Macedon (Macedon campaign) H/H BI.exe

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

I'll be putting general notes here for the campaign I've started. No real major things of note of yet.

Using Pella and Thessaloniki, I'm able to raise a full army each turn and still afford buildings for the 3-4 cities with an open queue. Based on the chart below, I think I can continue this for another turn. Currently I have 4 armies in the field.

Here's the info, 538 AUC

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[tone]

Looks like the economy needs a bit of further squeezing?

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Yes, it would make the campaign more challenging. Also- I wonder if Rome's presence in the west can be vamped up? The first turn, I assembled just the troops already in my cities and marched on the city. After three turns I had an easy victory and Rome offered a ceasefire. I'm not sure what the historical situation was at this time, but a full stack lurking about or even a fully-defended city wouldn't go amiss, I think.

I'll post more detailed things once I get home from university.

[Massive_attack]

The large roman garrison idea is a good one, but make sure its only for the macedon campaign, we dont want Roman players having an easier time in greece.

[dvk901]

Ok, I knocked the Macedonian mod foldered econ. down a bit, and bumper the army in Drryachium up to a full Legion.

[Revan The Great]

In historical terms a small Roman garrison in Dyrrhachium probably isn't unbelievable considering that the Romans were dealing with Hannibal in Northern Italy.

My problem when playing a Greek faction tends to be that the Romans take too much interest in me, and I can't ever get them to quit bothering me for more than a turn or two with large stacks of high-quality units. My economy is generally good enough as Macedon to take Dyrrhachium no matter what you put there, the real issues come with after I take it and Romans start streaming in through Illyria and from across the sea. x_x

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

@Revan - I can see this, too. I'll have a playthrough with the changes and see how it goes. I'm having Roman stack after Roman stack cross the sea as well, but with so much money, it's not an issue to deal with them. I've got large garrisons in the border towns to prevent (faction name here) from attacking - right now it's keeping the Pergamese and Free Greeks at bay, not to mention the free peoples. Good point about the Romans - I'd agree that just the full city garrison is enough then.

I think that with a tighter economy and the same Roman force it will be a more challenging early game. Right now I don't have to choose who to attack when, as I have the money and armies to counter is really disparate regions.

Hopefully dvk's tweaks just now addressed this - I'll report back.

EDIT; post playing with the tweaks.

Well, here's the world 539 AUC. Rome's stack split up, but altogether it put my army in a weakened position than in the previous version. Here's the empire/situation/money/etc. So far, I like this balance a lot more. I have two full stacks and about a half stack that can operate outside of the cities, and buildings have to be chosen more carefully. I'll let you guys know how things progress. If another nation were to attack I'd be in some serious trouble - and I haven't had a chance to take any city but Dyrrhacium

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

EDIT EDIT; a bit further along
I tentatively think the economy is okay. It's challenging to raise armies and keep cities up. I'll post later if I think a slight decrease is necesary.

I guess it comes down to how challenging you want the campaign start to be? I'm an experienced RTW player and I'm managing fine; sure I don't have loads of troops and money, but I have enough to get by. I think more inexperienced players will have trouble if Rome keeps on landing troops. I haven't been in danger of losing a city yet, though. If you want it to be a bit harder, restrict the economy more. The Roman troops are fine as it stands.

Other thoughts from people playing the campaign?

[Revan The Great]

In your opinion, how are your elite troops performing? Do you have enough money to maintain a few units of Hypaspisti, Basilikoi Peltasti, etc.?

In previous Macedonian campaigns I found that my elite troops just weren't good enough to warrant their status, and often lost in 1v1 battles against Polybian Cohorts. From your perspective, are you including these elite units in your armies, are they affordable, and do they perform 'Very Well'?

[Revan The Great]

In your opinion, how are your elite troops performing? Do you have enough money to maintain a few units of Hypaspisti, Basilikoi Peltasti, etc.?

In previous Macedonian campaigns I found that my elite troops just weren't good enough to warrant their status, and often lost in 1v1 battles against Polybian Cohorts. From your perspective, are you including these elite units in your armies, are they affordable, and do they perform 'Very Well'?

For the record, I think they've been much improved since my old Macedonian campaigns. I just haven't gotten a chance to play as Macedonians (Or Seleucids. Or Ptolemies.) to see for myself and form any meaningful opinions. So do you have any comments in regards to my above quote?

