Roman Empire

[Shepherd]

thought - what if instead of capital cities, the bonuses were for controlling generals? This would work nicely with the "Rivals of Rome" theme. Alaric sacked Rome in 410 AD, Gaiseric marched his Vandals on Rome shortly thereafter, Totila sacked Rome in 546 AD, Hannibal came at Rome from Iberia, and there must have been a Gallic general who is known for fighting the Romans.

The bonus of using generals is that it would make sense NOT to include them in the command bonus, it would just create/attract extra troops within that region. And it would be an entirely unique feature on this map.

 

[Cagey]

Thanks for your attention Shepherd.

I've said all along that my graphics weren't up to it - gifted amateur perhaps but not "pro" level - however no one else was stepping up so I thought I'd give it a shot. However, the more work I put in the more invested I become and the more defensive I am of the product, that's only natural. So this response may seem like a defence of the map largely as it stands, because, frankly, it's about the best i can do. If you think to scrap it and start again I confess I'll be disappointed, but not offended.

Firstly the clearness of the cities positions and borders may be partly because of the rescaling that the forum and photobucket does, so here's how it would actually look in play -





Does that make it any clearer? To me it's plain as day, but then it would be, since I drew it.

The story of the map itself - which I haven't mentioned yet - is that it was snatched by a victorious Centurion from the command tent of a defeated general while his camp was being looted and burnt, stuffed into a pouch and later passed up the chain of command and eventually dispatched to the Imperial Library, which explains its ragged and discoloured state. Not obvious, I know, but that's where I've been coming from. The pastels, I don't know, could make the colours brighter, but I don't think that works so well with the general theme - and I feel history is faded and sepia tinted anyway... I also wanted to use this effect on the edges -



I wasn't too happy with the two arches myself and replaced them with this -



but people didn't like it and asked for the arches back. I don't know - I think you need some sort of graphic to frame the title but I'm open to suggestions as to what form it should take.

This is the icon I made for the cities -



Originally it was all white and had no flag but there was the problem of which command the city belonged to. However colouring in the entire icon made the city blend into the background too much so I compromised with a white line at the base and a white tower rising above the coloured walls flying a coloured flag. Maybe someone else can design a better icon.

Could make the icon bigger but I don't think that'd look so good against the map. It's already bigger than several of the terts on Classic Massive, though admittedly they are mostly islands. My idea was that each city sits directly on top of it's troop container. I don't see how else you could definitively associate the troop container with the city otherwise.

If a city icon touches a territory then it borders that territory, thus the Gaul and Hispaniola cities both border 3 territories. If a sealane line touches a city - or in the case of the Asia Minor city that city's troop container then that's where the connection goes, so, yes, you do have to go through Londinium to get to Britannia, and through Constantinople to get to Illyricum. The Constantinople connection makes more sense, but the Londinium is a bit of a fudge that I don't see a way around without making the icon smaller.

Bonuses can be adjusted of course - originally I had Orient as 2 but was persuaded to bump it up, no problem with dropping it again, and maybe Aegyptus down to 2 as well - not sure about that - Italia down to 3, sure, why not. My idea is that Rome should start with neutral 4, while the other cities start with neutral 3. I should imagine that most cities will get taken early on for their autodeploy, though of course people are reluctant to attack neutrals when there's an enemy they can reduce, so I don't know, it poses an question for the player - take the city and use the autodeploy to help take the command or clear out the enemies first before taking the city to complete the command - it's a question of strategy and tactics, which is what we're all here for anyway.

If someone gets a lucky deal then it's a problem for the other players, but that's the same for any map, I don't see how it would be any different for this one.

How about a mountain range here:



Names are adjustable, I pulled most of them off various old maps, some of which disagreed so I chose the one I thought sounded best. I'm not married to any of them, any suggestions for re-names I'm all ears - Hispania you're right, and I think we just swap the names of Slavia and Illyricum and that's more accurate.


edit - I don't know the Generals would work - is that like a special type of unit that would move around the board?

