Map in 240BC!

[AqD]

Here are the maps I found:


Hellenistic factions:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Carthage vs Roman:



Can anyone confirm their accuracy?

From the maps there are at least two game-balancing problems:

1.Pergamon kingdom is nearly non-existing in 240BC. It seems most of their territory was acquired after the battle against Seleucid? Here is their map, 188BC:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

2.Romans start with nearly all of the italy - at least. It would make the campaign too easy. Carthaginains too because they already hold the mines in spain


Any suggestions?

[Caligula Caesar]

Those maps aren't quite accurate. Firstly, the Ptoleys didn't own very much of Asia Minor after the second Syrian War, but I'm not sure how much. Secondly, the the Roman map shows it before the first Punic War, i.e. 265 BC. The first Punic War had just ended in 240, so Rome should control all of Italy south of Cisalpine Gaul and all of Sicily except for Syracuse, which was a Client State under Hiero of Syracuse. Carthage should be at teh point of collapse, being forced to pay Rome indemnities and having their mercenaries revolting.

About Pergamon: Pontus was exactly the same then. But Pergamon was a wealthy city, so they were able to grow. They won't suffer at a disadvantage at the start of the game, since Asia Minor is so split. I can't quite find a timeline anywhere, but it was in the next 20 years that Pergamon got great.

[AqD]

Those maps aren't quite accurate. Firstly, the Ptoleys didn't own very much of Asia Minor after the second Syrian War, but I'm not sure how much. Secondly, the the Roman map shows it before the first Punic War, i.e. 265 BC. The first Punic War had just ended in 240, so Rome should control all of Italy south of Cisalpine Gaul and all of Sicily except for Syracuse, which was a Client State under Hiero of Syracuse. Carthage should be at teh point of collapse, being forced to pay Rome indemnities and having their mercenaries revolting.

Two problems:

1.Roman is too strong, and too easy.

2.The weakness of Carthaginian government cannot be made into the mod. Tribute cannot be forced and mercenaries cannot rebel (adding rebel armies wouldn't help), and despite the heavy loss the Carthaginians as a whole are really not weaker than Romans after the war, assume they can mobilize every citizens and nobles for war like Romans did

About Pergamon: Pontus was exactly the same then. But Pergamon was a wealthy city, so they were able to grow. They won't suffer at a disadvantage at the start of the game, since Asia Minor is so split. I can't quite find a timeline anywhere, but it was in the next 20 years that Pergamon got great.

But most of Asia Minor was nominally under Seleucid control, even if they were not practically. How should it be modded? If they're made rebel regions, Seleucid faction would spend all resource to conquer them instead of facing the Ptolemaic invasion.

[Sir Walter]

See? No Pergamon! DACIA! DACIA! DACIA!

[despot_of_rhodes]

Rome is too easy and too strong? Why not implement the "Italic Counterfaction", let their cities rebel from time to time ( script or high unrest etc. ), while this can also be used for the Second Punic War ( Hannibals attempt to devide Roma fromt her italic affiliates ), the probable italic war in the 1st century, and later for civil war.

Indeed, no barbarian faction, but a nice alternative to make things thrilling on the Italian Peninsula in long term, and for the roman faction generaly.

Just my 2 cents.

[AqD]

See? No Pergamon! DACIA! DACIA! DACIA!

There is one more faction slot for Dacia. But currently there is no source about Dacians in RTR timeframe. All I can find point to the Dacians during Roman conquest - same problem as Parthains and Armenians, and I hope to correct them all in next version (they're even more ridiculous than hollywood legionaries ).

Rome is too easy and too strong? Why not implement the "Italic Counterfaction", let their cities rebel from time to time ( script or high unrest etc. ), while this can also be used for the Second Punic War ( Hannibals attempt to devide Roma fromt her italic affiliates ), the probable italic war in the 1st century, and later for civil war.

Carthaginians also faced the same problem But I'm not sure how to control unrest by script.......

[despot_of_rhodes]

Add happiness/law penalties to the advanced buildings, wich provide high profits to simulate this ( think of the effect of latifundias in EB, for example - you get good income through them, but this means the aristocracy bey/rob the land away from the peasants, wich have no land anymore + become angry plebeyans -> the "levy peasant army" structure of the Romans collapses -> the way is free for Marian Reforms. Just do it with more buildings, adding negative effects to those, wich increase the gap between rich and poor, and you can reach the point, where the settlements become difficult to controll -> riots -> revolts ( Btw: AI loves money bonuses - tax, trade etc, - but seems to ignore the negative effects, comparable with unit costs vs. upkeep, at least, that´s what i´ve noticed ). Should only apply to the high tier buildings, i think.

[Sir Walter]

There is one more faction slot for Dacia. But currently there is no source about Dacians in RTR timeframe. All I can find point to the Dacians during Roman conquest - same problem as Parthians and Armenians, and I hope to correct them all in next version (they're even more ridiculous than hollywood legionaries ).

They were Celtic? If they were (I think they were) use a mix of sources between Celtic in 280 BC and Dacia in 120 AD?

