[Research] Collection

[ABH2]

I would support a Greek colonies designation for one reason - it would prevent confederations forming in unrealistic and ridiculous manners. For instance, Syracuse can currently merge Massilia etc. as well as the Greek city-states.

The 'Hellenistic' factions would be, in my view:
-Baktria
-Seleucids
-Pergamon
-Sardes
-Ptolemies
-Epirus

Greek colonies in the Grand Campaign:
-Rhodes
-Syracuse
-Crete
-Massalia
-Olbia (if we change this faction from Scythian - it bugs me that CA gave Greek cities as barbarian holdings and vice versa)
-Arche Bosphorus

City-states (only group I'd give confederation to)
-Aetolians
-Athens
-Spartans or Achaeans

The only one I'm a little unsure on is Crete as certain city-states on the island did join the Aetolian League. So, they and perhaps Rhodes could go to the city-states column.

However, if there is an issue with the number of subcultures we want, I would then place the colonies in the DB with the Hellenistic factions as they wouldn't have the ability to form confederacies (at least according to my proposal).

For purposes of the DB and setting up the campaign framework, these designations would work nicely, I believe.

[Thomahawk2k]

The Seleucids didn't really lose much territory in the aftermath of Raphia, other than their gains in Coele-Syria of the two previous years' campaigns. Parthia already held the in-game Parthia province. Also Achaeus, represented by Sardes/Seleucid rebels, already held the nominally Seleucid territory north of the Taurus Mts.

In response to your second point, the Seleucids didn't collapse after the defeat at Raphia, or even after Magnesia. They were a potent threat to their neighbors throughout most of the 2nd century BC. While their were periods of internal dissolution and the potential for expansion to the west was curtailed by Rome, Seleucid power regenerated under strong leadership until the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes in 129 BC. It would be historically incorrect to model a Seleucid collapse in the early stages of the game.

Ok, I am not going further in this since we should start with the subcultures, but I agree to your point.

The 'Hellenistic' factions would be, in my view:
-Baktria
-Seleucids
-Pergamon
-Sardes
-Ptolemies
-Epirus

Greek colonies in the Grand Campaign:
-Rhodes
-Syracuse
-Crete
-Massalia
-Olbia (if we change this faction from Scythian - it bugs me that CA gave Greek cities as barbarian holdings and vice versa)
-Arche Bosphorus

City-states (only group I'd give confederation to)
-Aetolians
-Athens
-Spartans or Achaeans

My vote goes to adding Crete and Rhodes to the citystates, and also some doubts if Pergamon shouldn't be an city-state too. It was on the other side of the sea, but it was a city-state and could have joined in a league against Macedon. They were also hostile to Macedon.

[Hetairos]

Great discussions my friends, it is a pleasure to visit this after a day and see it been carried forward. I will later that day compile the complete list for cultures, sub-cultures and confederations on which people can give their last concerns or input.

Until I am back I would like to give you guys another task. I just realized that I forgot the religions... yesterday I saw the db file: religions so it popped into my mind we must include them as well. If somebody can help me with that, that would be awesome.

Cheers

[ABH2]

First draft of my regional/factional changes (which will need approval. Regions and such are currently listed in the order they appear in the startpos (hence why it seems like a random list - that's how CA did the regions):

New Factions:

1. Aetolian League
2. Sinope
3. Massyli
4. Byzantion

Renamed/Remodeled Factions:

1. Drangiana = Oreitans
2. Arachosia = Asvakas

Removed Factions

1. Nova Carthago
2. Aria
3. Sagartia
4. Media
5. Cyrenaica
6. Cyprus
7. Parthava
8. Libya
9. Etruscans

So, by this plan, the mod would be +4 in factions. Reason being, unless I'm mistaken, is that we can use the HaTG Massylii faction.

New Client States/Vassals:

1. Veneti -> Rome (Could instead be allies, the situation in Cisalpine Gaul was a little tricky, but they had been subdued before they revolted)
2. Turdetani -> Carthage
3. Delmatae -> Rome
4. Cessatani -> Rome
5. Triballi -> Scordisci
6. Edetani -> Carthage
7. Massylii -> Carthage
8. Breuci -> Scordisci
9. Daorsi -> Rome
10. Masaesyli -> Carthage
11. Ardiae -> Rome
12. Media Atropatene -> Seleucids (Reduced in size, had been subdued by Antiochus III before Raphia)
13. Persia -> Seleucids (Reduced in size, only have Persepolis)

Renamed Regions:

1. Antheia -> Byzantion (I'm aware the geography isn't perfect)
2. Carthage -> Qart Hadasht
3. Pulpudeva -> Tylis (may keep this region name)
4. Cydamus -> Capsa (Again, aware the geography isn't perfect, major city of Massylii)
5. Larissa -> Thermika (Same as above, but closer - no major geographical obstacles as Larissa is already misplaced)
6. Iader -> Daorson
7. Macomades -> Philaenorum Arae
8. Velathri -> Arretium
9. Appolonia -> Phoenike
10. Arse -> Saguntum
11. Merv -> Margiana
12. Gor -> Antioch tes Persis (Antioch in Persis)
13. Phrada -> (Alexandria) Prophthasia
14. Kapisene -> Alexandria tes Caucasus

Those map editing tools can't come fast enough.

Regions with new ownership:

1. Harmozia -> Seleucids
2. Gadira -> Carthage
3. Margiana -> Seleucids
4. Ibossim -> Carthage
5. Delminium -> Delmatae
6. Byzantion/Antheia -> Byzantion
7. Larissa/Thermika -> Aetolian League
8. Gor/Antioch tes Persis -> Seleucids
9. Phrada/Prophthasia -> Seleucids
10. Pulpudeva/Tylis -> Tylis
11. Pura -> Seleucids
12. Cydamus/Capsa -> Massylii
13. Lilyabaeum -> Rome
14. Seleucia -> Seleucids
15. Paraitonion -> Ptolemies
16. Artacoana -> Seleucids
17. Ammonium -> Ptolemies
18. Jerusalem -> Seleucids
19. Side -> Ptolemies
20. Cyprus -> Ptolemies
21. Ephesus -> Ptolemies
22. Iader/Daorson -> Daorsi
23. Hecatompylos -> Parthia
24. Susa -> Seleucids
25. Macomades/Arae -> Carthage
26. Bam -> Seleucids
27. Rhaga -> Seleucids
28. Sinope -> Sinope
29. Cyrene -> Ptolemies
30. Karalis -> Rome
31. Iol -> Carthage
32. Alexandria Arachosia -> Asvakas (same, as Arachosia being renamed)
33. Lepcis -> Carthage
34. Tingis -> Carthage
35. Qart Hadasht -> Carthage
36. Oraea -> Oreitans (same, really, as Drangiana being renamed)
37. Kapisene/Alexandria tes Caucasus -> Asvakas (same, as Arachosia being renamed)
38. Thapsus -> Carthage
39. Velathri/Arretium -> Rome
40. Alalia -> Rome
41. Hatra -> Seleucids
42. Charax -> Seleucids
43. Zadrakarta -> Parthia
44. Ekbatana -> Seleucids
45. Susia -> Parthia
46. Merv/Margiana -> Seleucids

So, about 1/4th of the regions in the game will be in new hands. The Seleucids are obviously the big winners. The sheer size of a starting faction like that may alarm some people, but with the way I can specialize regions and balance things, it's possible to make it a far larger challenge than it would appear at first glance. Hanging onto that territory and raising troops won't be as easy as people think. Not even close.

