Conquer Club

Would it spoils things to have another river region and city to the east of the Tigris and to the West of the Euphrates?

Set the gameplay up so that players start on the outside and gravitate to the centre of the map and fight over extra bonuses there?

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:Like you said. There's going to be a few players starting in Gilgamesh, but whoever starts with Ur would have a river territory all to themselves.

Theoretically, I suppose. But likely what will happen is someone will start with Nanna and someone else with Ur. I don't see how that could be too much of a problem. Can't I set things so that someone can't get a land territory and the city within it anyway?

Starting positions only let you set pairs that must drop together. There's no mechanism for setting territories that can't drop together.

i'm new to this thread but i have read all posts so far

when i looked at the map in the first post i found it confusing

the image for river territories threw me, it was only after i viewed the previous versions that i figured out what that little image represented. will that be the final little pic ?

in your Cities description, the 2nd sentance 'receive a bonus of ....' should start with a capital R.

for the description for River Territories you have 'the fertile earth of the river territories .....'. i think i have always heard these places described as 'the fertile soil of the river territories .....'. you also refer to it as fertile soil on the other side of the map.

it then says 'but the swamp lands reduce your troop count there by one'

• where are the swamp lands ?
• is it 1 on each terit i hold or 1 total, regardless of how many territories i hold ?
• the space between the words your & troop could be larger so it does not look like oneword

it then says 'Dominate each river, the Tigris and the Euphrates, for a bonus of 4 per river (all 4 territories) held'. that does not flow for me. what about -
'Dominate the Tigris or the Euphrates (hold all 4 territories of either), for a bonus of 4 per river.'

• is that bonus 4 in total or 4 + the 2 mentioned earlier at - 'river territories provide a bonus of 1 per 2 territories'

then you have 'River territories can attack all the cities within itself And any adjacent river territory connected by'

• sentences do not start with And, it is a joiner, so it should have a lower case a
• i don't like this '... all cities within itself ...' but atm i don't have an alternative for you to mull over

what does the squiggle/dotted line separating territories represent ?

what is B.C.E. ?

what is B.C.E. ?

before common era

natty_dread wrote:

what is B.C.E. ?

before common era

they had been wiped out long before 3000 BCE as they didn't last much after 2500 BC

greenoaks wrote:i'm new to this thread but i have read all posts so far

when i looked at the map in the first post i found it confusing

the image for river territories threw me, it was only after i viewed the previous versions that i figured out what that little image represented. will that be the final little pic ?

in your Cities description, the 2nd sentance 'receive a bonus of ....' should start with a capital R.

for the description for River Territories you have 'the fertile earth of the river territories .....'. i think i have always heard these places described as 'the fertile soil of the river territories .....'. you also refer to it as fertile soil on the other side of the map.

it then says 'but the swamp lands reduce your troop count there by one'

• where are the swamp lands ?
• is it 1 on each terit i hold or 1 total, regardless of how many territories i hold ?
• the space between the words your & troop could be larger so it does not look like oneword

it then says 'Dominate each river, the Tigris and the Euphrates, for a bonus of 4 per river (all 4 territories) held'. that does not flow for me. what about -
'Dominate the Tigris or the Euphrates (hold all 4 territories of either), for a bonus of 4 per river.'

• is that bonus 4 in total or 4 + the 2 mentioned earlier at - 'river territories provide a bonus of 1 per 2 territories'

then you have 'River territories can attack all the cities within itself And any adjacent river territory connected by'

• sentences do not start with And, it is a joiner, so it should have a lower case a
• i don't like this '... all cities within itself ...' but atm i don't have an alternative for you to mull over

what does the squiggle/dotted line separating territories represent ?

what is B.C.E. ?

Well, thanks for the input! I know there are a fair amount of mistakes in sentence structure and whatnot, and I'll fix that when I get around to it. A lot of what you see now will be cleared up in the Graphics Workshop (once I figure out who's gonna do 'em ). As for the swamp lands, they clearly aren't present anymore, but they were then.

greenoaks wrote: for the description for River Territories you have 'the fertile earth of the river territories .....'. i think i have always heard these places described as 'the fertile soil of the river territories .....'. you also refer to it as fertile soil on the other side of the map.

