Adog's Competitive Ancient V6.23

---

---

[ANC+] Competitive Ancient Plus

Great for 10k 3v3s!

[ANCW] Competitive Ancient West

Great for 10k Duels!

[ANCE] Competitive Ancient East

Great for 2v2s! Possibly also 5ks but not designed for that

---

---

The Western front

The further west and north Rome and Carthage finds themselves... the more uncivilised and poor the land becomes!

The Eastern front

---

---

---

---

3v3 10k Picks!

Rome vs Carthage

---

---

Presenting: NC Carthage!

Presenting: PD Rome!

Presenting: NC Egypt (Rhodian Rush)!

Presenting: Macedonia?

I will let the players explore this one!

Presenting: Blitz Pontus!

Presenting: Blitz Armenia!

---

---

I made this map, not for the map competition, but because Viceroy and a few others wanted to host a competitive tourney for mid ranks (r6-r9)

Special thanks to: Professor Pliny and Professor Black Vortex

Enjoy!

---

---

Patch 1.1

After watching and also participating in many games hosted by competitive players... I have deliberated on an update.

- 30 income from Capua

+ 20 income for Terracina (new port city)
+ 1 reinforcement for terracina (new port city)

Net change:
Starting cash unmodified
+1 reinf
-10 income

This should balance things out more for Rome.

Patch 1.2

Once again I have delivered another update.

I have made Carthage and Rome significantly cheaper (this was by decreasing their income slightly)

I have also given Rome more reinforcement and changed Terracina to Pisae

This should make them both more viable, but in particular, make Rome stronger, so that it may contest against Carthage.

Awesome buildings

Overall good job!

The adog, what can't he do

Seems to have great potential, and I'll definitely give it a try; Lusitanian border lowkey triggers me for its immense size but overall, excellent.


Now go fix Fall of Napoleon (FoN), you pleb

Looks like an interesting and fun map , going to give it a try

As a Spaniard, I must state that making Hispania so damn poor is not too accurate. Romans had a tough time there too, where they could not always achieve any decisive victory due to the mountainous land and the native's resistance, specially up north, where they definitively never stablished nor conquered the natives.

Crete was it's own kingdom makes me sad to see certain stuff like this

Written by RaulPB, 07.06.2020 at 16:14

As a Spaniard, I must state that making Hispania so damn poor is not too accurate. Romans had a tough time there too, where they could not always achieve any decisive victory due to the mountainous land and the native's resistance, specially up north, where they definitively never stablished nor conquered the natives.

Crete was it's own kingdom makes me sad to see certain stuff like this

Yeah but Hispania, I believe, only became recently conquered by the carthiginians and in that region it is quite rich, whilst the rest which is still tribal I decided to make poor just because to cause overstretch if wars happen there. Same with gaul.

Yes, but I thought it would make it less fidgety rather than having to conquer crete as a separate kingdom.

Written by Professor Adog, 07.06.2020 at 16:22

Yeah but Hispania, I believe, only became recently conquered by the carthiginians and in that region it is quite rich, whilst the rest which is still tribal I decided to make poor just because to cause overstretch if wars happen there. Same with gaul.

Yes, but I thought it would make it less fidgety rather than having to conquer crete as a separate kingdom.

Pls tell me more about your ways so I can I can keep criticising you

Jking. What age is this map supposed to be, roughly?

Written by RaulPB, 07.06.2020 at 16:28

Written by Professor Adog, 07.06.2020 at 16:22

Yeah but Hispania, I believe, only became recently conquered by the carthiginians and in that region it is quite rich, whilst the rest which is still tribal I decided to make poor just because to cause overstretch if wars happen there. Same with gaul.

Yes, but I thought it would make it less fidgety rather than having to conquer crete as a separate kingdom.

Pls tell me more about your ways so I can I can keep criticising you

Jking. What age is this map supposed to be, roughly?

This is the 2nd punic war. Most maps online are mostly accurate but a lot have some inaccuracies.

Written by Professor Adog, 07.06.2020 at 16:30

This is the 2nd punic war. Most maps online are mostly accurate but a lot have some inaccuracies.

Ok, let's set an appointment for a call I'll be your consultant!

Written by RaulPB, 07.06.2020 at 16:49

Written by Professor Adog, 07.06.2020 at 16:30

This is the 2nd punic war. Most maps online are mostly accurate but a lot have some inaccuracies.

Ok, let's set an appointment for a call I'll be your consultant!

