Are Athens, Syracuse and Sparta going to have any role in this mod?

[rem123456]

I want to congratulate the team for adapting the map of Attila to the roman republic era. While I love Attila's features I don't like that era very much. In Rome II Athens and Sparta had a big role, being playable factions with their own cities. I was wondering if there are plans to add them to the Attila mod at any point. I know they have been replaced by two leagues, where much more powerful at the time. At first I thought that those leagues will feature the Spartan and Athenians rosters from dei combined with the rosters of other Greeks, like Corinth. But I have checked wikipedia and I don't think those two cities where part of those two leagues at the time (please correct me if I'm wrong). I know Sparta and Athens had lost a lot of power by that time but they are two of the most popular Greek city states and their dei rosters were really cool. I really hope they are included in some way.

Request for mods: Could you please erase Syracuse from the title? I know it had been already conquered by the Romans in 202. Thanks.

[Petellius]

even though Syracuse has been conquered it will still play a role as a emergent faction with its own roster. Also the Achaean league had Athens and Sparta within it, while the Aetolian league was based around delphi and boetia. Both of these leagues had a rather major part to play in the coming wars with Rome and Macedon and were Rome's original cause to enter into conflict in Greece and eventually Asia minor, proclaiming themselves the 'savior of greek freedom' and so on and so forth. The leagues themselves will still contain some classical units (I think), though will be mostly made up of later units like pikes and thureos troops.

[rem123456]

even though Syracuse has been conquered it will still play a role as a emergent faction with its own roster. Also the Achaean league had Athens and Sparta within it, while the Aetolian league was based around delphi and boetia. Both of these leagues had a rather major part to play in the coming wars with Rome and Macedon and were Rome's original cause to enter into conflict in Greece and eventually Asia minor, proclaiming themselves the 'savior of greek freedom' and so on and so forth. The leagues themselves will still contain some classical units (I think), though will be mostly made up of later units like pikes and thureos troops.

I will be looking forward for previews of the roster of those factions, they are my favourites together with Rome. If it was my choice I will give the Achean league a huge roster, with most Spartan and Athenian units from dei, plus new Achean and Corinthian units.

And I'm happy I might still encounter Syracuse, thats good news. Is it possible to play play emergent factions in Attila?

[Alfonzo over Innsmouths]

The leagues themselves will still contain some classical units (I think), though will be mostly made up of later units like pikes and thureos troops.

So are we going to see some Roman Empire (Attila) like progression? Like, classical hoplites that have good defence and morale, but are small and expensive? As well as having mercenary troops (Not mercenary recruit, but recruited as actually apart of the early roster) that are even more expensive, but are more modern (theuros' and pikes)? Then have them go through upgrades that enable cheaper, larger units in the Macedonian style and helleno-celtic / Roman style?

[Petellius]

Don't think that's really possible as they start the game non existent.

[rem123456]

Don't think that's really possible as they start the game non existent.

Thats too bad . In Medieval II and empire it was possible to create mods to make emergent factions playable.

[ABH2]

Athens was never part of the Achaean League, and in terms of units - I have to stress that Sparta's military was basically gone by 202BC and they were, like the other Greeks such as Athens, dependent upon mercenaries. There were no traditional citizen hoplites running around as the thureos had been widely adopted or the Macedonian phalanx. The Spartan military I may include in some respect, but there's really nothing to do for Athens.

Sparta in 202 had been taken over by a mercenary leader who basically just had a few thousand armed thugs. This is what amounted to the Spartan military, and the same period they would end up building a wall. They would be forced into the Achaean League a little after our start date. I may make a technology to sort of show this or, at some point, a rebel force for Nabis. Ideally, you defeat or destroy that force and you gain control of Sparta. Or Nabis could be a horde early with the ability to reestablish something of a Spartan military (by this point, a Macedonian-style phalanx).

Syracuse - yes, there will be an emergent faction. Syracuse had been devastated and entirely incorporated by the Romans during the Second Punic War, though.

