How do I Sparta?

[Dead*Man*Wilson]

Hey guys,To date, I've never played a campaign as Sparta. I tend to try to have somewhat realistic campaigns, so playing as a declining regional power was not ever on my to-do list. Also, that darn movie did more harm to what I think about Sparta than good!

Seriously though, here is where my head is at"With DeI's relatively new Sparta roster/reform update and the coming of a new AAA Generals mod, I have been thinking about giving this a try with role-play in mind. My question is: can this be fun & engaging?

My hang-ups:1) Their armed forces are, admittedly, stuck in another century. The idea of having all those hoplite phalanxes w/little to no supporting cav. doesn't sound too fun. Is it actually fun to play as the Spartans in battle? I get that I'd use mercs, AORs, ect. This question is for people who DO NOT have lambdas, hoplites, or Gerard Butler as their avatar (sorry, GS). 2) Expansion. Am I just to paint the board red? I really don't like doing this, but the game design doesn't give you much options (especially if you want to finish the victory conditions). I mean, Sparta's 3rd century territorial zenith is already at hand at the start of the game. Any ideas of where to expand while keeping things loosely realistic? I can only really think of Crete, Appolonia & Taras.

I remember reading a guy saying that he would do 1-settlement, 'challenge' campaigns with Sparta where I guess he'd liberate or subjugate everybody around him and keep only Sparta as his sole settlement. So far, this sounds pretty interesting, though for trade & economy, I think I'd have to snatch up other settlements. Your thoughts? I do realize what I want from the campaign is restrictive.

Also, here is some academic but informative 3rd century Sparta reading:
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/...rpatoasphd.pdf

[KAM 2150]

In case of poor cavalry choice, you have access to one of the most elite light infantry melee and ranged units in the mod in form of Skiritai. Also you Spartan Youths have great speed and brutal charge.

[Dead*Man*Wilson]

Thanks KAM!I'll make a note of those guys.

[TheRazaman]

For a plausibly realistic expansion path as Sparta (or really any of the mainland Greeks) I would emulate Philip and Alexander. First you'll want to re-establish the dominance you once held over Greece after the Peloponnesian War and bring all the city states under your banner. Then go after Macedon and all the Diadochi kingdoms to show the world that Alexander and his barbarous Macedonians were nothing compared to true Greeks.

[~Seleukos.I.Nikator~]

The Spartans have also an ability to confederate with other Greek poleis, don't they?

Perhaps that might be the course you can take: confederate the Greek world under your hegemony and then expand further beyond your borders.

[Satansblofish]

Hey guys,To date, I've never played a campaign as Sparta. I tend to try to have somewhat realistic campaigns, so playing as a declining regional power was not ever on my to-do list. Also, that darn movie did more harm to what I think about Sparta than good!

Seriously though, here is where my head is at"With DeI's relatively new Sparta roster/reform update and the coming of a new AAA Generals mod, I have been thinking about giving this a try with role-play in mind. My question is: can this be fun & engaging?

My hang-ups:1) Their armed forces are, admittedly, stuck in another century. The idea of having all those hoplite phalanxes w/little to no supporting cav. doesn't sound too fun. Is it actually fun to play as the Spartans in battle? I get that I'd use mercs, AORs, ect. This question is for people who DO NOT have lambdas, hoplites, or Gerard Butler as their avatar (sorry, GS). 2) Expansion. Am I just to paint the board red? I really don't like doing this, but the game design doesn't give you much options (especially if you want to finish the victory conditions). I mean, Sparta's 3rd century territorial zenith is already at hand at the start of the game. Any ideas of where to expand while keeping things loosely realistic? I can only really think of Crete, Appolonia & Taras.

I remember reading a guy saying that he would do 1-settlement, 'challenge' campaigns with Sparta where I guess he'd liberate or subjugate everybody around him and keep only Sparta as his sole settlement. So far, this sounds pretty interesting, though for trade & economy, I think I'd have to snatch up other settlements. Your thoughts? I do realize what I want from the campaign is restrictive.

Also, here is some academic but informative 3rd century Sparta reading:
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/...rpatoasphd.pdf

I can't speak toward trying to maintain any sort of historical authenticity. I also can't speak to any disparity in our mod/difficulty setups so please take this all with a grain of salt.