I'd love to make a new ancient world but id be too scared of your disappointment in me

Written by RaulPB, 07.06.2020 at 16:14

As a Spaniard, I must state that making Hispania so damn poor is not too accurate. Romans had a tough time there too, where they could not always achieve any decisive victory due to the mountainous land and the native's resistance, specially up north, where they definitively never stablished nor conquered the natives.

Crete was it's own kingdom makes me sad to see certain stuff like this

Dont worry my fellow iberian, I bashed him already over Hispania but for the sake of balance, playability had to slightly outweight historical accuracy i'd say

As someone that is a history lover but doesn't really like any scenarios on this game, this maps looks fun.

Written by Al Fappino, 07.06.2020 at 19:39

Written by RaulPB, 07.06.2020 at 16:14

As a Spaniard, I must state that making Hispania so damn poor is not too accurate. Romans had a tough time there too, where they could not always achieve any decisive victory due to the mountainous land and the native's resistance, specially up north, where they definitively never stablished nor conquered the natives.

Crete was it's own kingdom makes me sad to see certain stuff like this

Dont worry my fellow iberian, I bashed him already over Hispania but for the sake of balance, playability had to slightly outweight historical accuracy i'd say

Idk what the hate is all about xaxaxa D: Iberia's income is pretty decent +282 and +298 which is the richest region outside of Sicily, Sardinia, Rome and Carthage in the west. There is not a lot of money in this map so those numbers are actually quite a bit comparatively. I just made Lusitania dirt poor because it's unexplored and uncivilized and thus not worth for Rome and Carthage to seize. It's sort of the idea that it costs more to garrison than it would bring back into the empire (e.g. like Britain).

Ofc IRL Spanish silver mines they would discover = OP. But that would take time, and in the historical setting of the 1st and 2nd punic wars, that would not be the case yet. Even then, discovered iberia is quite rich

Written by Augustus Caesar, 07.06.2020 at 19:23

I'd love to make a new ancient world but id be too scared of your disappointment in me

Then do it under my vigilance and no one will get hurt...

Written by Professor Adog, 08.06.2020 at 03:52

Idk what the hate is all about xaxaxa D: Iberia's income is pretty decent +282 and +298 which is the richest region outside of Sicily, Sardinia, Rome and Carthage in the west. There is not a lot of money in this map so those numbers are actually quite a bit comparatively. I just made Lusitania dirt poor because it's unexplored and uncivilized and thus not worth for Rome and Carthage to seize. It's sort of the idea that it costs more to garrison than it would bring back into the empire (e.g. like Britain).

Ofc IRL Spanish silver mines they would discover = OP. But that would take time, and in the historical setting of the 1st and 2nd punic wars, that would not be the case yet. Even then, discovered iberia is quite rich

Well?? I'm waiting for my appointment! When do you want it to be?

1st of all, it's not hate, we care about you and your maps, it's our way to show love 2nd of all, Lusitania is the name of the roman province given to a certain area which didn't reach all the way to the north. 3rd of all, even if the cartaghe terrain is kinda accurate, here you go, a map of them iberian tribes:



4th of all, being unexplored doesn't mean it's uncivilised or poor. Just take america as an example; if native americans could read your post, there would be blood spilled. Them iberians weren't that dumb or retarded specifically, them Lusitanians were ones of those who fought harder when romans came to conquer Iberia. We didnt just have silver, we had gold mines as well and Greeks, Cartaghe and romans traded quite often with Iberians.

I feel like I could do this all day long

Well I feel interested from this topic and gotta mention a great work and such a promising map.
Though I agree with RaulPB in majority of his considerations.

* Iberia former name for the Hispania's Roman province, was as mentioned not poor at all (i don't know much about mapmaking and how to balance the incomes and so on) I just clarify in order to make it clear and more real. As since the ancient times there was a pretty high trade routes form south Iberia due Phoenician.
Gold and leather handicrafts, mining, fabrics plus agriculture and livestock caused the trade but Phoenician + Greeks settlements and after Carthaginian... that after the mentioned Punic war led to the successive Roman invasion of the peninsula.
- This link might be useful to catch up the idea of the former inhabitants of Iberia (in spanish if any translation needed, just tell me)
https://www.taringa.net/+humor/espana-ha-sido-el-territorio-mas-conquistado-de-la-historia_t1dcf

* Points 2 & 3, agree found this map quite similar to RaulPB. In fact, due to the amount of tribes and their pacts, terrain, etc caused the invasions slowness. For sure some of you have heard about Numantia fight against the Romans. (that was after..)