Soil is a type of earth. It really doesn't matter.

it then says 'but the swamp lands reduce your troop count there by one'

• where are the swamp lands ?
• is it 1 on each terit i hold or 1 total, regardless of how many territories i hold ?

I think the swamplands aren't supposed to be drawn on -- they're just a justification for why there's one troop taken away from each river territory each turn. I think regular army attrition would have the same effect.

it then says 'Dominate each river, the Tigris and the Euphrates, for a bonus of 4 per river (all 4 territories) held'. that does not flow for me. what about -
'Dominate the Tigris or the Euphrates (hold all 4 territories of either), for a bonus of 4 per river.'

• is that bonus 4 in total or 4 + the 2 mentioned earlier at - 'river territories provide a bonus of 1 per 2 territories'

This is a good question. Victor?

then you have 'River territories can attack all the cities within itself And any adjacent river territory connected by'

• sentences do not start with And, it is a joiner, so it should have a lower case a
• i don't like this '... all cities within itself ...' but atm i don't have an alternative for you to mull over

[/list]

"A river territory can attack all cities within itself" or "within its borders." Maybe "River territories can attack all cities within their own borders."

what does the squiggle/dotted line separating territories represent ?

It represents the fact that they're not the same territory.

what is B.C.E. ?

B.C.E. is just another way of saying B.C. without having to use a religious reference point to define dates. The religiously neutral equivalent of A.D. is C.E.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

greenoaks wrote:it then says 'Dominate each river, the Tigris and the Euphrates, for a bonus of 4 per river (all 4 territories) held'. that does not flow for me. what about -
'Dominate the Tigris or the Euphrates (hold all 4 territories of either), for a bonus of 4 per river.'

• is that bonus 4 in total or 4 + the 2 mentioned earlier at - 'river territories provide a bonus of 1 per 2 territories'

This is a good question. Victor?

It stacks, yes.

@Sully - part of my confusion was the name, i was looking at the rivers for the river territories, ie. that the river had been split up into territories.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

greenoaks wrote:what is B.C.E. ?

B.C.E. is just another way of saying B.C. without having to use a religious reference point to define dates. The religiously neutral equivalent of A.D. is C.E.

why would we use religious neutral letters to count the years before and after a religious event. BC & AD are the global standard.

besides the Common Era started after WW2, or perhaps when the Industrial Revolution started. maybe it was when the United Nations was created.

my point is there is nothing common about life today and that of the Middle Ages or Dark Ages so why is that being pushed on us. i could understand if it had relevance to the civilisation but it doesn't

btw Sully i am not religious, i don't believe in any of the world's gods but neither am i on a crusade to deny their existance or contribution to the world such as the dating system we currently have

what does the squiggle/dotted line separating territories represent ?

It represents the fact that they're not the same territory.

i get that.

are they canals (as that is something Sumar was known for), markings of political boundaries (like councils or states today) or just some made up separator positioned for gameplay reasons ?

then you have 'River territories can attack all the cities within itself And any adjacent river territory connected by'

* sentences do not start with And, it is a joiner, so it should have a lower case a
* i don't like this '... all cities within itself ...' but atm i don't have an alternative for you to mull over

"A river territory can attack all cities within itself" or "within its borders." Maybe "River territories can attack all cities within their own borders."

i like the 2nd one

greenoaks wrote:@Sully - part of my confusion was the name, i was looking at the rivers for the river territories, ie. that the river had been split up into territories.

I see. But you understand now, I assume?

greenoaks wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

greenoaks wrote:what is B.C.E. ?

B.C.E. is just another way of saying B.C. without having to use a religious reference point to define dates. The religiously neutral equivalent of A.D. is C.E.

why would we use religious neutral letters to count the years before and after a religious event. BC & AD are the global standard.

besides the Common Era started after WW2, or perhaps when the Industrial Revolution started. maybe it was when the United Nations was created.

my point is there is nothing common about life today and that of the Middle Ages or Dark Ages so why is that being pushed on us. i could understand if it had relevance to the civilisation but it doesn't

btw Sully i am not religious, i don't believe in any of the world's gods but neither am i on a crusade to deny their existance or contribution to the world such as the dating system we currently have

I honestly could care less if B.C.E./C.E. or B.C./A.D. were used. They switched to BCE and CE because BC and AD weren't accurate to the time of Christ's death, so they felt is was inappropriate to use that anymore. Like I said, it really doesn't matter to me.

what does the squiggle/dotted line separating territories represent ?

