Greeks are weak

[Gladius78]

Hello there,

after 2 years of Rome:TW-abstinence, I started a new campaign (with romans, of course, difficult H/VH) and i figured out the old problem: Macedon pwns Greek Cities in the Greek mainland until turn 260 totally. I had some Diplomats there, and the main problem is, that Greece isn't building a strong army vs Macedon invasion. I started some more campaigns with the same outcome: Greece was annihilated from Macedon.

2 other things, which i dont understand, why Sparta hasn't a wall or a simple Trader; i mean, in this mod, Sparta is the greek Capital!

And why is Epirus allied with Macedon? They should be allied with the greek cities, IMHO. After the defeat of Pyrrhus in the italian peninsula, he went over to Macedon (historically). With this game settings, in the most cases Epirus attacks the greek cities and gave a slight bonus in the greek struggle for the Macedon.

Well, now i make a test, altered the descr_strat, allied Greece with Epirus and gave Sparta a wall, a market and 1000 dinarii extra for the greek cities.

My problem with an early defeat of the Greek Cities is, that Macedon gains an insane army quickly, and I can never fight against Spartan Hoplites or the other city depended Greek units. They are really good for the game flavor, but when Macedon defeat the greek cities so early, i can't fight against them ingame.

so far,

Gladius78

[Mogan]

Well, to address two of your points:

1. Sparta had no walls. Their location gave a natural defence which made it difficult for armies to attack properly (a feature that isn't properly replicated in the game unfortunately). Historically, no attacking army until the Romans managed to defeat Sparta, the city itself.

2. Epirus (under Pyrrhos) was allied to the Antigonids, which represents the Macedon in ExRM since they were the most successful dynasty at our period. Actually, Pyrrhos was killed when trying to take the city of Argos, which was a Greek one (the Greeks saw him as a threat to their independence). So while the situation in Greece is historically addressed correctly, the AI won't behave historically. We're working on forcing historical solutions for our next release.

[leemyster]

It is a shae that greeks cannot hold there own but if your interested in improving greeks postion just send a couple of assains to thessloinica or pella and trash their barracks. Repairing costs them a few denari as well as stopping their recruitment.

With the battle with macedonia so close this should just tip this in the balance.

Then again dont come back here upset when you've got 6 stacks of greek spartans bearing down on the italian penisulia!

[Gomer]

That is strange as in every campaign I have played the Greeks tend to do well at holding back the Macedonians. They do however suffer when their colonies outside of Greece fall to other AI factions though.

[Quinn Inuit]

Welcome to the boards! I don't have much to add to Mogan's explanation (or leemyster's tactical suggestion) besides noting that trade in Sparta was traditionally discouraged, hence the lack of a trader there.

[Gladius78]

Thanks for the replies!

@Mogan:

1. Thats my Problem, Meacedon is quicker

2. Thats true, thats more historically. But ingame, he wont made it out of Italy and dies there. Historically, his son Alexander II attacks Madecon. Its just an Idea, to force Alexander to attack the Macedon and strenghten greece a little bit. In my actual campaign, Epirus and Greek Cities are doing fine ( no war with Macedon until 265 b.c.).Its great to see, thats EXRM is still under developement

R:TW and EXRM forever!!


Whats the point for the AI, to defend cities well? Borders? Income? Population?
And when you give The Greek Cities more initial army in the greek mainland..? Well. i think, its very hard that the AI behave more historically

[Quinn Inuit]

It's definitely hard to get the AI to behave historically. You should see some of the stuff I've done over the years to get it to behave better.

The AI will throw away any armies you give it at the start in attacks for expansion. That's why we have to be very careful what starting armies we give out.

[Sardaukar One]

2. Epirus (under Pyrrhos) was allied to the Antigonids, which represents the Macedon in ExRM since they were the most successful dynasty at our period. Actually, Pyrrhos was killed when trying to take the city of Argos, which was a Greek one (the Greeks saw him as a threat to their independence). So while the situation in Greece is historically addressed correctly, the AI won't behave historically. We're working on forcing historical solutions for our next release.

Pyrrhus was forced to flee Epirus as a child by Kassander. He was given sanctuary by Antigonus and fought at Ipsus. After Ipsus, Demetrius eventually made peace with Ptolemy. As a surety of goodwill, Demetrius sent Pyrrhus as a hostage to Egypt. Ptolemy and Pyrrhus became good friends it would seem, and with his help, Pyrrhus was able to return home to Epirus and become king.
Though he intially was allied to Demetrius, he did fight a few wars with him, and ultimately joined in the coalition against Demetrius in 287 BC and invaded Macedon along with Lysimachus, driving the Antigonids out. Pyrrhus also contested Macedon and fought against Antigonus Gonatas. And briefly conquered much of Macedon in the mid 270's. He also got Ptolemy Ceraunus to cough up a bunch of troops and elephants so that he would not threaten him in Macedon.
As far as Greece goes, Pyrrhus did fight in Sicily, and came into conflict with the Greeks there. And, as has been pointed out, was campaigning in the Peloponnese when he was killed trying to take Argos.
I'd also add that Antigonus Gonatas was present at this battle and sent in troops to aid Argos against Pyrrhus if I'm not mistaken.

