Map Matters

[erthul]

I'd like to raise some issues with the map in EUR. A major criticism is that it is far too small compared to the global spanning other EU games/Victoria/HOI family. While it is only intended to represent the Med. it could have been made much larger by including many more provinces. For example, Sicily is composed of only two areas but it contained scores of large cities and was a huge battleground between Carthage and Syracuse for centuries before the Punic Wars, then Rome and Carthage and eventually various Roman civil war factions. If Sicily consisted of, say, 50 areas alone with the rest of the map upscaled accordingly the game would then match the epic proportions of the other EU titles. Additionally, the Selucids have a nice safe eastern border (which enables this state to be much stronger in the game than it was historically) but in reality it was a dangerous frontier that should be included in the game by extending the map East to cover all of 'Alexander's Empire'.
Geographically, the game is confusing and seems to be lacking in common sense - surely it would be better for rivers to form the boundary between areas to make it clear when there are combat and movement penalties associated with them. Similarly an area should consist, boardgame-like, of a predominant terrain types such as mountain, desert, forest, swamp, plain and so on to provide consistent movement/combat rules, bonuses and penalties. Cavalry and elephants should be all but useless in swamp, mountain and forest for example. Some areas such as high mountain and desert should be impossible to colonize and entry should have a high attrition penalty and/or be restricted to certain superior generals only. Currently, everyone and his dog can cross the Alps but Hannibal's march over them was regarded as a great feat at the time.
Sea areas are another problem. Currently it is too easy for ships to move outside the Med. but this was extremely dangerous for galleys which tended to sink in choppy waters. Yet Pontic fleets, for example, will sail to the Baltic to attack the Suebi without hesitation, an action that is utterly unrealistic. In other words most sea areas outside the Med. should be impossible to enter. Another problem is that the sea areas are too big in general and provide an overly large home-water friendly zone. For instance the controller of Crete has a friendly zone extending to North Africa, giving it a strategic importance it's not entitled to. The sea areas need to be completely redesigned so that there are many more all-sea areas with huge attrition risks and a distinction between them and coastal areas. Thus Crete should have it's safe(ish, but not 100% safe as it is at the moment) coastal zone with one or two dangerous all-sea areas between Crete and Africa.

 

[Juutalainen]

I agree with most of this. About the lack of eastward land the game I think it is because the game is from the Roman perspective. If it was from the Hellenistic point of view than it would be important to go all the way to the Indus valley because of Seleucids wars with Chandragupta. The creation of the Bacrtian empire who conquered parts of India later. The creation of the much larger Parthian Kingdom than is allowed in the game.

 

[erthul]

About the lack of eastward land the game I think it is because the game is from the Roman perspective. If it was from the Hellenistic point of view than it would be important to go all the way to the Indus valley because of Seleucids wars with Chandragupta

True, the game is called EU Rome (which has a better sales ring to it than EU Classical Era) but by including the other major powers, and allowing players to play them, the designers are then honour bound to portray the strategic situation of each accurately and fully. The Seleucids spent most of their history coping with problems in the East (Bactria, Scythia, Parthia, India, Persia etc.) so that should be included in the game - a nice safe border is just not on! Also, while the Romans did not manage to advance eastward much it was not for lack of trying: Pompey reached the Caspian Sea, claiming that he'd equaled Alexander in the process, Crassus tried and failed to conquer Parthia, Caesar was assassinated on the eve of atacking Parthia, Mark Antony's invasion of Parthia was defeated, Trajan ultimately reached the Persian Gulf, claiming that he'd equaled Alexander in the process, but all gains were quickly given up and so on. It's reasonable to suppose that had the Romans conquered Parthia they would then have got entangled with enemies even farther eastward (including China who actually ordered an attack on Rome after vassalising Parthia, which was only aborted at the last minute after learning the extent of Roman power) so it's very appropriate and necessary to extend the map to include Alexander's empire in the game.

 

[Descartes]

Interesting post, I didn't know the Chinese planned an attack against Rome!

 

[erthul]

In 97 AD, the first year of Trajan's reign: Han China v Imperial Rome when both empires were at their peak!

