Releasing the Seleucid Empire as Free-LC would gain CA so many brownie points

[SKSlave]

Do you agree? I'd say it's the single biggest thing people are clamouring for at the moment. To release the Seleucid Empire as a token of goodwill like Pontus would really do well for CA's image.

[rohirrimelf]

Don`t worry. It will be there soon. On an asia minor culture pack or something.

No need to make a new tread about this do.

[KLAssurbanipal]

Don`t worry. It will be there soon. On an asia minor culture pack or something.

No need to make a new tread about this do.

Seleucids weren't Asian culture. They were Greek/Hellenistic culture as Macedon, Athens, Epirus etc.

[Dude with the Food]

It'll come out with Armenia and probably Bactria or something. Shame because I really want those but not the Seleucids.

[zagy20]

Not really a fan of the Seleucids as I personally prefer starting small although since they are so popular it would be stupid of them to leave it out.

[Gondolin]

Seleucids are really the big boy in the East, many provinces, varied units, good starting position, surrounding by small kingdom -Pergamon, Parthia, Pontus- the only difficult I see would be to manage many boarders that it.
Like Zagy20 I'm much more on small countries
But CA will probably a Seleucids DLC after the release to keep people interrest in the game

[Gugg]

If they won't be available as a DLC I at least hope they'll make them playable after you beat the campaign with another faction like Rome or something. If not I'm sure the modders will get right on this.

[Nota']

I don't think it would earn CA many "Brownie points". People are quick to forget past favours when something bad happens.

[Wothan]

The truth about seleucid empire is:


And thus I begin my day

[Nota']

The truth about seleucid empire is:


And thus I begin my day

No one cares? Have you seen the state of the forums? A large proportion of TWC care. Put simply you are wrong, and if that was an attempt at humour you have failed.

[Grimbold]

At this point even i want the Seleucids, so everyone can stop spamming threads about how much they want them in the bloody game!

[He111]

Antiochus, is it you ?

[Mary The Quene]

Yeah i would forgive ca mistake for including parthia

[Jokern]

Yeah i would forgive ca mistake for including parthia

INCOMING FANBOY BARRAGE! TAKE COVER!

[D E C]

INCOMING FANBOY BARRAGE! TAKE COVER!

More like incoming derogatory comments...

[Jokern]

Double.

[Shamshir]

CA has already announced one Hellenistic faction (Egypt), a semi-Hellenistic faction (Pontus) and 3 Greek city-states, yet we're still having this kind of threads!

You guys are pathetic.

[Super-Soviet]

CA has already announced one Hellenistic faction (Egypt), a semi-Hellenistic faction (Pontus) and 3 Greek city-states, yet we're still having this kind of threads!

You guys are pathetic.

From a historians perspective, the city state DLC are ahistorical popularism aimed at people who only know about this period from movies. The Seleucids, however, are massively important in the history of Rome's expansion East.

Frankly, it's not some nationalist competition. It's about who were and were not important nations at the time. Sparta and Athens were not, so I find their inclusion slightly galling. It's an obvious gambit to attract people who like Hellenistic culture but have a rather superficial grasp of Hellenistic history. Factions like the Seleucids, on the other hand, are unknown in pop culture but were a important part of why Rome got involved in Egypt, the wars Rome fought to dominate Greece. etc. etc.

Frankly, in an ideal universe. We have Seleucids and the other Diadochi, the Achaean League, the Aetolian League, and not two half-dead, past their sell by date city states as the flagship "Greek" factions. Sparta was a tiny village only famous because of it's military power, and in this era that military power had vanished. Athens was not a bold innovative, diplomatic power in this era - it was a stagnant, egoistic and isolated city which was unable to muster an army to defend itself let along partake in any wider conflict.

[Durnaug]

We have Seleucids and the other Diadochi, the Achaean League, the Aetolian League, and not two half-dead, past their sell by date city states as the flagship "Greek" factions. Sparta was a tiny village only famous because of it's military power, and in this era that military power had vanished. Athens was not a bold innovative, diplomatic power in this era - it was a stagnant, egoistic and isolated city which was unable to muster an army to defend itself let along partake in any wider conflict.

Sparta is still a sporadic thorn in the side of of Macedon and these leagues. She created her own brief alliances with other cities during the Greek time period and managed to secure funding from the Ptolemaic Empire (267 - 261bce).

http://classicaleconomies.com/lakedaimon_kings.shtml

Kleomenes, in the 220s bce, even dominates one of these leagues and they call in the help of the Macedonians to crush a resurgent Sparta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleomen...he_Peloponnese

[neoptolemos]

From a historians perspective, the city state DLC are ahistorical popularism aimed at people who only know about this period from movies. The Seleucids, however, are massively important in the history of Rome's expansion East.

Frankly, it's not some nationalist competition. It's about who were and were not important nations at the time. Sparta and Athens were not, so I find their inclusion slightly galling. It's an obvious gambit to attract people who like Hellenistic culture but have a rather superficial grasp of Hellenistic history. Factions like the Seleucids, on the other hand, are unknown in pop culture but were a important part of why Rome got involved in Egypt, the wars Rome fought to dominate Greece. etc. etc.

Frankly, in an ideal universe. We have Seleucids and the other Diadochi, the Achaean League, the Aetolian League, and not two half-dead, past their sell by date city states as the flagship "Greek" factions. Sparta was a tiny village only famous because of it's military power, and in this era that military power had vanished. Athens was not a bold innovative, diplomatic power in this era - it was a stagnant, egoistic and isolated city which was unable to muster an army to defend itself let along partake in any wider conflict.

Well said but,although Sparta was indeed not that important she was still active enough to justify her inclusion.After she was involved in battles with Achaean league,Macedon and Rome.

Or as Durnaug puts it:

Sparta is still a sporadic thorn in the side of of Macedon and these leagues. She created her own brief alliances with other cities during the Greek time period and managed to secure funding from the Ptolemaic Empire (267 - 261bce).

http://classicaleconomies.com/lakedaimon_kings.shtml

Kleomenes, in the 220s bce, even dominates one of these leagues and they call in the help of the Macedonians to crush a resurgent Sparta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleomen...he_Peloponnese