So frankly, Epirus ought to be at war with both of them.

I'd also add that Macedon and the Seleucids probably ought to be allied. After Seleucus was murdered, there was some squabling between the two states, and some actual fighting(nothing major) I think, but they then settled their differences and were buddy, buddy for a long time.

[Carados]

We can manipulate the diplomacy section for that then. I've actually started on it already.

There are two values, one dictates the relationship between factions at the start of the game. The other value, the core value, tells us how the faction feels towards the other faction. Thus, if two factions start at war but have positive core values, then later on in the game they are likely to become good allies. Conversely, if two factions start off allied but are hostile to one another at core, then there is a very good chance they'll end up at war with one another.

Epirus and Macedon are going to be rather hostile to one another with their core values. Not sure they should start at war though? Has Pyrrhus had any scraps with Gonatas before his trip to Italy? Since it is his dynasty that we are representing with Macedon in the game.

Epirus is likely to be allied with the Greek Cities at the start, but their core values are going to be so-so, going on to hostile. Bear in mind that the Greek Cities represent Keraunus, the Aetolians and Syracuse which are all somewhat on good terms with Epirus near the beginning few turns (for whatever reason). Epirus will turn on the greeks if they have an opportunity to or if the situation is forced on them.

Epirus and Romans start at war, but the core value is much lower and they are otherwise so-so with each other. Pyrrhus wasn't all that interested in conquering Italy and didn't see the Romans as the real threat to the Greek world. The Romans are still very likely to force a fight with them, but Epirus won't be as inclined to return the favour. Except from the beginning.


Macedon and the Seleucids can start at war, but their core values are rather good. Since the AI will readily accept a ceasefire if the two factions do not share a border, they should very quickly patch up their relationship.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For those of you with doubts...
I've gotten Pyrrhus to fight the Romans in the first year or two, then for him to move down to Rhegium and Messena, to take Argigentum(sp?), and finally for them to besiege Lilybaeum for a time.

[Caesar Augustus]

Great stuff Carados!

By the way, what's the reasoning behind the Romans starting at war with the GC?

[Carados]

By the way, what's the reasoning behind the Romans starting at war with the GC?

There is none. A relic from RTRPE when Epirus was part of the Greek Cities. I've been meaning to look at it for a while.

[Quinn Inuit]

That's a good plan, Carados. I don't believe the Macs (Antigonids) and Epirus should start at war. That might complicate a diplomatic setup that's delicate enough as-is. They'll doubtless go to war as soon as the Antigonids move north to their homeland, so we can leave them at peace at the start.

[Caesar Augustus]

Groovy, cheers dude

[Sardaukar One]

Pyrrhus had fought against Demetrius prior to the start date for the game. And along with Lysimachus, drove Demetrius out of Macedon in 287 I think.
So the relations between Gonatas and Pyrrhus were probably not good. Of course, at the start date, he was not actually fighting the Antigonids. Nor the Greeks for that matter.
So you probably can have them at peace with each other. But alliance? Probably not that accurate.

The problems between the Seleucids and the Antigonids flared up after Ceraunus killed Seleucus.
Antiochus was not intially prepared to let Macedon go. But eventually he realised it was a lost cause and made friends with the Antigonids. Plus they both had a common enemy in the Ptolemies.
And they were good allies until about 200 BC or so. It all fell apart with the reigns of Philip V in Macedon and Antiochus III the Great.

[Mogan]

But how about the Epirote-Ptolemaic relationship? Can someone brighten this area, since I know he was providing Pyrrhus with troops, but I'm uncertain about Ptolys motifs for this.

[Caesar Augustus]

I always assumed that the other Diadochi gave Pyrrhus troops purely because if he was off conquering Italy then he wouldn't be making a play for their kingdom. That said, I really don't know enough about the history.

[Carados]

I would haphazard a guess at it being Ptolemy thinking that Pyrrhus could carve out a kind of allied empire nearby Macedon. The macedonians would then have to deal with the significant threat of Epirus, rather than the Ptolemaic empire, and could feasibly lose out. Since Pyrrhus and Ptolemy are on rather good terms it would bring a fair bit of stability to the Greek world and would also give the Seleucids an added headache - the Ptollies from the South and Epirus from the West. Both parties win out in the end.

[Parzival2211]

Carados, above you were writing about the relation between the core value of relations and the diplomatic relations at start.

I have a question about the core values: Do they change in the course of the campaign - like deteriorate if factions are at war with each other for a long time - or are they an underlying constant factor that always pushes relations in a certain direction - like even after a long period of war, a positive core value makes a future peace or even alliance more likely?