All of this is based on rather extensive research I've done. If anyone has any issues, feel free to share. I enjoy the discussion and it's productive.

Summary of the changes for those who don't know the region names (map will be produced in the future):
-Seleucids gain control of their empire besides Armenia, Media Atropatene, Parthia, Baktria, and Sardes (in revolt/at war). THey also hold their recently gained territory in Syria which will be decided by Raphia.
-Parthia gains all territory of Hyrcania/Parthava.
-Egypt gains its actual territory in Asia Minor and Libya/Cyprus.
-Carthage has its clients in Iberia, Libyan territory, and the Nova Carthago territory. They control the coastlines in North Africa as they historically did.
-Rome has its Etruscan territory as well as its recently formed clients in Illyria and their Veneti allies.
-Tylis is moved inland.
-Scordisci have control over neighboring tribes and are the strongest tribal group in the upper Balkans.
-Establishment of new factions of Sinope, Byzantion, the Aetolian League, and the Massylii.

Hetairos:

PS: Guys, please focus on big to small. SO I do want cultures first, than sub cultures, than we fix the confederations and finally we make a choice of faction groups for the faction selection screen.

I will have a pretty thorough list of subcultures I'd propose tomorrow, but as we've already discussed - I think your list is the same if not identical. It would be the most thorough done. After that (shouldn't take me long, and it should be close if not the same as yours), I'll start on producing ethnicities and cultures for each region followed by resources. I've uploaded the spreadsheet that will show the factional changes above in what I think is a very clear manner. As we've discussed previously, I'll be saving the maps for later, not to mention your final approval on these lists.

On the factions being removed above - I figure we could do the same thing being done for the Etruscans and such. As in, they could be rebel factions in those regions and liberated.

I'm also wondering if we can't use some of those Iberian factions from HaTG to allow the same options for some of the territories in Spain controlled by Carthage.

I don't think that would require new subcultures, though.

Neusapp:

My vote goes to adding Crete and Rhodes to the citystates, and also some doubts if Pergamon shouldn't be an city-state too. It was on the other side of the sea, but it was a city-state and could have joined in a league against Macedon. They were also hostile to Macedon.

Pergamon was allied to the Aetolians and did participate in internal Greek affairs (liberated Athens from Macedonian rule in 229, would interfere more later less successfully). As did the Ptolemies. However, they are by definition a Successor Kingdom. They gained their independence in the Successor Wars under and then expanded. Pergamon had been part of Lysimachus' territory, and the Attalid dynasty was started by one of his subordinates who carved out their little niche in Asia Minor there.

Crete and Rhodes are toss-ups to me. Since they are mainly non-aggressive trading spots in game, conquest by the player usually is a pain simply because it requires breaking treaties and waiting it out. Giving them a confederation option would make sense in game for the Greek city states. At least a few factions wouldn't need to deal with that.

[ImperatorAndreas]

Also, I think Pergamom and Rhodes should be Roman client states or protectorates. They did help immensely against the Seleucid Empire and Macedonia and they actually stayed loyal to Rome.

[ImperatorAndreas]

Also, I think Pergamom and Rhodes should be Roman client states or protectorates. They did help immensely against the Seleucid Empire and Macedonia and they actually stayed loyal to Rome.

In history, they actually were

[Alwar]

Name: Falcata
Used By: Iberians/Celts/Gauls
D ate Used: Throughout period of game
Dimensions: Length: 20in blade, 25in overall, Diameter: 6.5-7cm/2.5-3in
Weight: 3lb/1-1.5kg
Material: Iron/Steel
Strengths:
-Very strong steel for the ancient world.
-Single, forward-curving blade perfect for cutting blows.
-Allowed for the delivery of a very powerful blow that could smash armor and helmets.
-Unique grip allows for better handling and a steadier hold of the sword.
Weaknesses:
-Expensive and time consuming to produce.
-Not suited to thrusting blows, leaves user exposed.
-Gruesome effect and intimidating.
-More effective for cavalry than infantry, cutting less effective with shields.

The thing is falcatas (due to having two edges in the last 1/3 of the sword) and gladius hispanensis could thrust near the same while falcatas were much better at cutting. That said, gladius hispanensis could cut very well still but with less momentum, and the only reason romans copied it was because it could kill thrusting while being dirt cheap and fast to produce. Falcatas were better as weapon than gladius in all the areas except price and production.

also I would like to point out the following (also in red):

Name: Gladius Hispaniensis
Used By: Romans
Date Used: 3rd-late 1st century BC
Dimensions: Blade:45-68cm (18-27in), Total-75-85cm (27-34in), 5cm width
Weight: 2 lb's (.8kg)
Material: Steel
Strengths:
-Pointed tip and length well suited for thrusting and penetration. Also, lacked curvature.
-Doubled-edges which made it well suited to cutting, as well, when situation called for it.
-Thrusts more deadly and likely to kill.
-Easier to manufacture as it required a simpler process, and hilt was made of natural materials.
Weaknesses:
-Somewhat heavier and longer than later versions.
-More expensive than later versions to produce.
-Excels against infantry, less effective against and for cavalry due to length.

It was used by all the north-eastern celtiberan tribes while the falcata was used be the south-western iberian tribes. the romans copied it AFTER. The gladius was an iberian invent.

[ABH2]

The thing is falcatas (due to having two edges in the last 1/3 of the sword) and gladius hispanensis could thrust near the same while falcatas were much better at cutting. That said, gladius hispanensis could cut very well still but with less momentum, and the only reason romans copied it was because it could kill thrusting while being dirt cheap and fast to produce. Falcatas were better as weapon than gladius in all the areas except price and production. Period.

Perhaps I AM wrong. I will readily admit I've never used a falcata or a sword in general.

What I do know is I have never read about falcata having a double edged blade. Nor do I see why a sword with a curve in it would be used or suited for thrusting even if it did.

A quick Google search on the falcata (and yes, I did far more extensive research than google searches to write everything above)

Perhaps one of the most visually distinctive European swords is the falcata, related to the Macedonian kopis, an ancient single-edged sword with a heavy forward-curving blade used by ancient Greek and Persian soldiers.

http://www.myarmoury.com/review_ws_falcata.html

The falcata has a single-edged blade that pitches forward towards the point, the edge being concave near the hilt, but convex near the point. This shape distributes the weight in such a way that the falcata is capable of delivering a blow with the momentum of an axe, while maintaining the longer cutting edge of a sword. The grip is typically hook-shaped, the end often stylized in the shape of a horse or a bird. There is often a thin chain connecting the hooked butt of the Iberian with the hilt. Although usually a single-edged weapon, double-edged falcatas have been found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcata

When I say thrust, I mean thrust the way you'd use a "large foil" strait bladed weapon, like the gladius, or a short sword, thrusting comming from a down to up angle (not sure if I making myself clear imagine a vector around 16 to 22º from the horizontal), not thrusting like you would with a Rapier or "Espada" in an almost horizontal angle or comming in slightly downward angle.

They were different weapons meant to pierce diferent types of armor (in the latter case it being only skin). So while the combined angle of wrist and Falcata can come up at horizontal, I'm not sure it would be the best to defeat chain or even heavy hide.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/17-roma...e-falcata.html

Swords with forward swept blades like the kopis and falcata seem to have been fairly widespread in Europe or at least the Mediterranean in antiquity, but they don't seem to have survived into the Dark Ages/Mediaeval period.

