Why is there an option to build Ptolemaic colony for Bosoran Kingdom?

[ooji]

Is it a bug? In my Bosporan kingdom campaign, I saw the option build the colony building in my Greek polis. The description of the building suggests that the building belongs to Ptolemy. Plus, the building gives access to phalanx units, which I don't think Bosporan kingdom should have. What's the deal with that?
Assuming it is a bug, does it increase Hellenic cultural influences within the region it's built in?

[Ingvarr1]

It's not a bug, Bosporos should be able to build hellenistic colonies. Some descriptions are "bugged" though, they are not all individualized for individual campaigns (yet). But it's hard to get to build them, for it you need a metropolis, and you can't build one on north Black sea (metropolis needs helenistic culture of 69, and your government buildings don't rise helenistic culture above 55). So, at first you must capture one (the closest ones are Corinthos, Athenes and Pergamon, AI may build some elsewhere hundreds of turns later on, though). The other possibility is you play with a modded game with more metropolises.

And the last question: it does increase hellenistic culture, with the last tier (the third one) being capped at 70.

[ooji]

Hmm..did Bosporans field phalanx units though? I thought only successor states fielded phalanx units in large scale. Considering Bosporan kingdom's close proximity to nomads, I see little use of immobile unit like phalanx for Bosporan kingdom, historically speaking. Also, I'm a little confused by this part: "metropolis needs helenistic culture of 69, and your government buildings don't rise helenistic culture above 55". So, if I need 69 hellenic cultural influence to build the colony, does that mean it will only increase hellenic culture by 1 since it is capped at 70?

[Sint]

Well my last Bosporos campaign had a bug that let me build colonies without any limit.Without meeting any of the requirments(I didn't build them-->)
And you can actually get more than 55% culture with Bosporos, most of my cities had between 60-63% despite it being "capped".I took a lot of turns so I guess you could upgrade it with enough time.

[Ingvarr1]

Well my last Bosporos campaign had a bug that let me build colonies without any limit.Without meeting any of the requirments(I didn't build them-->).

That didn't happen to me with Bosporos, but with Baktria. It was game changing from me (too easy to play), and I stopped. I used a Bactrian fix, and I always thought this was the reason of the bug. At one point (not from the beginning) I was able to build unlimited number of colonies, every turn, without owning any metropolis. I never reported it, as I thought it's the fault of the fix, but if it happens elsewhere, this is really a serious bug IMO, I wonder if anyone reported it.

[Ingvarr1]

It doesn't matter if Bosporans had phalanxes or not in this instance, this is IMO a WHAT if alternative history situation. For you to gain access to phalanxes you must effectively conquer a metropolis and build a colony. For you to conquer a metropolis (Pergamon, Athens, Corinthos) you must effectively win against a Successor state. At this point you deserve your phalanxes. Furthermore those phalanxes are recruited from settlers' colony, which are effectively settlers from a metropolis, which are effectively soldiers from a province where phalanx was used. But if your game is modded, and you have an easy access to metropolis (like Sinope or Olbia or whatever), than yes, it's not right, it's different when you have to win the whole Macedonian empire (or whichever other empire controlling Greece at the point you want to conquer the motherland of your ancestors) or stupid Pergamon with 5 full stacks doing nothing else but defend their metropolis.

About the other question. You need culture of 69 to build a metropolis. When you have a metropolis you can build a colony in any province you want (and the third/last tier of colony is capped at 70), you don't want it necessarily to be build in the province with metropolis.

Besides, though cultural increase from there building is capped at 70 (in the case of hellenistic colonies), there is still cultural increase from just owning a province, even though it works slowly at snail pace (one point every 10-30 turns).

[ooji]

settlers' colony, which are effectively settlers from a metropolis, which are effectively soldiers from a province where phalanx was used

I'm a little confused by this statement. In the first place, why would a successor state want to give away its citizens to some random Greek state who might pose a threat one day? Second, the loyalty of those colonists would still lie with successor states rather than Bosporan kingdom, meaning they'll be of lower quality phalanx units at best.

[Sint]

Because they have no choice?They aren't saying go there,the people themself want to go because they think live there is better....which as far as I know really happened back then.They aren't living in the DDR....
Why would their loyality lie with the succecor state?Phalangites often switched sides.And they would live in Bosporan lands while being paid with Bosporan money.
And why lower quality?They would be just as trained and equiped like other Phalangites.

