Greek/Macedonian start pos

[Lord Blackfyre]

Hi Guys,

There is something that has bothered me for a while and i was wondering if anyone feels the same.

Personally I really don't likelike how Sparta or Athens takes thessally in almost every game, this paves the way for one of them to become the dominant greek power instead of (preferably) Macedon or (next best) Epirus. It is hard to replicate the macedonian wars when Athens controlls Macedonia!

Sparta or Athens should be a really tough uphill struggle to become a world power due to historically them being very insignificant in that time, ( its a shame there is no corinth as we could give that to Macedon, the "shackles of greece" and all that).

I think the root of this problem is the starting diplomacy between the 4 factions in question.

Having a non aggression pact between Epirus and Macedon while working for the player to prevent steam rolling early on, causes the smaller greek states to destroy Epirus.

Is there a better solution to this?

Perhaps good relations but no treaties all round? That would be my pick.

[raphael]

I agree!

[eliasandersson]

I totally agree, it bugs me so much when Sparta just steamrolls all the hellenic nations.

[Chereye]

Macedon generally wins out in my campaigns.

[Matmannen]

My Parthia campaign has seen a very diffrent development. Tylis has conquered mainland Greece, while Pergamon has taken Thrace...

[Blackthorne556]

Have to say, every game I've run it's been Athens. Without fail. A few times it looked like one of the others was going to get a break, then Sparta backs up Athens every time and Greece turns blue.

I don't know if it bothers me that much though. Hoplites are hoplites. But from a historical standpoint, I can see where you are coming from.

I have more of a problem with Carthage being thrown out of Iberia by nobodies. Pretty much every time. My current campaign I have been financing them with about 30% of my income, but they continue to gain 1 territory (Arse, usually) then loose it. Or liberate other regions instead of conquering the new ground.

[Ritterlichvon86]

There were three issues that hindered Macedonia's development.

In the 1.04 Macedonia has already had its base income increased for exactly this reason, to eleminate the first issue. Afaik it was increased for both the player and the AI, because of player's negative starting income and the AI's severe weakness.

The other two issues are for the AI that as Macedonia it has a major diplomatic penalty, and that it takes 2 turns to move between its starting regions Pella and Pulpuveda, which makes defense less than half effective based on its amount of forces compared to factions with just one settlement.

Thus, usually the war with Tylis pulls the AI east, after 5-10 turns followed by war against Odrysia, and then against Athens or Sparta which take the undefended Pella.

[Lord Blackfyre]

For me its almost always athens, expect my current roma campaign which has Triballi controlling all of the balkans (weird I know).

Its the treaty with epirus that ruins macedons chances in my opinion. The AI wont break it which means they can only take their home provences if the small greek states take it first and by some miracle they win the war.

Historically is is completly wrong, the kingdom of macedon was never in danger from the greek states, sure their level of control over the various leagues varied with time but they were always the big dog.

If i were a modding god like the DEI creators I would have macedon start at peace with tylis, but at war with epirus.
Macedon expanding to the black sea is very ahistotical in this era

[Linke]

I DESPISW this. I have quit campaigns becuase of it.
The answer is use garanted major faction Empires with Athens and Sparta removed
Seriously I HATE those factions

[Lord Blackfyre]

Any input from the devs on this?
Do you guys agree with me or is there a glaringly obvious reason for things being as they are that im missing

[zonks40]

I rarely see Sparta Dominate, without holding Athens they will never have the ability to trade, something you also need to consider, Sparta start with a Defensive alliance with Macedon, and Athens is Client to Macedon leaving the Epirus on their own.
But then again I have seen Rome take Apollonia, then wipe out the Epirus, I've seen Tylis hold all of Greece, I've seen Egypt wipe out Sparta, it's not always the same outcome.

With the starting relations as they are, you have to expect a certain trend, if the devs change those starting relations then you will just end up with another trend that you will probably tire of, adding a random element will just put us back to the early days of Total war diplomacy where Allies stab you in the back for no reason at all.

[Lord Blackfyre]

I agree with you that any alteration would just cause another trend and that we can never have truly random, however my argument it that the trend should be for the most historical/best gameplay trend. Greek city states dominating the balkans is neither for me.