 

[Sute]{h]

Found a nice map based on what parts of the world Ptolemy knew on this site:
http://geographer.situatedlaboratories.org/mapping.php

 

[unmerged(117434)]

Additionally, the Selucids have an nice safe eastern border (which enables this state to be much stronger in the game than it was historically) but in reality it was a dangerous frontier that should be included in the game by extending the map East to cover all of 'Alexander's Empire'.
Geographically, the game is confusing and seems to be lacking in common sense - surely it would be better for rivers to form the boundary between areas to make it clear when there are combat and movement penalties associated with them. Similarly an area should consist, boardgame-like, of a predominant terrain types such as mountain, desert, forest, swamp, plain and so on to provide consistent movement/combat rules, bonuses and penalties. Cavalry and elephants should be all but useless in swamp, mountain and forest for example. Some areas such as high mountain and desert should be impossible to colonize and entry should have a high attrition penalty and/or be restricted to certain superior generals only. Currently, everyone and his dog can cross the Alps but Hannibal's march over them was regarded as a great feat at the time.

I agree!

Sea areas are another problem. Currently it is too easy for ships to move outside the Med. but this was extremely dangerous for galleys which tended to sink in choppy waters. Yet Pontic fleets, for example, will sail to the Baltic to attack the Suebi without hesitation, an action that is utterly unrealistic. In other words most sea areas outside the Med. should be impossible to enter.

disagree! Scientists now have proof that the Phoenecians have sailed around Africa even before ole' Henry the Navigator. It's also possible that the Egyptians have had contact with Central America. And they also now know that the Chinese were trading with the Western coasts of the Americas long before Columbus even thought about setting sail for Asia.

 

[Cheexsta]

Maybe sea provinces outside the Mediterranean should just generate more attrition? Or have a higher likelihood of storm events?

 

[erthul]

disagree! Scientists now have proof that the Phoenecians have sailed around Africa even before ole' Henry the Navigator. It's also possible that the Egyptians have had contact with Central America. And they also now know that the Chinese were trading with the Western coasts of the Americas long before Columbus even thought about setting sail for Asia.

There were two main ship types in this era - broad tub-like, relatively spacious merchant sailing ships and long, narrow, cramped, shallow-bottom rowing warships almost totally lacking in living and storage space. The events that you mentioned would have been conducted in the merchantmen class, but in any case, were as exceptional then as the Moon Landings are today and have no relevance to the unseaworthy nature of galley fleets. In fact, EUR is too kind to the latter because there is no such thing as a ‘friendly’ coastal area as many ancient fleets that were caught in bad weather were destroyed by being dashed against the shore, in home waters or not. Thus in 480 BC hundreds of Persian ships were sunk in several storms during the invasion of Greece while operating off Persian controlled/occupied territory, while the Romans lost 3 fleets to bad weather during the First Punic War in (what in the game would be) ‘friendly’ coastal zones.

 

[Darthvegeta800]

I agree!

disagree! Scientists now have proof that the Phoenecians have sailed around Africa even before ole' Henry the Navigator. It's also possible that the Egyptians have had contact with Central America. And they also now know that the Chinese were trading with the Western coasts of the Americas long before Columbus even thought about setting sail for Asia.

Actually the Chinese thing is still being debated I believe. Though historians are swinging to the pro side i believe.
I may badly recollect this but i recall from my class on Chinese History part I that it's still a bit 'meh'.
Romans supposedly reached China with an expedition by sea.
It's certainly possible for China but in the context of the game it would not make sense to make such long journeys 'regular'. They are highly exceptional for the time of Antiquity.
One must not forget that sea travel was hazardous and the weather extremely easily could cause for great mayhem. There was no compass and people were very insecure and supersitious about it.

 

[Darthvegeta800]

True, the game is called EU Rome (which has a better sales ring to it than EU Classical Era) but by including the other major powers, and allowing players to play them, the designers are then honour bound to portray the strategic situation of each accurately and fully. The Seleucids spent most of their history coping with problems in the East (Bactria, Scythia, Parthia, India, Persia etc.) so that should be included in the game - a nice safe border is just not on! Also, while the Romans did not manage to advance eastward much it was not for lack of trying: Pompey reached the Caspian Sea, claiming that he'd equaled Alexander in the process, Crassus tried and failed to conquer Parthia, Caesar was assassinated on the eve of atacking Parthia, Mark Antony's invasion of Parthia was defeated, Trajan ultimately reached the Persian Gulf, claiming that he'd equaled Alexander in the process, but all gains were quickly given up and so on. It's reasonable to suppose that had the Romans conquered Parthia they would then have got entangled with enemies even farther eastward (including China who actually ordered an attack on Rome after vassalising Parthia, which was only aborted at the last minute after learning the extent of Roman power) so it's very appropriate and necessary to extend the map to include Alexander's empire in the game.

