Perfect Roman-era map

[Snake IV]

Given that there's no point in featuring the world all the way to the Indus in a game focused on expansion in the Roman world, it seems unlikely that the development team has that sort of "foresight". Stop at about the eastern edge of Roman influence somewhere in the middle of Persia to get a more compact map, a clearer game focus, and fewer bodies of water.

If a place isn't within a rectangle made on a Mercator projection by noting where Roman legions set foot from time to time, there's little reason to include it in EU: Rome.

By that logic you should exclude South America from HoI because no fighting was made there. Something that's great with Paradox games is the possibility to play all nation, down to crappy little Liberia, and still get everything fairly well from that point of view. Now we risk to only get that for medeterainian nations, if even not all of Persia will be in.

And the sayings that it can be modded in, can it? Sure you can make a map streching all the way to China, but that would require non-permanent Terra Icognita, and if the usual game is only of Europe, there will be little reason for Paradox to implent that.

 

[Flooper X]

And the sayings that it can be modded in, can it? Sure you can make a map streching all the way to China, but that would require non-permanent Terra Icognita, and if the usual game is only of Europe, there will be little reason for Paradox to implent that.

well all of europe wasn't known to the romans at that time, so they might do it

 

[Snake IV]

well all of europe wasn't known to the romans at that time, so they might do it

They might, I hope, but it's not sure.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

By that logic you should exclude South America from HoI because no fighting was made there. Something that's great with Paradox games is the possibility to play all nation, down to crappy little Liberia, and still get everything fairly well from that point of view. Now we risk to only get that for medeterainian nations, if even not all of Persia will be in.

Since HoI focuses on a specific war, the second world war, having the entirity of the world on the map makes excellent sense. That said, you could easily make a great world war two game excluding South America entirely, but that would be a bit of a problem when you are using a single rectangular Mercator projection as your base map; Excluding it would make more sense if your game was based around more geographically limited scenarios featuring specific theatres of war than one where you'd have to pencil in "here be cabbages" in the missing section.

 

[Gothmog]

Given that there's no point in featuring the world all the way to the Indus in a game focused on expansion in the Roman world, it seems unlikely that the development team has that sort of "foresight". Stop at about the eastern edge of Roman influence somewhere in the middle of Persia to get a more compact map, a clearer game focus, and fewer bodies of water.

If a place isn't within a rectangle made on a Mercator projection by noting where Roman legions set foot from time to time, there's little reason to include it in EU: Rome.

While that works fine for most nations, it makes playing the eastern nations, such as Parthia and the Seleucid Empire, far less interesting.

 

[Snake IV]

Since HoI focuses on a specific war, the second world war, having the entirity of the world on the map makes excellent sense. That said, you could easily make a great world war two game excluding South America entirely, but that would be a bit of a problem when you are using a single rectangular Mercator projection as your base map; Excluding it would make more sense if your game was based around more geographically limited scenarios featuring specific theatres of war than one where you'd have to pencil in "here be cabbages" in the missing section.

Exactly, but do we really want the game to be only a "specific theatre"? I don't.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Exactly, but do we really want the game to be only a "specific theatre"? I don't.

In a game focused on Rome, I do.

Some of you seem to me to want something other than is being offered - a game that is focused on the "Ancient World" in general with a particular hungering for the Seleucids or Parthians, or perhaps a game focused on the successor states in general with lots and lots of tiny provinces in Greece to really make it interesting, and while I have no doubt that one could make a damn good game focusing on those issues, that's just not what I would expect, or hope, to be done in a game focusing on a Roman setting.

 

[unmerged(51662)]

After our time frame more or less.

Er, no it's not. It's in the time frame by a century. Trade existed before the silk road as well, just not in such a large scale.

Official contacts or Buddhist missions? I've never come across references to extensive interaction at the state level, and most of the trade references I've seen go through S.E. Asia first.

There were no Buddhist missions to the west, not that I've heard of. Multiple embassies of the Chinese were sent to Bactria, which was a major factor in the development of the Silk Road. And obviously they had a lot of contact with the Mauryans, who almost bordered them.

