Because noone will ever invade the wetlands?

I mean, why and how would anyone be so stupid to do it?

Think about all the resourses and manpower needed, for absolutely nothing to gain. And if you do, people will just be lika "gratz, you got yourself a swamp" and laugh at you.

Why not instead invade some other area and become rich and powerful?

I think @Daarco gets the point.

The native To'resk are adapted to the wetlands and may be able to thrive there. What the wetlands evidently lack is the stuff that those with ambitions of conquest or trade look for in domains to rule. Most of the people who were first in line to choose domains probably spent their big bucks to have a choice of good domains in which to start empires of some sort.

The other option is to think outside of the traditional MMO box when playing in this environment.

Too many of us in The West tend to only see the world through our own lenses.

What I mean by that is you work with what you do have instead of focusing on what you do not.

The culture is simply different.

Think China and Southeast Asia vs. Western Europe.

Both areas had vast empires that lasted centuries, but each was totally unique in how it got there.

The wetlands are about rice paddies and tactical diplomacy not stone castles and metal armor.

By the way, I checked settlements in several tropical wetlands counties on Angelica. The settlements did not appear to be less poor in resources than comparable settlements in the swamp biome, which I have been following with passion. The only obvious difference is a tendency for lower sustainability compared to swamp biome settlements, which I find mystifying. Swamps after all are supposed to be about poisonous plants and scavenging road-kill.

Posted By Poldano at 3/23/2020 6:00:42 AM

By the way, I checked settlements in several tropical wetlands counties on Angelica. The settlements did not appear to be less poor in resources than comparable settlements in the swamp biome, which I have been following with passion. The only obvious difference is a tendency for lower sustainability compared to swamp biome settlements, which I find mystifying. Swamps after all are supposed to be about poisonous plants and scavenging road-kill.

In regards to you sustainability questions, what are the populations of the settlements you are comparing?

The number can be influenced by a number of variables.

One is population density.

For example some settlements are reading lower sustainability because they have a maxed population for the settlement class while others read higher if they have a lower ratio.

I'm predicting the wetlands to be a powerhouse of food production.

Something else to keep in mind about those waterways is that the water levels will vary by season. I don't think they've ever said which season is represented on the map, but the changing water levels will affect a lot of things (assuming of course it's successfully implemented).

To'resk can also build structures in shallow water, and they may be the only tribe that can. So FWIW, that shoreline shouldn't be as desolate as it might appear. They supposedly have, after all, a special relationship with the sea.

I have two counties in the wetlands of Angelica and I can not wait to start playing. Originally my choice of the first county was because I own the Black Cask in that region. I purchased the second adjacent territory because I wanted a bigger region. I hadn't really thought about war and difficulty of invasion to be honest my intentions were never that sort. What I instantly saw was the opportunity to farm, fish, aquaculture and livestock rearing. So food production or bread basket kind of mentality. I am very happy with my domains at this stage. I do plan to have fortifications on land and a deterrent fleet of ships as both my counties lie along the coast but not of the mind for conquest. I will be content to spend most of my time managing my gardens and being diplomatic with my neighbors.

I can't wait to visit the Black Cask!

Posted By kajoreh at 07:15 AM - Mon Mar 23 2020

Posted By Poldano at 3/23/2020 6:00:42 AM

By the way, I checked settlements in several tropical wetlands counties on Angelica. The settlements did not appear to be less poor in resources than comparable settlements in the swamp biome, which I have been following with passion. The only obvious difference is a tendency for lower sustainability compared to swamp biome settlements, which I find mystifying. Swamps after all are supposed to be about poisonous plants and scavenging road-kill.

In regards to you sustainability questions, what are the populations of the settlements you are comparing?

The number can be influenced by a number of variables.

One is population density.

For example some settlements are reading lower sustainability because they have a maxed population for the settlement class while others read higher if they have a lower ratio.

I didn't attempt a systematic comparison. I only sampled from several counties, looking at all the settlements in each county. My sense was that there were more unsustainable settlements of all sized than in Angelica's swamp biome. If I had my desire of a spreadsheet or database representation of the attributes of each settlement, it would of course be very easy to determine whether my impression is correct or not.