It represents the fact that they're not the same territory.

i get that.

are they canals (as that is something Sumar was known for), markings of political boundaries (like councils or states today) or just some made up separator positioned for gameplay reasons ?

greenoaks wrote:

then you have 'River territories can attack all the cities within itself And any adjacent river territory connected by'

* sentences do not start with And, it is a joiner, so it should have a lower case a
* i don't like this '... all cities within itself ...' but atm i don't have an alternative for you to mull over

"A river territory can attack all cities within itself" or "within its borders." Maybe "River territories can attack all cities within their own borders."

i like the 2nd one

Yep, me too. I'll fix that later, though. I want to hammer out some gameplay first. You have any comments gameplay-wise, greenoaks (or really anyone)?

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:

greenoaks wrote:@Sully - part of my confusion was the name, i was looking at the rivers for the river territories, ie. that the river had been split up into territories.

I see. But you understand now, I assume?

sort of,

Sumer wasn't the first because of the rivers or because of the soil, others places had that too. my understanding of that culture was they were successful because they irrigated the land by building canals. so why are we fighting over River Territories (territores of the river) when we should be fighting over the irrigated farmland and the canals (control of the water).

'the swamp lands reduce your troop count there by 1' makes no historical sense to me. this was an extremely well cultivated, irrigated land. in this context, the 1 per 2 river territories & +4 for all of a river's territories do.

i know you want to do a small map but i just don't feel it at this size. are you doing the civilisation an injustice by making it so small ? one of the features of this civ is it had up to 30 city-states jostling for control of canals, irrigated farmland & each other.

the more i read of this civ the more i think of the map New World except the surrounding territories might not belong (bonus-wise) to any city-state. there could be up to 30 starting positions with a lot of irrigated farmland/canals starting neutral surrounding them. to get your city a bonus you must connect it to the river via the canals/irrigated parcels of land.

games could be played with standard victory conditions or new ones such as control x% of the city-states to be declared the (first) high-king/priest.

i know its a bit long so in summary
No - troop decay
Yes - territory bonus
No - small map

I honestly could care less if B.C.E./C.E. or B.C./A.D. were used. They switched to BCE and CE because BC and AD weren't accurate to the time of Christ's death, so they felt is was inappropriate to use that anymore. Like I said, it really doesn't matter to me.

i don't know who 'they' is but i didn't see its use from a google search. Wikipedia, AncientNearEast, MNSU.edu and Kidipede all use BC

BC & AD are the global standard.

No they're not. CE & BCE are used these days in many many places, especially in scientific literature. CE/BCE is the way of the future, it's usage is increasing all the time.

Wikipedia, AncientNearEast, MNSU.edu and Kidipede all use BC

Don't know about those other sites but wikipedia uses both notations.

Anyway, the subject of the map is ancient Sumer and ancient Sumerians hadn't ever heard of "christ"....

natty_dread wrote:

BC & AD are the global standard.

No they're not. CE & BCE are used these days in many many places, especially in scientific literature. CE/BCE is the way of the future, it's usage is increasing all the time.

Wikipedia, AncientNearEast, MNSU.edu and Kidipede all use BC

Don't know about those other sites but wikipedia uses both notations.

Anyway, the subject of the map is ancient Sumer and ancient Sumerians hadn't ever heard of "christ"....

so why have 3000 B.C.E. on it at all as back in their day the Common Era was their era

Well duh... if you'd put 3000 CE then people would think this was a map about futurama.

Use BP. Before Present.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Use BP. Before Present.


--Andy

Wow! Thanks Andy! *skips merrily off into the sunset*

But in all seriousness, that seems like a decent idea.

-Sully

AndyDufresne wrote:Use BP. Before Present.