Personally (although I have never tried it) the major factions mod doesnt sound for me (I like random), I just think the major factions should be given the necissary conditions to thrive, for example what has been done with Carthage and Rome

[Julio-Claudian]

I agree. It's always either Athen's or Sparta, more often it's Sparta. Epirus is always hopeless and Macedon seems terribly passive.

[Drowsy]

Not totally sure what changed, but since 1.04 Epirus is doing a lot better, surviving longer and sometimes even dominating. Prior to this Athens or Sparta would always destroy Epirus in the first 20 turns.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Not totally sure what changed, but since 1.04 Epirus is doing a lot better, surviving longer and sometimes even dominating. Prior to this Athens or Sparta would always destroy Epirus in the first 20 turns.

On the contrary for my campaigns.

Epirus is falling in less than ten turns 3/4ths of the time.

I really just want Epirus to stay alive, and Macedon to not die like a moron every single campaign.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

I definitely see Macedon falling more often than not.

It's actually half Athens, half Sparta when it comes to who gains most control of the greek territories in all my Roman campaigns.

If I don't take Appolonia, Sparta almost inevitably will, while Lissa is taken by Athens without fail.

Macedon however almost constantly dies to Odysyian Kingdom. Which is disappointing to say the least. Once in four campaigns has it managed to not die to them, yet only one of those two did it defeat them in 100 turns. After the 500 income increase, they tend to perform even worse.

Also Syracuse will declare war on Epirus, and Epirus will send an army or fleet to go for Syracuse since Syracuse almost without fail takes Lillybauem and has it's army there instead of at the capital.

But by the time Epirus gets to Syracuse, there is a fleet or army waiting and they kill the Epirus army/fleet.


It's just a mess.

I'd really like to see Macedon be more dominant, I don't think 500 is enough, it hasn't seemed to change anything in my two 100 turn campaigns so far since the 500 was added in the hotpatch.

If I don't like how my enemies are shaping up (as in I don't see a decent potential challenge after I've taken carthage, Illyria, and territory to the alps), I generally restart my campaign.

This leads to dozens of campaigns restarted at turn 110-130 because of Selecuids not lasting, or the greek states not playing out to my liking.
Egypt at least has performed consistently strongly, and I've finally enjoyed myself in a campaign more than 150 turns because Egypt is putting up a fight.

A futile fight, but still, at least it's fighting back.


Back when Yuri...something or other. Had the historically plausible development submod, Epirus would usually last to turn 60-70 without intervention, and Macedon performed well enough.
If someone could just ask what his changes were and implement those, that would be my perfect solution.

If I recall correctly, it was a mix of giving them more money, and changing the diplomacy figures up somewhat.

[MagicCuboid]

I love to imagine if real life were a Total War campaign. I can just imagine the Eastern factions all champing at the bit to get revenge on the Diadokoi/Greeks for the Alexandrian Conquest. Finally, after a many turns of forming alliances and gaining minor territory, the Parthian faction gets a break as the Seleucids struggle to hold up against so many enemies.

The Parthians quickly gobble up the east and set up a great empire to rival their powerful Greek enemies. Boldly, they march west to challenge the heirs of Alexander, to regain their glory, to-...wait what? Who are these Romans with "latin culture"? They've painted the whole map red!!! This is bull$@*!

[HarkonRules]

Haha very good MagicCuboid!

[zonks40]

Macedonia start off with two cities and an army at least as strong as Sparta and Athens combined, Athens is their Client and they also have a defensive alliance with Sparta, opposing them is Tylis, a single region faction.
How much more money, power or diplomatic bonuses do they need?
The Problem is not Macedonia but the balance of power in the region, the Epirus get wiped out more than Macedonia in my campaigns, leaving Sparta and Athens with no enemies, and Macedonia's armies in the North and East with unprotected cities left behind them.

[Lord Blackfyre]

I'm not looking for diplomatic bonuses, im asking for the opposite -the removal of pre existing treaties and a balancing of relations to let things play out naturally.

With the current set up things develop in a manner which many players including myself don't enjoy. I can't speak for the others but for me i just want a strong macedon to fight against. The kind of macedon that Philip V had going, the kind of macedon that if it werent for romes intervention would have re-conquered greece