Revan's Greek Ideas

[Revan The Great]

Hi.

Pretty much everyone knows me from the Beta tester forums, and yesterday I PM'd Dvk telling him that I had many idea's for the Greek Cities faction - which I can comfortably say may be my most-played faction of this mod with over 6 campaigns going past 560 AUC - and he invited me to join the Developer forums, so I did and here I am. Anyways, I feel like I have a good deal of insight on the Greek Cities, given how much I've played them, and therefore have a lot to offer.

I'm typing this in real-time, off the cuff rather than copy + pasting something that I've been working on, so please excuse any spelling or grammar mistakes or maybe omissions of a particular idea that I forgot about and had to add in later. I also was asked to preface this by saying that any changes or improvements suggested herein are probably best to be implemented post-release, instead of immediately or even soon, given of course that the community approves of my ideas and suggestions. This is meant to be, afterall, a peer review and discussion. One last point I need to make - everything from here on is a comment made out of love for this mod and the Greek factions. So please, please when I say 'This unit could be removed' or 'This could be improved' I don't mean to offend or insult anyone.

In General
I feel like there are a lot of general observations to make about the Greeks, and ways they can be improved. Things pertaining to only a particular province or region will come a bit later, but in the meantime this is meant to be a 'catch-all' for everything that's left.

• There are two schools of thought about the fundamental purpose of a 'Free Greeks' faction. The first is that it should be static and mostly confined to its original start positions, and act as kind of a third, highly specialized 'Rebel faction'. The other school of thought is that the Greeks at first might act as independent nations, but mid-game a player could start to think of his faction as an emerging 'Pan-Hellenic League' interested in uniting the disparate Greek City-States and with one central government. I'm a subscriber to the second school of thought, and I believe that this is the tack that the community as a whole should take from now on in regards to this faction, because it seems like that would be more interesting to the player. I've tried to play the game both ways, and the latter idea is the more fun one, in my opinion. Would anyone like to confirm or agree with this adopting the latter mentality from now on?
• Greek recruitment zones are too limited. Fundamentally the Greeks are already challenged in that the vast majority of their units can only be recruited in one or two cities. Add to that, for the most part they can't even recruit their generic units in most cities, it can be rather annoying. I advocate that in every place there's a shred of Greek culture or influence (Sagunton, Halikarnassos, Olbia, Rhegion) you should be able to recruit at least a number of generic Greek units. For example the skirmishing trifecta of Greek Archers, Slingers, and Akontasti as well as Tarantine cavalry and Thureophoroi, possibly even Thorakitai. This is absolutely vital if the Greeks are expected to expand in any meaningful way. In Tarentum, for example, they can only recruit Samnite and Lucani infantry, and in Emporiae (Emporion to the Greeks) they only have access to Arevaci Spearmen. Whose to say that a Greek player can't go to current or former Greek colonies like Rhegion, or Sagunton and capture them and say 'Okay we're refounding these as Greek Colonies!' Essentially that's what the Roman barracks system reflects - more and more Romans arriving in a province and living there so you can recruit more and more Roman soldiers. Why not take a similar tack with the Greeks?
• Utilize the 'Generic Greek' soldiers on a wider basis in the start-of-the-game provinces. For example, you guys have a very handsome skin for 'Greek Lonchophoroi', which are excellent medium lancers, but you can only recruit them in Syracuse (with a Massalian version available in Massalia). Why not expand that? Why can't Athens, or Sinope, or even Bithynia not invest in Lonchophoroi? Further, I think things like Thureophoroi need to be more widely used too - as time went on the Greeks pretty much switched almost exclusively to Thureophoroi. Bithynia's Roman-era army was composed almost entirely of Thureophoroi if I'm not mistaken, why not let them recruit regular Thureophoroi? Same with Sinope, and Rhodes and Cyrene. It's my belief that every single Greek mini-faction should be able to field an entire, balanced army from their own city. Rhodes, for example only has Hoplite infantry and no supporting infantry such as Thureophoroi, a vital element in any Hellenic Army.
• Taxeis Hoplites - I think we should get rid of them, at least in the case of the Free Greeks. Their stats are sub-par when compared to other lower-tiered Hoplites like Cyrenians or Bithynians. Furthermore, their coloring is ugly (apologies if that offends whoever colored them), and the armor and equipment they wear suggests Epilektoi-status given their Bronze cuirass and heavy helm. It was expensive to equip a hoplite like that, so giving all of that stuff to what is probably the worst Hoplite, stats-wise, in the entire game is a bad idea. I've said it before, and I know there's resistance to it but I'll say it again: Create a generic Hoplite using a reskinned Bithynian/Cyrenian Hoplite - and I say that because they're probably the least 'imposing' looking of the Hoplites - and make them have identical stats to other low-tier hoplites except maybe 1 less defense skill, recruitable in any Greek City without its own Hoplites already.
• Consider giving the Shield Wall ability to all Hoplites, like the Spartan Hoplites, who already have it. I think that this is the only appropriate way to show the density of a Hoplite formation, and would increase their defensive power without overpowering them offensively. I realize this would probably get a lot of resistance but I say try it. Hoplite-type soldiers in general perform poorly in this mod, why not throw them a bone?
• The Family Tree could be improved a bit, to reflect the sons of the current Greek leadership at the start of the game. This would make continuity in the faction leaders, and make you feel like you have your own miniature royal bloodlines as opposed to having to start recruiting random generals and have 'Doros of Corinth' show up at Pantikapaion and get the 'King of Bosporan' ancillary. Why not, for example make the Paersides IV start out with a 15 year old son named Paersides V, or have King Prusias' son be in the game and aged 5 (Prusias II?) at the outset, same with with Hiero of Syracuse, he could have his nephew Hieron (or was it Hieronymous) start at a very young age and then come of age later. It would add more historical depth to the faction.

City-State of Massalia
Really Massalia is one of the cities that I'm most pleased with in terms of its recruitment, since it blends Barbarian and Greek very well and in the end comes out with good cavalry, and good infantry. The only thing lamentable about it is its poor position right in the path of Roman expansion, so more often than not it becomes quite the battleground for the inexhaustible legions.

• Currently Celto-Hellenic Hoplites and Massalian Hoplites are almost exactly the same, except for one more armor point for the former and only a little bit of cost. If possible, it seems to me that you should find a way to differentiate these two units more - truthfully there's no reason that I see to use Massalians over Celto-Hellenics, and only include them for 'flavor'.
• Expand the Celto-Hellenic Hoplite AOR to include at least coastal area's in Spain where the Greeks had colonies (Emporiae and Sagunton). For awhile I've had dreams of creating a mini-Massalian Empire based around Southern Gaul and Northern Spain, and doing this would really go towards making that a reality for me and other players.
• This is just an off-hand suggestion, but you could consider bumping up the cost and stats of Massalian Hoplites, putting them in a bronze breastplate rather than Linthorax, and call them 'Massalian Epilektoi Hoplites' and say that they're kind of more of an 'Elite' Hoplite whilst the Celto-Hellenic Hoplites are more the footsoldiers. Just a thought.

