be significant, but, probably, not very large. On the other hand, the Romani in other battles destroyed tens of thousands of barbarians.

[/QUOTE]

Usually better generals, a standing army, well trained, generic equipment instead of rag-tag bands that formed some other armies. And of course terrain that allows to make use of tactical formations - battlewidth? Just like the flexibility of the roman legion did beat the rigid macedonian phalanx even if the plains were not fully plain but had some rocks that disturbed the phalanx, does the battle style of germanic tribes favour the dense forests where they can force the legions into man-vs-man fights instead of fighting them as a unit.

And a lot of resilience. Because the romans lost a LOT of battles to "barbarians". They lost against the Etruskans early ("This is Porsennas land"), they lost legions against the Kimbern, Teutonen and Ambonen, Rome was occupied by the gallic forces from northern Italy, Gergovia, Hannibal might have been a tactical genius but he lead an army that contained more than half barbarian forces hired on the way through modern Spain, France and northern Italy.

When should artillery be introduced into the game? We could ahistorically deprive the Assyrians from their siege machines and introduce "artillery" in the Hellenistic period.

[/QUOTE]

Artillery - not at all. IMO "Artillery" sounds and was historically mostly used for gunpowder weapons.
Before larger siege engines were usually not transported over long distances but built on spot to lay siege to a town similar to like Crusader Kings 1 did it.
That is very unlike forging cannons in your capital and slowly transporting them to your border to attack your enemies as in the vanilla game after 1453.

The tech system must fit the development in China: from the battles of chariots (chariots = cavalry? or = infantry? as a convention) to the battles of huge infantry armies during the late phase of the Warning States period. And then to the copying of the Xiongnu and Donghu warfare — heavy cavalry. And professional heavy cavalry with Chinese crossbows.

[/QUOTE]

More important would be that the stirrup was introduced (later) from the east to Europe.
Heavy Cavalry was already known from the Parthers.

What should represent FtG warships? Galleys can represent light ships, while warships can represent quinqueremes and bigger ships. But the northern peoples (Veneti, Germani,..) had other types of ships. And in the Imperial times, the Romani had almost no ships bigger than triremes (only two quinqueremes — the flagships of the two Italian fleets) and used liburnae.
We can agree that one ingame ship will represent ten real ships. Because each ingame warship can transport 1000 infantry or cavalry (= 1 in defines.txt), it is ridiculous. If / 10 than it is OK for that times. But then fleets will be smaller. (The game does not understand fractional numbers in the Transport Capacity parameter in the defines.txt, I tested that). So, this is the only way. Or accept.

In ancient times no ships were ocean going like the FtG vanilla warships are when compared to the shore-hugging galleys. All ancient travels usually were performed whenever possible in direct sight of land. The small coastal vessels or fishing boats that some barbarian tribes may have had can be ignored as naval tech 0.

 

[Trmdrg]

Artillery - not at all. IMO "Artillery" sounds and was historically mostly used for gunpowder weapons.
Before larger siege engines were usually not transported over long distances but built on spot to lay siege to a town similar to like Crusader Kings 1 did it.
That is very unlike forging cannons in your capital and slowly transporting them to your border to attack your enemies as in the vanilla game after 1453.

I think that we should have artillery. This will add variety and detailing to the game, that is clearly lacking.
"Artillery" (anyway, we can change the name, cannot we?) would represent not only "larger siege engines", but also the little ones. For exampe, small ballistae that were captured from the Romans by the Jews in the Iudean war according to Iosephus Flavius. Roman scorpiones.
Moreover, after the introduction of artillery ingame, there are artillery units in fortresses, not only with field armies. Static war machines with garrisons.

In ancient times no ships were ocean going like the FtG vanilla warships are when compared to the shore-hugging galleys. All ancient travels usually were performed whenever possible in direct sight of land. The small coastal vessels or fishing boats that some barbarian tribes may have had can be ignored as naval tech 0.