In terms of the Greeks, this is a different period. There will be an Aetolian League and the Achaeans for the Greeks. But this won't be a mod for people who want to try and relive the glory days of the polis and citizen hoplite.

[rem123456]

Athens was never part of the Achaean League, and in terms of units - I have to stress that Sparta's military was basically gone by 202BC and they were, like the other Greeks such as Athens, dependent upon mercenaries. There were no traditional citizen hoplites running around as the thureos had been widely adopted or the Macedonian phalanx. The Spartan military I may include in some respect, but there's really nothing to do for Athens.

Sparta in 202 had been taken over by a mercenary leader who basically just had a few thousand armed thugs. This is what amounted to the Spartan military, and the same period they would end up building a wall. They would be forced into the Achaean League a little after our start date. I may make a technology to sort of show this or, at some point, a rebel force for Nabis. Ideally, you defeat or destroy that force and you gain control of Sparta. Or Nabis could be a horde early with the ability to reestablish something of a Spartan military (by this point, a Macedonian-style phalanx).

Syracuse - yes, there will be an emergent faction. Syracuse had been devastated and entirely incorporated by the Romans during the Second Punic War, though.

In terms of the Greeks, this is a different period. There will be an Aetolian League and the Achaeans for the Greeks. But this won't be a mod for people who want to try and relive the glory days of the polis and citizen hoplite.

I will miss them but yeah, I know its the wrong century. I guess I should better buy Wrath of Sparta then.

[ABH2]

I would hope that once the mod is release, there will be an active submod community. Bringing over hoplites and units like that isn't difficult once we create the whole campaign. So, I think people will get what they want in that category. Or I hope they do. I don't want to disappoint people, but our own preference is for historical accuracy/authenticity or as close to that as we can get. Different people having different interpretations there, as well.

There will also be subcampaigns covering earlier periods. So in the case of Syracuse, they will eventually show up as a playable in that area.

Hopefully CA gives us some more maps to make use of.

[rem123456]

I would hope that once the mod is release, there will be an active submod community. Bringing over hoplites and units like that isn't difficult once we create the whole campaign. So, I think people will get what they want in that category. Or I hope they do. I don't want to disappoint people, but our own preference is for historical accuracy/authenticity or as close to that as we can get. Different people having different interpretations there, as well.

Usually I'm a big fan of authenticity too. The problem is that most greek fanboys like me know only the time when Sparta and Athens were the important ones, and later Thebes and later Macedonia. I for example have read a lot about the V and IV centuries but I know very little about what happened in the next two centuries in Greece. All I've heard had been as part of Roman history, like that during the second punic war Macedonia fought against Rome and the Aetolian league in favour of it. I guess I will have to research those two leagues before I play this mod. I have no idea how were their political systems or their military strenghts.

There will also be subcampaigns covering earlier periods. So in the case of Syracuse, they will eventually show up as a playable in that area.
Hopefully CA gives us some more maps to make use of.

Yes, please!! I will be looking forward for the earlier campaigns. I'm also waiting for more maps for Attila but I don't have much hope given the low sales. At least The last Roman map has potential for the 1st and 2nd punic wars, the early history of Rome, the early history of Carthage, the servile wars, the conquest of Gaul, etc.

[ABH2]

I would really like a map that covers Greece more in depth. I don't know what we'll get, though.

As it stands, Greece is just Corinth at this point, though. And hordes have limited value as factions. They are not going to be good duplicates for settlements. I'll see what I can do. But - we can only work with the maps CA gives us.

[rem123456]

I would really like a map that covers Greece more in depth. I don't know what we'll get, though.

As it stands, Greece is just Corinth at this point, though. And hordes have limited value as factions. They are not going to be good duplicates for settlements. I'll see what I can do. But - we can only work with the maps CA gives us.

Our only hope for this map would be a dlc between the wars of the ERE and the Sassanids. It would make sense as the east has always been neglected in Rome II and Attila when it comes to dlc campaigns and culture packs.

[ABH2]

At some point, we may do earlier time frames. Some will depend on if CA gives us more maps. The start date here is 202 BC. The classical hoplite was basically dead. The Aetolians and Achaeans didn't seem to have any as they had completely adopted the thureos with the Achaeans eventually taking up the Macedonian phalanx.