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/archiv.../t-110691.html

A second Greek innovation was more than just a simple cut-and-thrust sword. Besides well balanced, the Falcata could split an enemy’s shield and helmet with one tremendous blow making it a devastating effective chopping weapon. The single edge forward-curving blade of the falcata has a hook-shaped handle (resembling a horse head). This handle design wrapped around the hand which allowed the Roman infantrymen to quickly swing in multiple directions with less likelihood of the sword being knocked out of their grip.

http://traditionalarcherybows.com/ha...word_p100.html

This thread is for discussion. I don't pretend that I am right on everything. But I will do the actual research and try to support my positions. Do I need to dig up primary and published secondary sources?

If you share sources on your intimate knowledge, I will gladly reconsider my position.

A falcatta is not a gladius, anyway. Nor would I deny that it was, by all accounts, a well manufactured weapon.

[Hetairos]

Keep it civil, this is not the General Total War: Rome II forum. Just discuss and remain on the topic. Thanks.

[swingnblues]

In history, they actually were

Not until well after the start date. Before Cynocephalae, they were allies at most. Also, before 202 BC, Rome had its hands full with Hannibal. Therefore, other than some minor skirmishing with Philip V in the 1st Macedonian War, they weren't really concerned with events beyond the Adriatic, as long as it didn't affect the war closer to home.

[tungri_centurio]

all this info comes from http://comitatus.net/armyages.html
i did nothing of it myself,so only search and post here.all credits to the awesome website.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Republican Roman.
Punic War.

A copy of the Montefortino A helmet (Robinson’s classification) in the British Museum, 4th to 3rd century B.C. The edge of the helmet has a cabled finish, there is a small neck-guard and the crest knob is forged in one piece with the skull and is decorated with a scale pattern. The method of closure is copied from head of King Pyrrhus from Naples Museum given in Robinson page 15. Polybios states legionaries carried a plume of three purple or black feathers 1.5 feet (0.45m) high.

The large scutum was adopted by all three classes of legionary during the Latin Wars of the 4th century B.C. according to Livy. This is based on the large curved plywood shield from Kasr al-Harit in the Egyptian Fayyum.

Body armour at this time was linked to wealth and social status. Such embossed copper-alloy breastplates seem to have been backed in leather and suspended using leather straps. Relatively little is known about Republican belts and here a simple belt with bone buckle is used.



Dateline 3rd century B.C
Roman Officer

This figure is based on Duncan Head’s interpretation of the paintings of the tomb of the Fabii. Probably a Montefortino was depicted, with a feathered crest, a short plate cuirass without pteruges, two greaves and a cloak. Although generals seem to have worn red cloaks officers would show considerable variation in equipment. Paullus fought without a cuirass at the Battle of Pydna. The metal belt with hook fastenings is typical of the Samnite hill peoples.



Southern Gallic Cavalryman.
1st century B.C.

Fighting for or against Julius Caesar, this is a high status rider with “Agen” style helmet, mail armour and a long sword based on the Hod Hill example. The Romans probably adopted the four horned saddle design and the mail from the “Celts”. The rider wears a simple twist torc and carries a circular shield slung over his shoulder although other shapes are possible.




Dateline Mid 1st century BC.
Roman cavalryman.

Based in part on the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, a mail shirt with shoulder doubling is worn over a padded garment, tunic and scarf. A basic belt with bone buckle supports a commercially available Republican sword based on an example from Delos manufactured before 69 B.C. A copper alloy boeotian helmet is worn in “yellow bronze”.



Dateline 55 B.C.
Caesar’s Invasion of Britain.
Auxiliary cavalryman.

The Port helmet based on that from Port bei Nidau now in the Landesmuseum, Zurich. Over a padded subarmalis is worn a mail shirt with shoulder doubling. The spatha has a handle made from walnut with a bone grip. A Gaulish style tunic is worn, with cloak and Gaulish brooch. Short woollen trousers, bracae, are worn with socks, undones, and caligae. The circular shield is in its cover. The bag is based on find from the Comacchio shipwreck.



Dateline late 1st century
North British warriors

Waiting for the Romans to arrive in Yorkshire, a southern refugee offers his Hod Hill sword in allegiance to two tough northerners. A mix of Port Agen helmets are worn, with simple toggle belt fastenings, including a Roman enamel toggle. The chieftain wears a sword with a typical east Yorkshire organic hilt, with scabbard decorated with period iconography. Spined shields, would be rather old fashioned by this time, as would be the Great Torc from Snettisham worn by the chieftain, made around 75 BC.


Dateline 43 A.D.
The Claudian Invasion of Britain.
Legionary cavalryman.

The helmet is a Coolus E, based on that from the Walbrook Stream now in the British Museum. A scarf, focale, is worn with padded subarmalis, under a mail shirt with shoulder doubling. Short woollen trousers are worn with leg wrappings and military boots. The soldier is armed with a spatha and a quiver of javelins. A large shield covers the riders left side. The design is taken from Trajan's Column.


Dateline 61 A D.
Legionary from the Boudican revolt.


The helmet is a mid 1st century example of Robinson’s Imperial Gallic 'G' from the Rhine at Mainz, now at Worms. The cuirass is a Corbridge A, worn here without padding. The pugio is an Augustan example from Titelberg, worn belt plates from Rheingonheim. The scabbard worn on the right is based on example from Vindonissa dated AD 45-69, holding a broad Mainz-type gladius. Bracae are worn with leg wrappings and military boots. An early Principate heavy pilum is carried, alongside a curved scutum of shield. The design is once again taken from Trajan's Column.



Dateline 69 A.D.
Northern Britain.
Batavian Auxiliary.

The helmet is a Robinson Italic C based on one found at Cremona, probably lost in 69AD during the battle where the Batavians were heavily involved. The spatha is based on a find from Hod Hill, an auxiliary sword from mid- 1st century. The belt or cingulum has decorations from Tekje and London, and is worn with a Batavian belt. The fox fur on the helmet echoes both Trajan's Column and written descriptions of Germanic auxiliaries as wearing furs. A mail lorica hamata with shoulder doubling is worn with a boars tusk pendant as found in Newstead, and a manica based on the find from Carlisle with the addition of a sheepskin lining. For cold weather long bracae are worn with "puttees" as found at Vindolanda.


The impedimenta of the
second half of the 1st century.

This classic legionary is in marching order, wearing his hooded cloak, the paenula, fastened down the front. His equipment is carried suspended on a pole, the furca. He carries a kit bag or loculus, leather water bottle, string ration bag, fire iron, cook pot or situla, mess tin or patera, clothes bag and basket. His entrenching tools can be seen lying on the ground behind him.



Dateline A.D. 90
Northern Britain.
Auxiliary cavalrymen.

The helmets are versions of Robinson’s Auxiliary Cavalry A, partially sheathed in silver. The mail shirt on the left has a cape-like shoulder doubling, and wears a torc. Short trousers, bracae, are worn. Footwear is a mixture of caligae and military boots. The right-hand figure is wearing a Gallic style tunic with folded back cuffs, as well as leg wraps. His spatha handle is based on an early 2nd century find from Dangstetten.





Dateline mid 1st century
Auxiliary cavalryman.