However, I can speak to playing Sparta as I have played several long campaigns with them. I can think of two that stand out. One I struck out to the east to reclaim the lost territories of Alexander, which was especially fitting for that campaign as the Selecuids had lost the vast majority of their holdings. The other, I ended up in a war with Egypt, I think in support of Cyrene. I hadn't quite had a war like that before where my armies were traveling such long distances over the ocean. It was interesting though because my armies really did feel like they were left out on their own.

When I have actively engaged in conflict with Rome, it usually ends up being a war of attrition as the Romans send stacks faster than I can replenish mine. They also tend to have more quality units than I have total units. If you wait for your reforms, Rome usually becomes too bloated to effectively defend itself so you can topple them easily with your improved units. I found that scenario to have been fun when I played it but the magic was gone once I realized this is what war with early Rome looks like.

If you wanted to recreate the one settlement campaign and be able to trade, you need to capture a port and change it to your capital.

Food and war declarations would be the hardest challenges. For food, you almost assuredly are going to have to supplement your food by using your politicians and speccing them into food and the other points into army upkeep reduction. Then paying a politician each turn to increase the food supply, which I think would give you 4 food a turn. It's enough to get you started but I'd be curious to see how you manage a second or third army. Then the war declarations. With satrapies and client states, if you don't have a ton of diplomacy with them, they will constantly rebel, especially if war declarations are happening since they're forced to join. Iirc, they have to join your wars or cancel your client state/satrapy, in turn declaring war on you. For me, it happened with such frequency, that as a tool for increasing difficulty, I found it to be counter productive as it took away from the immersion. They would separate at any war declaration and then randomly too. After awhile, I feel like I'm dealing with what becomes purely a mechanic of inconvenience. The other side of this is where they align so heavily with you that there is zero chance they ever rebel - which also sucks because that makes the game too easy since it kinda serves as your form of 'civil war' or 'secession'. In my experience, there is very little middle ground for subduing opponents you've had wars with as you gain such negative diplomacy that it takes a herculean effort to bring it back to balance. In the scenario of Sparta as 1 settlements, those would be my main concerns.

I think I may try this out. Feel free to share any updates.

[Dead*Man*Wilson]

Good points, The Razaman, seleukos99 & satansblofish.

I don't think I'd go Alexander's route of expansions since the Spartans didn't really seem to care about his legacy and infamously sat out of Phillip and Alexander's campaigns (if you haven't read about Phillip's threat to Sparta & Sparta's reply, you totally should. Also, Alexander's own diss of the Spartans for not joining his expedition is funny).

I've toyed around with the idea of the Hellenic League confederation, so there is that. I struggle with having to decide gobbling up Knossos & Athens or keeping them on as vassals, or allies. And yes, vassals, splitting or declaring war on you is a veeery nagging issue. For role-play, I'd like to see AI Athens and Knossos by my side, but maintaining a military would be very hard on a single settlements income. We'll see.

I think I'll try an 'almost' one-settlement campaign and see how far I can take it, or even if I can stick to that sort of style of play. Thanks again guys!

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

I would suggest watching the 300 movie first. The most ahistorical representation of all time to get a grasp

[Dead*Man*Wilson]

Haha, compared to the phalanx in that film, I must once again assert that hoplites are broken bro! And don't get me started on the lack of anthropomorphic Persian warriors! Parsa needs a roster overhaul!!!

[TheRazaman]

Sparta was most definitely concerned with what the Macedonians were doing. Their famous “if” rebuttal was simple bluffing that they couldn’t back up and knew Philip wouldn’t want to waste his time/men/resources on fighting a second rate power. Alexander doesn’t invade because his focus was on Persia and the Spartans were no threat to Macedon nor would conquering them have offered him any advantage for the Persia expedition. They were so concerned with Alexander that their Spartan king, Agis, meets with the Persians to inform them he plans to invade Macedon while Alexander is fighting in Persia. The Macedonian regent Antipater crushes the Spartans at Megalopolis and slays King Agis.

So, imo, following Alexander’s path would be plausible to exact revenge on Macedon and usurp Alexander’s legacy as a great conqueror.

[Garbad]

In order to get the true Spartan experience, you need to game shirtless and do pullups on all loading screens.