We would like to show progression for each faction. Our Arab roster is an example. Ideally, though, these would be dynamic. This is a sandbox game where you can conquer the Mediterranean world as a Berber, Arab or even Celtic tribe. Or Greek federation at this stage. The main thing we want to keep is a faction's unique fighting style with any potential changes. For some this is harder to map out.

The Achaeans should be previewed...soon. Hopefully. A general progression:
-Thureos troops, light. The Achaeans had a small 'picked' force of citizens as a nucleus for their military. 3 to 4,000 men. Most of these will be lightly armored with padding, some linothoraxes, and some with nothing but a shield and short throwing spear. Thureophoroi and Euzonoi, basically.
-This group was re-equipped to fight in the Macedonian manner, but also seem to have maintained some lighter thureos troops.
-The bulk of the Achaean military consisted of a standing mercenary force of roughly 8,000 men. So, yes, mercenaries will make up the bulk of the forces. Of these, you would be talking about thureos wielding troops. We get references to some 'thorakitai' which is a vague term.

We are actually told by Plutarch that the Achaeans didn't even fight in closed order any more before they adopted the Macedonian phalanx. Military service was looked down upon. They wore little armor until that point, as well. Frankly, it doesn't even seem like they still carried longer dory type spears, either. That's kind of the state you will pick up the Achaeans in.

As a later reform, what we'd probably add in here is mail armor and linothoraxes to represent an expanding Achaean state with more resources at their disposal.

The Aetolians - they were pretty much all lightly equipped and lacking in any heavy infantry at our start. That's what is described to us. Yet their cavalry was supposedly the best in Greece by the end of the third century, and they were very skilled in skirmishing. They excelled in irregular order. So, they aren't your typical Greek faction. Over time, like the Achaeans, an expanding state will have some more heavy infantry.

I'd also really like to reflect population for these guys. Most Greek states, even the federations, did not have the manpower to field large armies. As seen with the Achaeans, at our start date it was 2-3x the number in mercenaries doing the fighting. Military service was not viewed by the citizenry the same way as it was in the 3rd or 4th centuries. The Achaeans reformed their military after a general/politician Philopoemen harangued them over it in 209 BC (so, the Achaeans will start with a core phalanx right off the bat). For those curious, you can read more here:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...lopoemen*.html

As a Greek faction, you will have to face manpower issues, limited resources, and a generally decayed state of your military which you will need to rebuild. That's basically how I'll phrase it. And you will be cornered between Macedon and Rome with the Seleucids even looking to enter the fray.

[Alfonzo over Innsmouths]

...We are actually told by Plutarch that the Achaeans didn't even fight in closed order any more before they adopted the Macedonian phalanx. Military service was looked down upon. They wore little armor until that point, as well. Frankly, it doesn't even seem like they still carried longer dory type spears, either. That's kind of the state you will pick up the Achaeans in...

...As a Greek faction, you will have to face manpower issues, limited resources, and a generally decayed state of your military which you will need to rebuild. That's basically how I'll phrase it. And you will be cornered between Macedon and Rome with the Seleucids even looking to enter the fray.

So...the general idea is that Greek infantry will go towards heavy infantry and away from lightly-equipped, almost barbarian celtic fashion. What I wouldn't mind enquiring is, does it have to go in this direction? I mean, I wouldn't mind seeing the Greeks, instead of going for a professional citizen-like army (a la Rome), to going toward a professional mercenary force (a la Ptolemy and Carthage). As you said, the key issue was manpower. Perhaps instead of doing the whole 'reform army to levy more men', they could have (probably more likely) have gone for the whole 'reform army to make an efficient mercenary force'. So the general theme would be to have small, high-upkeep, crap levy in Macedonian / theuros fashion, but have expensive, good troops equipped in either Noble Celtic (Galatian), Prof. Greek or Macedonian, perhaps even Roman-inspired Ptolemaic troops as time goes on. And then tie these units to research, with increased levels the upkeep goes down / is replaced with units that are essentially the same, but are much cheaper.

