[Research] Collection

[Hetairos]

Ok, everything has been set up. Cultures, Sub-Cultures, Confederations / Leagues, Faction Groups (Faction Selection Screen) and Factions. Everything is open to discussion.

[Hetairos]

Up it goes.

[Hetairos]

Up it goes.

[Hetairos]

Up it goes.

[Hetairos]

Up it goes.

[Thomahawk2k]

I would probably have made Galatia gallic, but if you would assign eastern barbarian to galatia, I would think of giving tylis also this subculture.

Also, I think there is no need to have a successor league, since those split up and I would find it pretty weird if they joined together again. (also, it's not possible since the successors are split in more subcultures.)

I shouldn't call the Egyptians ptolemaics, even in the ptolemaic time it was still very like the old egypt culture but now with greek influences. In the end it is the culture of the people in egypt not, I also have some doubts about a culture of seleucids, shouldn't we just make the seleucid macedonian and make confederation unavailable, alternatively we could call Macedon Antigonid Empire and they could form Macedon once again by confederating with the seleucid empire.

[ABH2]

Egyptian (Ptolemaic? is Egyptian still valid in 217 BC?)

Ptolemaic would suffice and seem more proper to me.

• Roman
• Italian (NEW)
• Etruscan (NEW)

This one confuses me a bit. If Rome controls all of Italy minus Cisaplina, as they did at this point, I don't think it's necessary to have an Etruscan or Italian cultural group. Now, I've mentioned in the past we could have different cultures/religions for different regions, but actual factional cultures in the DB seems unnecessary unless there's something I'm not considering or a plan I'm unaware of? Or HaTG is being considered here?

Later tonight or tomorrow I'll post my first batch of proposed region/factional changes. It should cover a large portion of the map.

Two new factions seem necessary to me in the East:
1. Aetolians
2. Sinope (more research needed).

I'm also pretty sure we can and should cut down on the number of eastern factions such as Aria, Drangiana, Sagarita and such. Ideally, we would split these up more. But I'm unsure how many factional slots we'll need.

Realistically, these were not 'factions' or real political entities. CA just took historical regions with an array of different political entities and threw them together as factions. So, to solve this, we would need to do two things:
1. Cut out the factions and give the territory still controlled by the Seleucids to them.
2. Split them up further in the areas in which the Seleucids seemed to have weaker control or in which there were relatively powerful vassal kingdoms. Since info on some of these areas is scarce, for now it may be best to give some of it to the Seleucids.
3. Parthia would gain control over Hyrcania, which at the start of this mod they had control over (though they would lose it to Antigonus and most likely be forced back into a subordinate position during his Eastern campaigns).

As I said, I'll post a more thorough list tonight or tomorrow.

Also, I think there is no need to have a successor league, since those split up and I would find it pretty weird if they joined together again. (also, it's not possible since the successors are split in more subcultures.)

On a Successor League - big no from me. Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucids, for instance, would never have merged. The only other two 'successor' Kingdoms in the proper sense would have been Pergamon and Sardes (a satrapy of the Seleucids in revolt at the start of this game).

[Thomahawk2k]

I'm also pretty sure we can and should cut down on the number of eastern factions such as Aria, Drangiana, Sagarita and such. Ideally, we would split these up more. But I'm unsure how many factional slots we'll need.

Realistically, these were not 'factions' or real political entities. CA just took historical regions with an array of different political entities and threw them together as factions. So, to solve this, we would need to do two things:
1. Cut out the factions and give the territory still controlled by the Seleucids to them.
2. Split them up further in the areas in which the Seleucids seemed to have weaker control or in which there were relatively powerful vassal kingdoms. Since info on some of these areas is scarce, for now it may be best to give some of it to the Seleucids.
3. Parthia would gain control over Hyrcania, which at the start of this mod they had control over (though they would lose it to Antigonus and most likely be forced back into a subordinate position during his Eastern campaigns).

As I said, I'll post a more thorough list tonight or tomorrow.



On a Successor League - big no from me. Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucids, for instance, would never have merged. The only other two 'successor' Kingdoms in the proper sense would have been Pergamon and Sardes (a satrapy of the Seleucids in revolt at the start of this game).

I vote for option 1, since Antigonus was restoring order in these lands at the starting point of our campaign. We do need to look at balance though, I wouldn't like Parthia falling in the same position as Rome in vanilla. So I think start off with a conflict Egypt-Seleucid Seleucid-Parthian, and most armies of the seleucids near Egypt, and give egypt a fair amount of counter army, giving Parthia the chance to steal land from the seleucids and build some army buffer. (Most likely if Egypt wins the war, the seleucids will be beaten up by parthia and vice versa if the seleucids win the war with egypt.)

[ABH2]

Since the plan is to start in the summer of 217 right before Raphia (war already going on), the main Seleucid army would in fact be in Egypt. Hyrcania/Parthava would be in the hands of Parthia as it was historically. That would give them four regions of their own. They should be in a position where they should be able to expand in time. The Seleucids will also be at war with Sardis to further distract them.

So, while the Seleucids will have a lot of territory, they will be stretched thin. If the players beats the Egyptian forces in front of them, I think they should have to really consider how much they want to try and take with vultures in the east and west threatening their other territories.

[Thomahawk2k]

Which means that everything happens on the same line as history. After Raphia and egyptian victory, they also lost lots of land to Parthia (maybe also Sardes, I am not sure how the situation was there.). It's not totally exact, since Parthia took those land from the Seleucids much later, but I feel this might be the best way to simulate the seleucid position in 217BC.