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I also would like to know what Shep means about "generals". For the rest, it seems to me like it's mostly tweaking what you've done, Cagey, not any wholesale changes. As far as the cities, could you maybe just stretch the bottom down some and put the troop carrier in it? That would solve that. I like the Mountains, makes it easier to justify knocking Italy down 1. Other than that, I like it. A couple of minor tweaks that Shep suggested, and it's ready.

I know you have a lot invested in this, and it's really good. I think maybe step back for a minute and realize that Shep really only suggested small changes; overall was very supportive of your work. He didn't rip it. (I've seen him rip other maps and suggestions, including one that I made once, but he only does that because he's very protective of the maps that get released here and wants every map to be excellent.) Overall, you got a B+, I think. He just wants you to make it an A.

 

[Shepherd]

quick clarification on three points:

1. I wasn't suggesting scrapping the current graphics direction. I'm just saying we should nail down gameplay first, then we can nitpick the graphics.

2. With the cities, I'd suggest incorporating the troop containers with city graphic so it isn't a free-floating container. I did this is 90 seconds so it's awful, but it suggests my idea...

3. The "generals" idea wouldn't change the map any, it would just be identifying the cities as generals from those regions rather than calling them cities. For example, Hanibal is from the region in north Africa where you currently have a city - by identifying those special regions as military commanders who threaten the safety of Rome it works nicely with the "Rivals of Rome" theme of the map, and lends some historical weight to them. It's just an idea.

And we will need to figure out how to better represent the cities being connected to the surrounding regions, as I think the current system is unclear and counter-intuitive. If you're sailing from France with a boatload of soldiers, you don't land in London - which is about 100 miles from the English Channel - you land on the coast. I know a bunch of guys named Norman who could attest to this fact.

 

[linkinpark]

Well, Hannibal reigned in Spain and passed the Alps from there.

But that's not my point, what I want to say is that it wouldn't really make sense as those "generals" obviously came from outside or the border regions of the empire (which changes the game play a lot) plus they didn't live when Rome wasn't in their golden age (also quite obvious), while the map shows exactly the Rome borders of the golden age.

 

[hat7rick]

actually while rome was still in peak it was divided in territories where each general would have power. then those generals started fighting fore more power in rome

 

[Shepherd]

eh, like I said the Generals idea wouldn't change the play of the map, I just felt it would fit with the theme a bit better than cities. It was just an idea.

More pressing will be sorting out the city connections - I think that's rather important.

 

[Cagey]

My earlier response probably came across as more defensive than I intended - mainly I was trying to explain the source of some of the choices made and recap a little of the evolution of the map.

Yeah, I'm not really digging the Generals idea either - first the rivals of a city are other cities, if were named Rivals of Caesar it might make more sense but even then you'd be using characters from different time periods; Hannibal from hundreds of years before Caesar lived and Attila from hundreds of years after he died for instance. Second because they're static, unmoving. Generals move around with their armies - if Hannibal had stayed in Carthage (or New Carthage in Spain) he would have been no trouble, and we would not have heard of him, and of course Attila had to come to Rome in order to sack it. And I was thinking of the players taking the role of generals, each conquering cities and territories and eliminating their rivals - other players - in their quest to become Emperor.

The icon incorporating the troop box you made is exactly as I imagined it from Card's suggestion, and in truth I see little else you could do without a complete re-design or making the icons even larger, obscuring more of the geography, which is the source of the London problem. I guess we can bend the sea lane from Belgae so it joins with Norfolk rather than the city.

I think the new mountain range is a keeper but I don't see where else I could put another that'd make a difference. Any suggestions welcomed. Inclined to eliminate the sealane from the Crimea to Asia Minor, that'd strengthen that green command, giving it another non-border tert.

I'll work up the next version, though it may be that total obvious clarity is impossible with this concept. That being said I think it seems simple and uncomplicated enough that by the second game anyone plays on it they should be able to work out what's going on - which I can't say for some of the other maps currently available - I don't want to name them and possibly raise other's defences, or start a debate on other maps, but there's more than one that I'm still not too sure about. Some games you just have to play.

