Battle of Actium [Quenched]

by **Balsiefen** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:20 pm

Definatly dont like the hexagons. I dont want another map with thousands of territories called Lj and Ol. Make it so its regions of sea with ships in it

by **cairnswk** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:17 pm

Gwalchmai wrote:No, various sources have him doing different things. If I were in a particularly cynical mood, I might even go so far as to suggest he was hanging around at the back somewhere just in case things went wrong.

Plutarch probably gives the most complete sketch, although by no means the defiitive since other variations are possible for some of the postings.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... oc=Ant.+65

The battle layout is in the first four lines. His Caelius/Coelius might be a mistake for Sosius, and Arruntius turns up in the next section as being in charge of Octavian's centre.

The C. is to do with the Latin but it is also standard usage in English texts. You won't find G. anywhere (at least, I've never seen it), for all the fact that it is the first letter of Gaius so its not just a case of using C. making it agree with the Latin of the time.

This is the map that I have modelled this map on.

As to G vs C issue, i'd like to stick with G. standing for Gaius. the same as I have M. standing for Marcus.

by **cairnswk** on Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:22 pm

Balsiefen wrote:Definatly dont like the hexagons. I dont want another map with thousands of territories called Lj and Ol. Make it so its regions of sea with ships in it

Thanks for your comments Balsiefen. Please read the thread to understand why this ships are called so. Everyone had 1 month to vote for options for this map and i don't think you indicated your preference at that time.

by **Gwalchmai** on Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:39 am

cairnswk wrote:As to G vs C issue, i'd like to stick with G. standing for Gaius. the same as I have M. standing for Marcus.

M. is the standard abbreviation of Marcus though. If you're going with G. then fair enough (I did vote A for the section on names after all), I just thought I'd mention it because it looked odd seeing something other than the usual C. there.

by **cairnswk** on Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:19 pm

Gwalchmai wrote:
cairnswk wrote:As to G vs C issue, i'd like to stick with G. standing for Gaius. the same as I have M. standing for Marcus.

M. is the standard abbreviation of Marcus though. If you're going with G. then fair enough (I did vote A for the section on names after all), I just thought I'd mention it because it looked odd seeing something other than the usual C. there.

Thanks Gwalchmai....I think I would prefer consistency in the use of abbreviations. While i recognise that C. might be the original abbreaviation for Gaius, I think you have to draw the line somewhere in the sand so-to-speak and bring these things into the modern world. Using M. for Marcus and G. for Gaius seems an appropriate abbreviation in modern terms.
Also do recognise that if there were room in the legend for the full names to be used with good clarity and without dropping always to the next line, then I would use full names, so this issue would not arise....but space is a limiting factor. Above all it must be consistent and totally legible.

by **Gwalchmai** on Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:30 pm

I had meant that it is the abbreviation used in the modern day too, not just back then, but never mind.

by **unriggable** on Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:45 am

I meant that if the guy holdiong arrentius for example captures antonius' ship, he has two borders fewer. Then blue has two more borders to put up. Also does CMb border any foreign territories?

by **cairnswk** on Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:37 pm

unriggable wrote:I meant that if the guy holdiong arrentius for example captures antonius' ship, he has two borders fewer. Then blue has two more borders to put up.

I'll re-examine this and see if i can change anything there.

Also does CMb border any foreign territories?

No. Surely that is clear?

by **Coleman** on Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:48 pm

cairnswk wrote:
unriggable wrote:Also does CMb border any foreign territories?
No. Surely that is clear?

It is clear, but it could be made more clear probably. Maybe just reducing the similar color between Dc and CMb.

by **cairnswk** on Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:56 pm

Coleman wrote:It is clear, but it could be made more clear probably. Maybe just reducing the similar color between Dc and CMb.

I'll alter the background colour Coleman...thanks for your post!

by **cairnswk** on Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:27 pm

unriggable wrote:I meant that if the guy holdiong arrentius for example captures antonius' ship, he has two borders fewer. Then blue has two more borders to put up. Also does CMb border any foreign territories?

How's this unriggable?

by **unriggable** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:52 pm

Your sig is out of date, and also you need to make the borders between cleopatra and the land territories more clear.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:58 pm

unriggable wrote:Your sig is out of date, and also you need to make the borders between cleopatra and the land territories more clear.

V6 Updates...as requested by unriggable above...small and large

by **unriggable** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:55 pm

Taurus should not be worth 7

by **DiM** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:00 pm

unriggable wrote:Taurus should not be worth 7

i agree.
taurus can't be held without camp octavius and if you do have the camp and taurus you get 10 troops for 2 borders and 12 terits.

in comparison. canidius and camp antonius give just 7 bonus for 3 borders and 10 terits.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:14 pm

DiM wrote:
unriggable wrote:Taurus should not be worth 7

i agree.
taurus can't be held without camp octavius and if you do have the camp and taurus you get 10 troops for 2 borders and 12 terits.

in comparison. canidius and camp antonius give just 7 bonus for 3 borders and 10 terits.

Mmmm guys...DiM and unriggable.....Spreadsheet tells me differently.