Yes, we know about the ones that bordered areas with writing, but what about the ones deeper on the Steppe?

What do you mean 'deeper on the Steppe'? The map I posted is tilted, so only the regions inhabited by the Sarmations, Saka and Yuezhi are really present. In response to your inevitable 'but there's a little bit to the North', PTI.

 

[unmerged(21621)]

Given that there's no point in featuring the world all the way to the Indus in a game focused on expansion in the Roman world, it seems unlikely that the development team has that sort of "foresight". Stop at about the eastern edge of Roman influence somewhere in the middle of Persia to get a more compact map, a clearer game focus, and fewer bodies of water.

If a place isn't within a rectangle made on a Mercator projection by noting where Roman legions set foot from time to time, there's little reason to include it in EU: Rome.

wow thanks for the lecture

successor states in the east such as the seleucids played a major role during this time period; rome and carthage weren't the only two important nations, contrary to what some people's limited understanding of history would have them believe. it would be hardly outside the scope of a game from this time period, focusing on the roman world, to at least include all of persia.

 

[Merrick Chance']

As I said before when I said I wanted to play Macedonia, the Successor states are the ones that most armchair generals REALLY want to play, because, like the Byzantine Empire, they had such a great chance of becoming Rome, if not for the idiocies of the leaders of their countries (I'm looking at you, Pyhrrus)

 

[Zoston]

I don't mind what map paradox choses. I'd rather they focus on making good features and a great core engine. You know, the stuff that can't be modded in later?

 

[Gothmog]

In a game focused on Rome, I do.

Some of you seem to me to want something other than is being offered - a game that is focused on the "Ancient World" in general with a particular hungering for the Seleucids or Parthians, or perhaps a game focused on the successor states in general with lots and lots of tiny provinces in Greece to really make it interesting, and while I have no doubt that one could make a damn good game focusing on those issues, that's just not what I would expect, or hope, to be done in a game focusing on a Roman setting.

While I agree with some parts of your reasoning, I strongly disagree with others.

One of the main strengths of EU series has, from day one (at least to my mind), always been the fact that you can chose and play with numerous different nations, and while a number of the “lesser” nations may be less than ideally represented, all the major ones have been rather well defined and handled in terms of how they play and appear on the map. Now, while the game may have Rome in its name, I regard this primarily as a selling point, not as an indication that it will focus exclusively on Rome. If that is indeed the case, then I at least will be rather disappointed.

The Seleucids, and later the Parthians, are not just minor unimportant nations (as are a number of the tribes some people are clamouring for in other threads), but major powers of the era. With a map that severely limits the amount of eastern provinces, they will both be less fun to play and arguably more dangerous than they should be as AI nations, since they will have a major front “covered” by the edge of the map. The latter issue can of course be mitigated by having events/barbarians mess things up along the eastern frontier.

Having the Seleucids/Parthians in the game with a very limited map would sort of be like cutting off the eastern half of Russia in EUII/EUIII, or, to use an admittedly more extreme example, to have Spain without the ability to colonise South America. It would still make for a fine game with most nations, but playing Russia or Spain (both major powers of the era) would be far less fun. The same goes for the Seleucids/Parthians in this game.

The current map (as far as we know it) seems to shaft the Seleucids and Parthians as player nations (making them far to easy and less interesting to play), and makes them rather more dangerous than they should be as AI nations, but leaves the other four major powers in quite good shape in terms of geographic coverage.

So the current map is far from a disaster, but far less appropriate to the task than, say, the CK map, let alone the EU maps. That being said, what I had in mind would be expanding the map to cover the eastern satrapies and possibly Baktria, not China and all of India. That would be going too far for a game of this scope. But cutting of half the territory for two of the major powers in the game is not going far enough.

 

[Gothmog]

As I said before when I said I wanted to play Macedonia, the Successor states are the ones that most armchair generals REALLY want to play, because, like the Byzantine Empire, they had such a great chance of becoming Rome, if not for the idiocies of the leaders of their countries (I'm looking at you, Pyhrrus)

I'd disagree with "most". The majority will probably primarily play Rome and/or Carthage and re-enact the Punic wars. But a sizeable minority will play with the Successor states, and PE has designed games with these kinds of players in mind in the past.