Thanks in advance.

[Quinn Inuit]

Core values are fixed, and constantly pull relationships toward them. The relationships are the mutable ones, and the starting value merely gives it a launching point.

[Sardaukar One]

I always assumed that the other Diadochi gave Pyrrhus troops purely because if he was off conquering Italy then he wouldn't be making a play for their kingdom. That said, I really don't know enough about the history.

A Ptolemy did give Pyrrhus troops. 4,000 cavalry, 5,000 infantry and 50 elephants. But this Ptolemy was from Egypt, he was not in Egypt when the troops were given to Pyrrhus. He was in Macedon as King.

Ptolemy Ceraunus, when he killed Seleucus and got rid of Arsinoe, Lysimachus' widow(who was also his sister) and her children, he had nominal control of Macedonian Europe. Ceraunus still had some formidable opposition. Antiochus would want revenge. And at this juncture, had not given up his claims to Macedon et al. There was also Antigonus Gonatas in Greece. Not to mention potential conflict with his younger brother, Ptolemy II, who had succeeded his father to the throne. The Ptolemies had significant interests in Greece and the Aegean. Ceraunus had made overtures to his brother, but his brother was lukewarm to them at best it would seem.
Finally, there was the matter of Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus had been king of Macedon in 287 BC or so, before Lysimachus drove him out. Pyrrhus might well return. He was certainly the one with the military resources to throw into the fray immediately. Antiochus, by comparison, spent much of his reign trying to hold onto what he already had in Asia. Though how apparent this was to Ceraunus is anyones guess. Ceraunus might have assumed that Antiochus would come after him quite soon. Who knows?
In any event, Ceraunus needed time to cement his rule, and one way to help this was to 'loan' troops to Pyrrhus. It may very well have been considered a cheaper alternative than actual war.
Saying that, it also may well have been a crucial error. The Korupedion campaign may very well have stripped much of the military establishment of Lysimachus in Europe, leaving Europe denuded of troops.
The subsequent ease with which the Gauls had in invading Macedon and Greece lends some support to this. Considering the success Antiochus I had in the elephant battle against the Gauls, the retention of the troops handed over to Pyrrhus, especially the 50 elephants, could very well have made the difference between victory and defeat for Ceraunus.
On a personal note however, Ceraunus got exactly what he deserved. Knocked off his elephant and then getting his head chopped off.

I would haphazard a guess at it being Ptolemy thinking that Pyrrhus could carve out a kind of allied empire nearby Macedon. The macedonians would then have to deal with the significant threat of Epirus, rather than the Ptolemaic empire, and could feasibly lose out. Since Pyrrhus and Ptolemy are on rather good terms it would bring a fair bit of stability to the Greek world and would also give the Seleucids an added headache - the Ptollies from the South and Epirus from the West. Both parties win out in the end.

Ptolemy I and Pyrrhus had a very good relationship. They likened each other to father and son, and addressed each other as such. Lysimachus, tried to dupe Pyrrhus with a forged letter from Ptolemy, but Pyrrhus recognized it as a fake almost from the get-go.
When Demetrius was king of Macedon, and preparing to invade Asia in 287 or so, it was Ptolemy I who got Pyrrhus to help Lysimachus invade Macedon. Its unclear exactly what Pyrrhus was promised for his help.
Pyrrhus got the western half of Macedon, and was perhaps promised it all. Ptolemy's main concern, it would seem, was to chop Demetrius down to size. As soon as Demetrius was hoofed from Macedon, Ptolemy made peace with him. This left Demetrius free to attack Lysimachus. When Lysimachus' son, Agathocles, herded Demetrius into Seleucid territory, he was soon captured.
This in turn, gave Lysimachus the greenlight to attack Pyrrhus and drive him out of Macedon. I don't know what Ptolemy I thought about this. It does seem likely that Ptolemy would rather Pyrrhus take Macedon than Lysimachus however.

Ptolemy seems to have adopted the strategem that Rome later did with the Hellenistic powers. Keep them all at each other's throats whenever possible, and do your best to make sure one side doesn't win out.

I would also add that there is no evidence that Pyrrhus had good relations with Egypt past Ptolemy I.
Basically when Ptolemy I died, the Ptolemies lost their line to Pyrrhus.

During this time, Ptolemy I may well have been more concerned by Lysimachus than by the Seleucids.
If Lysimachus would have been able to consolidate Asia Minor, along with the addition of Macedon and Thessaly, he would have been a real power. Not to mention the naval resources he could bring to the table.
After Ipsus, with Seleucus being sandwiched somwhat in-between Ptolemy and Lysimachus, it was probably only natural these two become allies. But the growth of the kingdom of Lysimachus must have been alarming to Ptolemy. And Seleucus. Especially when he added Macedon and Thessaly to his holdings.