City-State of Syracuse
Syracuse is another one that I'm really pleased with, since again it has a wide and diverse unit roster with many interesting cavalry types, cool looking hoplites, and even it's own siege engine. How cool is that? However, there are some things that I feel really need to be addressed.

• I've suggested to Tone (in private I think) that the Syracusan's be given Basilikoi Peltasti, and the response was that the current Greek skin wasn't suited for Syracuse. However, given that Syracuse is probably the richest, most powerful Greek mini-faction in the Free Greeks faction, I think that when there is time it might be appropriate to reskin the existing Basilikoi Peltasti to represent Syracuse rather than either the Achaean or Aetolian League (since both mini-factions currently have Basilikoi Peltasti, I'm not sure if it's supposed to represent one or the other or both). It only seems appropriate that the true Greek 'Kingdom' has its own Royal Guardsmen who are dismounted. Maybe you'd consider giving then Hypaspisti instead? That might be easier and less controversial.
• Going back to the last point, Syracusan Royal Hoplites might be considered a current 'Royal Guard', however that said I really think they more represent Heavy Foot Soldiers rather than a Royal Guard. And admittedly, they are really good soldiers but then again they're expected to face the Romans Which brings me to...
• Regular Syracusan Hoplites are pretty bad. They don't even wear a linthorax, which probably isn't fair considering they fight for the richest city-state in the Koinon. They're even worse, I find, than the hated Taxeis Hoplites. When you consider that they need to fight the Romans it's practically a crime to send them into battle unarmored except for their tunics, so I would suggest slopping a linthorax on them in the future, increasing their stats and cost appropriate, and make them truly worthy of the name 'Hoplite'. Right now they're really just useful as garrison soldiers, sending them into battle is tantamount to murder.
• It might be advisable to actually remove a couple of Syracuse's units to free up slots for other units. For example, their Tarantines are only one stat point above other Tarantines, and worse than the Greek Aspidophoroi that they can recruit as well, so what's the point? Sure they look nice...same goes with Levy Thureophoroi. They're not even Thureophoroi, just glorified peltasts with a couple stat-points improvement.
• Harkening back to the Massilian Empire I mentioned in the last mini-faction review, I've also had dreams of a 'Sicilian Empire' whereupon you would unite Sicily under Syracuse's banner and then take the fight to the Romans on Italy itself and liberate the three Southern cities Rhegion, Crotona, and Tarentum (Rhegion, Croton, and Taras to the Greeks), refound them as Greek colonies, and in a way reverse much of Rome's expansion. It entered into my head that maybe using one of the recommended-deleted Syracusan units you could create an 'Italo-Hellenic' hoplite in the tradition of Massalia's 'Celto-Hellenic Hoplite'. Which would be a Hoplite, maybe wearing chainmail, maybe throwing pila - and having a helm with feathers in it like the Alaudae Legion or other Italian units. Maybe you could take Syracuse's Tarantines and give them a buff to stats and cost and make them only recruitable in Tarentum by the Free Greeks, call them 'Epilektoi Tarantines of Taras' which are elite Tarantine cavalrymen. You could really get creative here, and I think that doing so would make people say 'Wow, they thought of that? Cool!'

City-State of Cyrene
This is a neat little faction, and oftentimes I roleplay the retaking of the city of Cyrene from the Ptolemies, and the breaking away to be independent.

• New Ancillary - 'King of Cyrene', received from the city of Cyrene itself. Something like 'This General or his Predecessors has liberated our beloved Cyrene itself from the hated Ptolemies! By the acclaim of his soldiers and the people he has revived our ancient City-State, and wears the diadem of our country!' Gives + to management and trade.
• Though the City-State of Cyrene doesn't even start with the city of Cyrene, I think that this city should be treated just like the starting city of Euhesperides. Cyrene can only recruit Libyan Skirmishers and Cyrenian Hoplites, but like Euhesperides I think it should also be able to recruit Libyan Light Infantry, and Numidiain Cavalry as well as Libyan Chariots. Add in some Thureophoroi, like I've said elsewhere. Also allow Cyrene to recruit Greek Archers and Greek Heavy Peltasts, which it cannot do but its counterpart Euhesperides can.
• Why not throw in some Basilikoi Peltasti? People will resist this, I'm sure, but really why not? They're so expensive, so it's not like anyone will recruit a dozen units of them, and if Cyrene is going to become a 'Kingdom', like my ancillary idea suggests, I don't see a problem with it besides adding flavor. If someone really wants to, they can just ship in Basilikoi Peltasti from other cities, in any numbers that they want afterall, so not having Cyrene (or Syracuse for that matter) be able to build them is hardly a recipe for more or less balance than before.

Island of Crete
I like Crete, and really they're my ideal of a 'small faction with a good amount of units', which I think places like Cyrene and Rhodes don't quite live up to.

• The only thing I can really think of is that Crete has Levy Hoplites unique to the island who use a reskinned Taxeis Hoplite model, which means that they're both ugly and have poor stats. Cretan Levy Hoplites actually have worse stats than the average Taxeis Hoplites, and you can recruit both Cretan Levy Hoplites and Taxeis Hoplites in Crete already. Remove Cretan Levy Hoplites to free up a slot for a different unit elsewhere. Same with Cretan Native Archers, though they do have the excuse of having more ranged damage than regular Cretan Archers.

Island of Rhodes
Rhodes' chief problem is that they only have one infantry unit besides the hated Taxeis Hoplites. The fact that they're one of the richest mini-factions is at odd with their small roster.

• Add Thureophoroi and Thorakitai to their roster - maybe even Thorakitai Hoplites.
• New Ancillary - 'Wealthiest Rhodian'. It would be a mirror to Athen's 'Wealthiest Athenian', and primarily give bonus to trade and management.

Island of Cyprus
Okay so the Free Greeks don't actually start out with Cyprus, but I think it's important to explore the possibility of them acquiring it.

• Greeks can currently only recruit Levy Pikemen here at max level barracks, definitely allow them to recruit 'Hoplites' of Cyprus as well as Thureophoroi, Greek Skirmisher Trifecta, and Tarantines.

Achaean League
Achaean League is a particularly impressive faction, and I really like the fact that they have two Phalangite units, one regular and one elite.

