Rome II

[MengJiao]

So I'm playing the Seleucids at war with Egypt, and I take Jerusalem and then head east to Petra. They're both in the same province. Petra is the provincial capital and has strong defensive walls and Jerusalem has none. Shouldn't this be just the opposite? You ancient history experts out there let me know if I'm wrong about this. Was there ever a time Petra was a fortified city? And wasn't Jerusalem always one? Even before the Roman era? I know, I know. It's CA's game and they can make it any damned way they want. Just saying... ???

   It does seem arbitrary.  On the other hand, there always have been good places for big forts over in the direction of Petra.  For example, John the Baptist seems to have been decapitated in a fortress over in that direction.  And this is an area (regions and such) where I think the game is maybe too abstract and arbitrary due its scale.  I would have preferred a game that focused on the Levant in this period or actually maybe 1500 years earlier.  1772 BC might be a lot more fun in gamey terms:  Egypt busy falling apart in the aftermath of the Middle Kingdom; Crete being the Ulimate Sea Power; the Myceneans building up; the Trojan war brewing (or at least a Proto-Trojan war brewing); the very first cavalry just starting; no camels being ridden and no elephants either; no weaponized Iron etc. etc....much more fun.

[Nefaro]

So I'm playing the Seleucids at war with Egypt, and I take Jerusalem and then head east to Petra. They're both in the same province. Petra is the provincial capital and has strong defensive walls and Jerusalem has none. Shouldn't this be just the opposite? You ancient history experts out there let me know if I'm wrong about this. Was there ever a time Petra was a fortified city? And wasn't Jerusalem always one? Even before the Roman era? I know, I know. It's CA's game and they can make it any damned way they want. Just saying... ???

Petra was a bustling economic center in the earlier half of the Roman period and before.  You'd recognize some of it's stonemasonry if you saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.  Some of it's areas were carved out of rock and the front gates were supposedly only directly reachable by a narrow path with vertical cliffs on the side, otherwise having natural defensive walls, canyons, etc around the city proper at the time.

There's all kinds of web resources for researching the historical city of Petra on the net, I'm sure.   The usual suspect gives a quick summary:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra

[Sir Slash]

I don't see any defensive walls. Unless they're very well hidden. :)

[Nefaro]

I don't see any defensive walls. Unless they're very well hidden. :)

LOL!

You don't see the plateau cliffs surrounding it?  :P   I don't think they needed many extra walls except to plug any holes in escarpments surrounding the place.  I think the area is a series of such eroded cliff valleys, so it probably looks the same on the other side of the ridge behind it (with the sheer cliffs and wotnot).  I've not seen it in person of course, but it sounds like it made for a decent natural place for fortification back in it's day.  Plus it was supposed to be one of the few places in the area with lots of running water.

[Philippe]

I've only been there once, but as I recall the cliffs only cover about a third of the perimeter.  The rest isn't exactly open terrain, but is hardly formidable.  It's been a while (a really long while!) since I looked into it, but I think in antiquity the rolling hills on the non-cliff sides were defended by a stone or brick wall.  A defensive enclosure, but nothing comparable to the great fortresses of antiquity (e.g. Acrocorinth).

There were trade routes running through the non-cliff sides, and a Crusader-era watchtower sitting on top of a high rocky outcrop jutting out of the plain right near where the cliffs stop.  So Petra was an important road intersection even in the Middle Ages.

[Sir Slash]

I was a little disappointed with my capture of Jerusalem. Having seen the city myself, I was looking forward to what CA made it look like in 165 BC, but both times I've fought the Egyptians for it, the battle for it takes place well away from the city and you can only see it in the distance. Could this be for political reasons?

[Martok]

I was a little disappointed with my capture of Jerusalem. Having seen the city myself, I was looking forward to what CA made it look like in 165 BC, but both times I've fought the Egyptians for it, the battle for it takes place well away from the city and you can only see it in the distance. Could this be for political reasons?

That's (sadly) a reasonable possibility, but it still strikes me as unlikely.  CA didn't hesitate to portray the city in Medieval 2, after all -- and that would've been far more controversial (potentially), given the era. 

[Labbug]

Rome II has been patched again.  Just received the 1.6 patch though Steam.

[Gusington]

Yeah I got it too...don't know what it does but i'm expecting a totally different game from what I was playing a month ago.

[mikeck]

I haven't gotten anything except blood DLC and haven't seen any announcements. Are you sure it's not DLC you get free?

[Gusington]

Not sure...the last DLC I got was Nomadic Tribes. Got this Rome II bit and a Shogun II bit while loading up Castelevania.

[GibbyG]

25% off this weekend on Steam

[mikeck]

I'm having one hell of a game. Started out as Rome at war with the Eutruscans and the Veneti. They weren't doing much and each had only one town left. Syracuse declared war on me so I sent a legion south to take the city. I took Syracuse and after I was DOW'ed by Athens, Sparta and Aedui who were all in an alliance with Syracuse and each other. So know I'm at war with all of Greece (Mecedonia joined in later) as well as the Eutruscans.

I managed to take out the Veneti and Aedui (or whatever they are called...north of Athens). I took Athens proper but that legion was promptly defeated by a combination of Athenian and Spartan armies. Then Sparta took Syracuse. I can't take out the Eutruscans because their last city is blockaded by Delmatea...and for some reason you can't attack cities of they are blockaded or under seige by an NPC.

So I have 3 legions...but one is shredded up north and the other two are upgrading and refitting on the Italian mainland.

I'm playing with the Silven improvement. Mod which- among other things- nerfs transport fleets. One decent navy can destroy an army in transport. I took out the main Macedonian army attacking Armentium (or whatever on northeast Italy) as they sat off the coast. Eventually the Athenian fleet destroyed my navy though

[Sir Slash]

Hey Mikeck. I thought about Silvan but went with Radious instead and I'm liking it a lot better than vanilla. The economy and public disorder's easier to manage but growth is slower so you must plan city building more strategically. Army and navy caps are higher and with more money you can afford to build more military units. But Diplomacy is more reactive to your relations to other factions so you've got to think more about your moves and treaties. Agent actions have less chance of success but when successful, do more damage so an experienced agent is now a more valuable asset. Battle AI is much improved with morale lasting longer and a more epic, toe-to-toe feel to battles. I restarted my campaigns and upped the difficulty level to "Hard" and am having much more fun than with vanilla. A recent battle as Rome vs Etruscans lasted over 35 min. and the annoying Mr. "Wavering" never showed his ugly face.

[Martok]

By the by, isn't the next update supposed to nerf transport fleets?  Or did I just fantasize/imagine reading that?