[ooji]

1. I mentioned that they would of lower quality because their loyalty would lie with their country of origin. Remember what happened when Roman empire started using mercenaries instead of their citizens?\
2. "which as far as I know really happened back then.They aren't living in the DDR...."
Could you provide ancient historical sources on this statement? It might just be me, but I personally cannot imagine any faction allowing a large group of citizens to leave to elsewhere, especially to an enemy faction.

[Darkan]

Could you provide ancient historical sources on this statement? It might just be me, but I personally cannot imagine any faction allowing a large group of citizens to leave to elsewhere, especially to an enemy faction.

This is not the case. Of the top of my head, Caesar, in his Wars talks about Gaulish tribes who move because of Germanic invaders. When someone attacked you back then, it wasn't their intention to destroy and utterly annihilate you, but to take control of fertile lands and/or cities.

[ooji]

This is not the case. Of the top of my head, Caesar, in his Wars talks about Gaulish tribes who move because of Germanic invaders. When someone attacked you back then, it wasn't their intention to destroy and utterly annihilate you, but to take control of fertile lands and/or cities.

Right..the example you gave is about entire tribes who were desperate to escape from Germanic invaders. The case Sint gave was about whether a faction can control a large scale movements of their citizens. Those Gallic tribes were small factions themselves. Plus, a large scale migration was much easier with barbarians based off of what I know.

[Sint]

Could you provide ancient historical sources on this statement? It might just be me, but I personally cannot imagine any faction allowing a large group of citizens to leave to elsewhere, especially to an enemy faction.

Makecodonian and greek immigrants setteling in asia minor and egypt....,the founding of small poleis and settlments along the black sea and mediterranean Sea ...the colonist mechanic,which the team probably didn't pull out of their arse.
And enemy faction??Just becasue it is a different faction doesn't mean it is an enemy they could just as well be trade partners or even land without any set borders .

1. I mentioned that they would of lower quality because their loyalty would lie with their country of origin. Remember what happened when Roman empire started using mercenaries instead of their citizens?\

And I wrote:"Phalangites often switched sides.And they would live in Bosporan lands while being paid with Bosporan money."
They wouldn't be mercenaries...they would colonize the lands.....you get that colonize....as in settling there.It's called immigration.And they didn't have massiv border controls back then.
Do you know what that is? Immigration?Another example would be America.

but I personally cannot imagine any faction allowing a large group of citizens to leave to elsewhere, especially to an enemy faction.

[ooji]

Makecodonian and greek immigrants setteling in asia minor and egypt....,the founding of small poleis and settlments along the black sea and mediterranean Sea ...the colonist mechanic,which the team probably didn't pull out of their arse.
And enemy faction??Just becasue it is a different faction doesn't mean it is an enemy they could just as well be trade partners or even land without any set borders .

Hey, I was simply asking because I wasn't sure if it really happened. No need to take my comments as challenge to you and turn this into an argument. Insulting me doesn't get this conversation anywhere.
Anyhow, the way I see it is that successor states have something in common in that they were all part of Alexander's empire. All I suggested was that the governing faction would have to give some kind of approval to dispatch a large group of colonists to elsewhere.

And I wrote:"Phalangites often switched sides.And they would live in Bosporan lands while being paid with Bosporan money."
They wouldn't be mercenaries...they would colonize the lands.....you get that colonize....as in settling there.It's called immigration.And they didn't have massiv border controls back then.
Do you know what that is? Immigration?Another example would be America.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't Roman empire also give lands to barbarians? Do you know what that is? Immigration? In the case of the US, the European countries didn't have much problem with their citizens moving to the US, I would think. If they so desired, they could have easily closed their borders to the US, essentially preventing mass scale migration.

Don't turn this into war. Please.

[Iron Aquilifer]

There would be a decision to send out a large colonial group, but families would go of their own free will all the time, nothing you could do about that. So historically yes it would happen. The building itself is just a game mechanic to give you the ability to recruit the men. In reality the colonists (and decendants) would be there already. And loyalty to a faction isnt really a thing until you get nationalistic ideals. And as to Rome using mercs instead of civvies, there has been argument that late era roman army was better than early era.

Edit: u think the colony building represents ur faction suddenly getting a massive group of foreigners? No, no, no.