Source: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turdetanos#/media/Archivo:Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE-es.svg

Written by Al Fappino, 07.06.2020 at 19:39

Written by RaulPB, 07.06.2020 at 16:14

As a Spaniard, I must state that making Hispania so damn poor is not too accurate. Romans had a tough time there too, where they could not always achieve any decisive victory due to the mountainous land and the native's resistance, specially up north, where they definitively never stablished nor conquered the natives.

Crete was it's own kingdom makes me sad to see certain stuff like this

Dont worry my fellow iberian, I bashed him already over Hispania but for the sake of balance, playability had to slightly outweight historical accuracy i'd say

Despite understanding of balancing the income for the playability it is fair to consider the main importance of a territory, in that war. Its true that the majority of the fights took place in Italy and Sicily but also happened in Iberia.


Source: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segunda_guerra_p%C3%BAnica

Thanks for contribution to the community and congrats!

- Related to that tourney could we have some hint? teams from 3 players? which ranks? from r6 to r9? or 1v1?

Written by RaulPB, 08.06.2020 at 08:50

I feel like I could do this all day long

Xaxaxa I was using the hate term jokingly but yeah I am aware that lusitania was incorrect but I had no plan to make those tribes playable, nor did I want to increase the amount of resources in iberia or I would have to do the same in gaul for balancing reasons.

Additionally, as I have eluded to earlier, there are some points in this map where accuracy had to be sacrificed for balance. I am most aware of it, and I do not care that it is inaccurate if it makes for a more balanced playstyle. Overall I think it would have been easier if I had just disabled the rest of the iberia and call it 'Celtiberian tribes', though that would have been more accurate but would also be not very aesthetic in my opinion. Generally, it was because of two factors 1) i never planned the map to ever become this scope 2) I didn't plan to border and disable territories (i was just gonna leave them unbordered) and eventually this lead to inconsistencies in the west, due to reason 1)... and reason 3) quite a few times very skilled cartographers purposefully make inaccuracies for balance / gameplay reasons and they try to do it in a way that the general community (which I'll be honest isn't that educated in history) will not notice. I assumed the semi-controversial reason of calling a whole region after just one tribe would be glossed over. mainly because it's not a big theatre of the war and is mostly there for decorative reasons. Mapping every single tribe there would be 1) an excessive use of cartographic time for a strategically redundant area 2) would excessively balkanise the region and that is not in the scope of this competitive map. If this was a scenario, I would have made a lot of different decisions, in many different places.

Written by SergBao, 08.06.2020 at 11:07

Despite understanding of balancing the income for the playability it is fair to consider the main importance of a territory, in that war. Its true that the majority of the fights took place in Italy and Sicily but also happened in Iberia.

Yes, I agree that Iberia is a very good observation actually. History is often written by the victors and perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to it by what the carthaginians did. I did not put that much consideration into the naming of the Carthaginian divisions, because I was unsure whether they would last.

Alot of the fighting IS intended to happen in Iberia, which is why the two provinces are separated from carthage 'proper' and given a lot of industry.

If you did not notice, this region of Carthage has more industry than Rome proper....

This is where the fighting is intended to happen and you can see the income is respectable, infact I would say it puts carthage at an advantage vs Rome in the late game... because Iberia > Gaul in terms of income, so Rome has to do something.

Written by SergBao, 08.06.2020 at 11:07

Thanks for contribution to the community and congrats!
- Related to that tourney could we have some hint? teams from 3 players? which ranks? from r6 to r9? or 1v1?

Thank you for taking the time to consider this map and hopefully you will play it sometime
We were thinking 1v1s

I think we're all overlooking the fact that this is not a historical accurate scenario but a balanced comp that takes place in a historical theatre. This map does not cater to people who want a map that is historically accurate, so don't expect that from it. Expect the map as it is meant to be, a competitive map that favours balance above historical accuracy at all accounts

Written by Professor Adog, 08.06.2020 at 11:41

Let's see, my main thought on this map is that it's really hard to balance while mainting certain accuracy, but it's not impossible. Once this being said... everything you do on it will depends on your vision and purpose of this map. Since you told this is meant to be some sort of 2nd Punic War, it could perfectly mean there's no need for Lusitania nor Cantabri. You wouldn't even need that supposedly nordic Aquitania, which I'm not really sure it's accurate.

However, you don't need to balance French tribes, they barely took action during this war and that area was not as strong as Iberia used to be. The focus of this war was Italy, Sicily, south France, East Iberia and Carthage itself. Sicily was were Scipii's main army was gathered, a united Italy under a single city's command was a strong contender for an OP Carthage, Spain was a strong stronghold which served as a levy land for Annibal's army, some French tribes joined Annibal's cavalry lines... Ofc Iberia as a whole could be as strong as a united italian peninsula, which was Rome's main advantage in wars since they'd usually fight against separate tribes.

