Fans suggestion thread for future releases

[RodriguesSting]

I think it would be extremely helpful to illustrate, on the region description "building", what "Greater Region" it is part of, namely because said regions are referenced in certain traits (like Roman Provincial Governor) and, most importantly, mercenary pools. Knowing which settlements encompass a region and which doesn't on only a look would be extremely helpful. Kinda like the green books from a certain other mod here.

Furthermore, how about adding some faction-exclusive pools to the mercs? That would be mighty helpful for factions that really need their mercs (namely, Gauls) but have to buy them before an invading army does (least this is the intention).

[QuintusSertorius]

I think it would be extremely helpful to illustrate, on the region description "building", what "Greater Region" it is part of, namely because said regions are referenced in certain traits (like Roman Provincial Governor) and, most importantly, mercenary pools. Knowing which settlements encompass a region and which doesn't on only a look would be extremely helpful. Kinda like the green books from a certain other mod here.

If someone wants to start writing them up, we could add them. But I'm afraid the team has more than enough to do without adding a labour-intensive task like this to the list. Bearing in mind all those things you mentioned have different groupings.

Furthermore, how about adding some faction-exclusive pools to the mercs? That would be mighty helpful for factions that really need their mercs (namely, Gauls) but have to buy them before an invading army does (least this is the intention).

Not possible, I'm afraid. The only differentiation the descr_mercenaries allows is by religion (ie culture in our case). That's how we excluded the Rebels from hiring mercs.

[Slaytaninc]

I think it shouldn't be changed anyway. Bands of armed men tend to need something to do and if you're not paying them they'll flock to your foes.

[Sar1n]

Not possible, I'm afraid. The only differentiation the descr_mercenaries allows is by religion (ie culture in our case). That's how we excluded the Rebels from hiring mercs.

Not really, event triggers and crusading function are also allowed.

[Gigantus]

You can use event triggers to enable mercenaries, unfortunately once enabled that way they can't be disabled by resetting the counter (unlike in EDB or script), unlike the crusading trigger.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

Not really, event triggers and crusading function are also allowed.

Do you mean particular bands of mercenaries like the Catalans? Not that I recall anything from the original media game, just assumed they must of featured

[QuintusSertorius]

Not really, event triggers and crusading function are also allowed.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant the only faction-like differentiation is by religion.

Indeed, there are other types available, we used date-triggers extensively.

[RodriguesSting]

So with my new experience playing Baktria, and added knowledge of the recruitment situation in Asia with the Parthians, I decided to give another shot to the Ptolemaioi. After all, I said somewhere else that Native Governments are a boon to Hellenic factions to supplement their mediocre infantry recruitment and bad cavalry options and recruitment. That's true enough in Asia. Egypt is a whole different matter.The machimoi are, for the most part, not a good addition to your army. They may work as a substitute, for you to build cheap, relatively functional armies quickly, like Carthage, but they add very little to Hellenic armies.

That's because, for the most part, their units are already Hellenic style, thus making them redundant. The de facto Machimoi are defensive spearmen competing directly with Hoplitai Haploi, having notably better defense and morale, but even lower offensive power. The Machimoi Akontistai is just a worse version of the Hellenic, but at least cheaper. Their only units that compare positively to the Hellenic roster are Machimoi Toxotai (bettermissile, melee, and decent morale) and Machimoi Hippeis (despite the name, competes with the Hippoakontistai, having better armor and shield, and 2 morale means they can actually engage on melee without immediately routing, being slightly more expensive and having marginally worse Defense Skill, while keeping the Armor Piercing swords). However, despite not being better than their Hellenic Counterparts, one unit shines through: the Machimoi Phalangitai, being pretty decent phalanxes overall to pad up your lines when you can't get enough of the Hellenic stuff.

Despite their tactical mediocrity, though, with Epistateia epi Laous and Native Colony 3, these units get pools get big enough (in comparison to the Hellenic's "hardly-above-3") to have some real strategic value. The humble Machimoi, for example, get up to 5, which lends to them some real Meat Shield potential. Same can be said for most of the other Machimois, except for the Phalangitai that never goes above 3 (and only with Native Colony 3), which is an bit of a problem in my opinion, because...

The de-facto developed Egypt regions (Alexandria, Thebes, and Memphis) get some pretty nice exclusive goodies from Hellenic Colonization, Poleis, and Government. Thracian colonists, Egyptian Colonist Cavalry, and... good access to Phalangitai. The real deal.

So over all, the Machimoi roster doesn't do much for the Ptolemaioi tactically, and its strategic value is wasted away because the Phalangitai numbers are low (4 would be a good number in the current pools setup, in my opinion) and they have to compete with exclusive Hellenistic options in the area.

