nerfing the Ptolemies

[Iskandar]

I've noticed that in almost all of my games Egypt tends to become a superpower and steamroll everyone but the human player. The only other occasion was when once the Seleucids pushed them out of Cyprus and in turn became the chief stack spammer. Well, sometimes Bactria expands strong enough and they clash together but even though I haven't seen these conflicts through, from the looks of it Egypt still has the upper hand. So I was thinking, the Ptolemies could use a nerf. I invite you to share your opinion on that, as well as any ideas how we can go about nerfing Egypt.

My thoughts so far:
0. Quinn has already decided to remove the Wonder effects in 4.0, so, in particular, this will remove the loyalty bonus from the pyramids and alleviate the situation somewhat.

1. Cyprus should not be the gold prize that it is now, not to such an extent. Quinn was toying with the idea of removing one region from the island and reducing the base income. I'd strongly recommend that.

2. Upper Egypt provinces should be much more rebellious. It was where secessions/native egyptian uprisings often took place and undermined Ptolemaic authority and control.

3. Syria should be much more contested. As of now, if one takes the whole of Syria over, it is usually a sign that the other is doomed. Northern Syria (Seleucia Pieria for example) was mostly Seleucid seat of power(well, except for a short period of Ptolemaic rule), but we could make southern Syria(which would be the northernmost provinces of Egypt along the phoenician coast in 280 BC) much more rebelious. That way, whoever had control over it would either have to suffer a rebellion or a bigger drain on his resources (in order to keep it peaceful).

4. Same goes for Palestina, although to a lesser degree.

5. The rebel province west and south of Egypt should be made harder to conquer since it gives an undisputable source of income for the rest of Egypt's lifespan (Carthage can't invade it).

Also, can someone point me to the relevant files that affect the loyalty levels in a region?

[Jamey]

I know that we're planning on removing one of the regions from Cyprus. We're also removing the wonders, so Ptolemy won't start with Rhodes and its naval trade bonus. Those two changes should seriously dampen the stack spamming capability of Ptolemy. We'll see where it goes from there.

I suspect that we're going to have to do something to threaten the Ptolemaic rear area to keep it from just pushing its stacks forward. By comparison, Seleucia is big and has a large income, but it is also threatened on all sides.

[Quinn Inuit]

It's in descr_rebel_factions.

We're going to be adding a region to Upper Egypt and extending the map accordingly, so increasing the rebelliousness there should help (esp. with the Pyramids gone). That may distract Egypt.

I think we may need to increase their unit costs, too, and toy with it to reflect the difficulties they had when they recruited natives.

[Iskandar]

I'm concerned that adding another region to Upper Egypt might exacerbate the situation. Of course, we'd have to see first how the Ptolemies behave without Rhodes, the Cyprus powerhouse and the pyramid loyalty bonus, but still, the AI conquers neighbouring rebel regions in a matter of few years at the worst. From then on, since its on the edge of the map and only the Ptolemies have access to it, the only thing that can disrupt the income flow from the region is a rebellion.

I've done only a quick reading of the Wiki resources on the Ptolemies, but it seems that they were much like Carthage - strong navy and exceptionally large percentage of mercs in their armies. Furthermore, they chose to have only three real Greek cities in Egypt proper - Alexandria, Naucratis and Ptolemais Heriou. It is reasonable to suggest that these colonists provided the backbone of the ptolemaic army - the phalanx (recruits form other Hellenic cities would not have been so reliable/loyal/numeorus, so their involvement must have been limited or in a different role). It is only during and after the fourth Syrian war(219-217 BC) that the Ptolemies started to recruit phalangites from the egyptian natives which turned out to be a double-edged knife. The native units, already veterans from Raphia, managed to secure Upper Egypt for themselves and established an independent kingdom that lasted until 185 BC.

Historically, the Ptolemaics were very well economically for the bigger part of their rule (and so could afford to field large armies), so increasing the unit costs might not be what we are looking for.

I suggest that we restrict the production of Greek phalangites(good stats) either geographically, or through a requirement of Royal Barracks, or through the new social system that you're implementing. It'd be nice if we could somehow couple the existense of many native egyptian phalangites(slightly inferior stats) with higher levels of disloyalty, but in lieu of that I suppose we could make their maintenance costs high - to simualte the financial burden of the government trying to keep people happy.

