Fall of Rome: AD 476 - Major P. 4 update on June 25

[TaCktiX]

Instead of going for terrain-realistic, I would suggest simplifying it down to a European outline with some texture. Then you would have more time to work on the gameplay and make it rock out, as others have noted you need to do.

[BrianHoef]

BUMP

New Map:



Original graphics, et al. First page has also been updated.

Sea routes are in, impassables aren't yet. The following borders will be impassable:
- Ravenna-Rugiland
- Mediolanum-Alamannia
- Mediolanum-Burgundy
- Vasconia-Aquitania
- Tarraconensis-Aquitania
- Moesia-Gepidia (possibly)

And the starting locations also aren't in yet, because they're still not quite decided. However, I'm thinking:

-Britannia
-Ravenna
-Constantinople
-Carthago
-Carthaginensis
-Aegyptus (I would probably rename it Alexandria in this case)
-Saxony
-Sweden

All thoughts are appreciated.

[Qwert]

Problem-Very small map with very small terittories.

[seamusk]

I like it but the territories and labels need to be clearer. It seems you have more width to play with. I'd stretch out the map a touch if you can and make the labels and borders a touch bolder. If there are no continents or homelands do you need the different colors? I'm not saying they don't add to the map because they do anyhow but I wonder if it will help as you add features to simplify the color variations. I like it. It has some character.

[AndyDufresne]

Your orientation of Europe leaves a lot of unnecessary space. Consider a slightly more vertical orientation...to take full advantage of the space. You may not have small territory problems then.


--Andy

[BrianHoef]

As in, move the legend to the side and stretch the map vertically?

[snufkin]

maybe you should use a different map projection.. the one you have now is for the world (?) but cropped which makes it look strange.

this one is pretty good (the one i planned doing last year) http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/ ... _0500.html

the ostrogoth kingdom of italy lasted longer and was stronger than odoacer´s.. perhaps skipping forward 24 years works for you?

and oh Gotland is just the large island off the coast - Gotaland is the name of the historical region south of sweden proper.

[t-o-m]

could you mark out on the map where exactly the starting location are?
a dot would do just fine

[BrianHoef]

could you mark out on the map where exactly the starting location are?
a dot would do just fine

Here's an update with starting locations as they stand now:



The crudely marked brown lines will be impassables. I've also tweaked sea routes, borders, and territory names for better legibility; and I've moved the legend and stretched the map vertically, which is what I think Andy was after with his post.

the ostrogoth kingdom of italy lasted longer and was stronger than odoacer´s.. perhaps skipping forward 24 years works for you?

and oh Gotland is just the large island off the coast - Gotaland is the name of the historical region south of sweden proper.

Fixed Gotaland, thanks for that correction.

As for changing the date, I'd rather stick with AD 476 for two reasons: First, it is the accepted date for the actual "fall of Rome", the subject I'm advertising for the map; second, I can more definitively divide certain territories, mostly in eastern Europe, if the map is set in AD 476 than I can if it's set in AD 500. That said, if the general community would rather see an AD 500 map, I'm not morally opposed to a shift of 24 years.

[seamusk]

Looks much better with the larger territories. I have to run but one quick comment on gameplay. It seems to me that gameplay wise Alexandria is kind of pinned down by other starting positions. Moreso than any other starting position. That might just be reflexive but you may want to look at that. I think this map will be cool. ANd definitely keep the date I'd say.

[snufkin]

yeah the date is an interesting one - 500 was just a suggestion to make things easier in case you decided to go for a more traditional map projection of europe.

I don´t think svealand (sweden proper) had access to the westcoast but since the historical records are close to nonexistant no one can prove you wrong.. however all theories etc point to gaut/göt/geats or the norse/nordmen. historically it is not considered part of sweden proper (the west coast didn´t even become part of sweden until the 17th century!)

[BrianHoef]

I'll switch the Sweden border in the next update. It'll free up the options in Scandinavia too.

As far as Alexandria is concerned, I'm not really certain how to fix this. I've thought about:

A. Putting in a Saharan trade route from Libya to one of the north African territories, probably Mauretania. The issue with this is that it still doesn't give the Alexandria player a real means of escape; it just brings him up against the Carthago and Carthaginensis players in the west. Going through Crete to Hellas is still a better option here.

B. Moving the eighth starting location someplace else. This presents its own problems, of course. The entirety of the eastern Mediterranean would then be neutral territory from the start, which gives an advantage to the Carthago and Constantinople players who have easy access to it. Besides which, where could it be moved to? As it is, the starting locations are all pretty much within shouting distance of each other...

C. Some brilliant idea which will be conceived by a reader of this thread, who will be kind enough to post it


I'm working on it...

But I would like other gameplay comments. Do the sea routes work for you? How about the placement of the impassables? I've also considered adding routes from Gothia to Abodria and from (somewhere in the British Isles) to (somewhere on the Iberian Peninsula), to tie the map together more. Thoughts on that, while I ponder Alexandria?

[AndyDufresne]

Still need a good workable image...