Now, though... you can also get this stuff from "far" Egypt (the small, under-developed provinces), Kush, Ethiopia, and Libia without having to compete with exclusive Hellenic options. If that's persuasive enough as an argument to keep the pools unchanged, though, I personally don't think so.

PS: This can probably be interpreted more as an issue of "Hellenic Factions don't get much out of Laarchia in Egypt" rather than a Ptolemaioi exclusive problem. They are the only ones that can build Laarchia as far as Carthage heartlands, getting access to everything in between.

[Hellenikon]

What I found with the Ptolemids is that their regional units are poor in substituting your hellenistic ones, so if you want heavy infantry or cavalry you better get the cash ready to hire some mercenaries. In the nex release they'll have even less hellenistic manpower, due to a script representing garrison units. The machimoi phalanx are more cost effective than the real deal phalanxes, meaning that in a battleline, some parts will see little action and you don't require full fledged phalangitai for what the machimoi offer, which is a sarissa wall of the same length than the professionals (unlike the pantodapoi). Others are also decent but not game changing, like the lybians acting as good skirmishers with big shields who absorb fire, and the nubians archers who do the same thing. The best regional unit in my experience is the numidian cavalry, which are available in the eastern parts of your starting domains through native colonies.

The solution for the poor recruitment option for the ptolemids is to expand into coele-syria and syria, and grab those auxiliary units, like median cavalry or the syrian archers (cretans are the placeholder). Regions like anatolia offer much more robust native recruitment to compliment your limited hellenistic units, so it is worthwhile to expand there too. My solution to get the most out of egypt was to rely on basilike patris, which means one in Alexandria and another in Diospolis Megale (which I renamed Ptolemais Hermiou, to represent that other hellenistic city in the area). With hellenistic colonies in the lower, middle and upper nile, it creates a decent powerhouse of recruitment in a region that is otherwise lacking in native units. If you put your basilike patris elsewhere then that's ok too, but at least this way you transform your mediocre home region into a more useful one for recruitment. The bonus to public order also helps to deal with the unrest that inevitably will come from the absence of the basileus.

I don't agree with the way the machimoi phalangitai are linked to unrest, because it is a simplistic way to depict a more complicated situation of what happened after Raphia. Authors like Christelle Fischer-Bovet (Army and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt) talk about just how complex the revolts were, it was more akin to the "mercenary war" of Carthage, combined with opportunism. The idea of making a predetermined limit of units, and from there unrest starting, seems like a rethread of the simplistic view that polybius offered "The kings of egypt fell because they armed the natives". It should probably be linked to having enough spare cash to pay for bribes and promotions, as well as periodic unrest due to below average nile floods, or other political events like defeats that generate unrest.

The way the Ptolemids changed their army after the phase of unrest, meant that they became far more entrenched in egypt that their enemies the seleucids were in any territory. I think there should be some late reforms to represent this late thureophoroi based army, cheaper and more plentiful. It probably should solve all those manpower issues we talked previously, developing into a more realistic army for the expenses the ptolemids could afford, and which was mainly a policing and defensive force rather than an aggressive one. In the chaos of the dynastic struggles, this army maintained it's role and later on the romans decided these helleno-egyptian kleruchs would be adequate cavalry for their auxilia. It means that it held military value throughout the period, despite the political instability.

[RodriguesSting]

The solution for the poor recruitment option for the ptolemids

That's not really my issue with them. Ptolemaioi have the same "generic" native government range as any other successors (Anatolia, Syria, Western Iran) which offers some pretty good men, Furthermore, they have so much Hellenic land that (with some effort and moving around) you can easily create (mostly) Hellenistic armies, complemented by (further Hellenic) mercenaries in Egypt. And that's before even expanding into Lybia.

The thing is more that Egypt as Laarchia territory sucks, unlike all the other options. Basically nothing to be gained by any Hellenistic power to Laarchia Egypt, specially as it got so much exclusive content with Hellenistic governments. Maybe it is historical, but gameplay wise, makes that native line of government completely pointless there. If it is intended to illustrate a unique cultural situation in the area... maybe an exclusive, different government type? Even for Ptolemaioi, you are better off Helenizing the entire area.

Regarding the Machimoi Phalangites script, I read it. The unrest seems to be caused, for the most part, because you are levying Memphis' aristocracy (commoners can't become phalanxes apparently, and the rich doesn't want to become horsemen I guess). After 10 recruited (and that's a lot), it adds 4 unrest to Memphis. Then each further 5, I think? So unlike the absent pharaoh, it is not as big of a deal. No scripted revolts or spawning rebel armies.

[Satapatiš]

Wait, you're supposed to Laarchia Egypt?

I just put there Hellenic administrations save for a client government in Thebaid and called it a day.

[RodriguesSting]

Wait, you're supposed to Laarchia Egypt?