If you choose to separate the two unit types through the social system, then you could make the building that allows native units have a negative loyalty bonus. Or, if possible - allow greek phalangites only in certain regions and force the player/AI to build the native phalangites building with negative loyalty in othres(Upper Egypt, for example). If not geographically restricted, the greek phalngites requirement building should have high loyalty and low income bonus, the native one going the opposite way.

Now that I've been through the brief ptolemaic hisotry again, I'd like to repeat that Syrian provinces deserve attention - they certainly changed hands a few times for only a century, plus, they weren't also exactly peaceful under roman rule.

[HamilcarBarca]

I can't resist the temptation to use this thread to again promote an old idea of mine - to develop a scripted revolt/emerging faction in the Nile Valley - The Pharaonic state of Thebes

To implement this idea would take quite a bit of scripting & coding - and I've never found anyone willing or able to do it

History of the great revolt of the Egyptians (207–186 BC)

Since the invasion of Alexander the Great (333 BC), Egypt has been ruled by a foreign, Greek regime. The dynasty of Ptolemy rules from the Greek city of Alexandria, where the foreign character of the Ptolemaic regime is apparent; the language spoken at the royal court and used by the royal administration is Greek, and thereby different from that spoken and understood by the overwhelming majority of the population. Although Ptolemy I Soter and his successors were officially recognized as “Pharaohs” by the temples and Egyptian priests of Memphis, and although they supported Egyptian cults with gifts of moneys building projects, they remained a foreign dynasty.[1]

“The war against the Egyptians started shortly after the battle at Raphia (in 217 BC) in which Ptolemy IV by gaining an unexpected victory on the Seleucid Antiochos III managed to keep control over Palestine. By arming the Egyptians for his war against Antiochos, Ptolemy had an excellent idea for the short time, but he did not take into account the future. Priding themselves upon their victory at Raphia, the soldiers were no longer disposed to obey orders, but they sought out a leader and figure–head, in the opinion that they could come up for themselves. And shortly afterwards, they did indeed do so.

“Perhaps some of my readers will wonder why elsewhere I dealt with the successive events of each year separately, in the case of Egypt alone I give on the present occasion a narrative extending over a long period. We did this for the following reasons. After the end of the war for Coele–Syria king Ptolemy Philopator entirely abandoned the path of virtue and took to a life of dissipation such as I have described above. Late in his reign he was forced by circumstances into the above–mentioned war, which, apart from the mutual savagery and lawlessness of the combatants, contained nothing worthy of note, no pitched battle, no naval battle, no siege. It therefore struck me that my narrative would be easier for me to write and for my readers to follow if I gave my account not by merely alluding every year to small events not worth serious attention, but by giving once and for all a life–like picture so to speak of the king's character.”[2]

Starting in 246 BC there were several native uprisings against the Ptolemaic regime, and Ptolemy IV Philopator was forced to undertake a brutal partisan war in Lower Egypt, in the northern part of the country. Intensive exploitation of the Egyptian natives had led to the phenomena of anachoresis, in which individuals fled to refuges in the deserts and Delta marshes, and fostered disorder and banditry.[3] During this period 205, however, when the Ptolemaic regime was at its weakest, led by unpopular and unscrupulous courtiers, and under great pressure from abroad, there erupted a popular revolt that overran Upper Egypt.

On the death of Ptolemy IV Philopator in 204 BC, Queen Arsinoe III was murdered, and the Alexandrian courtiers Sosibos and Agathocles established themselves as regents, ruling in the name of the seven year old Ptolemy V. Soon after the ruthless Sosibos died, while at the end of 203 Agathocles was toppled and he and his family murdered by the Alexandrian mob. Tlepolemos and Sosibos the son of Sosibos took over the role of regents, and established their control over the Graeco-Macedonian army at Alexandria. By 201 these regents had also fallen, replaced by an earlier creature of Agathocles named Aristomenes.