[Chernish]

Revan The Great,
I think military force phalanx is associated not only with stats EDU, but also has a phalanx ability to prevent the infiltration between sarissas or not. When Legionnaires infiltration between sarissas and enter into melee, ability "phalanx" lost effect and began a regular sword fighting. Therefore elite phalanx loses. I have a phalanx of keeping the enemy at a distance of a spear - and agema won legions (ore other) in a frontal engagement.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[tone]

Important also not to forget the effects of terrain and weather on stats....as civilised nations best not to engage too much with enemies in forests or in snow as you'll experience penalties then.

Chernish, those phalanxes are looking good now - what stats are you using?

[Revan The Great]

Truth be told I more had Hypaspisti and Basilikon Peltasti in mind with my questions. Phalanx units are just kind of hit or miss in this game, sometimes they perform extreme well and sometimes they just get melted.

[Chernish]

tone,
During the may holidays I shall do detailed report on the experiments and offer my own version of EDU. I need 2 more free days to solve the problem with weight. I think that it is possible to save all the effects of heavier units vs lighter and also have the phalanx as shown on the screen. Using a scale of not increasing the weight (from 1 to 4 and above) but reducing (an average of 0.5 to 1.5). But I need to verify this statistically.

[tone]

I think you're probably right as, according to Aradan in his EDU guide, mass is non-linear.

[mass] : Collision mass of the unit. Units with big mass values can "push" their enemies harder and break through enemy lines easier and also hold against enemy pushing better. The mass ratio is not fixed, in that a 1-mass soldier will push a 0.1-mass enemy much easier than a 10-mass soldier would push a 1-mass enemy. In the case of mounted units this stat is of no importance, as it is the mount's mass that's taken into account (see descr_mount.txt).

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111344

[Chernish]

Oh, yes, this is what I had in mind when I started my experiments! This post of Aradan!

[tone]

Excellent! Thanks for your help.

[Giannis]

So, i'm playing as Maceson in Alex. H/H
I started playing only two days ago,so i didn't face the entire legion in Dyrrahium,yet,i didn't attch imediately. I have to say that economics are pretty tight for me. I strugle with every city individually to build the right building that increase taxation and trade. There are many 1-turn buildings,and this requires much micromanaging. And still many if not most have negative income. Taxation is on very high or high,and lately(i'm around 25 years in) i have started seeking for the happiness increasing buildings and shrines.
In the first turn i took the income of Pella,around 30 thousant,and from the second it started falling. Now i rarely have over 20.000 and most of the times around 17.000 So things are pretty tight. I took half of greece, Peloponnesos is taken by sparta and Athens is still fighting.
The Romans seem to be fighting hard with the Boii,having many stacks in their neighboring lands,but they also attacked me with a small army in a city (i don't remember the name) farther NW of Dyrrahium. I raised an army in Pella(One of the few cities i can recruit decent phalangites and cavalry yet) and pushed them back without battle. Then a realized that the roman city even further in the North had remained unprotected,having only two units inside and two big armies outside. So i decided to risk. I sent a spy inside and attacked with my army from Pella. I took the city and in the next turn several full stacks retreated from their North front with the Boii and are heading for this city. There i logged off,and now remains to see what they're going to do
Some screenshots. I know i should post them in the other thread,but since we're talking specifically about Macedon here...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As for the phalanx performance,when used in even ground and in relatively long lines,i have found them impenetrable! The levies have dissapointed me in a number of times,where some maneuvering was needed,and actually i wasn't nor having a very long line of them,nor was i in flat ground,and some times inside woody area. But even them,i'm suspecting they would hold excellently if surrounded by good phalangites.
But i'm planning to post a detailed AAR about one battle,so you'll see more of it there.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

I like the finances in this campaign a lot. They've rebounded as I took the last Free Greek city in Greece proper and thus have armies in cities, but it's been really tight. Battles have been good too...I love the Macedonian army. The Biotian (sp?) phalanx is killer if you can keep them together. Perhaps Rome is a bit too powerful.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Revan, did you play 1.6 or previous versions a lot? I find myself agreeing with you have coming off with heavy losses in every battle against the Romans, but then I wonder if it's just because of better balancing than in previous versions. I get a bit frustrated but after playing I like this system more. It slows down expansion, certainly, and requires a lot more careful thought. The days of one stack beating three are gone, at least for me.

When I defend it's really easy for victories to manifest, but attacking...well, it's hard to minimise losses.

[Revan The Great]

I played 1.6 and previous versions extensively, but almost exclusively as the Romans or Greeks Cities. Back then, all of the other factions were so woefully underdeveloped that I really couldn't stand them in comparison with the detail alotted to Rome.