This is based on the auxiliary B cavalry helmet found at Witcham Gravel, Ely, and now in the British Museum. Largely iron sheathed in yellow bronze, the original still retains a bronze cheek piece. Yellow crests are later associated with the Roman cavalry by Arrian. Here the mail shirt rather than being worn over a form of padding is instead worn over two tunics, and secured by a relatively plane belt. Bracae and leg wraps complete the equipment.



Dateline late 1st century
Northern Britain.
Auxiliary cavalryman.

Legionaries could be equipped with bows for hunting and for war. This soldier is using a helmet based on the example from Brigetio, Hungary, now currently displayed at the Roman Army Museum, Caerleon. It has a high mounted brow guard and eyebrow decoration. The legionary is using a recurve bow, stiffened at the ears and handle with horn plates. The arrows are made from cane with wooden knocks and piles. No metal heads are needed for hunting arrows such as these. Rather than a quiver of uncertain design the soldier carries spare arrows in their bow hand.



Dateline early 2nd century.
Cavalryman with contus

Romans adopted the contus in the early 2nd century. The helmet is a copy of the 1st century find from Witcham Gravel, Ely, Cambridgeshire, worn with flexible scale armour. A rare photo of the contus used by an early Imperial Roman. The weapon is in a low position to the right of the horses neck. It could be used to break up static infantry formations, as well as against other horsemen.






Dateline early 2nd century.
Cavalryman from a Cohortes equitates.

Perhaps the hardest period to reconstruct. The Theilenhofen helmet now on display in Munich fits into the Imperial Italic tradition, but with a shallow neck guard. Found on the site of the castrum of Cohors III Bracaraugustanorum, a mixed cohort of infantry and cavalry guarding the Raetian limes. The deposition date of the helmet is 189AD although the helmet could have seen a great deal of service prior to the deposition date.

The shoulder doubling on the mail shirt would be becoming old fashioned by this date. The long spatha has an early second century cows bone grip based on a find from Dangstetten, with walnut pommel and guard with recessed copper plate. The scabbard is based on finds from Scotland and Germany. The belt has plates of open work design based on finds from Hadrian’s Wall. Caligae have gone out of fashion and here an enclosed boot is worn.



Dateline A.D. 105
The Dacian wars.
Legionary Legio II Adiutrix.

A mail hamata is depicted, here still with shoulder doubling, along with a Robinson type Imperial Gallic type I, probably made at the end of the civil wars of 68-69 A.D. A manica is worn with greaves to protect the limbs against the two-handed Dacian sword, the falx. An oval clipeus shield is carried as depicted on the grave stela of Gaius Castricius in the Aquincum Museum, Budapest. A type B pugio is worn based on the example from Melun in France.





Dateline A.D. 110
Scotland.
Auxiliary Cohortes Equitatae.

From a mixed infantry and cavalry unit. The helmet is the Robinson Auxiliary Infantry type C, based on a skull piece from the Museo Archaeologico, Florence. Robinson’s interpretation is questionable. The mail shirt at this time is not shown with shoulder doubling. Underpants, subligariorum, are worn with a pair of undones. The spatha is still attached to a baldric using rings on the scabbard.



Dateline A.D. 210
Scotland.
VI Legion.

What Robinson considered a poor quality Auxiliary Cavalry type F helmet is worn, based on the find from Kalkar-Hoenepel, Germany. A mail shirt is worn as are ocreae or greaves. The pugio is still worn, this example coming from the Kunzig iron hoard. The spatha, now worn on the left, is suspected from a broad baldric using a phalera. The belt runs through a scabbard slide. The waist belt is fastened by a simple ring and stud arrangement, common in the period.

The legionary wears a long sleeved tunic and tight trousers over military boots with integral laces. The scutum or shield is made in the old tradition using in effect a version of plywood. At this time they were edged in leather or rawhide for structural stability. The bull, the proposed symbol of the VI from York can be seen on the shield. The pilum is still in use. An impression based on readily available Deepeeka products.



Dateline A.D. 211
Septimius Severus comes to York

The lady is keen to follow the fashions set by the wife of the Emperess Julia Domna, with curled hair and heavy make-up. She wears an under dress in linen, woollen overdress with integral clavi, and a palla. Her shoes are delicate boots with integral laces and pieced decoration.

The soldier wears a heavy pair of boots with integral laces, trousers with integral feet, and a linen tunic decorated with clavi. His military belt is secured to belt studs through a square framed “buckle”. His pattern welded spatha is suspended by a wide baldric, decorated with silvered studs with phalera and strap end from Carlisle and Zugmantel respectively. The pair stand beside the city walls, re-modelled along the river frontage at this time.


Dateline A.D. 250’s
Dura Europus, Syria.

Flexible copper alloy scales seem to be normally smaller than iron examples, which generally seem to have been used for horse armour. Flexible armour was constructed by wiring each scale to its neighbours, then sewing the scales to backing fabric and to a horizontal woollen thread. The armour is then given leather edging for comfort. The resulting armour is quick to construct and relatively light. It is capable of expanding to allow for heavy breathing, as does mail. Its flexibility means it can be used for limb armour and be extended below the waist. Finds of loose scales or rows are often assumed to come from shirts, but may belong to limb defences. It is excellent against downward blows, good against horizontal strikes, and better than expected against upward stabs. The stitching, horizontal cord and wire all act against upward blows. Here a flexible scale coif, shirt and sleeves are worn based on the Dura Synagogue mural, the Battle of Eben-Ezer.

The broad baldric is based on an example from a votive deposit at Vimose, Denmark. Here it suspends a very pointed semi-spatha, again based on a find from Kunzig. The greaves are of a type seemingly used by infantry, with a material backing worn of leg wrappings. A quiver of javelins is carried as seen on a tombstone of Aurelius Mucianus from Legio II Parthica based in Syria. The oval shield, now planked with a sewn rawhide edge is based on those from Dura. A spear is carried decorated in the fashion of finds from Danish bogs.


Dateline A.D. 250
Cavalryman.

This assemblage owes a great deal to the Straubing Hoard, and the cavalry sports.
The chamfron consists of three panels joined by two long hinges. A naked Mars dominates the central panel which tampers slightly towards the base. The side plates have flying Victories around the top, snakes curving around the eye-guards and the Dioscuri with their horses near the lower edge. The horse also wears a silvered breastplate.

The cavalry sports greeves, ocreae, have detached knee guards hinged to the greaves, elaborate bossing with a silvered background, and cover the ankles. A naked Mars can be seen on the left greeve.

The painting on the parade shield is loosely based on fragments of a preserved painted circular leather shield facing, found in Egypt, now on display in Trier. The umbo is from the ex Guttman collection showing Minerva, in tinned copper alloy.

The rider wears a well upholstered auxiliary cavalry helmet from the early 3rd century, and flexible scale armour. The helmet padding was causing large amounts of sweat to colour the broad baldric holding the pattern welded spatha. On this very hot day linen trousers and tunic are worn, with a well built pair of typical 3rd century boots with integral laces.


Dateline A.D. 320
Roman cavalry group.

Mass produced Dominate helmets fall into two groups, either the ridge helm, at its simplest composed of two halves joined by a central ridge, or the spangenhelm, composed of several panels riveted into an iron frame. The ridge helms are provided with neckguards and cheek-pieces attached to a leather edging or fabric lining often without the use of metal hinges. The iron edges of the helm are not even properly finished, but left raw and bound with leather or rawhide. They were often sheathed in gilded silver foil. The centre and right hand riders are wearing examples of the Deurne helmet exhibited in the Leiden Museum. Individual pieces of gilded sheathing were discovered in 1910 in a flattened state. They were passed to a local goldsmith who assembled the pieces and “re-inflated” them into the presumed shape of the helmet.