--Andy

the present time is from when the Industrial Revolution took place. so to use 3000 BP would put this map at around 1000 BC, long after this civilisation was gone.

there is however a global calender that uses BC & AD. it is what is used in history books & encyclopedias not published by extremist organisations such as anti-christian/religious groups

Okay, I think the discussion about what label to use has gone on for long enough. Let's stick to gameplay, please.

greenoaks wrote: there is however a global calender that uses BC & AD. it is what is used in history books & encyclopedias not published by extremist organisations such as anti-christian/religious groups

Only paranoid christians think everyone that doesn't agree with their religion is "anti-christian". BCE/CE is used in science all the time now. If you read an archaeology article about ancient sumer, guess what nomination they use? BCE.

Not that I have anything against christians, you see. But facts are facts.

natty_dread wrote:

greenoaks wrote: there is however a global calender that uses BC & AD. it is what is used in history books & encyclopedias not published by extremist organisations such as anti-christian/religious groups

Only paranoid christians think everyone that doesn't agree with their religion is "anti-christian". BCE/CE is used in science all the time now. If you read an archaeology article about ancient sumer, guess what nomination they use? BCE.

i did a google search on it and they were all BC/AD

Not that I have anything against christians, you see. But facts are facts.

you have provided no facts, i have provided examples

please stop pushing your extremist views on the rest of CC

i did a google search on it and they were all BC/AD

Nope. Example from sciencedaily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 094757.htm

American Journal of Archaeology says the following:

http://www.ajaonline.org/index.php?ptype=page&pid=4

3.4
Chronological references. Era designations are to be set in capital letters followed by periods and without spaces, never in small caps. AJA uses B.C.E. ("before the common era") and C.E. ("common era"), not B.C. and A.D.

Then there's this site which even gives a fairly good reasoning for their usage of BCE/CE:

http://www.carf.info/archaeology/

We have decided to use B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) rather than B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini), or B.P. (Before Present). B.C.E. and C.E. are essentially equivalent to B.C. and A.D. (the dates are, in fact, identical), however, we feel that the former are preferable for two reasons: firstly, B.C. and A.D. suggest a Eurocentric world view that is not necessarily appropriate when discussing cultures that existed in North America almost 10 000 years prior to European contact; secondly, confusion has arisen regarding the actual date of the birth of Jesus Christ, with most experts generally placing the birth between 7 and 4 years prior to the year 1. The designations B.C.E. and C.E. are not contingent on any particular event in history, rather considering the year 1 to be no more than simply that year that has traditionally been designated 1.

In Ontario, the use of B.P. is fairly standard in the dating of prehistoric events. As an organisation that deals with both prehistoric and historic archaeology, however, the dates that we deal with span a fairly significant length of time. In an attempt to avoid confusion, we decided to use only one system for all of the events discussed here rather than using B.P. to classify more ancient events and C.E. to classify more recent ones. As a discussion of the year 1830 as 170 B.P. would, we feel, confuse far more than clarify, we elected to forgo the use of B.P. altogether, and classify all events as B.C.E. or C.E.

These were found with a quick google search as well.

you have provided no facts, i have provided examples

You have provided ad-hominem attacks and non-sequiturs.

please stop pushing your extremist views on the rest of CC

Such as this.

Enough with the BC/BCE discussion.
If you two would like to continue your argument in PM, that's your business, but it is not a constructive argument for gameplay, or any stage of mapmaking. Victor Sullivan has explicitly requested that you post no more about this, and any further arguments in this area will be treated as off-topic posting.

Relax, guys. Victor can use whichever abbreviation he wants, and I promise you, it will not be the end of the world.

Thanks, ED

Now the discussion comes to a screeching halt Let's see, where were we...? I think the main issue was the starting deploys, as EvilD didn't seem to think my original idea would work. Just to refresh your memory, my idea was to have each player start out with a river territory then have the cities dealt out asper usual. Now, EvilD seemed to think starting out with Gilgamesh would be much different from starting with Ubaid, making things unbalanced. I believe his point has some validity and I think some of that can be resolved if each starting river territory position was paired with a city from a different region. Thoughts?

-Sully

That would help - I still think a couple more river regions with a single city each would be cool.