historical independent greeks

[krasni]

This isn't a criticism, it's an honest question as I have practically zero knowledge of this era in history.

What's the basis of the independent greeks? Were these areas really allied with each other? Or does XGM have them as a single faction for gameplay reasons? (I imagine having them all as separate rebels would be lame)

[Scutarii]

XGM has them as a single faction because of faction restrictions. Its either the Indie Greek faction (which can act coherently, and attack other faction and recruit troops), or give them to the rebels, which would be terrible. They weren't historically allied, the faction just represent all those greek kingdoms that were too minor to get a full faction slot.

[silentsam74]

They weren't historically allied, the faction just represent all those greek kingdoms that were too minor to get a full faction slot.

I really like the way the IG's are represented in XGM. I know technically they are one faction but for the most part the settlements are so spread out that it seems as if they are separate independent kingdoms.

[Darth Alec]

And they fight like madmen. They bring a lot of character to the game.

[Barend]

And they fight like madmen. They bring a lot of character to the game.

In my recent campaigbn, they've taken over Asia Minor, threatening Antioch, and marching thir armies to me to take back Epirus. This makes them really challenging. What would be great to see, is if they are able of making the towns of Massila, Emporion and Syracuse expand into real empires. I know they do this in Asia Minor on occasion, but why not in other parts of the map?

[Darth Alec]

Because they have fewer cities in close proximity in other places. It's hard to make an empire out of one city.

[Barend]

I would like to suggest something; would it be to much to ask if the Indie Greeks were as ambitious in the west as they are in the east? I don't know how this can be modded, but it would be great to see the cities I mentioned in my earlier post establish some sort of empire of smaller kingdoms. Especially Sicily has the potential to grow into a state of respectable size.

[CaesarVincens]

Syracuse has the unlucky fate of residing between Carthage and Rome, honestly, unless lightning strikes and hell freezes over, they should rarely expand (except with the human player playing them. Though, if you want them to expand, you should take away the land bridge between Sicily and Italy.

The other cities might require some more starting troops or something.

[Darth Alec]

The issue with sicily is how it's surrounded by strong enemies. Kinda hard to turn into an empire with two big ones all around.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

I found it very annoying when the independent greeks took over Asia Minor in my first XGM campaign.

They are supposed to be their namesake: independent, not some giant super powerful confederation of cities that far outstrips the power of Macedon and the Greek city states combined...hell, in my game they were the second most powerful faction after Rome and Scythia...that's just not right, for what are supposed to be small, independent cities that just manage their own affairs. Instead they decide to invade other cities and make them independent? It just doesn't make sense.

If I could, I'd make the independent greeks unable or unwilling to leave their own regions, and instead focus on defending what they had from invasion, as the real independent cities like Rhodes did.

[Darth Alec]

THey muster their money from time to time, but you could just treat it as one of the cities going off a stroke of luck/skill and doing well, like Rome.

[Roman Warlord]

@Vercingetorix

That was a bit of a random post of yours, your saying that because you have a independant city like Permagmon that its not allowed to ever attempt to conquer another city/town?

And the Indipendent cities do act on thier own where have you ever seen them helping each other out? Ok techincaly they share the same money pot but its by far the best approximation that you will ever get with this game.

So they are not all powerfull because they are spread out in issolated clusters facing much bigger enemies.

[Grimbold]

Lol Vercingentorix i find your remarks interesting. When a faction grows too big to ur likeing or w/e you instantly see it with a "they should be nerfed" way.

Im assuming this game/mod is built on an historical basis. But its still a game, the base is built and that doesnt mean you should restrict what happens. What do you want from this anyway? To only fight the Roman Empire? Let it roll and see what happens .

Hell, on my 1st XGM, which happened to be 1 week ago ^^, what annoyed me the most from the Indie Greeks was their dispersion. Usually a faction is concentrated in one region, but these nubs were scattered all over the place.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

The problem is that the factions that end up dominating my first campaign were the onlyfactions that shouldn't have ever dominated haha.

Independent cities like Syracuse aren't going to be forging a global empire. Because they're just one city. And any decent sized force can take them down no problem.