 

[Snake IV]

Well said there Gothmog.

 

[Featauril]

wow thanks for the lecture

successor states in the east such as the seleucids played a major role during this time period; rome and carthage weren't the only two important nations, contrary to what some people's limited understanding of history would have them believe. it would be hardly outside the scope of a game from this time period, focusing on the roman world, to at least include all of persia.

I agree with you ; I expect to be able to play one of rome's rivals and still have room for expansion east or south, even if that area was never roman.

Ideally the map should reach all the way to Alexander's farthest extension.

 

[unmerged(22461)]

There were no Buddhist missions to the west, not that I've heard of. Multiple embassies of the Chinese were sent to Bactria, which was a major factor in the development of the Silk Road. And obviously they had a lot of contact with the Mauryans, who almost bordered them.

I wasn't refering to the West so much as the movement of Buddhism into China (which generally wasn't a state sponcered activity). I've not heard of these embassies to Bactria before, nor hav I heard about much contact between any Chinese dynasty and Indian state before early A.D. times; do you have any more information on these?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

wow thanks for the lecture

My thanks.

successor states in the east such as the seleucids played a major role during this time period; rome and carthage weren't the only two important nations, contrary to what some people's limited understanding of history would have them believe. it would be hardly outside the scope of a game from this time period, focusing on the roman world, to at least include all of persia.

I am pleased that you either consider me to have a limited understanding of history or choose to make a rhetorical point, while failing to appreciate my opinion, which, mind you, I am not expecting everybody to accept. It is just that it has to be a consideration in game design: "Just how far do we want to go without losing focus and just which game mechanics do we want to implement to support it". It is always possible to argue for an expansion of scope on reasonable grounds in a game, and a corollary to that in game development is that it is not always wise to do so. You've got a deadline, a design, a budget, and a finite amount of things you can get done.

Again, I quite agree that the limits you and others are thinking of, whether they end at the far reaches of Persia or the Indus, could make for a good game featuring the major powers of the ancient world - it is just that neither are necessary if the major focus is on Rome, and that the more you include, the more you move the focus of the game away from Rome.

The entire "the map as shown now is an alpha map, so it probably doesn't have the right provinces yet, map design might change or it might be made bigger during development, they are probably still thinking about this and open to change the design" line of thinking is wishful thinking. We are talking about a game scheduled for release Q2 2008, 6-9 months from now - the minimap you see in this screenshot is the map you'll get, and the provinces are extremely unlikely to change to any significant degree:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10842



-------

Gothmog, I hear what you are saying, and I can easily understand your reasoning (heck, my favourite passtime in many a Paradox game has been playing weirdly located nations or powerful ROTW nations), and if this game was to be another nation-based "the world is your sandbox" game, I would definitely agree with you, but everything we've heard until now speaks of something that is personality based and focused on Rome with regards to game mechanics. For such a game, I prefer a tight vision and limited geographical scope.

If that means that we chop off all eastern Persia and compensate by making the easternmost Persian provinces that make it on the map very rich/high manpower to compensate, that's fine with me. It won't make playing the early Seleucids or later Parthians as interesting as it would if the map included all their neighbours, but then, they aren't the focus of the game, and the primary purpose of Parthia in a Roman focused game is as the "enemy in the east" - it is an acceptable sacrifice, and you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Zagys]

What I don't understand is why Paradox considers Ireland, Scandinavia and Northern Russia more important to the Roman world than Persia. I would just be happy if the focus was a little more East and South, which is well worth sacrificing some of the North and West for.

Currently the map looks more appropriate for a European theatre WW 2 game, to be honest.

 

[unmerged(58901)]

I seriously doubt the map in the alpha screenshots won't be changed before release, especially with all this community output.

 

[shasla6]

I seriously doubt the map in the alpha screenshots won't be changed before release, especially with all this community output.

I seriously doubt that it will. Major design decisions are definitely made before the alpha stage. Perhaps they're saving the East and the South for an expansion. The latter direction in particular is not extended far enough. It should go at least as far as Nubia. Personally, I would have it end at the Horn.