• New Ancillary - 'Strategos of the Achaean League', would give primarily command and + morale, and would be something like 'This man has followed in the footsteps of the great Aratus of Sicyon, becoming our Strategos, or the supreme leader of our league!'
• I'm curious as to why they have Basilikoi Peltasti. Arguably there is more logic in Syracuse having them since a mini-faction without a King wouldn't really need a Royal Guard. All the same, I like having them though. Did the Achaean League historically have Macedonian-style Basilikoi Peltasti?
• Korinthos starts with a unit of, and can recruit Boiotian Xystophoroi, which seems odd. I think Dvk once told me this was intended, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.
• Consider expanding Achaea's mercenary pool to at least include Achaian Phalangites and Hoplites, I recommend. Everyone else has access to 90% of their recruitment via the mercenary pool, why not Achaea?

City-State of Athens
Athens is fairly well done, with solid hoplites and other units along with a particular Scythian/Eastern influence in some of their recruitment.

• The Athenians can recruit several Boiotian units, which Dvk also assures me is on purpose, but I had to say something for Athens so that was all I could think of

Boiotian League
I like Boeotia (anglicized version of Boiotia), but it does need a little bit of work.

• Consider adding an ancillary like the one suggested in my Achaean League review, except instead of 'in the footsteps of Aratus of Sicyon" say 'Epaminondas of Thebes'.
• Boiotian Epilektoi Hoplites need a serious buff I think. They only wear linthorax, and have stats nowhere near comparable to other Epilektoi like in Athens or Corinth. Really the unit in game right now would be more of a 'Regular Boiotian Hoplite', and isn't worthy of the name 'Epilektoi'. Whether you want to rename the unit 'Boiotian Hoplite', and either create a new, stronger Hoplite to be an 'Epilektoi', or if you want to buff the existing Boiotian Epilektoi Hoplite is up to you, either way seems equally viable to me.

Aetolian League
Naupaktos Hoplites are awesome, and so is the variety of units contained here.

• I would recommend a 'Strategos of Aetolia' ancillary in the tradition of what I suggested for Boeotia and Achaea.
• I think I have a pretty good idea here when I say that you should add Korinthos' Epilektoi Thorakitai to Aetolia's roster, Aetolia being a faction focused almost exclusively on Thureophoroi-type units, it's a great addition. Granted, the current skin Epilektoi Thorakitai skin features an Achaean League symbol on its shield, but you could redesign the shield a bit maybe to make it more kosher to Aetolia.
• I also have to wonder why these guys get Basilikoi Peltasti and Syracuse doesn't, being a 'League' and not a 'Kingdom'. Granted I do like having them in Aetolia, I'm just curious. Is the Greek Basilikoi Peltasti shield meant to reflect Aetolia? Or does Aetolia just share a Basilikoi Peltasti that has the Achaean League markings? (If so then why not let them share Epilektoi Thorakitai too?)

Illyria
This is probably the faction that I'm least happy with, given it's somewhat limited unit roster, and the fact that the units it does have are pretty weak. Not that there's much you can do about it of course.

• New Ancillary - 'King (or Warlord or Chieftain) of Illyria' that would read 'This man or his predecessors have come to rival even our great mythological founder, Illyrius, but uniting our tribes and claiming overlordship over all of Illyria!' Which would give + command and morale, as well as influence. And would possibly only be received in Segestica, forcing you to take that settlement to get the title.
• Why are there Agema Phalangites in and recruitable in Salonae? They seem like a very odd inclusion for a country with no other Agema or Pikemen. I think you should reskin them to look more like the rebel-owned Agema Phalangites, with a golden-bronze shield and armor and the light green cape. Looks more Illyrian that way. Here is an example
  Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  
• Consider giving Scordisci Infantry better stats, more cost, and chainmail armor.

Kingdom of Thrace
Yay for Thrace, with their awesome cavalry and Chosen Thraikian Pezoi. I really like them, it's just too bad they're so isolated.

• Consider making their starting barracks one level higher than it is now - or their city a Minor City instead of a Large Town. Given them access to Chosen Pezoi sooner would make them a bit more interesting and ultimately survivable.
• New Ancillary - 'King of Thrace' that says 'Like the Odrysian Kingdom of old we too have one leader for our fierce and noble people. We hail this man as King, and the Greeks to the South rightfully fear him...' Would give command, influence, and morale likely. You might think of somehow connecting it to expanding your borders to include Odessos, Byzantion, and maybe even Phillipoupolis.

Kingdom of Bithynia
I love Bithynia, another faction with alot of different units from different places to play with, and their natural conflict with Pergamon can be exciting.

• For some reason Bithynia has 'Sogdian Armoured Spearmen Archers' recruitable here, which is another odd inclusion but maybe that's intentional?
• This is another faction that I feel, being a kingdom, some sort of Basilikoi Peltasti isn't too frightening. Maybe Hypaspisti instead?
• Definitely add Thureophoroi to the roster, Bithynia was known to use them almost exclusively during the time of Sulla if I recall correctly. Maybe they could get their own unique Thureophoroi like Aetolia? Heck, maybe even Epilektoi Thureophoroi?
• Add Lonchophoroi to their roster.
• Consider adding Chosen Thraikian Pezoi to the roster. I know they're good units, but Bithynia was supposed to be a psuedo-Thracian Kingdom, and I feel like they could even be a good addition if the Basilikoi Peltasti idea is rejected.

Paphlagonia
Sinope has an alright roster, which I feel could be improved. No idea on what an Ancillary could be though. Generally I think of this mini-faction, along with Illyria to be tied for 'least important' mini-faction. Still fun to toy with though.

• Definitely add Thureophoroi to the roster.
• Mainly what I wanted to say had to do not with Paphlagonia itself, but the nearby province of Paphlagonia Hellenike, which is between Sinope and Nicomedia on the map and it's capital city is Heraclea. Currently Heraclea can only really recruit low-tier Thracian units, Levy Pikemen, and a Galatian unit or two. Why not expand this to include Allied Phalangites, Thurephoroi, and any number of more Greek-flavored cavalry, infantry, and skirmishers. Its name is Hellenic Paphlagonia afterall.

Bosporan Kingdom
My favorite mini-faction probably, I love the Bosporan Kingdom most of all. There are just so many things to recruit, and the fact that it has multiple provinces (as many as 5, reasonably) is really neat. The unit's are all wonderful too and I'm particularly fond of the Bosporan Elite Thorakitai, Royal Scythian Infantry, and Royal Scythian Cavalry since they all wear variations of the same armor I really like to pretend that they're an extended Royal Guard. Absolutely an amazing mini-faction hampered only by the fact that its only two family members start the game at 72 and 50-some.

• Definitely add in a very young 'Paersides V' to the family tree.
• I really can't think of much else to say here, besides that these guys can recruit Thraikian Chosen Pezoi, so given that their inclusion in Bithynia's roster isn't that outrageous.

And there you have it, I think I covered every single Greek mini-faction, though I stress that a Free Greeks-controled Pergamon should be able to recruit Pergamese Hoplites at least (not sure if they're able to or not already), and that the Greek Cities in Asia Minor need alot of love in terms of giving them generic Greek units to recruit.