At first I thought the same, but now I tend to utilising the warships to represent any more heavy type of ships then biremes/triremes/liburnae. It seems to me that it is better to accept small conventions than to leave just a single type of ship (galleys).
The Veneti (not the Adriatici, the Gallic ones) had naval battles with the Romani, they had not only fishing boats and not the Mediterranean galleys, but the northern ship types.

Another question — how can we represent the elephanteria? After the long war, Seleucus gave his eastern territories and his daughter to Chandragupta (Sandrocottus) Maurya. In a return gesture, Chandragupta sent 500 war elephants, a military asset which would play a decisive role at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. Too considerable force to ignore it. At now I give via event to Seleucus just 1 step of the quality slider. Maybe, he should gain about 5000 cavalry.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

I think that we should have artillery. This will add variety and detailing to the game, that is clearly lacking.
"Artillery" (anyway, we can change the name, cannot we?) would represent not only "larger siege engines", but also the little ones. For exampe, small ballistae that were captured from the Romans by the Jews in the Iudean war according to Iosephus Flavius. Roman scorpiones.
Moreover, after the introduction of artillery ingame, there are artillery units in fortresses, not only with field armies. Static war machines with garrisons.


At first I thought the same, but now I tend to utilising the warships to represent any more heavy type of ships then biremes/triremes/liburnae. It seems to me that it is better to accept small conventions than to leave just a single type of ship (galleys).
The Veneti (not the Adriatici, the Gallic ones) had naval battles with the Romani, they had not only fishing boats and not the Mediterranean galleys, but the northern ship types.

Another question — how can we represent the elephanteria? After the long war, Seleucus gave his eastern territories and his daughter to Chandragupta (Sandrocottus) Maurya. In a return gesture, Chandragupta sent 500 war elephants, a military asset which would play a decisive role at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BC. Too considerable force to ignore it. At now I give via event to Seleucus just 1 step of the quality slider. Maybe, he should gain about 5000 cavalry.

I know that sometimes everything that hurls something over a distance is lumped into "artillery" - but to me artillery always will be the gunpowder units of FtG.
Roman times should have "Siege Engines"

Roman siege engines - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

or "War Machines".
The Dawn of Kingdoms mod for example uses siege engines.

 

[luk3Z]

@Trmdrg

Do you have PWM - ID map.jpg (Ptolemy Map in jpg with IDs) ?
If no you can download it from here: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1fo4zmwdvgutp/EU2#roo6wd2wq6wdo
And this is original mod for EU2: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1fo4zmwdvgutp/EU2#4nm2k5u8bq2zg
And this is old thread on EU2: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/rome-universalis.167683/
I'm taking a look at it now & trying to see these fake provinces... (above 1570 if any is there).

Edit.
Indeed it looks like that they're unused (probably from EU2 era).
Anyway there is no way to check it in game like press "\" and type "id = 1570" it's not working, but it is working only (?) for prov name from provinces.csv 2nd record:
PROV_Oceanus_Atlanticus;Oceanus Atlanticus; or from checking ingame: F12 & typing shoiwd. Anyway great find Trmdrg.

Edit 2.
If you search in files for "tag = REB" in vanilla there is no declaration of REB (it only appear in FTG\Scenarios\Save Games\autosave.eeg).
but If you search in files for "tag = REB" in \Mods\AGCEEP\Scenarios\ there is declaration of REB in \Mods\AGCEEP\Scenarios\xxxx\Inc\xxxx_Countries.inc
So, it looks like Mods need to have declaration of REB for some reason.
I made vanilla FTG_HoR for testing purposes (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/history-of-rome.444288/post-27448528), so I'm wondering if I still need this declaration of REB.