[armen]

There is one more faction slot for Dacia. But currently there is no source about Dacians in RTR timeframe. All I can find point to the Dacians during Roman conquest - same problem as Parthains and Armenians, and I hope to correct them all in next version (they're even more ridiculous than hollywood legionaries ).




Carthaginians also faced the same problem But I'm not sure how to control unrest by script.......

Well in 240 BC the Yervanduni Dynasty was were the leaders of Armenia. Since the mid 6th century BC the Yervanduni's were the ruling Dynasty until the Artashesian dynasty took over in 190BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orontid_Dynasty

[AqD]

@armen: thanks!

[armen]

@armen: thanks!

you welcome

Here is a site which lists the kings of Armenia Starting with the Yervanduni Dynasty

http://www.armenian-history.com/armenian_kings.htm

Very interesting information on the Ancient Pagan gods of Armenia. > http://www.armenian-history.com/Armenian_mythology.htm

[Caligula Caesar]

Well, you can't really push the date forwards on half the map but keep it 25 years further back on the other, can you? Rome's coffers should be depleted after the war. I'm sure you can find a way to make that work. Also, of course you can have rebelling mercenaries in Africa! All you need to do is add them in descr_strat.

There is no reason not to have Pergamon there if you start in 240. Pergamon declared independance in 261, and grew very powerful under Attalus between 238 and 225. Just because it would start with one region and grow from there is no reason to exclude it, since Parthia would start in the same way unless you rearrange the regions somewhat. Oh, and none of those states on the map of Asia Minor were nominally under Seleucid rule - they were all independant at that point.

On the other hand, no one seems to even know who lived in Dacia at that point in time! The closest we can come to them is the Odrysae or the Getae. I have a suggestion: How about a barbarian superfaction, as has been discussed on the ExRM forum. Everyone here seems to want a new barbarian faction, so why not have them all? You can have a faction which controls all the important tribes not represented by a seperate faction, so long as the regions are far enough apart, and they won't work in unison. They will be more agressive and less likely to be attacked by the AI than normal rebels.

[Quinn Inuit]

The problem with the Thracians is that they didn't really do much during this period. The Dacians seem, from what little evidence is available, to have been armed similarly during this time, so I suggest sticking with them.

[inquisitor]

I always love it when a mod turns into a history programm a thumbs up for everybody
Checked this entire sub-forum.....its only me who cares about gameplay aka fun scratch scratch
Nitpicking about a few years historical accuracy doesn't make a mod better,only when you use it in school as a teacher.

Asking myself why......why(with a horrible christopher lee voice) are people so radical about historical accuracy?? Why?(again with the voiceover)

I would never ever spoil my fun because someone wrote something in a book called history.
Sometimes i think people forget that its still a game.

And btw...accuary is :wub:.e.d. anyway....on the moment you press start

greetz inq

[AqD]

The problem with the Thracians is that they didn't really do much during this period. The Dacians seem, from what little evidence is available, to have been armed similarly during this time, so I suggest sticking with them.

But what evidence is there, except for one battle against Macedonians before during Alexander's times? The second time they're mentioned as far as I know it's already in Caesar's times

Asking myself why......why(with a horrible christopher lee voice) are people so radical about historical accuracy?? Why?(again with the voiceover)

I would never ever spoil my fun because someone wrote something in a book called history.
Sometimes i think people forget that its still a game.

Yeah but many things are very wrong in most RTW mods - for these things it's good to have higher degree of historical accuracy in order to make some differences

[inquisitor]

Yeah but many things are very wrong in most RTW mods - for these things it's good to have higher degree of historical accuracy in order to make some differences [/QUOTE]


Damn your point hits me like baseballbat...ouch...
For 5 min straight i was thinking of an arguement to replie your post.....came up with nothing(bad bad inqusitor).


What are the changes now for 2.6?
I mean the things that will definitely be in there.

Edit...for the one who gave me -rep...inmagine all the things that forbidden to say on this site...directed at you...cheers m8
Edit again...the rep points are back ???? weird lol i think they changed so,thing in the rep system,and some prob came up....now its ok again

[Emperor Domitianus]

I don't know much about the situation of the East in 240 A.C. However from what I know the kingdoms were about the same after the defeat of Antigonos I and his son Demetrius death. The Ptolemeis owned the same land as before the Roman conquest.

I know more about the 1st Punic War. The map is really accurate. Infact during the first P.W. Romans were about to extend in Sicily. So it's a good choice however I may help you to find a more suitable one.

What you have in mind?

[AqD]

@Emperor Domitianus: I'm not sure I just want to change the date so the reform could happen sooner! But it seems Romans and Carthaginians would become unavoidably strong in 240BC!

[Caligula Caesar]

But the first Punic War had just ended!

[Lanjane]

@aqd
Caligula Caesar is right, you should represent consequences of First Punic War at least in money and population levels. Maybe decrease population level in italic cities a bit? It was killed nearly 15% of all italic population during the First Punic War. Also, what about scripted tribute? (removing some money from Carthage and giving to Rome for certain amount of turns?)
And about african rebels... Is it possible to force rebel stacks to attack carthaginians via script?