In closing, I realize that the above is a huge wall of text so kudos to whoever reads it through! I also fully understand that even waiting until after the official RS2 first-release many of my idea's won't ever be implemented, or will be considered too difficult or troublesome or non-kosher in terms of balance, so that's fine. I do ask that everyone keep an open mind though, especially in regards to my desire for more common Basilikoi Peltasti - I don't feel that they'll be a balance issue since practically every Macedonian Army I face has a couple units of those and Hypaspisti anyways, why should it matter if the Greeks can recruit one very-good unit already owned by them and several other factions in a couple more of their cities when other factions can recruit them in virtually every high-teched city?

Happy Reading,
- Revan

[Mulattothrasher]

City-State of Massalia
Really Massalia is one of the cities that I'm most pleased with in terms of its recruitment, since it blends Barbarian and Greek very well and in the end comes out with good cavalry, and good infantry. The only thing lamentable about it is its poor position right in the path of Roman expansion, so more often than not it becomes quite the battleground for the inexhaustible legions.

• Currently Celto-Hellenic Hoplites and Massalian Hoplites are almost exactly the same, except for one more armor point for the former and only a little bit of cost. If possible, it seems to me that you should find a way to differentiate these two units more - truthfully there's no reason that I see to use Massalians over Celto-Hellenics, and only include them for 'flavor'.
• Expand the Celto-Hellenic Hoplite AOR to include at least coastal area's in Spain where the Greeks had colonies (Emporiae and Sagunton). For awhile I've had dreams of creating a mini-Massalian Empire based around Southern Gaul and Northern Spain, and doing this would really go towards making that a reality for me and other players.
• This is just an off-hand suggestion, but you could consider bumping up the cost and stats of Massalian Hoplites, putting them in a bronze breastplate rather than Linthorax, and call them 'Massalian Epilektoi Hoplites' and say that they're kind of more of an 'Elite' Hoplite whilst the Celto-Hellenic Hoplites are more the footsoldiers. Just a thought.

I have heard of two Massalians that ended up in Egypt fightign for the Ptolemies (iirc) bearing Celtic names and as such were Gauls most likely, and probably would have been Celto-Hellenics of some kind. They got around!

*If* changes are made, the Celtic ones would probably still fight in a manner like their kin in the rest of Gaul, and would have a nicer attack and charge, and be more offensively minded you could argue. Force the enemy to give way under the pressure of your warriors.

The only problem with having elite Massalian units is they did zero expanding. They sorta traded and sat there, fending off the occasional Celtic raid. But militarily they were not expansionists. However, I think that whatever Greek Massalian units receive changes, the changes would be defensive boosts as they held their own until being forced to call upon Roman aid against the Gauls.

Something along these lines enables the player to specify the units he needs for what purpose. Storming walls and routing the opposition? The Celto-Hellenic unit. Holding the line and repelling the enemy? The Massalian units. These, like yours, are just ideas.

[Revan The Great]

That's probably a good way to look at it, in terms of one being defensive and the other offensive. I think that Massalia having elite units isn't too horrible either. Every nation has elite units, even if 'Elite' to a small tribe in Gaul is a far cry from Roman Praetorians. They already have Elite units too in the form of their Thorakitai Hoplites. And, while in terms of expansionist or non-expansionist I suppose you're right, though they definitely formed their share of colonies. The idea I more have in mind though is that Emporiae, Sagunton, Nemausus, heck even Genoa could be mini-factions of their own under Massalian hegemony but not necessarily direct control. Not that these theoretical Mini-Greek Mini-Factions would have any unique units beside the most broad-spectrum Massalian units, that's just my menality.

[sithlord447]

I generally agree with about all you say, and especially with mixing up the unit roster in asia minor. Which reminds me is galatia slated to ever become one of the swap factions, as that would be a very nice, and different mini kingdom?

[Mulattothrasher]

Galatia as a swap faction? I *very* much hope so.

[dvk901]

Since I had a bit of forewarning about this, I had a little more time to think about it. But I haven't a lot of time right now so I'll throw a few things out there.

First of all, we need to be aware that getting any new models and\or textures just ain't gonna happen. The people who did this for RS2 have had enough, and they have said so. So bear in mind that any changes will have to be with 'what we've got'.

Secondly, RS2 is, believe it or not, a historical mod. I view it in the same way that I would view EB if someone said "just add this, and put in that, and change something over here, because it would be more fun." We have spent years of work researching and debating over the units in this game, and although many of their names are in understandable English, they are nonetheless as historical as they could be, and were very well thought out.

Third...given that RS2 IS meant to be a historical mod, the mini-factions we set up for the Free Greeks were set up with this in mind, and we gave them units that we felt they would've reasonably had. I remember asking the question long ago about Rhodes, and why they had so little to recruit. The answer was that Rhodes was never a military state, but was an economic power in this era. Sure, they defended themselves behind a walled city against the Persians and won out...but what else did they ever do that would even justify giving them units they never had any use for? The whole object of much of their setup was that the Free Greeks had a LOT of weaknesses and disparities between the different cities. I think this should just as well be reflected for the player.

I do agree, however, that a better job can be done of providing Greek-ish units in areas that were Greek. This wasn't really even anticipated, because even making the Free Greeks playable was really just an after thought. But, in that vain of allowing more Greek recruitment in Greek areas of the more 'generic' units, perhaps a more mercenary type recruitment such as Carthage has beyond that, of a few local units?

I get the idea of the gradual transition from a bunch of individual city-states to a more Pan-Hellenic Empire.....and I suppose that would be 'fun'.......but is it realistic? Only one Greek ever built an Empire, and as soon as he died it got parceled out into smaller parts that just warred with each other constantly. In fact, aside from some great Philosophy, Logic and Classical works of literature, the legacy of the Greeks was killing each other off until the Romans taught them how to behave. (Sad that the 'students' survived the parents by so many centuries, but nonetheless it was the Romans who taught them how to RULE. )

To make that a bit more clear as far as what I think of it, I have to say it would be a cold day in a hot place before the Greeks ever united and built an empire like Rome did. Not because they 'couldn't' have done it (as I mentioned above, Alexander did), but because they were culturally 'disinclined' to this kind of thinking, and never had any unified understanding of what 'government' should be like. Massalia was a republican democracy of sorts. Syracuse, Pergamon, Bithynia, Bosporan and a few others were monarchies. Athens, and many of the cities around Greece had other varied forms of government...Athens in particular had a 'rule by the richest'. So in reality, the Greeks were a culture with no established governmental concepts, whereas the Romans were a culture with a very strong system of government everyone accepted, even as it morphed from Republican to Imperial. That's a very big difference.