[Dead*Man*Wilson]

Sparta was most definitely concerned with what the Macedonians were doing. Their famous “if” rebuttal was simple bluffing that they couldn’t back up and knew Philip wouldn’t want to waste his time/men/resources on fighting a second rate power. Alexander doesn’t invade because his focus was on Persia and the Spartans were no threat to Macedon nor would conquering them have offered him any advantage for the Persia expedition. They were so concerned with Alexander that their Spartan king, Agis, meets with the Persians to inform them he plans to invade Macedon while Alexander is fighting in Persia. The Macedonian regent Antipater crushes the Spartans at Megalopolis and slays King Agis.

So, imo, following Alexander’s path would be plausible to exact revenge on Macedon and usurp Alexander’s legacy as a great conqueror.

I mean, I understand Sparta was most certainly concerned about the Macedonians. I'm just saying I wouldn't imagine that they would try to emulate Alexander's ambitions or legacy. I would imagine that they'd probably be fine having hegemony over southern Greece and enjoy the status of something more than a backwater, regional power. But my 'what if' scenario is no more plausible than yours. We are just speculating on our own role play ideas, after all. The revenge angle is an interesting perspective, for sure.

[Fluke]

AI Knossos will always attack Sparta. Perhaps limit yourself to occupying the island, changing your capital to its port for purely economic/trade reasons and try to play a 2 region campaign? Knossos has great archers to recruit and their hoplites could further fill out your ranks.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

In order to get the true Spartan experience, you need to game shirtless and do pullups on all loading screens.

Grow a beard as well...

[Nordling]

I mean, I understand Sparta was most certainly concerned about the Macedonians. I'm just saying I wouldn't imagine that they would try to emulate Alexander's ambitions or legacy. I would imagine that they'd probably be fine having hegemony over southern Greece and enjoy the status of something more than a backwater, regional power. But my 'what if' scenario is no more plausible than yours. We are just speculating on our own role play ideas, after all. The revenge angle is an interesting perspective, for sure.

Sorry to do a bit of necro posting but I thought I could throw in my two cents. Spartan generals were "on a leash" when in sparta but when campaigning in foreign lands they were prone to become even more corrupt, expansionist and greedy as compared to fellow greeks. Also, after peloponnesian war and victory over athens (famous tearing down of the long walls) sparta tried to take athens' place as leading greek state. They maintained a permanent garrison in athens after the war which was thrown out by the athenians only a few years later. They expanded their navy and tried to conquer lands that were once athenian (well, not conquering like invading every island amd slaughtering everyone but through political acts and intimidation). Remember that in order to win the peloponnesian war with athens they allied themselves with persians (persians gave money for ships crews while sparta allowed persia to bring ionian settlements of the western shores of anatolia back in their area of influence).

One might wonder how would the situation develop if sparta's rulung body was not as conservative and would act more boldly. Also, they lost initial naval engagements with athens (like athenians stealing spartan trireme's masts in the cover of night and so on) which really screwed them. They had the potential to become the next maritime empire after athens and all that was required was a bit of luck and some government reforms (which were quite common in greek world and mostly ended in bloodbath). All it needed was a strong and influential politician/general to overthrow the ruling body. Im not certain that it could be easy in case of sparta but I think it would not be impossible. Sparta had a talented general named lysander in that time and he could have pulled off something like that, imo.

It is also very important that both beotia and thebes are taken out of the picture here. If athens were destroyed then either one of those two polis would see a rise in power so it was not all that easy. Power struggle was very real in ancient greece but so it also was for successors, right? I would even say that the hellenic generals never really stopped fighting each other, they just received a bigger playground to play in and some new toys to have fun with, i.e. former persian empire, phalangites, shock cav and elephants.

I just wanted to bring it all up to show that expansion was nit always out of question for sparta. Ofc, 3rd century bc is a whole new ball game but I thought it was worth to point out

[TheLonelyEmperor]

Not sure if you are still looking for suggestions but just in case you are.. My suggestion would be Carthage. Do everything in your power to ally yourself with them and then similar to pretty much what happened historically, send a general over to one of 2 things (Or I guess both). You could send a proper Spartan army over to help them fight Rome through Sicily OR you could really try to recreate history and have your general recruit ONLY locally. Force him to recruit a Carthaginian army, whether you do this only through mercenaries or by somehow taking 1 settlement in Africa is up to you. Regardless I feel like its a awesome suggestion that I haven't ever seen anybody mention.

[Ashok99]

Hello. Can you tell me at what point do Spartan reforms occur? Thank you.

Also, how do you manage to balance the politics of Spartan government? Cheers!