Taurus: 9 - 7 - 5 - 2 Bonus 7
Canidius: 7 - 5 - 6 - 3 Bonus 5

What should Taurus be worth then...please state you cases?

by **DiM** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:36 pm

cairnswk wrote:
DiM wrote:
unriggable wrote:Taurus should not be worth 7

i agree.
taurus can't be held without camp octavius and if you do have the camp and taurus you get 10 troops for 2 borders and 12 terits.

in comparison. canidius and camp antonius give just 7 bonus for 3 borders and 10 terits.

Mmmm guys...DiM and unriggable.....Spreadsheet tells me differently.

Taurus: 9 - 7 - 5 - 2 Bonus 7
Canidius: 7 - 5 - 6 - 3 Bonus 5

What should Taurus be worth then...please state you cases?

yes mate but the spreadsheet can't analyze the map as a whole. it can't see that camp octavius + taurus give +10 for just 2 borders.

the spread sheet treats each continent as an individual case not as part of a whole and that's why situations like this are often if you rely solely on the sheet.

usually problems like this appear in bottle necks.

i'd personally make each camp worth 1 especially since they give an additional bonus with the large ships. and then make taurus and Canidius 4

this way each group will give +5 one has more terits but only 2 borders and the other has less terits but one extra border.

i'm not sure that my logic is ok as i haven't analyzed the other bonuses. i'll do that tomorrow.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:51 pm

DiM wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
DiM wrote:
unriggable wrote:Taurus should not be worth 7

i agree.
taurus can't be held without camp octavius and if you do have the camp and taurus you get 10 troops for 2 borders and 12 terits.

in comparison. canidius and camp antonius give just 7 bonus for 3 borders and 10 terits.

Mmmm guys...DiM and unriggable.....Spreadsheet tells me differently.

Taurus: 9 - 7 - 5 - 2 Bonus 7
Canidius: 7 - 5 - 6 - 3 Bonus 5

What should Taurus be worth then...please state you cases?

yes mate but the spreadsheet can't analyze the map as a whole. it can't see that camp octavius + taurus give +10 for just 2 borders.

the spread sheet treats each continent as an individual case not as part of a whole and that's why situations like this are often if you rely solely on the sheet.

usually problems like this appear in bottle necks.

i'd personally make each camp worth 1 especially since they give an additional bonus with the large ships. and then make taurus and Canidius 4

this way each group will give +5 one has more terits but only 2 borders and the other has less terits but one extra border.

i'm not sure that my logic is ok as i haven't analyzed the other bonuses. i'll do that tomorrow.

OK DiM...thanks for that explanation..i can live with that...let me know what is feasible after your analysis, and i can organise some change.

by **unriggable** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:07 pm

DiM wrote:i'd personally make each camp worth 1 especially since they give an additional bonus with the large ships. and then make taurus and Canidius 4

I disagree - I'd either make a down-bonus for owning both the camp and taurus, a significant one too; or make a bridge connecting the two camps in at least two places.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:12 pm

unriggable wrote:
DiM wrote:i'd personally make each camp worth 1 especially since they give an additional bonus with the large ships. and then make taurus and Canidius 4

I disagree - I'd either make a down-bonus for owning both the camp and taurus, a significant one too; or make a bridge connecting the two camps in at least two places.

unriggable...what do you mean a down-bonus..is this a minus bonus?

Remember with these camps and armies....in live terms they feed the battle with troops.

Could a possible sceanario be feasible if marc antony's ships and octavians ships were to receive less bonuses if these camps remain at their normal bonuses as they stand now?

by **cairnswk** on Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:01 am

DiM wrote:i'm not sure that my logic is ok as i haven't analyzed the other bonuses. i'll do that tomorrow.

DiM...have you analyzed this scenario yet?

by **DiM** on Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:16 am

cairnswk wrote:
DiM wrote:i'm not sure that my logic is ok as i haven't analyzed the other bonuses. i'll do that tomorrow.

DiM...have you analyzed this scenario yet?

sorry totally forgot about it. :oops:

i'll look now. :roll:

by **cairnswk** on Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:22 am

DiM wrote:
sorry totally forgot about it.

i'll look now.

No worries DiM.

by **DiM** on Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:52 am

i would remove the following terits: Ml Ah Aa Ie and modify Id like the image below

now we have
M 14 terits.....9 borders.......bonus 12
C 7 terits.......5 borders.......bonus 5
D 7 terits.......5 borders.......bonus 4
I 5 terits........4 borders.......bonus 4
S 6 terits.......4 borders.......bonus 4
CM 3 terits....2 borders........bonus 1
O 15 terits.....6 borders.......bonus 9
A 11 terits.....4 borders........bonus 6
T 9 terits.......7 borders........bonus 4
L 12 terits.....5 borders........bonus 7
CO 3 terits....3 borders........bonus 1

of course i may be wrong but this is how i'd like it to be.

edit// forgot to add the modified image:

by **unriggable** on Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:05 am

You should connect the camps. Just a thought. To balance out Taurus.

Battle of Actium [Quenched]

V6 Small and Large

Who is online