Pergamene army ideas

[Quinn Inuit]

Well, if we're going to add Pergamum, we should start planning. Here's my proposed army ideas for them, with a mixture of real and "what if" units:

light peltasts
archers
thureophoroi
Galatian AoR from next door (they used a lot of Gauls--we could even script in a recruitment building that will appear only if a Pergamene general defeats a Gallic army)
hippakontistai
xystophoroi

AoR specials
They would get AoR hoplites from Ionia and, although I'm not sure how to work this, phalangites from any successor area. Once Pergamum controlled ex-Seleucid regions, they begin recruiting phalangites from those.

Add to this a substantial merc pool, up there with Carthage's for size.

Any other ideas? This list seems kind of skimpy.

[pannonian]

If there isn't a lot of info on the Pergamene army of the 3rd-2nd century BC, how about experimenting with them as a forerunner for the social models of 3.4?

[Jamey]

My first question is what sources we'd use for Pergamum. Always best to start at the beginning.

[Wien1938]

Well, there really isn't a great deal of information on the Attalid Pergamene army. Wargames Research Group reckon the Pergamene citizen infantry were poor theurophoroi (hence the use of mercenaries instead).
Quinn's list is more or less correct. When the Attalids gain control of Lydia and Phrygia following Magnesia (190 BC), they gain control of the Seleucid military colonies there and have access to more xystophoroi and to a limited number of phalangites. They also gain elephants, but since there is no way to create more elephants (they rarely breed in captivity in the ancient world), this might be a one time unit following a scripted event?

[Jamey]

If Pergamum made heavy use of mercenaries, I wouldn't mind seeing them have the ability to train merc hoplites and possibly some other mercs from that region. Possibly in the same manner as Carthage, where they are only trainable in the home region.

On a game balance note, I'd expect this to further damage Seleucia. We should also consider how we plan on strengthening Seleucia to counterbalance this.

[Wien1938]

Trouble with having mercenary hoplites that we would be getting onto unhistorical grounds. Pergamene armies are noted as being light with heavy cavalry - Galatian armies were noted for being vulnerable to skirmishers.

[Jamey]

Trouble with having mercenary hoplites that we would be getting onto unhistorical grounds. Pergamene armies are noted as being light with heavy cavalry - Galatian armies were noted for being vulnerable to skirmishers.

What sort of mercenaries did they use, then? Galatians?

[Wien1938]

Peltasts, Theurophoroi, yes - Galatians (lots of them).
But mostly light skirmishers.

[Quinn Inuit]

pannonian: It's not so much that there's not a lot of info, but that they didn't seem to use a lot of different troop types.

Wien1938's characterization matches everything I've read. Like I said, though, it seems like a boring roster. What can we do to make it more interesting, but historical?

[Iskandar]

I couldn't find anything else about their army either.
About the merc pool - I think it should definitely have merc hoplites, cretan archers, rhodian slingers, galatian heavy infantry, galatian cavalry and tarentine cavalry.

Which reminds me - here is a nice article about the hippakontistai and the Tarentine cavalry:
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Tarantines.html
On the side, I think the Tarentine cavalry should be made AoR unit for Tarrentum and possibly Croton. Also - shouldn't Rhegium have some cavalry AoR unit?

The Pergamenes should have a faction-wide phalanx (reflecting their katoikoi), but we should make it really weak. That way they will have to rely on wider variety of units (mercs and fanatic glatian heavy infantry as AoR) and lots of good skirmishers. This should make for an interesting gameplay.

We could also include one stronger infantry unit in the Pergamum(province) AoR - like the Epirote Chaeonians, but not that strong and with high upkeep, so that the player or AI does not produce it en masse.

[Jamey]

On the side, I think the Tarentine cavalry should be made AoR unit for Tarrentum and possibly Croton. Also - shouldn't Rhegium have some cavalry AoR unit?

Unfortunately, adding a new AOR at this point implies removing an existing one. The limit for hidden resources is a pretty small number.

[Wien1938]

Speaking with my historian's hat on, by the time of the game, most cavalry (apart from Ptolemaic and Seleucid hetairoi and horse archers) are in the process of converting to shield use. Tarantine becomes a fashionable term for shielded skirmishing horse, rather than a specific ethnic troop type.

[Jamey]

Speaking with my historian's hat on, by the time of the game, most cavalry (apart from Ptolemaic and Seleucid hetairoi and horse archers) are in the process of converting to shield use. Tarantine becomes a fashionable term for shielded skirmishing horse, rather than a specific ethnic troop type.

Plus, the Tarantine unit in game looks great, so I think we should see more of them around.

[Iskandar]

Speaking with my historian's hat on, by the time of the game, most cavalry (apart from Ptolemaic and Seleucid hetairoi and horse archers) are in the process of converting to shield use. Tarantine becomes a fashionable term for shielded skirmishing horse, rather than a specific ethnic troop type.

That's the succinct version of the article link I gave. Gotta learn brevity .

Unfortunately, adding a new AOR at this point implies removing an existing one. The limit for hidden resources is a pretty small number.

Could you point me to a good article/post about that(AoR, merc and faction units), I'd like to know how it works.

[florin80]

Could you point me to a good article/post about that(AoR, merc and faction units), I'd like to know how it works.

You have a lot to learn on how those work in all regards. If you`re actually keen on it start doing searches on the twc wiki and the workshop. There are a number of tutorials on resources, mercenaries, DMB restrictions etc.
But to answer you succinctly, the maximum(hardcoded limit) for hidden resources is 64. And then there is also a number of how many resources any given region can have(currently it`s not sure what it is, but it`s high enough; well over a dozen iirc). Then there`s the hardcoded limit of 32 recruitable units by a certain faction in any given settlement.
However, the maximum number of hidden resources can be tricked like this:
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52650
Which allegedly allows for as many hidden resources as you`d want.

[Jamey]

However, the maximum number of hidden resources can be tricked like this:
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52650
Which allegedly allows for as many hidden resources as you`d want.

From what Quinn has said, there are some problems with NOT conditionals in the EDB (we ran into them on dealing with the ports, but I don't remember the details). That could limit the usefulness of this.

Also, the major problem with the described method is transparency. It would quickly become a nightmare to bring in new people to work on the mod. Honestly, at this point we're probably better off culling underused resources like Quinn did when he pulled several of the German hidden resources into one hidden resource (all of the German hidden resources involved 1 unit tied to 1-3 territories).