I just put there Hellenic administrations save for a client government in Thebaid and called it a day.

Well, supposed supposed, you're really not. A curse/burden of playing Hellenic faction is you will be fighting mostly over Hellenic lands and conquests, be Hellas proper, its furthest archaic colonies, or Alexander's warpath. In this context, in which you face Hellenic or Hellenized provinces of Asia, Laarchia doesn't seem to add much, justifiably. After all, with all these Poleis conquered, your colonist pool will feel so full, you will barely remember it is a limited resource.

It is a whole different matter if you go astray, though. Expand into Iberia. Into Gaul. Deep into Africa. While in Alexander's shadow you could choose between Laarchia for local troops and quick stability or Hellenizing the place, out of it, there's no choice to be made. You either grab an Allied government, or you start Hellenizing the place. And if you opt for the later, you will REALLY start counting on your colony points. Build a Strategia, a settler colony, and watch the Hellinistic Politeis counter slowly crawl up in order for you to actually build something useful in the area while the natives HATE YOUR GUTS.

So I think this is the larger, strategic value of Laarchia. Direct factional government with good recruitment (for the most part) with negligible economic burden. To spare your colony points to elsewhere, where you will bloody need them.

Least you play Baktria, that is. Quite fun, knowing I can't just raid Greece or Western Anatolia for colony points, so I have to make each and every one count, including whatever the Seleucids leave behind.

[Satapatiš]

Well, usually I'm lazy and I stick to the traditional areas of expansion to collect all the grain baskets and the best Eastern Mediterranean ports. Laarchias start being useful mostly when I try to grab the Silk Road as well.

[RodriguesSting]

Well, usually I'm lazy and I stick to the traditional areas of expansion to collect all the grain baskets and the best Eastern Mediterranean ports. Laarchias start being useful mostly when I try to grab the Silk Road as well.

Which reminds me, Laarchias are kinda pointless for Seleukids and Baktria, because all Laarchia candidates are also Hyparchia candidates.

[Satapatiš]

It feels like the campaign map is missing Samnium as a provice. Why is the East getting all the fun with Thebaid and Galatia?

[sigurdr]

I don't know how easy to implement or whether it would cause problems with cai this idea is. Would reducing land movement significantly but leaving large modifiers for roads be an option?
This would allow roads to be much more strategic and important militarily, which I believe is historically accurate. Moving armies off main highways was very slow going and a logistical nightmare.
It should also create choke points on the map causing more field battles as armies can't by pass each other.

Negatives, might unduly effect barabrian lands in western northern europe which don't start off with roads? especially nomadic provinces.
Historically inaccurate road placing making certain points important that shouldn't be? Not sure this is likely to be a problem but maybe.
Cai just not coping. It can't use forts, maybe this would be similar?

Other additional ideas. add nomadic supply traits to allow nomadic nations to move around without roads. Could lose this when choosing to become settled. This would make settling feel even more different to being nomadic.
Possibly and similar, if less powerful effects for non-highly civilised nations?
If possible could increase cavalry's movement in comparison to infantry? This might be hard coded. Small bodies of cavalry could still move quickly across non proper roads.

Any trait system to help nomadic peoples might not work for cai if the ai does not regularly give armies a family member. It seems to at the moment for me but I have not played a campaign in the east for a while.

I am sure someone will tell me this can't / shouldn't be done but I thought it could possibly help make road systems more significant and help show how important logistics are.

[RodriguesSting]

Would be possible to make all generals move at the same speed regardless if their bodyguard is infantry or cavalry? Because quick cavalry armies are pretty powerful, and factions that use foot generals despite having a great cavalry tradition (Bretons, Germans) gain no strategic benefit whatsoever from it.

[Satapatiš]

I think that certain historical buildings in the settlements could be more interesting if it was possible to tear them down. I'm thinking of the ones that were realistically possible to demolish - like temples and monuments (it'd quite hard to remove the entire Acropolis hill). Although demolishing them could be resulting in a temporary public order malus (and probably a very hefty one).

For an example - have an opportunity to remove the Eyesore of the Jupiter Capitolini at the expense of dealing with the local populace expressing their discontent.

[RodriguesSting]

Make Hellenistic Native governments also extend to Satrapies?

All Hellenistic Native governments already encompass Hiparchias, but I believe Satrapy districts don't have the Hiparchia hidden attribute, so you are forced to institute a Hellenistic government in there, which is often not ideal, specially if you are after getting as many native colonies in the area (which is fair, as Iranian and Assyrian troops are plentiful and generally good enough).

[RodriguesSting]

Have you guys already made a trigger to get rid of Diopter Basilikoss? That anciliary is goddamn brutal, and even KH gets it, even though it doesn't make much sense.