When viewing the original in Leiden Museum, it noticeable that its hinge protectors have been mounted upside down. The left hand rider wears a copy of the iron helmet found in Egypt at Deir el Medineh, and is now on display at the Coptic Museum, Cairo.

All helmets need some form of padding. Vegetius referred to the “pilleus Pannonicus”. The Pannonian cap can be identified with the hats worn by soldiers on the Arch of Constantine. Shaped liked a pillbox, it is particularly suited to the shape of the ridge helm. On the right hand rider a Germanic style type 1 spatha can be seen, worn from a waist belt. A glimpse of the padded subarmalis can be seen, with attached leather pteruges, protecting the wearer’s upper arms and legs. Over this is worn rigid scale armour consisting of copper alloy scales wired to their neighbours, top, bottom and both sides. It is given a linen backing and leather edging. The relative inflexibility means that rigid scale shirts do not extend below the waistline. It is relatively light, but gives excellent protection, the force of a direct blow hitting any individual scale been quickly dispersed to the neighbouring scales. Although 4th century shirts leave no evidence, reconstructions of scale body armour are generally made with an opening on the left-hand side. This means the fastenings are protected by the wearer’s shield. The hardened leather thigh guards come are based on one of the two finds from Dura. An early form of lamellar, these fit from the waist over the knee to partially cover the shin above the military boot. A manica is worn protecting the right arm, while the shield, displaying the blazon of the Equites Talfali, protects the left. A recurve bow is carried to the riders left, and arrow to the right. The horse barding is in part based on drawings of the destroyed Column of Theodosius copied by Franco Giovanni Battista il Semolei in the 16th century, now in the musée du Louvre. In all a speculative assemblage.



Dateline late 4th century.
Northern Britain.

This infantryman is armed with an arcuballista or crossbow. Two 3rd century carvings of hunting equipment from the Haute-Loire region of France seem to show such weapons. A recurve bow of probably composite construction is mounted on a tiller, with a revolving circular bone nut as part of the trigger mechanism. A wooden handle is placed at the end of the tiller. The trigger itself is probably a simple “Z”-shaped lever, as used on all early crossbows. The operator places his right hand on top of the handle, forcing the bow into the ground vertically, while the string is pulled back and secured to the nut with the left hand. He is wearing a so-called Coptic tunic, based on surviving examples from Egypt. Tight trousers are worn, tucked into sprang-work socks and low shoes. His spatha is worn on a waist belt, under a broad military belt. His propeller shaped belt stiffeners date the figure to the late 4th century.



Dateline late 4th century.
Northern Britain.

A marine from a lusoriae, a small fast warship with a single bank of oars developed during the late 3rd century. These could be pictae or ships painted blue for scouting duties as a simple form of camouflage. Tunics are described as a blue-green colour, venetus, by Vegetius, who writes that the same colour was used for the sails of ships. Trousers are worn with simple leg wraps and heavy boots. The falx, a type of sword with a curved blade, seems to have been used in the Classis Britannica, as shown on a coin of Carausius. It is certainly mentioned by Vegetius as been useful in cutting rigging when attached to a long pole. Such a weapon could be made from un-hardened iron.



Dateline 4th century.
Cristae.

A crested so-called infantry ridge helmet from Intercisa, with a solid iron fin, gilded. Called the Intercisa IV, the reconstructed bowl, cheek pieces and neck guard may not have orignally belonged to the same helmet. Note the gilded copper alloy Chi-ro helmet label attached to the front of the crest. The helmet on the right is based on the Augst example, with a detachable wooden crest box attached to the central ridge. Ammianus mentioned Cristae in the second half of the 4th Century. A Carslie-type scale gorget is also on display.



Dateline A.D. 440
Gaul.

One of the bucellarii or bodyguards to a wealthy landowner is hunting with a recurve bow. This was based around a wooden core, upon which animal sinew and horn had been carefully glued producing a recurved shape. “Ears” were then attached to the ends of the bow, protected by bone or antler. These acted as levers for the flexible parts of the limbs. Laths on the grip stiffened the bow handle to prevent it flexing and bucking when the string returned to rest after release. Vegetius referred to the “pilleus Pannonicus”. The Pannonian cap can be identified with the hats worn by soldiers on the Arch of Constantine, with a simple pillbox shape.

iff you wan't more on late weapons check out their gallery on reconstructions

[Hetairos]

Questions, does anyone knows the difference and effects of sub-cultures vs religions?

[ABH2]

Religions are basically just subcultures, only tied to the region themselves instead of the factions. The list from in game:
rom_religion_african_arabian
rom_religion_balkan
rom_religion_celtic
rom_religion_eastern
rom_religion_germanic
rom_religion_hellenic
rom_religion_iberian
rom_religion_italian
rom_religion_latin
rom_religion_nomadic
rom_religion_punic

So, they basically represent the population (or very close to the concept of ethnicity we are doing, which I think it could serve as the basis). They basically represent the culture and ethnicity that needs to be converted over time. CA just decided to call it religion and make temples the predominant form of conversion.

In the past, I proposed we diversify the cultures and instead turn it into a sort of political power attribute. Each region could have its own, or close to nearly every region/area on the map.

Edit - Oh, and about what we talked about earlier regarding diplomacy - you are right. The AK makes setting certain agreements easy. I'm still not sure if it will allow us to clear us some past events which I didn't see, but there is also a table that seems to set a modifier. I'm hoping this is basically a bonus relation to make factions friendlier/unfriendlier as the past_events table still doesn't work for some reason. But trade agreements, non-aggression pacts etc.? Very easy to set through the tool.

[swingnblues]

First draft of my regional/factional changes (which will need approval. Regions and such are currently listed in the order they appear in the startpos (hence why it seems like a random list - that's how CA did the regions):

New Factions:

1. Aetolian League
2. Sinope
3. Massyli
4. Byzantion

Removed Factions:

1. Nova Carthago
2. Aria
3. Sagartia
4. Media
5. Cyrenaica
6. Cyprus
7. Parthava
8. Libya
9. Arachosia
10. Etruscans

So, by this plan, the mod would be +7 in factions. Reason being, unless I'm mistaken, is that we can use the HaTG Massylii faction.