[rem123456]

I'd also really like to reflect population for these guys. Most Greek states, even the federations, did not have the manpower to field large armies. As seen with the Achaeans, at our start date it was 2-3x the number in mercenaries doing the fighting. Military service was not viewed by the citizenry the same way as it was in the 3rd or 4th centuries. The Achaeans reformed their military after a general/politician Philopoemen harangued them over it in 209 BC (so, the Achaeans will start with a core phalanx right off the bat). For those curious, you can read more here:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...lopoemen*.html

So the Greeks lost their martial values and started to pay foreigners to fight for them. Not too long after they were all conquered by foreigners. It looks like the Romans failed to remember this lesson at the time of Attila.

[Draewn]

So the Greeks lost their martial values and started to pay foreigners to fight for them. Not too long after they were all conquered by foreigners. It looks like the Romans failed to remember this lesson at the time of Attila.

The thing to remember is that the Romans (and possibly also the Greeks after a bit of Successor wars) didn't just up and decide to rely on mercenaries. No, the change to mercenaries was done after long experience of the severe, brutal consequences of having a standing professional army. The beast that Gaius Marius unleashed was the source of more civil wars and dead emperors than perhaps anything else, let alone the fact that it basically killed the Republic by creating these large bodies of armed men loyal to individual generals. Having mercenaries who are loyal only to their tribal chiefs (who are generally excluded from Roman politics) and the Empire's coin makes a lot of sense compared to having large bodies of troops at the hands of prominent Romans who could easily have designs on the throne. I'd imagine the Successor states similarly got somewhat tired of the propensity of the old-guard of soldiers from Alexander's day being willing to switch sides to whichever contender looked like they were doing well at the moment. Professional soldiery from within the state can be a serious destabilizing factor - and what's the most convenient way to match them militarily? Foreign mercenaries, themselves professionals of a sort but more importantly isolated from your current political structure.

[ipwnu678]

I'd imagine the Successor states similarly got somewhat tired of the propensity of the old-guard of soldiers from Alexander's day being willing to switch sides to whichever contender looked like they were doing well at the moment.

The successors had their fair share of civil waring too - a few family feuds.

[Draewn]

The successors had their fair share of civil waring too - a few family feuds.

Makes sense - I didn't speak on it for lack of relevant knowledge.

Edit: Though, now that I think on it, given the origins of those states they should know better than anyone what a threat powerful generals can be to a state's security and integrity!

[Petellius]

The thing to remember is that the Romans (and possibly also the Greeks after a bit of Successor wars) didn't just up and decide to rely on mercenaries. No, the change to mercenaries was done after long experience of the severe, brutal consequences of having a standing professional army. The beast that Gaius Marius unleashed was the source of more civil wars and dead emperors than perhaps anything else, let alone the fact that it basically killed the Republic by creating these large bodies of armed men loyal to individual generals. Having mercenaries who are loyal only to their tribal chiefs (who are generally excluded from Roman politics) and the Empire's coin makes a lot of sense compared to having large bodies of troops at the hands of prominent Romans who could easily have designs on the throne. I'd imagine the Successor states similarly got somewhat tired of the propensity of the old-guard of soldiers from Alexander's day being willing to switch sides to whichever contender looked like they were doing well at the moment. Professional soldiery from within the state can be a serious destabilizing factor - and what's the most convenient way to match them militarily? Foreign mercenaries, themselves professionals of a sort but more importantly isolated from your current political structure.

Well made point.

[rem123456]

Nice summary of their military. Yeah, I remember the Aetolians kicked the Athenians hoplites asses with skirmishers back during the peloponessian war. i guess they didn't change much during the next centuries. I also read (on wikipedia) that they were considered a pirate state so perhaps they could have a bonus for sacking or raiding. I love the idea of implemented a manpower system but how will it work? Will you have real populations, like in Mitch's mod for Rome II, increase cost and time of recruiting units as you lose more men, like in the wrath of sparta mod or will you have unit caps?