 

[Trmdrg]

@Trmdrg

Do you have PWM - ID map.jpg (Ptolemy Map in jpg with IDs) ?
If no you can download it from here: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1fo4zmwdvgutp/EU2#roo6wd2wq6wdo
And this is original mod for EU2: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1fo4zmwdvgutp/EU2#4nm2k5u8bq2zg
I'm taking a look at it now & trying to see these fake provinces... (above 1570 if any is there).

Edit.
Indeed it looks like that they're unused (probably from EU2 era).
Anyway there is no way to check it in game like press "\" and type "id = 1570" it's not working, but it is working only (?) for prov name from provinces.csv 2nd record:
PROV_Oceanus_Atlanticus;Oceanus Atlanticus; or from checking ingame: F12 & typing shoiwd. Anyway great find Trmdrg.

Edit 2.
If you search in files for "tag = REB" in vanilla there is no declaration of REB (it only appear in FTG\Scenarios\Save Games\autosave.eeg).
but If you search in files for "tag = REB" in \Mods\AGCEEP\Scenarios\ there is declaration of REB in \Mods\AGCEEP\Scenarios\xxxx\Inc\xxxx_Countries.inc
So, it looks like Mods need to have declaration of REB for some reason.
I made vanilla FTG_HoR for testing purposes (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/history-of-rome.444288/post-27448528), so I'm wondering if I still need this declaration of REB.

Thanks for this resources. But, you know, I changed climate of the provinces considerably, so, climate.jpg is not valid anymore. In addition to cooling (I told about it in one of the previous posts), I also changed distribution of other climatic zones. For example, I think that "tropical" climate in Aegyptus Superior and in Mesopotamia is a nonsense. "Tropical" climate in FtG adds the attrition, reduces the supply, reduces the colonization chance, raises the merchant cost and cuts the population growth. But Aegyptus Superior and Mesopotamia were very wealthy and highly populated regions. Looks like the developer had not delved into the meaning of FtG "tropical" climate. I left it only for Southern parts of our Africa, for South India and Southeast Asia.

Since we are talking about the map. Can you edit the map itself, not the province.txt? We really need to split a number of provinces. For example, Bithynia —> Bithynia + Heraclea Pontica; Argolis —> Argolis + Corinthia; Apamene —> Apamene + Antiochia + Emesus; Attica —> Attica + Megaris; Cissii —> Cissii + Characene; Calabria —> Tarentum and Brundisium; Brutii —> at least Croton and Regium (+ Brutii); Chaonia —> Chaonia and Corcyra (separate the island); Thesprotia —> Thesprotia + Ambracia; Caria —> Caria + Miletus (+ Cos); Aeolis —> Aeolis + Mytilene (separate the island); Phrygia Hellespontica —> Phrygia Hellespontica + Cyzicus; Samaria —> Samaria + Galilaea; Batanaea —> Damascus + Chalcis; Phanaroea —> Phanaroea + Amisus; Crete —> Gortyna + Cnossus; Theudosia —> Theudosia + Panticapaeum; Ionia —> Ionia + Chios + Samos (separate the islands); part of Aetolia + part of Boeotia —> Phocis... These regions sometimes had very different histories, destinies. Working with them, I have to sacrifice one in favor of the other, losing many important things.

 

[luk3Z]

@Trmdrg
Ptolemy World Map (by KaRei) thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/ptolemy-world-map.345529/
It probably could be modyfied by Magellan: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/k9xe2fi2zeg53/FTG#npgnfz81ie3lx
But I've never used it to modify a map (I only extracted few images from map & still looking for good old Gfx software).
You will need an older/proper version of PaintShop or Corel Draw (you need to check the docs how to do that).
Currently I don't have time & tools to do it myself (I want to edit Old World Map from Arabia Universalis in the future).
Old World Map thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/old-world-map.229591/

This is about "Atlantis" province:

Yay! Somehow I didn't notice your post.