As we already know from history, Rome's only way to beat Carthage was a direct open field fight in Carthage's own land, but if you want to make this even I wouldn't have made Cartaghe west in just one province, but two: one in Iberia (Cartago Nova) and another (Numidia) in all north Africa. I'd also suggest dividing the central part of Iberia into another Carthaginese province. This would make it more balanced since it would be a bit harder to expand for Carthage but it would eventually pay off against a Rome that is basically united from the beggining but which has poorer provinces all around it (north italy, south france, modern albania) and less money early on to expand.

I'd also give Sicily some much needed love... it was Rome's main wheat source! Messina, Syracuse, Lilybaeum... I'd also like to point out that your choices for italian cities surprises me and I'm not sure they're the best options. I'd probably have chosen Tarentum, Croton, Capua (as you), Arretium, Ariminium. All that would balance much more the fight between Rome and Carthage and make it a bit more exciting. This would basically become what it used to be, a fight between defensive units (roman legions) and offensive power (carthaginese cavalry and elephants): Romans standing their ground through France, north Italy and Sicily while expanding towards Greece and Carthage would try to find a way in Italy before they get overpowered.

And this is just by checking a couple countries, not even getting into their income... ffs, I need to stop thinking too much. I could probably get a job an advisor...

With love

Patch 1.1

After watching and also participating in many games hosted by competitive players... I have deliberated on an update.

- 30 income from Capua

+ 20 income for Terracina (new port city)
+ 1 reinforcement for terracina (new port city)

Net change:
Starting cash unmodified
+1 reinf
-10 income

This should balance things out more for Rome.

Quote:

Let's see, my main thought on this map is that it's really hard to balance while mainting certain accuracy, but it's not impossible. Once this being said... everything you do on it will depends on your vision and purpose of this map. Since you told this is meant to be some sort of 2nd Punic War, it could perfectly mean there's no need for Lusitania nor Cantabri. You wouldn't even need that supposedly nordic Aquitania, which I'm not really sure it's accurate.

Once again this is NOT meant to be the 2nd Punic War but a COMP map (NO SCENARIO) set in that time period. The accuracy here with the provinces is both for aesthetic and balance rather than strict to script historical accuracy.

Quote:

However, you don't need to balance French tribes, they barely took action during this war and that area was not as strong as Iberia used to be. The focus of this war was Italy, Sicily, south France, East Iberia and Carthage itself. Sicily was were Scipii's main army was gathered, a united Italy under a single city's command was a strong contender for an OP Carthage, Spain was a strong stronghold which served as a levy land for Annibal's army, some French tribes joined Annibal's cavalry lines... Ofc Iberia as a whole could be as strong as a united italian peninsula, which was Rome's main advantage in wars since they'd usually fight against separate tribes.

The french tribes are mostly worthless as they bring no money on to the equation and but a few reinforcements. In this map no matter what you pick you'll be dirtpoor so there is litterally no reason to grab them. Aside from that the map definitely encaptures the majority of the fight happening in Iberia, south france and sicily. The rest are details that, whilst interesting on a scenario map have no business being around in this map.
''Ofc Iberia as a whole could be as strong as a united italian peninsula'' Iberia Combined is richer than Rome proper. On top of that giving it much more reinforcements would absolutely destroy current balance

Quote:

As we already know from history, Rome's only way to beat Carthage was a direct open field fight in Carthage's own land, but if you want to make this even I wouldn't have made Cartaghe west in just one province, but two: one in Iberia (Cartago Nova) and another (Numidia) in all north Africa. I'd also suggest dividing the central part of Iberia into another Carthaginese province. This would make it more balanced since it would be a bit harder to expand for Carthage but it would eventually pay off against a Rome that is basically united from the beggining but which has poorer provinces all around it (north italy, south france, modern albania) and less money early on to expand.

Unrelated to comp map.
I disagree with splitting Iberia for the simple reason that it would take Carthage completely out of balance with current Rome.
We've been discussing the addition of Numidia, but for now we are going to keep it like this. There might be a chance for us to add it in the future though, so please keep a good eye on it.