 

[Shepherd]

My earlier response probably came across as more defensive than I intended - mainly I was trying to explain the source of some of the choices made and recap a little of the evolution of the map.

Eh, it's all good Cagey. You've done a lot of good work here, so I understand why you'd be defensive.

As far as the cities, I think one of the following directions would make the situation most clear:

1. Nest each city in just one region. Rather than having them border multiple regions, put the city icon and troop container in one large land region. That way it's absolutely clear what the city borders, and the icon doesn't have to be ridiculously large. Roman-era cities were pretty small affairs, so it doesn't make sense that they'd be so large that the border three or four regions.

2. Give the cities some real estate of their own on the map, so they present and highlight on the map like any other region. Again, the icons don't have to be ridiculously large, and there's no room for confusion. This is the simplest option and doesn't require any kind of map redesign.

Going forward, it would be nice if the city icons reflected the look of old Roman cities. Right now the icons look like ziggurats behind city walls, which suggests Mesopotamian. I have an idea on this Cagey... I'll shoot you a message.

Oh, and are there individual region names anywhere?

 

[Sebrim]

some of the city links do make sense, though.

Carthage is a port, so in order to come to Sicily, you probably should go through that port. Same goes for Carales, Constantinople, Athens, Ephesos and Alexandria.

I definitely do not agree that it is not intuitive as it is. Cagey has really done a good job.

The territory names are in this post: http://www.majorcommand.com/forums/threads/5031-Roman-Empire?p=53862&viewfull=1#post53862

Other mountain ranges that could be included are Pyrenees (don't make a difference, though), Balkans (would for example bar the way between Lower Pannonia and Upper Moesia, or even between Upper Moesia and Dalmatia), the small Caucasus range (would stop traffic between Armenia and Syria) for example.

 

[Shepherd]

some of the city links do make sense, though.

Carthage is a port, so in order to come to Sicily, you probably should go through that port. Same goes for Carales, Constantinople, Athens, Ephesos and Alexandria.

Agreed - making some of the cities port cities makes sense, as port cities would have controlled the seas back then. I simply think it would be more clear if the cities either had fewer borders, or were represented with land as is any other region.

... I'm looking at the sea route across the Black Sea. Losing it would make that northern region a non-border region. Right now that command only has one region that isn't a border.

... and we should nail down the names of the bonus commands, for accuracy and consistency. Here's a map with the Romanesque names of regions:

 

[hat7rick]

I am already saving up game slots for this map

 

[Shepherd]

I am already saving up game slots for this map

It'll be a few weeks yet, hat7rick. Publishing the final map takes some time.

 

[hat7rick]

what's a few weeks when a game can last a year

 

[BAB00N]

Good job guys keeping this going, good to see shep here as well, this map is gonna be great!

 

[Cagey]

It's looking really good.

 

[patsfan44]

It's looking really good.

That it is. That it is. Great job cagey.

 

[Shepherd]

currently accepting suggestions for game load messages.

 

[Robinette]

currently accepting suggestions for game load messages.

This is kinda funny...
"Gluteus Maximus kicks butt in the Coliseum"

"When in Rome... do as the Romans do"

"Veni, vidi, vici"
(I came, I saw, I conquered)

"Et tu, Brute?"

"Plotting a Back Stabbing"

And maybe you could do a couple graffitis from Pompei and Herculean...
“PHILIROS SPADO” which translates as "Phileros is a eunuch"

“LUCIUS PINXIT” translates as "Lucius wrote this"



PS - looking forward to playing this one... well done!

 

[Cagey]

"Feeding the Lions"

"Gilding the Eagles"

"Riding the Triumph"

"Crucifying the Criminals"

"Breading the Circuses"

"Rigging the Senate"

"Bridging the Bay of Naples" (one of Caligula's stunts)

"Investing the Vestals"

"Raising the Legions"

"Sharpening the Gladii"

"Crossing the Rubicon"

"Casting the Die"

"Rowing the triremes"

"Straightening the Roads"

"Racing the Chariots"

"Wearing the Purple"

"Pandering to the Plebeians"