Yes, 399 is hidden from playable area so nobody get CB against owner of "Rome".
And to hide an Emperor of HRE try to set REB as Emperor. It works perfectly and you don't need place anybody anywhere

EDIT:
I am slowly correcting the displaced sprites

Ptolemy World Map

Ptolemy World Map It will be a lot of work and will take a lot of time, but without trying it one won't know whether he's able to do such thing and finish it or not. So right now I'm starting a new map supposed to be for ancient times...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Thanks for this resources. But, you know, I changed climate of the provinces considerably, so, climate.jpg is not valid anymore. In addition to cooling (I told about it in one of the previous posts), I also changed distribution of other climatic zones. For example, I think that "tropical" climate in Aegyptus Superior and in Mesopotamia is a nonsense. "Tropical" climate in FtG adds the attrition, reduces the supply, reduces the colonization chance, raises the merchant cost and cuts the population growth. But Aegyptus Superior and Mesopotamia were very wealthy and highly populated regions. Looks like the developer had not delved into the meaning of FtG "tropical" climate. I left it only for Southern parts of our Africa, for South India and Southeast Asia.

Since we are talking about the map. Can you edit the map itself, not the province.txt? We really need to split a number of provinces. For example, Bithynia —> Bithynia + Heraclea Pontica; Argolis —> Argolis + Corinthia; Apamene —> Apamene + Antiochia + Emesus; Attica —> Attica + Megaris; Cissii —> Cissii + Characene; Calabria —> Tarentum and Brundisium; Brutii —> at least Croton and Regium (+ Brutii); Chaonia —> Chaonia and Corcyra (separate the island); Thesprotia —> Thesprotia + Ambracia; Caria —> Caria + Miletus (+ Cos); Aeolis —> Aeolis + Mytilene (separate the island); Phrygia Hellespontica —> Phrygia Hellespontica + Cyzicus; Samaria —> Samaria + Galilaea; Batanaea —> Damascus + Chalcis; Phanaroea —> Phanaroea + Amisus; Crete —> Gortyna + Cnossus; Theudosia —> Theudosia + Panticapaeum; Ionia —> Ionia + Chios + Samos (separate the islands); part of Aetolia + part of Boeotia —> Phocis... These regions sometimes had very different histories, destinies. Working with them, I have to sacrifice one in favor of the other, losing many important things.

Before splitting provinces, always consider the practicality before historical accuracy.
The province needs to still be clickable, the armyunit sprite and the symbols of manufactories or barracks need space to display too.And the province name should still be able to be displayed. Historically e.g. the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation before the Napoleonic wars should consist of more than 300 entities from large Kingdoms to tiny fiefdoms or free cities - even after Napoleon there still were around 80 entities on german lands of which many had to be dropped in FtG because they would have been just too small to be displayed and still work.

And while "10000" provinces sounds impressive for being possible ingame that includes all provinces, including ocean and river provinces. The additional regional limit to the number of provinces is more restricting than those 10000 / world let assume.

Edit: I´m not sure, but don´t only those countries suffer from tropical climate in a province, whose capital is NOT in a tropical climate? So that a country whose capital is tropical should not suffer penalties from ruling tropical lands.

 

[Trmdrg]

Before splitting provinces, always consider the practicality before historical accuracy.
The province needs to still be clickable, the armyunit sprite and the symbols of manufactories or barracks need space to display too.And the province name should still be able to be displayed. Historically e.g. the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation before the Napoleonic wars should consist of more than 300 entities from large Kingdoms to tiny fiefdoms or free cities - even after Napoleon there still were around 80 entities on german lands of which many had to be dropped in FtG because they would have been just too small to be displayed and still work.

 

[Trmdrg]

Edit: I´m not sure, but don´t only those countries suffer from tropical climate in a province, whose capital is NOT in a tropical climate? So that a country whose capital is tropical should not suffer penalties from ruling tropical lands.

I did not know about that, but, anyway, if we use the climatic conditions of the original Ptolemy map, for example, Egypt will suffer from the tropical climate in Upper Egypt, because its capital (Alexandria or Memphis or the province of Delta) has temperate climate. Not much sense.