New Client States/Vassals:

1. Veneti -> Rome (Could instead be allies, the situation in Cisalpine Gaul was a little tricky, but they had been subdued before they revolted)
2. Turdetani -> Carthage
3. Delmatae -> Rome
4. Cessatani -> Rome
5. Triballi -> Scordisci
6. Edetani -> Carthage
7. Massylii -> Carthage
8. Breuci -> Scordisci
9. Daorsi -> Rome
10. Masaesyli -> Carthage
11. Ardiae -> Rome
12. Media Atropatene -> Seleucids (Reduced in size, had been subdued by Antiochus III before Raphia)
13. Persia -> Seleucids (Reduced in size, only have Persepolis)

Renamed Regions:

1. Antheia -> Byzantion (I'm aware the geography isn't perfect)
2. Carthage -> Qart Hadasht
3. Pulpudeva -> Tylis (may keep this region name)
4. Cydamus -> Capsa (Again, aware the geography isn't perfect, major city of Massylii)
5. Larissa -> Thermika (Same as above, but closer - no major geographical obstacles as Larissa is already misplaced)
6. Iader -> Daorson
7. Macomades -> Philaenorum Arae
8. Velathri -> Arretium
9. Appolonia -> Phoenike
10. Arse -> Saguntum

Those map editing tools can't come fast enough.
Regions with new ownership:

1. Harmozia -> Seleucids
2. Gadira -> Carthage
3. Merv -> Seleucids
4. Ibossim -> Carthage
5. Delminium -> Delmatae
6. Byzantion/Antheia -> Byzantion
7. Larissa/Thermika -> Aetolian League
8. Gor -> Seleucids
9. Phrada -> Seleucids
10. Pulpudeva/Tylis -> Tylis
11. Pura -> Seleucids
12. Cydamus/Capsa -> Massylii
13. Lilyabaeum -> Rome
14. Seleucia -> Seleucids
15. Paraitonion -> Ptolemies
16. Artacoana -> Seleucids
17. Ammonium -> Ptolemies
18. Jerusalem -> Seleucids
19. Side -> Ptolemies
20. Cyprus -> Ptolemies
21. Ephesus -> Ptolemies
22. Iader/Daorson -> Daorsi
23. Hecatompylos -> Parthia
24. Susa -> Seleucids
25. Macomades/Arae -> Carthage
26. Bam -> Seleucids
27. Rhaga -> Seleucids
28. Sinope -> Sinope
29. Cyrene -> Ptolemies
30. Karalis -> Rome
31. Iol -> Carthage
32. Alexandria Arachosia -> Seleucids
33. Lepcis -> Carthage
34. Tingis -> Carthage
35. Qart Hadasht -> Carthage
36. Oraea -> Seleucids
37. Kapisene -> Seleucids
38. Thapsus -> Carthage
39. Velathri/Arretium -> Rome
40. Alalia -> Rome
41. Hatra -> Seleucids
42. Charax -> Seleucids
43. Zadrakarta -> Parthia
44. Ekbatana -> Seleucids
45. Susia -> Parthia

So, about 1/4th of the regions in the game will be in new hands. The Seleucids are obviously the big winners. The sheer size of a starting faction like that may alarm some people, but with the way I can specialize regions and balance things, it's possible to make it a far larger challenge than it would appear at first glance. Hanging onto that territory and raising troops won't be as easy as people think. Not even close.

All of this is based on rather extensive research I've done. If anyone has any issues, feel free to share. I enjoy the discussion and it's productive.

Summary of the changes for those who don't know the region names (map will be produced in the future):
-Seleucids gain control of their empire besides Armenia, Media Atropatene, Parthia, Baktria, and Sardes (in revolt/at war). THey also hold their recently gained territory in Syria which will be decided by Raphia.
-Parthia gains all territory of Hyrcania/Parthava.
-Egypt gains its actual territory in Asia Minor and Libya/Cyprus.
-Carthage has its clients in Iberia, Libyan territory, and the Nova Carthago territory. They control the coastlines in North Africa as they historically did.
-Rome has its Etruscan territory as well as its recently formed clients in Illyria and their Veneti allies.
-Tylis is moved inland.
-Scordisci have control over neighboring tribes and are the strongest tribal group in the upper Balkans.
-Establishment of new factions of Sinope, Byzantion, the Aetolian League, and the Massylii.

Hetairos:


I will have a pretty thorough list of subcultures I'd propose tomorrow, but as we've already discussed - I think your list is the same if not identical. It would be the most thorough done. After that (shouldn't take me long, and it should be close if not the same as yours), I'll start on producing ethnicities and cultures for each region followed by resources. I've uploaded the spreadsheet that will show the factional changes above in what I think is a very clear manner. As we've discussed previously, I'll be saving the maps for later, not to mention your final approval on these lists.

On the factions being removed above - I figure we could do the same thing being done for the Etruscans and such. As in, they could be rebel factions in those regions and liberated.

I'm also wondering if we can't use some of those Iberian factions from HaTG to allow the same options for some of the territories in Spain controlled by Carthage.

I don't think that would require new subcultures, though.

Neusapp:


Pergamon was allied to the Aetolians and did participate in internal Greek affairs (liberated Athens from Macedonian rule in 229, would interfere more later less successfully). As did the Ptolemies. However, they are by definition a Successor Kingdom. They gained their independence in the Successor Wars under and then expanded. Pergamon had been part of Lysimachus' territory, and the Attalid dynasty was started by one of his subordinates who carved out their little niche in Asia Minor there.

Crete and Rhodes are toss-ups to me. Since they are mainly non-aggressive trading spots in game, conquest by the player usually is a pain simply because it requires breaking treaties and waiting it out. Giving them a confederation option would make sense in game for the Greek city states. At least a few factions wouldn't need to deal with that.

Having done some of my own research, I'm going to have to differ with you on startpos, at least with the Seleucids and their satrapies. The Seleucids controlled the outer fringes of the Empire through surrogates. While they controlled the interior more or less directly, the outer regions were ruled seperately, having to acknowledge Seleucid suzerainty and paying tribute. Even after Antiochus's Eastern campaigns this was the modus vivendi that was reached. Therefore these are my suggestions for the startpos, related to the Seleucids and related territories.

Seleucids:
All of Syria
All of Mesopotamia
Tarsus
Jerusalem
Petra

Ptolemies: (At war)
All of Aegyptus
Side
Cyprus

Seleucid Rebels/Sardes: (At war) <--This needs to be a Hellenistic faction, as it was controlled by Antiochus's cousin Achaeus.
Ephesus (I would keep this here until we can modify the map and add a territory for Sardis itself, giving Ephesus to the Ptolemies)
Pessinus
Iconium

Media: (Satrapy)
Ecbatana
Rhaga

Media Atropatene: (Satrapy)
Gazaca

Persia: (Satrapy)
Susa
Persepolis
Gor

Drangiana: (Satrapy)
Bam
Phrada

Sagartia: (Satrapy)
Harmozia
Pura

Arachosia: (Independent, at peace)
Alexander Arachosia
Kapisene
Oraea

Aria: (Satrapy)
Artacoana
Merv (which should really be called by its ancient name, Margiana, as opposed to the modern one)

Parthia: (Independent, at war)
All of Parthia

Bactria: (Independent, unclear if at war, as the original dynasty that had broken with the Seleucids had been replaced.)
Vanilla startpos

[ABH2]

As I mentioned to you in our chat, I feel we differ more on game function than the history. Though I do have my own quibbles on a few points. If we don't agree, Hetairos is going to make the final decision regardless. I'm going to try and be thorough on my reasoning with regards to the Seleucids:

I'll start with why I made the decision in that list to include satrapies into the Seleucid territory.
1. While yes, surrogates were used in certain areas (particularly in the post-Raphia campaigns of Antiochus), they were more or less areas that had carved out autonomy before hand. Armenia, the Atropatenes (pre-Raphia), Parthia, and Baktria had all managed to do that. I think Anticohus' policy had more to do with convenience and pragmatism on his part. None of those states had appointed leadership as the satrapies did. I believe the phrase used by Polybius to describe the Parthian peace settlement was on their terms or something to that effect. So, really, I don't think satrap is even an accurate word to describe the areas pacified by Anitochus. They were more or less client states with the exception of pre-Raphia Media/Persia which remained under Macedonian control.
2. Areas such as Media and Persia still had Macedonian satraps as well as garrisons. Media is described as being surrounded by a ring of military posts. There was a garrison stationed not far from Ecbatana. There were also Greek settlements scattered through these regions.
3. Satraps weren't inherently autonomous. Really, prior to the the Roman Empire, no better system of empire management had been invented. It was as centralized as a massive empire could have been at the time period.