The weakness of the Ptolemaic regime at this time was profound; with a boy-king, unstable tutelary governments and a large domestic revolt, the situation seemed perfect for the dismemberment of the Ptolemaic Empire. Phillip V of Macedonia and Antiochos III of the Seleucid Empire made a secret pact in 203/202 to acquire the foreign territories of the Ptolemies and to eliminate Ptolemaic hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean. The balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean had dramatically changed, the anxious middle powers such as Pergamon and Rhodes appealed for Roman aid, and the rest is history…[4]

Polybius declares that the debauched lifestyle of King Ptolemy IV was a reason for the problems of the Ptolemaic regime; more important is the military explanation given in the same passage. In 217 the Ptolemaic regime had supplemented their Graeco-Macedonian soldiers and mercenaries with a large number of native Egyptians, armed and trained in order to fight in the Macedonian style. In this way, the native veterans became self-confident and, when they found a leader, they revolted.

The chaotic situation in Alexandria and Lower Egypt during 246-206 must have been of great assistance to the rebels in Upper Egypt. The native Egyptian ideal of Pharaonic rule was taken up by a very successful group from the south of Egypt and they managed to establish a state in Thebes which lasted 20 years (206–186 BC), partially with the military assistance of the kingdom of Meroe, in Nubia.[5]

After their initial success, the rebel forces elevated their leader Hyrgonaphor (Herwennefer) to Pharaoh in Thebes in 205. This Theban state thereafter defended its independence, and Hyrgonaphor appears to have ruled during 205-200. Upon his death his heir (son?) Chaonnophris (Ankhwennefer) became the second Pharaoh of the rebel 35th dynasty, his rule lasting from approximately 200 to 186 BC. The war between Ptolemaic Lower Egypt and Pharaonic Upper Egypt continued until 186 BC, when Chaonnophris was arrested by the Ptolemaic General Komanos.

Various primary sources – particularly demotic sources and the dating formulae in notarial documents – enable scholars to piece together the progress of the Great Revolt. The Meroitic kings were increasing their power in Lower Nubia, and reaching the height of their powers at this time.[6] The Meriotic king Arkamani now embarked upon major building projects, and began to portray himself as pharaoh. Meroitic aid became a mainstay of the rebels at Thebes.

Hyrgonaphor fought a war for survival against the Ptolemaic regime of Lower Egypt. The priests of Amun-Re at Thebes officially recognised Hyrgonaphor and Chaonnophris as pharaohs and officiated at their coronation ceremonies, underlining their opposition to the priests of Ptah of Memphis, who cooperated with the Ptolemaic kings. The long-standing rivalry between the two ancient Egyptian capitals Memphis and Thebes may have fuelled the Great Revolt. Hyrgonaphor is "loved by Amon–Re, king of the gods", while the Ptolemies stressed their link with Ptah, and were crowned in Memphis, remaining in close alliance with the Memphite high priests.

Ancient nationalism did exist, but it is usually coloured by a religious inspiration. The names of the Egyptian pharaohs were well–chosen to present a messianic message to the native Egyptian population. "Hor" (which becomes Har– in compounds and receives a nominative ending Hor–os in Greek) is the archetypical royal god, represented with the white and red crown as king of the whole of Egypt. Of the five official names of the traditional pharaoh, the very first one identifies him with the god Hor. In the first dynasties this was in fact the only name of the king. In mythology Horos is the son of Osiris, the last god–on–earth, who was killed by his wicked brother Seth. Seth cut up his brother's body into pieces and buried these all over Egypt, but Isis succeeded in puzzling together the body of her husband Osiris and to receive a son from her dead husband. This son, Har–po–chrates or "Horos–the–child" was hidden in the Delta marshes and threatened by Seth, but in the end he vanquished his bad uncle and inherited the kingdom of his father Osiris, succeeding his divine father as the first human king on earth. Osiris himself became king of the underworld. The story is well–known but one important detail should be added: when Osiris is presented as the divine king on earth, he is often addressed with his second name Wn–nfr, "the good being," rendered in Greek as Onnophris. In the Late Period, when Persians and Greeks have taken over the throne of pharaoh, the name Wn–nfr is often written in a royal cartouche, as if the priests wanted to say: our real king is not Xerxes, Alexander or Ptolemy, but it is the divine king Osiris. It is this divine name that the rebel pharaohs used as their throne name: Hor–onnophris is at the same time Horos and Osiris , Cha–onnophris renders Egyptian Ankh–wen–nefer "Onnophris is (still) alive" or "(long) live Onnophris." The names taken by the rebel pharaohs contained a Messianic message, a return to the golden age of Egypt.

