Moderator: Cartographers
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
No. Surely that is clear?Also does CMb border any foreign territories?
It is clear, but it could be made more clear probably. Maybe just reducing the similar color between Dc and CMb.cairnswk wrote:No. Surely that is clear?unriggable wrote:Also does CMb border any foreign territories?
Coleman wrote:It is clear, but it could be made more clear probably. Maybe just reducing the similar color between Dc and CMb.
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?
unriggable wrote:Your sig is out of date, and also you need to make the borders between cleopatra and the land territories more clear.
unriggable wrote:Taurus should not be worth 7
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users