So, those are the historical reasons I made the list as I did and how I feel our approaches differ.

Now, we have the gameplay element:
1. It's impossible to incorporate satraps or territories any further. In order for the Seleucids to gain a stronger grip on those territories, they would need to go to war and then occupy them. There's no way around this, unfortunately. Even if we made those satrap factions the same subculture, it's still not possible as the game for some reason does not allow the offer to be made to satraps/clients (makes no sense, CA).
2. As it stands, war coordination is awful, and nothing stops satraps from raising multiple stacks. If anything, it makes holding these areas easier from everything but a diplomatic standpoint. In reality, they were very vulnerable regions to the rising forces in the east (Baktria/Parthia). These areas didn't break off, but were conquered and taken from the Seleucids.
3. Trade. The game currently doesn't allow the Seleucids or any faction to trade through their satraps.
4. I have never seen anything in the DB that allows us to control the units and recruitment slots in satraps. As far as I know, this is hardcoded.

As I mentioned, I plan to heavily customize and reflect various things through building chains. These include:
1. Recruitment slots.
2. Unit progression (as in, recruitment of native and more Hellenized units over time).
3. Levels of citizenship/direct control
4. Public order hits. My goal is for these regions to be very hard to control and at a high risk of revolt. Yet, the player can still improve this over time by developing the areas and their own choices (I would like to see dynamic paths with strategic choices). They won't be able to raise large forces for the Seleucids, and should be vulnerable to Baktria and the expanded Parthian faction, as well. Each will have 4 regions concentrated and ready to attack the Seleucids.
5. The ability exists to allow these areas to be liberated, so this and the rebellion factor means the areas can still become enemies of the Seleucids very easily.

Without the buffer states, I think the Seleucids will get eaten up and Parthia/Baktria are more likely to come out on top given how the AI functions. The Seleucids usually do crumble, but their satraps live on autonomously.

I hope you read my threads on buildings in this forum (as well as politics). Some of the exact concepts need to be ironed out and some of what I posted is brainstorming.

My main issue is with the gameplay elements. I just don't feel as though satraps are an accurate depiction of what it meant in real life. It's also overly restrictive of the player. They are basically tributaries lacking diplomatic autonomy. Yet, satraps did a bit more than that.

I'm actually on the fence on this one. I can see your point, and its fair. Neither way is a perfect representation. I'm still leaning more towards my own concept with regional specialization, however. I hope to get some feedback from everyone else.

The satrap feature works more like a historical client state to me, and it's unfortunately not moddable in any significant way. I think an area with a Macedonian satrap, such as Persia/Media would have had more obligations than just giving some tribute. Those options are off the table for the player.

If we do go with the satrap model, I'd like to see the unit rosters for those factions fleshed out more.

[Thomahawk2k]

I vote for an centralized seleucid empire, because I think that the seleucids get too vulnerable if they have satrapies, they might get eaten in total by egypt. And it is not very historical that Egypt takes the whole center of the Seleucid empire after Raphia. And I don't like the idea that if Sardes takes the power, all eastern lands just walk away and the seleucids don't have a chance to retake power.

However, I see also good points of the plan:
1. Parthia will have a harder time to conquer a big land.
2. We are sure that the Seleucid empire doesn't get overpowered.
3. It is logical that if the center of the empire falls, it falls apart.
4. Ancient eastern powers like Media Antropatene and Persia can rise again.

[Hetairos]

Check out the new source map:



I decided to use this map for our hypothetical Rome II: TEd Map tools experience. I will update the map step by step while drawing on it. The best advantage the map has is that it is 1.) super high res and 2.) it has the best tilt I could create to very easily copy past respectively apply every single map in my research folder easily using them as a template to draw on this map. A real help, which will make my work on this much much easier than with the old vanilla map.

Credits: NASA

[The Wandering Storyteller]

For me, the Selecuids should have their full power by 272 bc. Having many eastern sapatraies having their own armies is certainly not accurate and creates an very artificial immersion sense. The Selecuids did face many rebellions in their empire so when factions rebel it will be more historically authentic and more realistic sense. If this mod wants to carry in the tradition of RSII legacy, then we must do what they have done as well with the Selecuids and give them their full power. I will want that Dresden's Hegamonia Empire mod is implemented if we want the factions to stand. The Estrucan League should be removed as they were not a superpower by 272 bc, they were gone. Rome's main tribes should be either Italian or Gaulish, when expanding into the alps. Carthage should have all its regions along with an hidden income bonus, including Rome, Macedon, and the Egyptians. Slash all hidden incomes for all minor factions. I will not toleras

Carthage needs at least all its territories from the start so the player will be able to recruit different mercenaries at its will. DEI did this brilliantly and I loved being able to recruit Spanish/Gaulic troops in Spain while I could depend on my local forces. It just helped me gave that extra edge when I faced other tribes in Spain or so. The Carthaginians, like the Parthians, depended on recruiting loads of mercenaries in their armies. Parthia too should have all its full terrioties except the city of Hectaylpomas which will be under Selecuid control. If the player wants access to an highly unique roster or units, Hectaylpomas will give him access him to an range of units and therefore he will get stronger local garrisons.

Note, since the hidden income bonus has been given to Backtria for no reason as to my understanding, playing with other mods, it hidden income needs to be halved. When I was playing Parthia on Hegamonia, I found the Backtrians along with allying were eating into the Selecuid Empire - now while I don't mind that, the Selecuids weren't attacking back, as their AI was not really building many militarist buildings and was not really using its wealth, despite its forces, and was being attacked especially by the other neighbouring states. The Selecuid Empire must be able to defend itself from its attacking neighbours. While not being too '' overpowered'', we should give it the chance to defend and maybe expand a little bit, scripting a few events for it so it has some certain edges.

Overall, this is looking good so far though! Plenty of good stuff and debate going on over here.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Good stuff ABH2, Macedon does need an boost from its already weak position, and Athens and Sparta need to be cut down from declaring war. Tylis and other factions should not destroy Macedon at its starting date. Macedon really in the proper sense of RSII should face the Roman threat even more, and its first 20-30 turns should be an easy play because Macedon was fighting Rome at this period. Perhaps script the wars a little bit to really make it feel like the Roman-Macedonian Wars. Magnar did this in his mod with Carthage fighting Rome at 218 bc. The player must build his armies and then defeat Rome in the current wars.

Since the mod starts in 217bc, let us compare the Roman-Macedonian Wars

Taken from wikipedia here:

The First Macedonian War (214–205 BC) was fought by Rome, allied (after 211 BC) with the Aetolian League andAttalus I of Pergamon, against Philip V of Macedon, contemporaneously with the Second Punic War (218–201 BC) against Carthage. There were no decisive engagements, and the war ended in a stalemate.
During the war, Macedon attempted to gain control over parts of Illyria and Greece, but without success. It is commonly thought that these skirmishes in the east prevented Macedon from aiding the Carthaginian generalHannibal in the war with Rome. The "Peace of Phoenice", a treaty drawn up at Phoenice, in 205 BC, formally ended the war.