But when they control all of Asia Minor, and have curb stomped powerful factions like the Seleucid Empire, Macedon, Pontus, etc, into submission....that's not right.

They're supposed to represent independent Greek cities here and there, not a Diadochi successor faction or something.

Them being dispersed all over the place is the whole point of their faction. They aren't there to be a major power, they're to represent cities like Tarentum that were legitimately independent and just wanted to avoid getting invaded and enslaved by whoever was most powerful in the region.

The only alternative would be making them rebels, which would make them too easy to conquer.

[Publius Quirinus]

Independent cities like Syracuse aren't going to be forging a global empire. Because they're just one city. And any decent sized force can take them down no problem.

But when they control all of Asia Minor, and have curb stomped powerful factions like the Seleucid Empire, Macedon, Pontus, etc, into submission....that's not right.

They're supposed to represent independent Greek cities here and there, not a Diadochi successor faction or something.

Personally I don't mind so much when a faction expands ahistorically, like for example if Armenia dominates the East. Imo it makes things more interesting than, for example, seeing Rome or Macedon dominate every game. I mind when:
[1] it happens in every single game (ala vanilla Egyptians dominating the East)
[2] their success is due to insane artificial boosts (XGM's Scythia)
[3] they become game-stopping imperial juggernauts (vanilla's Romans x4, Britons)

[Anakarsis]

I think that the "collective" factions (IG, IC, EK) are one of the BEST ideas that XGM has. They are virtually forbidden as playing factions, but still they are represented like major ones, having characters and a greater money pool, and high-lvl units.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

I think that the "collective" factions (IG, IC, EK) are one of the BEST ideas that XGM has. They are virtually forbidden as playing factions, but still they are represented like major ones, having characters and a greater money pool, and high-lvl units.

I think it would be fun to play independent greeks as a faction.

If I just add them to the playable faction list, will it crash a lot or something?

I really like the historical accuracy they offer, too. The first fight with Pyrrhus as the Romans is always fun.

[CaesarVincens]

No, but they aren't balanced for players; they get bonuses for one, and most of their starting generals are immobile, though that should fix itself after a couple turns.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

No, but they aren't balanced for players; they get bonuses for one, and most of their starting generals are immobile, though that should fix itself after a couple turns.

Hmm.. that makes me curious . I'll try it out.

Edit: I tried a few turns with them, very interesting indeed.

I successfully avoided battle with Pyrrhus' main force by hiding it behind the nearest Roman rebel city. That way the Romans would have to attack that city's garrison as well to attack him.

They did siege Tarentum with Decius Mus, and though they broke off the siege after a few turns, they came back again for some reason, and a spy opened the gates for them.

This led to an interesting siege battle. Almost 4000 defenders died to the last man, except of course Euneas of Tarentum, who rode to safety with 2 of his bodyguards. (but disappeared on the campaign map despite surviving the battle, and counts as "died in peacetime" for some reason)

The Romans did lose around 2800 of their best legion in taking Tarentum. Which makes it surprising that when they asked for a ceasefire the next turn, they gave Tarentum back when I asked for it. Literally the turn after taking it.

Then the Greek city states wanted a ceasefire, and paid me 10 000 denarii for one. Should have asked for more . The AI is so nice to the Greek independents for some reason.

[Grimbold]

I dont get your logic Vercingentorix ^^.

Your saying that because their Independent cities they shouldnt be allowed to expand or forge an empire, they should just stick there and limit themselves to be a pain in the arse and eventually be conquered.

Historicly that might correct, they might even introduced the FACTION based on it, but thats just it, introduced IGC as faction that was just there to be conquered but as soon as the campaign starts, they're given the chance to do whatever they want.

Im reading several ppl sying that stuff has to be historicly accurate. Its not nor isnt what this game's about. The game gives the chance to conquer the known world from 280 B.C with any faction.

If you want to be historicly correct, play as the Romans build what used to be their empire, and wait for 400 smth for it crumble.

Let the factions do whatever they want, except for Scythia, they're just too powerfull atm.