Thus, I would rather see an expansion and elaboration of the forms of government the Greeks had...a growing Massalian Republic, for example, with it's own special strengths (and weaknesses). An expanding Syracusian Kingdom, which BTW would certainly not be a Kingdom of any great 'health'. The Syracuse of this era was a Sicilian 'Sparta'. Weak, cowering in fear of the Romans, and on a downhill slope. Pergamon, which is of course a 'real' faction, was given that status because it was the ONLY Greek nation with any balls. They were snubbing their noses at Macedon and Seleucid, beating them in battles, allied with Rome, wealthy, gaining territory, and obviously moving up in the world. The Bosporan Kingdom was never much of an expansionist concern, but for a reason. They spent most of their history being invaded by Scythians, and Sarmatians. So they were busy trying to survive.

I picture Athens, if they were to expand, as an 'economic power'. Kind of a 'Greek Carthage', so to speak. The reason they have the Scythian/Eastern influence is because of mercenaries. While the Kingdom of Illyria, so different from it's other Free Greek cities, would probably be more the 'meat and muscle' of the faction with units that gave Rome bellyaches for a long time, and a strong navy. Same with Thrace and Bithynia in the sense of military prowess. But Crete, Rhodes, some of the other smaller cities. Economic power with almost no military beyond a few 'generic' foot soldiers.

And the cool thing is that I think, thru the use of ancillaries and traits, we could actually create these 'states within a state'.

Regarding the names of leaders. I have good news, and bad news. Bad news first. I can't always make RTW do what I want it to. So the naming system is limited. Good news. Most of the time I DO make RTW do what I want it to, and recently solved an issue that prevented me from doing exactly what Raven suggests about named characters and sons and daughters and so on. Briefly, if you add characters to this game who are not 'related' in the RTW way, the game will try to adopt them incessantly, and if it does, it will clone them. That eventually results in CTD's when one of them dies. I found out how to prevent these characters from being adopted when I found a 'trigger' in the advice files that brings up the window that asks you if you want to adopt someone. By giving all non-family members a trait 'Not_Adoptible', and ensuring that their sons inherit that trait, I prevented the game from ever asking you. I was also informed, thanks to Tone's observations, that if one of these characters is made an 'heir', and subsequently becomes faction leader, he starts building a new family.....and yet the game keeps track of the 'old' family, and it can come back into power at some point. So it seems that there can be multiple ruling families coming into and leaving power in RTW. Who knew?

The result of all this is that I could conceivably create a HUGE Free Greek family system, with each city having it's own ruler and individual family of sons and daughters. However, none of them would actually show up in the RTW family tree unless the 'father' became the faction leader. Still, it seems that RTW keeps track of it all anyway.

[Revan The Great]

I've been looking forward to your response (and to a lesser extent Tone's probable future comments) because I know at least one of you would type out something nearly as long as what I put down in response.

Since I had a bit of forewarning about this, I had a little more time to think about it. But I haven't a lot of time right now so I'll throw a few things out there.

First of all, we need to be aware that getting any new models and\or textures just ain't gonna happen. The people who did this for RS2 have had enough, and they have said so. So bear in mind that any changes will have to be with 'what we've got'.

Well, I can understand that certainly. However, no matter what the team does probably needs to find a new modeler or at least someone who can retexture stuff in the future - whether it's tomorrow or two months from now, it's just something that I see as absolutely necessary. It's like opening up a car repairshop and not having a guy who can do bodywork, or work on the engine.

Given that, and if you agree, I think that in the longterm any idea's (of mine or anyone else's) shouldn't necessarily be discounted simply on the basis of it's not possible right this moment in time. Afterall, all suggestions were mentioned to be for a later date, post-release. So yeah, it's perfectly fine to shelve stuff for now but...whose to say we can't get a guy to texture later on, or else get some of our old texture guys or modeler guys to decide to do a bit more work?

Secondly, RS2 is, believe it or not, a historical mod. I view it in the same way that I would view EB if someone said "just add this, and put in that, and change something over here, because it would be more fun." We have spent years of work researching and debating over the units in this game, and although many of their names are in understandable English, they are nonetheless as historical as they could be, and were very well thought out.

This is true, but at the same time this isn't a historical simulation either. Otherwise you'd have to script the entire game. The moment you click end turn history deviates, afterall. So just because something didn't happen historically, there should be a line drawn between what could've happened and what could not have happened. And still yet a further distinction between what could've happened, and would was likely to have happened had a certain event in history been changed. For example, my 'Italo-Hellenic Hoplite' idea is something thoughtful, and I would argue plausible - but even so it didn't happen. Should we exclude it then? Maybe... But most of my idea's, I think, weren't necessarily tredding on any historian's toes like admittedly a 'Fantasy Unit' like that would have.

Third...given that RS2 IS meant to be a historical mod, the mini-factions we set up for the Free Greeks were set up with this in mind, and we gave them units that we felt they would've reasonably had. I remember asking the question long ago about Rhodes, and why they had so little to recruit. The answer was that Rhodes was never a military state, but was an economic power in this era. Sure, they defended themselves behind a walled city against the Persians and won out...but what else did they ever do that would even justify giving them units they never had any use for? The whole object of much of their setup was that the Free Greeks had a LOT of weaknesses and disparities between the different cities. I think this should just as well be reflected for the player.

Well, the issue with Rhodes is simply providing a variety of soldiers rather than anything powerful or strong. It's silly to suggest that because Rhodes was never a military power that they wouldn't adopt something like Thureophoroi, which was the standard-issue Late-era Greek soldier. It's a matter of giving them what even the humblest of Greek City-states would have access to, and which certainly a very rich state should be able to cobble together if the need arose. I'll point out that the Rhodians also defeated the Macedonians - and built an amazing statue over their harbor as a testament to their victory over one of the most powerful and formidable Mediterranean powers of its day.

I do agree, however, that a better job can be done of providing Greek-ish units in areas that were Greek. This wasn't really even anticipated, because even making the Free Greeks playable was really just an after thought. But, in that vain of allowing more Greek recruitment in Greek areas of the more 'generic' units, perhaps a more mercenary type recruitment such as Carthage has beyond that, of a few local units?

As I said in my last comment, it's just a matter of giving even the humblest of Greek area's the humblest of Greek units to provide some semblance of military. Thureophoroi are a far cry from legionaries afterall, so why not? If you want to throw in mercenary units, more power to you I think that's great.

I get the idea of the gradual transition from a bunch of individual city-states to a more Pan-Hellenic Empire.....and I suppose that would be 'fun'.......but is it realistic? Only one Greek ever built an Empire, and as soon as he died it got parceled out into smaller parts that just warred with each other constantly. In fact, aside from some great Philosophy, Logic and Classical works of literature, the legacy of the Greeks was killing each other off until the Romans taught them how to behave. (Sad that the 'students' survived the parents by so many centuries, but nonetheless it was the Romans who taught them how to RULE. )

I think its imminently realistic. All it takes is one man to do great things - What was Macedonia before Phillip? A psuedo-Greek state and an off-again on-again Persian collaborator - a backward and rural state with little of note. And then what was Macedonia before Alexander? A regional power with a fine military and influence around themselves, but not the greatest Empire the world had ever seen. It took one man to topple the Persian Empire. In some small measure, it's up to the player to decide if he wants to emulate Alexander, and to deny someone that option isn't right. Whose to say that Telephos of Athens starts by signing treaties with, and appeasing, consoling, and supporting other Greek States around the world, and then his son or his Grandson is elected 'Strategos' of a loosely affiliated Greek League some hundred years later?