So in this case, we can have the player normally play as before, having an already established alliance with carthage, we can set the player at least two three missions:

1) First mission is to make the player build up his strength
2) Second mission is to destroy the Roman province, bring it under Macedonian rule, and aid Hannibal of Carthage in his conquest of Rome, helping him to score victory - but in this case, Rome can spawn out many armies - so even if you landed two or three armies - you would either result in phrryic victories, or you'd really have to put your skills to the test. I remember playing the NTW III mod, when I tried to invade England from France, and man, I won victories but with too many English armies it was impossible for me to destroy the capitial. That is how it should feel like - but you know, the player should be able to have help from Carthage at this time. This may result in a few minor changes, and the player can then have an event saying this:

The war has gone badly for Rome, Hannibal has proved himself mighty and an worthy ally, but the politicans and generals feels we have helped him enough. Should we continue to help him, though it is draining our coffers, or should we withdraw, in the hope that we have helped him win?

Yes, we should, with blah blah

No, we should with blah blah

In this way the player won't be restricted into what he can do, if he says no the third mission for him can be to expand towards Illyria and the other Gallic/Balkan states.

But lets note, the first Macedonian War wasn't that great as an event. Things can go either way, so the player at first can choose to decide whether to help Carthage, or whether to consolidy if its regions.

The Second Macedonian War will really give the player an edge as to what to do against Rome. Here is an map of the situation at the time being:



By this time, the player must have occupied much of Macedonia by now and it must be very powerful by the turn 200 bc, it will have a rich economy, robust armies and an terrifying force.

• Article
• Web sites
• Bibliography
• Contributors

Macedonian Wars, (3rd and 2nd centuries bc), four conflicts between the ancient Roman Republic and the kingdom of Macedonia. They caused increasing involvement by Rome in Greek affairs and helped lead to Roman domination of the entire eastern Mediterranean area.
The First Macedonian War (215–205 bc) occurred in the context of the Second Punic War, while Rome was preoccupied with fighting Carthage. The ambitious Macedonian king Philip V set out to attack Rome’s client states in neighbouring Illyria and confirmed his purpose in 215 by making an alliance with Hannibal of Carthage against Rome. The Romans fought the ensuing war ineffectively, and in 205 the Peace of Phoenice ended the conflict on terms favourable to Philip, allowing him to keep his conquests in Illyria.
Philip then began harrying Rhodes, Pergamum, and other Greek city-states of the Aegean. The Second Macedonian War (200–196) was launched by the Roman Senate against Philip after he refused to guarantee to make no hostile moves against these states. Philip’s forces were badly defeated by the Romans and their Greek allies in a battle at Cynoscephalae in 197. The terms of peace included the loss of most of his navy, payment of a large indemnity to Rome, and the loss of his territories outside of Macedonia. Rome subsequently established a benevolent protectorate over Greece.
Philip’s son and successor, Perseus (reigned 179–168), began to make alliances with various Greek city-states and thus aroused the displeasure of Rome. So began the Third Macedonian War (171–168), which ended in 168 when the Roman army of Lucius Aemilius Paullus utterly defeated Perseus’ forces at the Battle of Pydna. Perseus was taken back to Rome in chains, and Macedonia was broken up into four formally autonomous republics that were required to pay annual tribute to Rome. This arrangement produced a state of chronic disorder in Macedonia, however, and in 152 a pretended son of Perseus, Andriscus, tried to reestablish the Macedonian monarchy, thus provoking the Fourth Macedonian War (149–148). The Roman praetor Quintus Caecilius Metellus crushed the rebellion with relative ease, and in 146 Macedonia was made a Roman province. It was in fact the first province of the nascent Roman Empire.

So during the first two years, the player will find lacklusture movement from both Rome and Macedon, but things heat up in 198bc. At that the time the war will go either way. But the first thing Macedon should look to do is to ally with the Achean League, wanting to go into its favour as they will decide whether to go Rome or not. The player has to keep the cities and leagues that historically betrayed the Macedonians/Selecuids and helped the Romans more. Any defeats that happen by the player will result in negative for diplomacy with Greek factions. Any victories will further cause the Achean league and other greek city states will be helping the player. But the thing is, if the player wins the war, he/she can expand into where they want, if they don[='t, then many Greek factions will help Rome expand into the Balkans and thus the player will have to defeat the AI Romans. This would provide a real challenge in my experience and add some good depth into it. I'm not suggesting any big changes, I've ignored the fact that when Macedon attacks Athens, then Rome historically condemned this. Instead, we only take the major events and then let the player do as we will, just scripting a few moments here and there. In this case Macedon will not be attacked on by so many other factions and so on and so forth.

What do you think of this?

[ABH2]

Some updates to the list I posted above:

Renamed Regions
-Phrada = (Alexandria) Prophthasia
-Kapisene = Alexandria tes Caucasus
-Merv = Margiana
-Gor = Antioch tes Persis

Renamed/Restored Factions
-Arachosia = Asvakas (both regions of Arachosia)
-Drangiana = Oreitans (1 region, Oraea)

I have struggled with the very Eastern areas of the map due to the presence of the Mauryans and the scant source material. We really don't know who controlled the Gedrosia and Arachosia at this time.

Polybius tells us that when Antiochus crossed the Hindu Kush into 'India' (really the Kabul region of Afghanistan) from Baktria, he restored his treaty with Sophagasenus (an 'Indian' King). As he did in past areas (Armenia etc.), he forced this local ruler to give him war material, or there was an agreement made. In this case, war elephants. There is a great deal of confusion and debate as to who Sophagasenus was. This was after the death of Ashoka. We do know that under his reign, he had expanded into the Kandahar/Alexandria Arachosia region of the map. Yet there is no Indian ruler or persona who matches up.

I find the argument that this was a local warlord who had carved out his little niche with a high level of autonomy the most convincing explanation. Even if I didn't, though, it is far more sensible for this mod. Having a single region or two of the massive Mauryan Empire wouldn't make sense. The Hindu Kush was a natural barrier to expansion. The area wasn't controlled by the Seleucids in 217.

The Asvakas inhabited the region and were an Iranian tribe with mixed Indian heritage. They had also begun to adopt elements of Indian culture. There were also sizable settlements of Greeks/Macedonians. The etymology of their tribal name (from the Persians and Greeks) relates to horses which they were famous for raising. Indian legend also depicts them as being elephant breeders. When Alexander moved through the region, they were the victims of his rather infamous slaughter in which he killed men, women and children who had already surrendered. They put up, by all accounts, fierce resistance and continued to occupy this region. They were and are a notoriously difficult people to conquer and control and revolted multiple times under Ashoka. So, odds are that a weaker ruler (as his successors were) would not have kept them in line.

Oreitan was the tribal group name the Greeks used for the people who occupied the territory between the Indus and the Gedrosia. Who controlled this territory? There is, as far as I know, nothing but a single quote from Pliny to back up the claim that it was given to the Mauryans. I guess there is one piece of evidence that it no longer remained under Seleucid/Greek control - garrisons founded in the region by Alexander had been abandoned not too long after their settlement.

The area controlled by the Mauryans would have stopped just around around Pura on the current map. So, the very corner right settlement/port city of Oraea.

Having many eastern sapatraies having their own armies is certainly not accurate and creates an very artificial immersion sense.

I agree with this. Also, I've been thinking. I haven't modded characters/traits much, but ideally we would be able to set it up so on the death of the King/faction leader for the Seleucids, rebellions would be more likely (as they historically were).