During the twenty–year period 206–186 BC there are in Thebes several changes of regime; the notaries (and the temples) seem to have adapted rather easily to the change of masters. On the basis of the dates in notarial contracts and the receipts of taxes paid to the Ptolemies a tentative reconstruction of the events becomes possible:

207/206: Beginning of the Great Revolt in Edfu
207 September: last tax receipt dated to a regnal year of Ptolemy IV
205 Hyrgonaphor is crowned pharaoh in Thebes
200–199 Counter–offensive of the Ptolemies and death of Hyrgonaphor
August 199 Ptolemaic siege of Abydos; Thebes briefly recovered by Ptolemaic forces during winter 199/198
199 Rebel revival? Chaonnophris is recognized as pharaoh in Thebes
199 Second Ptolemaic counter offensive? Ptolemy V is again recognized in Thebes; perhaps Chaonnophris goes north to Lykopolis and cuts off the Ptolemaic forces in the South
197 Rebels defeated in Lower Egypt; Ptolemaic forces besiege and storm the fortress of Lykopolis, in the Busirite nome; the rebel leaders are brought back to Memphis and executed[7]
194 Chaonnophris is recognized as pharaoh in Thebes; Chaonnophris reinforced by military aid from the Kings of Meroe and extends the dominions of the “rebels” to their greatest extent.
September 191 Thebes is again Ptolemaic; beginning of public sales of land
186 Final defeat of Chaonnophris by the Ptolemaic General Komanos near Thebes; Chaonnophris’ son is commander of the Meroitic relief forces; Komanos defeats both, and Chaonnophris is captured and his son slain; Chaonnophris branded “an enemy of the gods” by a synod of priests at Alexandria; the pro-rebel priests flee to Meroe, but are granted immunity by the Ptolemaic regime and return to Egypt.
9 October 186 Great amnesty decree of Epiphanes; all fugitives are invited to return home.
185 Final rebel elements destroyed in the Delta by Polykrates of Argos; surrendered rebel leaders are executed in Sais.[8]

Many historians have also looked for economic reasons to explain the Great Revolt; the devaluations of the Egyptian silver coinage at this time, and the high taxation to support the foreign wars of the Ptolemaic rulers all helped fuel revolt. In addition, the native Egyptians may have been motivated by nationalistic, anti–colonial feelings against their foreign rulers and foreign garrisons. Texts such as Oracle of the Potter show that anti–Greek (or anti–Alexandrian) feelings did indeed play a role, and were heightened by the privileged social and economic status of the Greeks resident in Egypt. The Rosetta stone and the Philae decree are written by Egyptian priests and stress that the rebels destroyed the temples. The reality of this is confirmed by the fact that no temple building by the native pharaohs is attested and by some papyri, which explicitly mention that temples have been robbed. Let us not forget that the major temples and the Egyptian priests were an important collaborator group within Egyptian society during the Ptolemaic period; native priests played an important role in the administration of the land. Where the Ptolemies ruled, the temples participated in the royal cult of the Ptolemaic family. The temples received their lands, and the priests received their privileges and wages from the Ptolemaic government.

Other collaborator groups existed also, including elements of the native Egyptian aristocracy. Not all Egyptians took part in the revolt. In the city of Tenis Hakoris, an Egyptian notable clearly took the side of the Ptolemies, advertising his choice in a large Greek inscription high up on the rock–temple of Isis. At that time (196 BC) his province constituted probably the southern frontier of Ptolemaic rule. Later his son Euphron is given a Greek name and becomes a member of the Hellenized upper class.

RTR Gameplay

Having the “Great Revolt” in Egypt would add an important 'realism' to Ptolemaic Egypt. Although rich in moneys, the power of the Ptolemies was severely undermined by the paucity of Graeco-Macedonian manpower and the rebelliousness of their native Egyptian subjects.

The development of a scripted revolt or emerging faction would represent the historic challenge that the native pharaohs of Thebes gave to Ptolemaic regime during 206-186 BC.