From version to version I gradually increased the parameter of manpower in the Samaria and Iudaea provinces. At now they have 9 and 9. And even that is not enough (very not enough), when I read the "Bellum Iudaicum" of Iosephus Flavius. He speaks that he mustered in Galilaea alone an army of 100000 and the Galilean city of Sephoris (the biggest city in Galilaea) alone mustered 40000 militiamen. Fantastic numbers. But although he had a pro-Roman mood, Iosephus originally wrote as a Jew for the Jews, and I see no reason for exaggeration, especially for exaggeration the size of the losing side, his side. Anyway, probably I shall keep the current 9 and 9 manpower. We have no Galilaea, but Galilean territories geographically belong to our Samaria. I have not seen Sepphoris (Diocaesarea, Diokaisareia, Sepforis, Autocratoris, Autokratoris, Tzipori, Kitron) in any list of the largest ancient cities.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

I did not know about that, but, anyway, if we use the climatic conditions of the original Ptolemy map, for example, Egypt will suffer from the tropical climate in Upper Egypt, because its capital (Alexandria or Memphis or the province of Delta) has temperate climate. Not much sense.

From version to version I gradually increased the parameter of manpower in the Samaria and Iudaea provinces. At now they have 9 and 9. And even that is not enough (very not enough), when I read the "Bellum Iudaicum" of Iosephus Flavius. He speaks that he mustered in Galilaea alone an army of 100000 and the Galilean city of Sephoris (the biggest city in Galilaea) alone mustered 40000 militiamen. Fantastic numbers. But although he had a pro-Roman mood, Iosephus originally wrote as a Jew for the Jews, and I see no reason for exaggeration, especially for exaggeration the size of the losing side, his side. Anyway, probably I shall keep the current 9 and 9 manpower. We have no Galilaea, but Galilean territories geographically belong to our Samaria. I have not seen Sepphoris (Diocaesarea, Diokaisareia, Sepforis, Autocratoris, Autokratoris, Tzipori, Kitron) in any list of the largest ancient cities.

How many other sources give the exact same numbers? Historical records should always be taken with a grain of salt, as historical authors e.g. tend to exaggerate numbers to make victories appear larger when more enemies are overcome. Medieval authors sometimes exaggerated numbers 10 or 100fold and one should never rely only on one source to assume numbers.

Then mustering armies does not necessarily mean soldiers from that province alone - it could include mercenaries who do not come from the manpower of the province.

Manpower in FtG can vary immensely depending if the country doing the mustering has the same culture as the province, has a national core on the province or not, has a conscription center or not, had been at peace and a full manpowerpool, has it´s capital on the same continent (or road access between capital and province), does not suffer from nationalism...

Manpower Maths Unplugged

Manpower Maths Unplugged: Now 1.06 compliant Index: Province Manpower Factors UPDATED Province Manpower Equation Conclusions Total Manpower UPDATED Army support limit NEW! Manpower Myths Laid to Rest Manpower and...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[luk3Z]

.\Mods\Ab_Urbe_Condita\DB\defines.txt
_COUNTRY_ALLIANCE_MAX_ = 3 #Positive; 5 (default)

So, if you get more countries at start in alliance (more than 3) there will be a crash or you only will not be able to create new alliance with more than 3 countries ?

 

[ConjurerDragon]

.\Mods\Ab_Urbe_Condita\DB\defines.txt
_COUNTRY_ALLIANCE_MAX_ = 3 #Positive; 5 (default)

So, if you get more countries at start in alliance (more than 3) there will be a crash or you only will not be able to create new alliance with more than 3 countries ?

The number does not crash the game. It only limits the size of alliances. If countries in a game have fewer than set number allies they will start looking for more.
As usual in a game where alliances start with fewer members or countries start unallied in the first few month everyon is looking for allies until the set amount is full or noone is left.