--Andy

[BrianHoef]

Working on that image business...if Andy or anyone else has some particular suggestion for the impending graphical revision, please post it. I'm primarily thinking I'll solid-color the territories that are currently terrain-realistic so it's not as busy, solid-color the oceans for the same reason, and put some kind of a graphic effect on the color borders - perhaps a beveled edge. Overall, I'll try to make it look less like a historical map and more like a CC map.

Also - snufkin, as our resident Scandinavian expert (from what I can tell), could you offer some more old-time name suggestions for Norway and Denmark? I'll change Sweden to Svealand, since you happened to slip that one in already.

[Balsiefen]

err, you have england horribly mashed up, take a look at this thread for a bit more accuracy. I'm afraid I can't really comment on Europe though.

[BrianHoef]

I'll switch Mercia to Northumbria and East Anglia to Essex. Better?

[R0k0v]

IN my opinion a good map except for the graphics and the fact that you get no advantage for controlling an empire. This implies that The Western Roman Empire (Byzantines) is equal to the goths. Each Starting location should have unique bonuses, like the age of realms map. There's a lot you can do with this. The Huns must also factor into this because they pushed the germanic tribes towards rome.

[BrianHoef]

The Huns were no longer particularly relevant in AD 476. Attila had been dead for over two decades and the empire was generally defunct.

Regarding the implications of relative powers in the map, I offer two responses:

1. The point of this map is that there are no continents, no bonuses tied to regions, no gimmicky gameplay elements. The setting was selected as a historical point at which this could be plausibly executed; the map was not inspired originally by the history. I think reflecting the true history of any expanding empire - that is, that the conquerors themselves define which regions are relevant, without regard to preexisting divisions - is both more interesting and more important than shooting for an accurate representation of power distribution in AD 476. On that note...

2. Incidentally, the implication of equal power between Constantinople and the empires of Odoacer, the Vandals and the Visigoths is actually reasonably accurate historically. Eastern Roman Emperor Zeno spent most of his life trying to negotiate peace with nations which were territorially much less impressive than the Byzantine empire, among them the Vandals and the Italian peoples under Odoacer, as well as the Ostrogoths, who were still less relevant until Zeno goaded them into conquering Italy for themselves. Eastern Rome was beset by internal struggles as well, and its power was - at best - negligibly greater than that of most other powers represented, including those represented by a single territory.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unrelated question to those experienced with XML: is there any way to randomize starting neutral numbers? My guess is that there isn't, but I just thought I'd ask.

[BrianHoef]

And here's the third update:

Click image to enlarge.

Changes:

-Made the non-color-coded land solid-color, and softened its borders
-Made the oceans solid-color
-Changed the system of color-coding from semitransparent to opaque, and from single-color to gradients radiating outward roughly from the starting locations (where possible).


I have a few other graphical options I've experimented with, but this is the one I personally liked best. How do you feel about the changes?

[Qwert]

Can i se a small version of map?

[sam_levi_11]

now your can rise...... classic.

also it needs a good map but this is looking good

[Mr. Squirrel]

I like the map so far. The time period has always been of real interest to me and I can't wait for this map to become playable (even though I know it is far from that).

You were wondering how you can help out Alexandria before. I suggest you do this: add more territories that expand into Russia and move the Constantinople starting point farther north. This will give Alexandria more room to expand. On top of that, Russia at the time, was where the Huns and major barbarian tribes had come from, so it ties in historically.

[rocky mountain]

why are there different coloured regions if there is no regional bonuses?
i like the idea. obviously the graphics need improving, but the idea is good. do players start with only one city? (the blue dots?)
you would also need to include on the map that you get one bonus army for every 2 terits.
would more territories be surrounding gothia, or is it by itself? if its gonna be there, at least make it more reachable. it looks like there is no point for the impassible on gepidia unless you add more terits around there.
again, its a great idea, and good luck!

[BrianHoef]

Rocky and Squirrel:

I like the idea of expanding the playable area into Russia. I'll add some more territories around the black sea for the next update, and I'll experiment with relocating the eastern starting positions.

To answer previous questions:

why are there different coloured regions if there is no regional bonuses?

I put in the colored regions to show the 'official' empires and areas of influence at the time and to keep the map from being a solid-color blob. At some point I'm going to label them on the map, and when I add a halfway decent legend, I'll include some flowery words about the actual weakness of the so-called 'empires'.

do players start with only one city? (the blue dots?)
you would also need to include on the map that you get one bonus army for every 2 terits.

Yes and yes. Both going in the aforementioned halfway decent legend.

again, its a great idea, and good luck!

Thank you!

Can i se a small version of map?

Coming, I promise.

[zimmah]

nice idea in fact, though instead of +1 for every 2 territories i'd say make them like for example:

+1 for 2
+3 for 5
+5 for 7
+8 for 10

etc.

this will give you the feel of building your own empire and will make up for the loss of continent bonusses, also it will be a real battle for breaking each others empire into small pieces, cuz any territory counts! (like a real war for territory, every inch counts!)

also you could make the rivers/mountains so that they are in fact territories that are crossable, just very hard (either a huge decay (-6 or so) or killer neutrals that revert to like 4 to 6 armies on eich of the territories) this way the rivers will be likely to be ignored becuase it's just not very attractive to attack via the mountains or rivers, however you can use this (like hannibal did) in your advantage, because even though it's costly, it can give you the advantage of a surprise attack!