Infact there was a Hellenic League, which had varying power, but it was a start. Why can't the player be allowed to build on that, if he wants to? It'd be difficult, even possible, but if Alexander the Great's grandpa had told someone that one day his Grandson would rule over all of the Persian Empire and Greece, and be hailed as a God and a Pharaoh then that someone would've laughed his ass off at Alexander the Great's grandpa.

To make that a bit more clear as far as what I think of it, I have to say it would be a cold day in a hot place before the Greeks ever united and built an empire like Rome did. Not because they 'couldn't' have done it (as I mentioned above, Alexander did), but because they were culturally 'disinclined' to this kind of thinking, and never had any unified understanding of what 'government' should be like. Massalia was a republican democracy of sorts. Syracuse, Pergamon, Bithynia, Bosporan and a few others were monarchies. Athens, and many of the cities around Greece had other varied forms of government...Athens in particular had a 'rule by the richest'. So in reality, the Greeks were a culture with no established governmental concepts, whereas the Romans were a culture with a very strong system of government everyone accepted, even as it morphed from Republican to Imperial. That's a very big difference.

It is, but people can adapt. Whose to say that Telephos of Athens doesn't start with a strong alliance on Mainland-Greek states, and then later his Grandson is able to establish a Client Kingdom over a weak Bithynia and Syracuse, much like Rome did, and eventually annex them? Obviously alot of this is abstract, but it could really happen in any number of ways. What the Greeks primarily needed, I think, was military success and innovative tactics like Alexander had. And they never were able to get that since the time of Megas Alexandros.

Thus, I would rather see an expansion and elaboration of the forms of government the Greeks had...a growing Massalian Republic, for example, with it's own special strengths (and weaknesses). An expanding Syracusian Kingdom, which BTW would certainly not be a Kingdom of any great 'health'. The Syracuse of this era was a Sicilian 'Sparta'. Weak, cowering in fear of the Romans, and on a downhill slope. Pergamon, which is of course a 'real' faction, was given that status because it was the ONLY Greek nation with any balls. They were snubbing their noses at Macedon and Seleucid, beating them in battles, allied with Rome, wealthy, gaining territory, and obviously moving up in the world. The Bosporan Kingdom was never much of an expansionist concern, but for a reason. They spent most of their history being invaded by Scythians, and Sarmatians. So they were busy trying to survive.

That'd certainly be fine too - if you want to think of things as several smaller states grow into larger states, and then may or may not ever ally or coalesce. Whose to say they even need to become a single unified country rather than a loose colaboration of Allies who stand up for one another in one way or another. In a way, kind of like how the Romans at first treated all of Italy as a collection of allies with varying rights that gently diminished until they were all absorbed and enfranchised.

And I say again, it only takes one man. Hiero was a great king - and what if he had a son, or a different nephew who was an even greater king who took advantage of some turmoil in Rome to throw off their shackles and integrate Sicily into the Syracuse of his Kingdom. It's not fair to say to all of the Greek Cities, and by extension the Armenians, Carthaginians, and everyone else that they can't have political reforms (In game terms either real and reflected by buildings or events, or they can be abstract and rely purely on the player's imagination) that would allow them to achieve greatness or at least the same sort of stability and prosperity that Rome achieved.

I picture Athens, if they were to expand, as an 'economic power'. Kind of a 'Greek Carthage', so to speak. The reason they have the Scythian/Eastern influence is because of mercenaries. While the Kingdom of Illyria, so different from it's other Free Greek cities, would probably be more the 'meat and muscle' of the faction with units that gave Rome bellyaches for a long time, and a strong navy. Same with Thrace and Bithynia in the sense of military prowess. But Crete, Rhodes, some of the other smaller cities. Economic power with almost no military beyond a few 'generic' foot soldiers.

I understand that, and agree with you mostly. But again, I'm not asking for 'Cretan Cataphracts' or 'Rhodian Praetorian Guardsmen'. All I want is Thureophoroi in Rhodes particular, and any other basic Greek units they or other cities might be missing. I really don't see how that's unreasonable. Rhodes already has Epilektoi Hoplites, and so does Crete so why couldn't they have lesser, inferior but supporting units if for some reason their governments needed to adapt to military challenges. Personally, I'm almost positive that there were Rhodian Thureophoroi, and Cretan too as time went on. I know for sure there were Rhodian Marines, but those aren't in the mod. Not that I want you to add Rhodian Marines in, but you get the idea... And then in the case of rich Cyrene, why couldn't a King come to power and think himself the coolest guy since Alexander and decide that he needs to have a Basilikoi Peltasti royal guard, he could probably afford it even if it would financially inconvenience his country. All of these Eastern and Grecian potentates spent and spent on themselves and their militaries, and chiefly their militaries' problem was poor leadership and little combat experience.

And the cool thing is that I think, thru the use of ancillaries and traits, we could actually create these 'states within a state'.

Great.

Regarding the names of leaders. I have good news, and bad news. Bad news first. I can't always make RTW do what I want it to. So the naming system is limited. Good news. Most of the time I DO make RTW do what I want it to, and recently solved an issue that prevented me from doing exactly what Raven suggests about named characters and sons and daughters and so on. Briefly, if you add characters to this game who are not 'related' in the RTW way, the game will try to adopt them incessantly, and if it does, it will clone them. That eventually results in CTD's when one of them dies. I found out how to prevent these characters from being adopted when I found a 'trigger' in the advice files that brings up the window that asks you if you want to adopt someone. By giving all non-family members a trait 'Not_Adoptible', and ensuring that their sons inherit that trait, I prevented the game from ever asking you. I was also informed, thanks to Tone's observations, that if one of these characters is made an 'heir', and subsequently becomes faction leader, he starts building a new family.....and yet the game keeps track of the 'old' family, and it can come back into power at some point. So it seems that there can be multiple ruling families coming into and leaving power in RTW. Who knew?

Yeah that was really interesting. In a Roman campaign I actually got a faction leader not in my family tree, and so I got an entire new family tree. However, I was able to get one of my original family members named successor, and then got my new faction leader killed and my old family tree was sitting there, just as it had always been. I was amazed!

That's also why I recommended that if you add in family members (Prussias II, Paersides V) you add them into the existing family tree.

