Historical Campaign for Macedonia

[SpartanRuler]

Just curious if anyone has done a historical campaign as the Macedonians. I would like to see some of the screenshots of your empires about that. I always seem to go west to face the romans after I have finished off the city states of greece, of course.

[Redolegna]

What do you mean by historical campaign with the Macedonians? Path of Alexander and the like?

[florin80]

I doubt it, unless the seleucids and ptolemaics pose as persians. RS`s macedon is actually the antigonid kingdom and playing historically as them would pretty much mean staying put. If historically means following their actual moves.

[Redolegna]

That was what I was wondering about. I mean, at that time, the Macedonians had trouble with the Aetolian and Achaean leagues, they did not make a lot of progress, except in Greece, and they went to war with Rome over the issue of Epirus, I believe.

Actually, playing historically from 473 AUC onwards would mean getting nearly overrun by King Pyrrhus's Epirotes pretty early in the campaign before recovering.

[SpartanRuler]

Yes I was talking about the Alexander campaign. I know its to late in the years I was just curious if anyone did a campaign as such. Maybe try staying allies with the Romans and hopefully they go west.

[dvk901]

I think a 'historical campaign' as the Macedonians would involve taking Greece, allying with Carthage, and getting trounced by the Romans!

But it would be interesting to see if you could rebuild Alexander's empire in the east and hold the Romans at bay at the same time.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

I've done that with tons of mods, it stays fun...


Just watch that Alexander film , it'll get you in the mood

[florin80]

Just watch that Alexander film , it'll get you in the mood

In the mood to dye your hair blond.

[DoogansQuest]

I've done that with tons of mods, it stays fun...


Just watch that Alexander film , it'll get you in the mood

In the mood to wish you could have that time back... That was an awful movie.

I did watch a "BC Battles" on the History Channel the other day that showed a lot of Alexander's conquests. They focused on particular battle tactics which were brilliant. After seeing that and reading more material, I'm thoroughly convinced he was a more impressive general than Hannibal.

As to the campaign, try to play an army like his, with hammer and anvil tactics. Conquer the Aegean, take Israel, Egypt, and much of Anatolia, then sweep all the way to the edge of the map. I do it with Pergamum and Greece a lot, but I haven't really played as the Macs much.

[dvk901]

In the mood to wish you could have that time back... That was an awful movie.

I did watch a "BC Battles" on the History Channel the other day that showed a lot of Alexander's conquests. They focused on particular battle tactics which were brilliant. After seeing that and reading more material, I'm thoroughly convinced he was a more impressive general than Hannibal.

As to the campaign, try to play an army like his, with hammer and anvil tactics. Conquer the Aegean, take Israel, Egypt, and much of Anatolia, then sweep all the way to the edge of the map. I do it with Pergamum and Greece a lot, but I haven't really played as the Macs much.

I actually BOUGHT the thing, thinking it would be good info....should'a just burned the 15 bucks. I also saw the History Channel Battles program...pretty good. One of the few they've had lately that weren't 'doomsday' shows.

[cherryfunk]

Well the battle of whatchamacallit isn't bad, at least they have the sarissa phalanx in all its glory. I do love how they got the most stereotypical Darius they possibly could. More eye shadow, milord?

[bingster088]

Yea, i wasn't a fan of Alexander the movie at all... to hard to follow:/ And i agree with dvk in that most of history channel's shows are now doomsday or mosterquest stuff. Yuck. And I can't stand Ice road truckers. I want to learn about history not myths and people in alaska or w/e

[SpartanRuler]

I did watch a "BC Battles" on the History Channel the other day that showed a lot of Alexander's conquests. They focused on particular battle tactics which were brilliant. After seeing that and reading more material, I'm thoroughly convinced he was a more impressive general than Hannibal.

Thats actually why I asked because of that show. I recorded it as I do all BC Battles and the show Warrior that comes on every Thursday night. Warriors did a Spartan show and they even showed how to make a sword. It was a really good Docmentry.

[SuperStick]

Too much talking in the movie and not enough fighting and the sex seen is pretty crappy.

[DoogansQuest]

Too much talking in the movie and not enough fighting and the sex seen is pretty crappy.

Talking can be good when it's executed properly (see: The Lord of the Rings trilogy), but in films like Alexander and Troy, the writers seemingly tried so hard to have a ton of epic one-liners. The dialogue was forced, and the acting was more like guys taking turns saying their lines instead of realism. I also never found myself rooting for the Macs in Alexander, because there was no build up to the battles.

The sex scenes are often a complete waste of space and serve no purpose other than to show buff, well-known celebrities in their birthday suits. For me (and my family), it pretty much ruins the experience. That, and I'm ultra-conservative.

Now I'm going to go find out if it's worth creating an enemy in Rome so I can fight the Gauls. Otherwise, I'm at an awkward, peaceful standstill in the campaign.

[dvk901]

Humph! Must've fallen asleep before that came on. LOL

[Taelok]

On the plus side, the film taught us all how the Macedonians are the original settlers of Ireland.

[Tesla]

well you could do it like this

first secure greece and then just follow this map more or less:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Knight of Heaven]

The film wasnt bad, you just have to put it on the right context, its focused on the alexander person his demons, his virtues,his running away from his mother, its focused on what he did and not on how he did,you people need to undestand that. Its more like a biography of the person alexander. Since his childhood. to hes death .P

[DoogansQuest]

The film wasnt bad, you just have to put it on the right context, its focused on the alexander person his demons, his virtues,his running away from his mother, its focused on what he did and not on how he did,you people need to undestand that. Its more like a biography of the person alexander. Since his childhood. to hes death .P

And it still failed in that capacity. His "demons" were not emotionally intriguing because the film jumped around from subject to subject before any one particular area of his life could become interesting. It was also painfully obvious that the production staff couldn't decide which way to go with the film, or his character in particular. Add to that the fact that Colin Farrell was simply abysmal and it ended up a very bland piece of film.

The fact is, Alexander lived at a point in history, and with such a trunkated life that any scientist (or filmmaker, for that matter) claiming to know, or attempting to recreate what he was going through is taking a shot in the dark. Also, most audiences are enthralled by the idea of his tactical genius and the glory that followed his armies for 10 years; not guesswork personal battles poorly acted.

So even if the writers achieved what they set out to accomplish by portraying a character's darker side, that still doesn't make Alexander a good film. Achieving the goal doesn't equal quality cinema. Especially when it compromises focus, excitement, and doesn't deliver a hook which creates attachment for the audience.