The alternative is scripting in the seleucid civil war, but isn't the way above a better way to simulate the seleucid collapse, it will be pretty hard for Parthia and Sardes to finish off the whole seleucid empire. In the end the seleucids may have little army after the war with Egypt, with the new recruits they will most likely prevent being subdued by Parthia. However, later on, Parthia might finish the seleucids off once and for all.

[Hetairos]

About Galatia being Eastern Barbarian or Gallic. I think by that time the Galatians would have assimilated to their eastern region and have a already different style of culture. So I personally think it would be against my understanding that they are able to join the gallic confederation of Arverni for example. So I prefer them to have the ally option only with other Gallic factions.

About the Eastern Barbarian, I am ok to review other barbarian factions and see if they can be Eastern Barbarian as well. So Tylis could theoretically confederate with Galatia for example.

About Ptolemaics vs Egyptian. I tend to Ptolemaics (so this culture reflects that its mixed with egyptian and greek elements.

About the Successors, I tend to add them to a sub-culture like successors and make leagues, confederations not available for them. Question is I think Macedon, Seleucids, Egyptian in game have different kind of battle formations and religions cultures (egyptian and persian for the eastern successors). Hell I even consider making Bactria kind of an own culture representing the Indian influences there. SO the Successors are a though call. Just remember that we are speaking about sub-cultures they are also important for formations, conquering regions and the converting culture aspect of the game. So not quiet sure now. At least I think we agree on them not being able to confederate or make a league.

As a side note, the campaign will start in late june 217 BC with two BIG battles going on right from the beginning. Hannibal vs Nepos in the battle of lake trasime and Antiochus vs Ptolemy in Raphia!

[Hetairos]

PS: Guys, please focus on big to small. SO I do want cultures first, than sub cultures, than we fix the confederations and finally we make a choice of faction groups for the faction selection screen.

Just after we have that fixed and completely high quality without any question I am going to talk about factions in more detail. And once we have the factions i am going to talk more in detail of were to place them and which territory they got. And once we have that We can speak about all the details of diplomatic relations, generals, armies etc.

[Hetairos]

OP Edited with latest feedback!

[Brivime]

For Arabs a confederation of tribes is more historically accurate than a union of kingdoms with the exclusion of Nabataea and Saba of course.


EDIT: Oh, I'd put Punic in its own category or under Eastern/African. A lot of their military equipment was Greek fashioned (they still had some eastern things like the conic helmets) but their culture was still Phoenician-Berber.

[Hetairos]

Thanks mate, so you pledge for Arabian Confederation and African Confederation instead of kingdroms?

PS: One cannot put the Punic into another Culture, the Cultures for the game are fixed, but at the end of the day it doesnt matter at all, since the culture does nothing. Its the sub-cultures that define everything in the game.

[ImperatorAndreas]

could you create a new culture?

That would be cool, I am referring to the Hellenistic culture which every Greek cities and Successor Kingdoms have in the game. I think Sparta, Athens, Syracuse, Rhodes, Pergamon (Pergamom? whatever it is O_O), should get there own culture which is "Hellenic" or "Classical Greek" culture (quite similar in name to Hellenistic but it was different), Hellenistic started under Alexander the Great conquests while Hellenic was there long before and still existed during the spread of Hellenistic culture, the two differed greatly.
In my opinion

[Hetairos]

Well thats the same like:

Roman = Latin
Greek = Hellenic
Successors = Hellenistic

Its a matter of name, but the idea is good, because:

The shift from Hellenic to Hellenistic represents the shift from a culture dominated by ethnic Greeks, however scattered geographically, to a culture dominated by Greek-speakers of whatever ethnicity, and from the political dominance of the city-state to that of larger monarchies.

http://studentreader.com/hellenic-vs...-civilization/

[Hetairos]

You proved a point. I made Greek to be Hellenic. Successor Kingdroms to be Hellenistic (therefore grouped, Macedonian, Seleucid, Ptolemaic and other Successors into Hellenistic).

Thinking of removing and grouping "Greek, Colonies" into Hellenistic as well. Not sure though. What you think?

[swingnblues]

Which means that everything happens on the same line as history. After Raphia and egyptian victory, they also lost lots of land to Parthia (maybe also Sardes, I am not sure how the situation was there.). It's not totally exact, since Parthia took those land from the Seleucids much later, but I feel this might be the best way to simulate the seleucid position in 217BC.

The alternative is scripting in the seleucid civil war, but isn't the way above a better way to simulate the seleucid collapse, it will be pretty hard for Parthia and Sardes to finish off the whole seleucid empire. In the end the seleucids may have little army after the war with Egypt, with the new recruits they will most likely prevent being subdued by Parthia. However, later on, Parthia might finish the seleucids off once and for all.

The Seleucids didn't really lose much territory in the aftermath of Raphia, other than their gains in Coele-Syria of the two previous years' campaigns. Parthia already held the in-game Parthia province. Also Achaeus, represented by Sardes/Seleucid rebels, already held the nominally Seleucid territory north of the Taurus Mts.

In response to your second point, the Seleucids didn't collapse after the defeat at Raphia, or even after Magnesia. They were a potent threat to their neighbors throughout most of the 2nd century BC. While their were periods of internal dissolution and the potential for expansion to the west was curtailed by Rome, Seleucid power regenerated under strong leadership until the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes in 129 BC. It would be historically incorrect to model a Seleucid collapse in the early stages of the game.

[ImperatorAndreas]

You proved a point. I made Greek to be Hellenic. Successor Kingdroms to be Hellenistic (therefore grouped, Macedonian, Seleucid, Ptolemaic and other Successors into Hellenistic).

Thinking of removing and grouping "Greek, Colonies" into Hellenistic as well. Not sure though. What you think?

Well i guess it would make things easier but the idea of two different culture is more historical and differentiates the small city states from the big Successor Kingdoms. I don't know, do the easiest I would say.