The result of all this is that I could conceivably create a HUGE Free Greek family system, with each city having it's own ruler and individual family of sons and daughters. However, none of them would actually show up in the RTW family tree unless the 'father' became the faction leader. Still, it seems that RTW keeps track of it all anyway.

That would be fine, to be perfectly honest, but I'd still rather just have them all in one HUGE single family tree with Paersides III (starting faction leader) as the father, and then his eldest son is his actual family and his other three sons are the beginning of another family tree that wasn't related to him in the least but we're pretending...

Edit: By the way, another Ancillary idea occurred to me, that would be available for Macedonia and Greece. Available in Apollonia, 'King of Epirus' which would give morale, influence, whatever else, and say something to the effect of 'This man has become the King of Epirus, reviving the kingdom of Pyrrhus!'

That's just a random idea borne out of the fact that I roleplay one of the younger Macedonian family members becoming the King of Epirus as a Macedonian client-state when I play a Macedonian campaign. I think there would be other people who would appreciate it too. Really Dvk and I have discussed ancillaries, and I think that if and when you decide to expand ancillaries and titles and stuff Epirus is definitely something to touch on. Of course, I wouldn't be opposed to a lot of provinces having an attached ancillary. 'King of Kolchis' for the city Kotais near Armenia and Pontus? Or satrap for that matter.

For later of course. But why not?

[tone]

There are some good ideas here. Really it's a question of whether people have the skills / energy to do this.

[swhunter]

Yes, basically I'm happy with it.
Keravnos and I spent months going over these units.
On models and types of Greeks we should have. Including Spartans.
Let's just finish what we done. But thank you great ideas.

[Revan The Great]

Truth be told I could do alot of these changes in terms of things like adding units to a certain region, or even making ancillaries. Texturing and stuff, no. We'd need a professional for that

[dvk901]

There are a number of issues involved with doing anything 'new' model or texture-wise with RS2. The current people are tired of it and burned out, and\or will be moving on to a M2TW style mod and participate in that in a much lesser role than they did for this mod. The best modelers, aside from Tone, are just plain gone from RTW and I doubt they will ever be back. And I know Tone has had enough. So that leaves, as I said, an RS2 that has so much variety of units and textures in it already that I hardly see why any more would be necessary. Besides, there is no ROOM for anymore. RS2 has pushed the limits of RTW to the very end.

Now, before we say: Well, we can just remove some and do this and that.......ha, good luck. Changing anything in DMB is something I have done with more care, attention and patient checking of numerous files because the units in RS2 represented by the models in DMB are so interwoven it's a nightmare. Tone had to figure out the houses himself, because I just couldn't keep track of the horse that belonged to this unit, and couldn't be had by that unit. Indeed, my gut feeling will be that the novice modder who downloads RS2 and tries to alter it to his\her own liking will be in for a real headache, because removing one model could well involve 2, 3, 4, 5 or more units. My answers to the ensuing questions and screw ups will be...don't do that. LOL

Not everyone realizes, aside from Tone and myself, that the units and coding in RS2 were written with swap factions anticipated, which is why the recruitment for the Free Greeks, for example, is spelled out as carefully as it is in their barracks by city or region name. Not a big concern to this discussion, I'm just trying to emphasize how well thought out RS2 was.

Quote: As I said in my last comment, it's just a matter of giving even the humblest of Greek area's the humblest of Greek units to provide some semblance of military. Thureophoroi are a far cry from legionaries afterall, so why not? If you want to throw in mercenary units, more power to you I think that's great.

Giving some of these cities a Thureophoroi and\or generic low-end units isn't a problem. I'm sure there's room for that.

Quote: "And I say again, it only takes one man. Hiero was a great king - and what if he had a son, or a different nephew who was an even greater king who took advantage of some turmoil in Rome to throw off their shackles and integrate Sicily into the Syracuse of his Kingdom. It's not fair to say to all of the Greek Cities, and by extension the Armenians, Carthaginians, and everyone else that they can't have political reforms (In game terms either real and reflected by buildings or events, or they can be abstract and rely purely on the player's imagination) that would allow them to achieve greatness or at least the same sort of stability and prosperity that Rome achieved."

Actually, I think it's entirely 'fair' to say this. And I don't say it out of any bias or 'meaness' towards Greeks, or to suppress the idea that players have an imagination. Politics is a very powerful issue with humanity. It is, in a sense, almost a religion of sorts. It would take a VERY powerful force to sway a society and a culture away from the 'inclinations' that they are raised with from day one, and I just don't think the Greek 'culture' ever had that powerful force to do that. Sure, we could 'theorize' about something that might happen, but theories should be based on some kind of sound analysis other than just 'that could happen'. Consider a period from the high points of Classical Greece to the low points of it's demise and in all of that time involving hundreds of years, NEVER was there any uniting force to change the political inclinations of Greeks. This is backed up by a historical record of the Greeks fighting with each other, and killing each other over 'who is going to control what' to a point where the population of Greece was decimated by the start of our mod. In fact, there was, as I understand it, a virtual exodus of many Greeks from the 'older' cities to the more stable post-Alexandrian Kingdoms because of the constant warring in and around Greece. It's fine to theorize that an apple may somehow be able to reform itself into a pear, but logically, that alternate history is a bit ridiculous.

Anyway, I'm not totally adamant about this. I just think it's unlikely, and if it were to be included it should be in such a way that a certain set of conditions would have to be met before it could ever happen....and that those conditions may or may not happen.

Quote: That would be fine, to be perfectly honest, but I'd still rather just have them all in one HUGE single family tree with Paersides III (starting faction leader) as the father, and then his eldest son is his actual family and his other three sons are the beginning of another family tree that wasn't related to him in the least but we're pretending...

Well, I didn't go into all the details about this, but since you offered this, I'll say that it's impossible to do that. If it were possible, it would solve a lot of problems. RTW offers only a limited ability to form a family tree. You can have a father and four sons. No more. That means that in order to form a family tree, the father has to be old enough so that his four sons are old enough to have four children, and by the time you set that up, you're outta luck because the last children are too young to have children. So the maximum size of any family would be 17 characters if you weaseled it out exactly right....and they would ALL have to have the same family name (or no family name). (No 'of_this or that city') So it doesn't work very well. The only way around this is to form 'alternate' family trees that will only appear IF the the guy at the head of that family is made faction leader. Otherwise they just exist 'invisibly'. Unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

Quote: Edit: By the way, another Ancillary idea occurred to me, that would be available for Macedonia and Greece. Available in Apollonia, 'King of Epirus' which would give morale, influence, whatever else, and say something to the effect of 'This man has become the King of Epirus, reviving the kingdom of Pyrrhus!'

That's just a random idea borne out of the fact that I roleplay one of the younger Macedonian family members becoming the King of Epirus as a Macedonian client-state when I play a Macedonian campaign. I think there would be other people who would appreciate it too. Really Dvk and I have discussed ancillaries, and I think that if and when you decide to expand ancillaries and titles and stuff Epirus is definitely something to touch on. Of course, I wouldn't be opposed to a lot of provinces having an attached ancillary. 'King of Kolchis' for the city Kotais near Armenia and Pontus? Or satrap for that matter.