Rather than the Great Revolt simply occurring in 207 BC, perhaps it should require a particular “trigger” or triggers. Such a “trigger” may be;

- The death of the Ptolemaic king…so as to represent the impact that tutelary governments had in fomenting the Great Revolt;
- To coincide with a Seleucid and/or Macedonian war with Ptolemy; or
- The occurrence of an actual revolt in the Thebais.
- other ideas?

Notes

[1] William Linn Westermann, ‘The Ptolemies and the Welfare of Their Subjects’, The American Historical Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, Jan. 1938, pp. 270-287.

[2] Polybius, 5.107.1-3; 14.107

[3] Gunther Holbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, Routledge: London, p. 154.

[4] Richard M Berthold, ‘The Rhodian Appeal to Rome in 201 BC’, The Classical Journal, Vol. 71, No. 2, December 1975, pp. 97-107; Chester G Starr Jr., ‘Rhodes and pergamum, 201-200 BC’, Classical Philology, Vol. 33, No. 1, January 1938, pp. 63-68.

[5] Gunther Holbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, Routledge: London, pp. 153-159.

[6] Dows Dunham, ‘Notes on the History of Kush 850 BC – AD 350’, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 50, No. 3, Jul. – Sept. 1946, pp. 378-388.

[7] Polybius, 22.17.1.

[8] Polybius, 22.17.3-7.

[Jamey]

It would be fairly straightforward to randomly spawn rebels in the south end of Egypt.

I think it would be possible to condition a major rebellion on the number of territories controlled by Ptolemy. This would act to dampen expansion. For full effect, the campaign difficulty would need to be Hard or Very Hard so that the rebels would actually take back settlements.

We could also condition a rebel spawn based on the turn number.

These are just my immediate thoughts. However, I definitely think we need to see how Ptolemy handles the changes we're making before we jump into more changes.

[Quinn Inuit]

I like the idea of conditioning it on territories, and I think the extra settlement to the south would really help there. Is there a way to condition it on the loyalty of those regions, too?

Overall, though, you're right that we should see how the Ptolies handle the other changes before throwing this at them, too.

[HamilcarBarca]

The idea of creating a 'great revolt of the egyptians' is returned to the vault....

[Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The idea of creating a 'great revolt of the egyptians' is returned to the vault....

we'll save your ideas for RTR VII mate. You have more than enough great ideas for us there!

Q.

[Domitan]

My only problem with them is they are boring to fight. Selucids are much more fun

[Quinn Inuit]

No, no, I really do like the idea. It's just going to take some balancing to work it in.

[Preskinn]

I'm playing a game with a version that's outdated a few months, and upgraded to latest version just recently, to late to make any diference. The ptollies have gone crazy in my game. Has anything been done the last few versions that seems to work?Best of luck, thanks for a great mod

[Quinn Inuit]

Well, the Ptolies are a little weaker in 3.3.4g, but only with some lost income on Cyprus.

If you want to really nerf them, just comment out (add a semicolon to the start of the line) all of the wonders. That's the first thing I'm going to do in the next version, unless and until I can figure out how to imitate vanilla BI and have no Wonder effects at all.

[Lateinshowing]

Do you just mean the wonder happiness bonus? Because all of the still existing wonders work to the specifications they were given in Rome Vanilla. The Pyramids still works in Rome: BI for example.

[Quinn Inuit]

Wait, according to the campaign description the wonders don't give bonuses in Vanilla BI (playing the BI campaign, I mean). Are you saying they do? If so, there goes that hope.

[Lateinshowing]

They still do, I think. I'll double check that by playing as the WRE who doesn't start with one and the ERE who does. I confirm it soon.

edit:Yes they still work, the ones that are still around. The easiest check is what I did. Comparing the build times for the WRE's army barracks and hippodrome and the ERE's.
By the way WRE is 6 turns and 7 turns respectively and ERE is 5 turns all round. ERE starts with the Mausoleum. At least I think that's what it is called.

[Quinn Inuit]

Oh, good to know, thank you.

Darn, those things are so annoying.

[Preskinn]

There must be some way to get rid of the bonuses?

[Delvecchio1975]

Long live the Wonders! Death to Wonder-o-clasts!

[Quinn Inuit]

I've searched both TWC and the Org and I can't find anything.

Don't worry, they'll be easy to put back in. Just delete the semicolons in front of them and they'll be back as if nothing had happened.