Quote:

I'd also give Sicily some much needed love... it was Rome's main wheat source! Messina, Syracuse, Lilybaeum... I'd also like to point out that your choices for italian cities surprises me and I'm not sure they're the best options. I'd probably have chosen Tarentum, Croton, Capua (as you), Arretium, Ariminium. All that would balance much more the fight between Rome and Carthage and make it a bit more exciting. This would basically become what it used to be, a fight between defensive units (roman legions) and offensive power (carthaginese cavalry and elephants): Romans standing their ground through France, north Italy and Sicily while expanding towards Greece and Carthage would try to find a way in Italy before they get overpowered.

Sicily-Syracuse are litterally the richest per reinf provinces in game...
Messina on the spot where it is would be unlikely to work due to the position on the map, so that's why it's not added.
We have Lilybaeum and Cyracuse.
Adog chose Brundisium above Tarentum for the ease of access to the adriatic sea AND brundisium being the second largest port, arguably much more important.
Croton not added due to keeping the amount of ports on the adriatic sea in check.
Do you understand comp mapmaking? There is a cap on how many reinforcements/income you can spam into one single region without making it too expensive to be viable. The balance as it is right now is perfectly displayed between rome and carthage in the way UK and Germany are balanced in eu+.
The latter more strategic part is not important to a compmap. So let's keep that to the section where it belongs please. Which is not in the thread of a comp map clearly.

Quote:

And this is just by checking a couple countries, not even getting into their income... ffs, I need to stop thinking too much. I could probably get a job an advisor...

You probably need to check these kinds of things before throwing around your currently uninformed opinions that fit a scenario map. As advisor you might fit in more in the genre that is categorised by balkanisation, cosmetic units, and prioritising historical accuracy and "realism" as the apex of cartography, which is called RP

Thank you very much

Written by RaulPB, 08.06.2020 at 12:31

And this is just by checking a couple countries, not even getting into their income... ffs, I need to stop thinking too much. I could probably get a job an advisor...

Well, I do have a classical education, in its history, Greek, Latin and philosophy. It is not that I do not know this history, but that is not within the scope of this map. This map is simply a competitive map, inspired by the general borders of the 2nd punic war.

I have, where possibly, tried to maintain historical accuracy (richness of Mesopotamia, Roma, Carthage, Islands etc.)

These are scenario cartography ideas and tbh it could happen quite balanced in a scenario, focused on the 2nd punic war, but that is not what I am making.

Often times we have to ask ourselves when writing or creating any academic piece of work... is this within the scope of the topic?

The general rule in maps, is the smaller it is and the broader the scope, the less detail (e.g. all the tribes) can be included.

In a comp map there are many more restrictions (a LOT MORE than in a scenario map) in both balance and accuracy.

Overall, this is not possible in this map.

Written by Professor Pliny, 08.06.2020 at 15:17

Thank you very much

Holy shit, did someone ever tell you how incredibly gentle and lovely you are?

If you insist, I'll have to give it a try then!

Written by RaulPB, 08.06.2020 at 16:14

Written by Professor Pliny, 08.06.2020 at 15:17

Thank you very much

Holy shit, did someone ever tell you how incredibly gentle and lovely you are?

If you insist, I'll have to give it a try then!

Xaxaxa if only you saw the threads the professors write in the academy's forum when there is a debate motion proposed.

Written by Professor Adog, 08.06.2020 at 16:43

Xaxaxa if only you saw the threads the professors write in the academy's forum when there is a debate motion proposed.

Are you guys trying to impersonate scientists' debates or something?

Written by RaulPB, 09.06.2020 at 04:00

Written by Professor Adog, 08.06.2020 at 16:43

Xaxaxa if only you saw the threads the professors write in the academy's forum when there is a debate motion proposed.

Are you guys trying to impersonate scientists' debates or something?

We're not trying to impersonate anything. Usually, it's a controversial cartography topic that is discussed.

This is excellent, I suggest making showcases for map themes that are searched for from major search engines, making short blogs on which keywords with typical genres such as WWII, Medieval battles, roleplay, place them into the TLD or 'News' section, then create backlinks from other relevant sites, such as WWII sites, Niche History Sites, centre part of the social media campaign around the release of the these showcases, whilst finding ways to motivate the community to share the posts in order to create more relevant back links to the pages. then we have cornerstone of a decent content strategy to boost SEO performance.

Written by Professor Adog, 09.06.2020 at 04:09

We're not trying to impersonate anything. Usually, it's a controversial cartography topic that is discussed.

Hahahaha I bet you're just some grumpy stubborn tryhards, I'm curious as to how tryhard you guys can get

Sounds like someone's salty that their self-admitted uninformed ''advice'' is being criticized