My thinking here is that in order to use ancillaries as you suggest they would have to be altered quite a bit to ensure that the system really worked. With the present ancillaries, there are so many BS ways to get one that some characters you wanted to get a 'political' title couldn't even get it because they already had 8 ancillaries. I think they would all have to be paired down to get rid of pet animals, historical characters and a bunch of other things that are junk as far as I'm concerned. I intend to work on this anyway in rebuilding the Traits and ancillaries after release. We just never had time because we had to fix the one's we had that were broken.
I'm not very happy with a lot of it, other than what we have added.

[Revan The Great]

There are a number of issues involved with doing anything 'new' model or texture-wise with RS2. The current people are tired of it and burned out, and\or will be moving on to a M2TW style mod and participate in that in a much lesser role than they did for this mod. The best modelers, aside from Tone, are just plain gone from RTW and I doubt they will ever be back. And I know Tone has had enough. So that leaves, as I said, an RS2 that has so much variety of units and textures in it already that I hardly see why any more would be necessary. Besides, there is no ROOM for anymore. RS2 has pushed the limits of RTW to the very end.

Now, before we say: Well, we can just remove some and do this and that.......ha, good luck. Changing anything in DMB is something I have done with more care, attention and patient checking of numerous files because the units in RS2 represented by the models in DMB are so interwoven it's a nightmare. Tone had to figure out the houses himself, because I just couldn't keep track of the horse that belonged to this unit, and couldn't be had by that unit. Indeed, my gut feeling will be that the novice modder who downloads RS2 and tries to alter it to his\her own liking will be in for a real headache, because removing one model could well involve 2, 3, 4, 5 or more units. My answers to the ensuing questions and screw ups will be...don't do that. LOL

Not everyone realizes, aside from Tone and myself, that the units and coding in RS2 were written with swap factions anticipated, which is why the recruitment for the Free Greeks, for example, is spelled out as carefully as it is in their barracks by city or region name. Not a big concern to this discussion, I'm just trying to emphasize how well thought out RS2 was.

Well RS2 is a pretty special mod, I guess it just makes sense it'd be special on the inside. Shouldn't editting existing models and textures not be that difficult though? Such as removing the Achaian League symbol from their Epilektoi Thorakitai to give it to Aetolia as well?

Giving some of these cities a Thureophoroi and\or generic low-end units isn't a problem. I'm sure there's room for that.

Great

Actually, I think it's entirely 'fair' to say this. And I don't say it out of any bias or 'meaness' towards Greeks, or to suppress the idea that players have an imagination. Politics is a very powerful issue with humanity. It is, in a sense, almost a religion of sorts. It would take a VERY powerful force to sway a society and a culture away from the 'inclinations' that they are raised with from day one, and I just don't think the Greek 'culture' ever had that powerful force to do that. Sure, we could 'theorize' about something that might happen, but theories should be based on some kind of sound analysis other than just 'that could happen'. Consider a period from the high points of Classical Greece to the low points of it's demise and in all of that time involving hundreds of years, NEVER was there any uniting force to change the political inclinations of Greeks. This is backed up by a historical record of the Greeks fighting with each other, and killing each other over 'who is going to control what' to a point where the population of Greece was decimated by the start of our mod. In fact, there was, as I understand it, a virtual exodus of many Greeks from the 'older' cities to the more stable post-Alexandrian Kingdoms because of the constant warring in and around Greece. It's fine to theorize that an apple may somehow be able to reform itself into a pear, but logically, that alternate history is a bit ridiculous.

Anyway, I'm not totally adamant about this. I just think it's unlikely, and if it were to be included it should be in such a way that a certain set of conditions would have to be met before it could ever happen....and that those conditions may or may not happen.

Well would you also argue that Carthage or Armenia or Parthia or anyone else also lacked the 'perfect storm' of national values, cohesion, political system, and military success that created the Roman Empire instead of the Armenian Empire stretching from 3 continents and the Romans just a backwater client state?

If so then why bother playing anyone but Rome is we say 'Well historically they were conquered, or historically they couldn't do this'? It's not just a Free Greek issue it's an everyone-issue. Every nation or nascent nation faces challenges and adversities, and it's up to its people and great men who lead them to overcome those. Some do, some don't, but the point of Rome: Total War is to take a nation who historically didn't overcome those challenges and adversities, and do what Mithridates of Pontus couldn't, and what Tigranes the Great couldn't, etc.

Believe me, it's currently very difficult to expand as the Greeks, since most of their units are a level below other nation's and can only be recruited and retrained in a single place. To me, if a Greek player can overcome that adversity alone then it's just as good as some Greek politician working to try and form at least a very faint and weak 'Coalition of the Greeks'. The Italian Peninsula had no real history of cooperation when Rome was built, but over a few hundred years with diplomacy and military might they formed that peninsula into a cohesive state.

Well, I didn't go into all the details about this, but since you offered this, I'll say that it's impossible to do that. If it were possible, it would solve a lot of problems. RTW offers only a limited ability to form a family tree. You can have a father and four sons. No more. That means that in order to form a family tree, the father has to be old enough so that his four sons are old enough to have four children, and by the time you set that up, you're outta luck because the last children are too young to have children. So the maximum size of any family would be 17 characters if you weaseled it out exactly right....and they would ALL have to have the same family name (or no family name). (No 'of_this or that city') So it doesn't work very well. The only way around this is to form 'alternate' family trees that will only appear IF the the guy at the head of that family is made faction leader. Otherwise they just exist 'invisibly'. Unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

The Total War series and their obnoxious hardcode limits. I think that in that case, your comment about a 'HUGE Greek family tree with tons of mini-royal bloodlines' would be good

My thinking here is that in order to use ancillaries as you suggest they would have to be altered quite a bit to ensure that the system really worked. With the present ancillaries, there are so many BS ways to get one that some characters you wanted to get a 'political' title couldn't even get it because they already had 8 ancillaries. I think they would all have to be paired down to get rid of pet animals, historical characters and a bunch of other things that are junk as far as I'm concerned. I intend to work on this anyway in rebuilding the Traits and ancillaries after release. We just never had time because we had to fix the one's we had that were broken.
I'm not very happy with a lot of it, other than what we have added.

Well if you're eager to overhaul Ancillaries anyways then that's fine and your prerogative, but even the current system would 'work' fine. You can trade most ancillaries, so even if your character happens to be full on them (which isn't very likely unless he sits in a city with a scriptorium, or is out on the battlefield for years) you can dump you Overprotective Nanny off on that buffoon second cousin the King keeps putting in command of a small fleet to go and explore Scandinavia or some other pirate-infested place.