Actually China and Rome tried to engage into trade contacts and the likes.
Romans reached once at least the Empire but sea but there is no proof they returned.
The Chinese Court sent a delegation/emissary to Rome but when arriving at Parthia they foolded the emissary that Rome was still far away.
Sneaky bastards... .
No further attempts are recorded as far as i know or was taught about.
Also a Rome versus China campaign is absurd.
Given the problems these two behemoths had at maintaining unity in their realms suffering from Imperial overstretch. Also between the two there were many small realms along the silk road. However taking out Parthia would have made more extensive trade possible.
Products of both sides did reach each other but taking out Parthia might have given contacts and exchanges of tech and ideas great momentum.

 

[erthul]

Also a Rome versus China campaign is absurd

In 97 AD Han China's all-conquering General Pan Ch'ao ordered his second in command Kan Ying to capture Antioch, thought to be the capital of the Ta-ts'in (as the Romans were known to the Chinese). Absurd or not, had the mission not been aborted Rome and the Han (as the ethnic Chinese tend to call themselves to this day) would have been at war. Also, by the end of Trajan's reign Roman and Han garrisons were within a day's march of each other.

 

[unmerged(117434)]

This is an interesting convo. I LOVE what if scenarios.

 

[Darthvegeta800]

In 97 AD Han Chinese all-conquering general Pan Ch'ao ordered his second in command Kan Ying to capture Antioch, thought to be the capital of the Ta-ts'in (as the Romans were known to the Chinese). Absurd or not, had the mission not been aborted Rome and the Han (as the ethnic Chinese tend to call themselves to this day) would have been at war. Also, by the end of Trajan's reign Roman and Han garrisons were within a day's march of each other.

Given the nature of the Chinese Empire they would have failed due to their regional situation. I cannot see th
wage a prolonged war effectively for long in that region. In Sinology the Chinese History is seen as an unending process of fusion and diffusion.

Same with Rome in EU:R in Antiquity having Romans conquering China which would certainly be possible under the current engine stretches all belief.

It would have to be a very very big 'What If'.
Of course if the rules of the game are modified i can go with that.
As the engine lends itself to simulating oriental regions too.

 

[unmerged(117434)]

Also. That is what EUR is all about. What ifs. An Alexander age expansion would be great. Because Alexander actually had plans on invading the Arabian Penn., carthage, Spain, and Italy. He would have basically built the Roman Empire long before it truly was. I wish he hadn't have died. The thing is, he could have really done it! Anyways... Adding China and India and the Arabian Penn. Would add to that what if. And adding more obstacles would make the game less fun.

 

[Darthvegeta800]

Except... it's about Rome.
It's Rome-centric. Even more so than EUIII, it's focussed on Rome.
No, for now i don't need to really say the asian territories added. There's work enough in the world of Antiquity.

 

[erthul]

Except... it's about Rome.
It's Rome-centric. Even more so than EUIII, it's focussed on Rome.

Then why are there so many other playable factions? Are they just a con, a last minute after-thought that we aren't actually supposed to play? A Universalis game should cover it all, otherwise it needs to be called something else. For example, there's a little known game called Pax Romana which, according to the blurb on the back of the box, is 'by the creator of the best-selling Europa Universalis series' that was almost purely Roman-centric. Unfortunately I can't recommend it because it was too unstable on my system to play for any length of time (although, in many repects, there seemed to be better game than EUR trapped inside the bad programming).

While it is only intended to represent the Med. it could have been made much larger by including many more provinces. For example, Sicily is composed of only two areas but it contained scores of large cities and was a huge battleground between Carthage and Syracuse for centuries before the Punic Wars, then Rome and Carthage and eventually various Roman civil war factions. If Sicily consisted of, say, 50 areas alone with the rest of the map upscaled accordingly the game would then match the epic proportions of the other EU titles.

A game that has the kind of map that I'd love to see in EUR is Spartan. The game is generally regarded as a poor man's Rome Total War because the tactical battles are much less involving but the large map of Greece and the Aegian is gloriously detailed, far superior to RTW and it puts EUR's map to shame. Apart from the lack of a naval tech tree (a bizarre design decision!), I thought that it was a better strategy game than RTW (ignoring the tactical battles aspect).

 

[unmerged(117434)]

Well how about this?... Adding foreign envoys and trade from the terra incognita.

 

[Cheexsta]

Entirely possible through events and modifiers, and in fact one of the things I'm looking at modding in the near future. That and nomadic raids (not large enough to form barbarian stacks, but enough to disrupt trade and generally be a pest).

 

[erthul]

Tinkering isn't going to solve the fundamental problem: the game needs a better map and geographical strategy needs to replace political strategy. Does anybody ever play on the terrain screen in any Paradox game?