Are you happy with the seleucid portrayal?

[Mary The Quene]

They own currently just a few regions



With vassals they own:


Shouldn't they just control them directly instead of vassals which is historical correct.

Shouldn't they also control this terriority instead of the one with vassals included?

[Eofor]

I actually prefer this portrayal strictly for gameplay reasons.

[Smiling Hetairoi]

Should they not control SELEUCIA?

[Sharpe]

I'd say it is an interesting representation.

It was not a unified super-power in the least.

It did not have the synergy of the Roman Empire at it's peak and was a conflagration of many peoples.

[Eofor]

Never mind I was mistaken.

[Rex Armeniae]

Yes, they know what they have to do in order to deliver great gameplay to us. Everything in the game that is done in a certain way, is done so for a reason.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

The organization of the Seleucid Empire is based on Achaemenid institutions, it is therefore divided in satrapies which are semi-independent economically and militarily. So, that division makes sense, although it'd be interesting to see how the internal politics of the Empire are portrayed. You should definitely receive income from those satrapies, plus troops whenever asked.

Should they not control SELEUCIA?

Seleucia belonged to the Babylonian satrapy.

[Dan113112]

I find the current representation more realistic. It was not a unified empire in the least. Even under Alexander it was made up of many vassal states. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The organization of the Seleucid Empire is based on Achaemenid institutions, it is therefore divided in satrapies which are semi-independent economically and militarily. So, that division makes sense, although it'd be interesting to see how the internal politics of the Empire are portrayed. You should definitely receive income from those satrapies, plus troops whenever asked.

Just remember that in TWR2 you can ask for coordinated war efforts from other factions. Namely vassals and allies.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Just remember that in TWR2 you can ask for coordinated war efforts from other factions. Namely vassals and allies.

I mean in the sense that the satraps will join your army, instead of aid you in wars with their own armies. When the King campaigns in a certain satrapy, it makes sense that the satrap with his army will join him and become part of his army.

[Dan113112]

I mean in the sense that troops will join your army, instead of aid you in wars with their own armies. When the King campaigns in a certain satrapy, it makes sense that the satrap with his army will join him and become a part of his army.

The only way that would happen in-game is if your army was next to an AI army. You wouldn't be able to command their troops, though. Sad.

I am truly disappointed by the actual representation through it comes with no surprise. Unless CA reworked completely the vassal system, added far more diplomatic option and improved the AI this will be ridiculous.

Otherwise I am eager to see all Seleucid vassals waging war against each other and half of the vassals treaties broken after only 20 turns
(sarcasm off.)

Isn't that what happened historically? There were quite a few rebellions and civil wars within the empire. Most of the empire was controlled in a similar manner as the Persians. So, the empire wouldn't be a single, united faction. It was not a federal state.

Isn't the OP showing a map of the Seleucid Empire at its height? If I'm correct it didn't hold that much territory for long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileiadoch.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Se...pire_200bc.jpg

[Manuel I Komnenos]

The only way that would happen in-game is if your army was next to an AI army. You wouldn't be able to command their troops, though. Sad.

Technically you could request the presence of a satrap in the area where the King is campaigning at that particular moment and, depending on distance, the satrap with his troops would appear in the stack of the King within a number of turns.

To add further to this theory, the satrap and his local troops could get pissed off, if campaigning for too long in a distant area. EB had such traits for satraps for example.

[Emperor Domitianus]

I can't deny that the direct control would be better for accuracy. However on the other side the vassallage system could be more interesting.

[Dan113112]

I can't deny that the direct control would be better for accuracy. However on the other side the vassallage system could be more interesting.

But it wasn't a system of direct control in reality.

[Mary The Quene]

But it wasn't a system of direct control in reality.

But theoritical they controlled it all directly but yeah somewhat poor.

[Anna_Gein]

I am truly disappointed by the actual representation through it comes with no surprise. Unless CA reworked completely the vassal system, added far more diplomatic option and improved the AI this will be ridiculous.

Otherwise I am eager to see all Seleucid vassals waging war against each other and half of the vassals treaties broken after only 20 turns
(sarcasm off.)

[Aragorn-Elessar]

vassals system

[jtfjtfjtf]

I like the client state start out. I hope they come out with a DLC for them.

[SKSlave]

If you want a stupidly unbalanced game with constant Seleucid rape every single campaign, then yeah, let them control every province. If you want them to break up as they did historically then this is the best way of doing so.

[MrOuija]

I like how they represented the Seleucids from both a historical and gameplay stand point. From a historical point of view this disposition makes them a bit of a paper tiger, and allows you to force the whole thing to collapse if you dominate Syria, which isn't that far from what actually happened.

From a gameplay perspective, this setup allows the eastern minors to revolt away and factions like Parthia and Baktria to come into their own. If the Seleucids owned everything they'd simply be unstoppable by all non-human factions. Also, it'd be very annoying having to take every last region from the Seleucids in order to destroy them. Imagine having already conquered Syria and almost every Seleucid proivince, but them hanging onto 1 landlocked province in the east and surviving.

[GrudgeNL]

Atleast we get some faction variety while playing as Parthia. I already hated the Seleucids after visiting this forum for my first time. ( Mainly because of the people demanding the Seleucids being a playable faction in a dozen of threads and posts. I don't think I could play as Parthia and invade/fight off the Seulecids during the first half of my campaign. I imagine it would get boring quite fast seeing the same faction flag over and over again. So, yes, I am very happy the way they've prortrayed them.