Feedback about Greek Faction Balance and Uniqueness

[Garbad]

I love the greek factions, second only to rome. I think they have an outstanding blend of a flexible, powerful core of greek units plus custom faction flavor.

Pergamon: 10/10

Great job on this rework. Interesting, unique units and a nice challenge. My only tiny complaints are 1) I'd like to see a diplomatic relationship with Rome, perhaps even a defensive alliance to simulate the political complexities this brought, and 2) I think the Pergamon Cav should be classified as medium cav to make them distinctive from vanilla horses.

Arche Bosphorus: 9/10

The agriculture based economy is interesting and different, they have a lot of attack options, and interesting horsebows. The only thing that I don't like is the limited distinctiveness late game -- perhaps an upgraded horse archer, a samaratan lancer, and/or some medium high attack samaratan infantry would be cool to round out the roster mid/late game.

Syracuse: 9/10

Amazing cost effective, powerful early game units plus the unique gastraphaltes. I would like to see more ties to rome, though. Perhaps even make them a client state. Maybe make it so they are a client state, and if you remain a client state you can recruit "Allied Roman Histati/Principes/Triarii" for some unique rome/greek hybrid flavor.


Baktricia: 9/10

No complaints, although maybe mixing in a few more indian units would be cool.

Selucid: 7/10

No complaints.

Macedon: 7/10

No complaints, although perhaps more elite phalanxes would be cool. Maybe more access to the thracian unique units too.

Egypt: 6/10

No complaints. Maybe more arabic and african units though, and maybe trading relationship with rome.

Epirus - 6/10

No complaints.
__________________________________________________

These are the ones I think are done extremely well. Here are the ones I think could use some love:

Massalia - very bland roster. I think adding in a few more celtic themed warriors would make them great. Something like Elite Celtic Light horse (25 armor, high speed, ok attack), CelticHellene Heros (2h longsword with high armor offensive infantry, maybe berserkers), and so on.

Sparta - Lackluster infantry. Spartan elites should be true ass beaters, the unquestioned best infantry in the game. Yes I know its not realistic, but lets pretend they are as great as they appeared for that brief window... Should get an inherent -15% morale to all greek opponents and -10% to anyone else.

Athens - the most generic roster in the game. Should get more bonuses to naval trade and attacking, plus more marine themed regular infantry. IE, elite skirmishing marines to augment the traditional hoplites, etc. Should get a bonus to making other greeks their clients (perhaps better ability to recruit their troops?)

[Ivan_Moscavich]

The start date for the grand campaign is a bit too early for the notable roman/pergamese diplomacy. But it is rather easy to get on great terms with each other in the opening stages of the campaign. (just declare war on bythnia). Isn't pergamene cavalry more heavily armoured than greek citizen cavalry? Wouldn't make sense to make them medium. Unless you mean their more heavily armoured thureos cavalry, in which case I thought they already were medium instead of light. May need looked at.


All of those units are covered under AoR for Cimmeria I think.


Syracuse starting as a client state of Rome is again probably a little too early for the campaign time frame. And will be even more too early should we move the campaign back to the phryic wars.


I don't think macedon should have access to anything other than available Thracian aor uits. The Hellenistic successors seemed very reluctant to adopt "inferior" cultures troops with few exceptions. They already have access to powerful Thracian aor units in their starting province. And with the speed changes it should make Thracian skirmishers actually the excellent troops they were historically.

If anything, the Macedonian province should have access to Cretan archers and rhodian slingers as well, otherwise macedon has no way to aquire them right off the bat.

Not opposed to perhaps another elite or more elite pike unit for them short of their royal guard pikemen.



I believe Massilia was going to get another rework. They could do with maybe some early influence with more celtic units, but their late units should definitely be more Roman influenced. Of course given that late rome basically consists primarily of legionnaires, that doesn't leave a lot of options for more than one troop type. Perhaps a more closely mirroring greek legionnaire troop for massilia, ontop of their existing unique heavy sword unit.



Absolutely disagree on Sparta. They are in a decline at that point in time and certainly should not have anywhere close to the best infantry in the game. Their hoplites should be, and are better quality than other greeks, and really, that is all that needs to differentiate them. They're not super soldiers, and DeI is not a mod to do something blatantly ahistorical "just because".


Athens actually has a better naval roster than most other greeks already. And we moved naval units to navies for a reason.

However, you did give me an interesting idea, perhaps swapping out their marine archers, or perhaps, in addition to their marine archers, give them a naval heavy skirmisher. Something like naval peltasts and put them on some of the larger ship chassis.

[Garbad]

> Unless you mean their more heavily armoured thureos cavalry
I did. I'm thinking something in the 25-40 armor range medium cavs.

> All of those units are covered under AoR for Cimmeria I think.
They are, but only in cimmeria. I think they should get a few in their core units, so they can use them as they expand.

> the Macedonian province should have access to Cretan archers and rhodian slingers as well
That would be fine, I guess, along with another good pike.

> Massa roman, not celt
Yes, in real life but we have to treat this as an alternative timeline where massailia rose to power, not rome. Some roman influence is fine, but celt I think is just fine too.

> Absolutely disagree on Sparta.
Sure, in real life they were in major decline. But if that's the case, they shouldn't even be a faction. They are insignificant. Make them a faction with power because of their legacy, and gameplay variety.

> blatantly ahistorical
Again, this game is historically based, not a historical script. In DEI timeline, rome might get wiped out before she influences the whole world. Why not a world where reasonable development of other cultures expands to what it might have been late game had rome not won?

> naval heavy skirmisher
That might work. Athens is just so vanilla right now.

[TheRazaman]

Sparta is fine as is. They already have some if not THE BEST infantry in the entire game (Spartiatoi Homoioi), giving them a -morale% effect is nonsense. Thebes destroyed the Spartan hegemony, which only lasted three decades, over Greece 100 years before the Grand Campaign even begins. Your complaint of "...they shouldn't even be a faction" comes across as whiny and, amusingly, gives proof to why Creative Assembly smartly made a DLC called Wrath of Sparta; they knew it'd sell like hotcakes. Following along that logic there's no reason for 75% of the factions to be in the game given that, "They are insignificant."

Sparta retained her independence for nearly a century after the start of Grand Campaign, fending off a siege and then direct assault of 50,000 Romans for four days before finally capitulating. If you want to create a Spartan empire, they have the means to do it with their roster. Greek warfare didn't have all that much variety. As you conquer you can pick up some great AOR units for flavor, but suggesting "Spartan elites should be true ass beaters, the unquestioned best infantry in the game" is literally nothing more than 300 fanboy mania. Spartans weren't super-soldiers capable of Hollywood feats.

[Augustusng]

Spartan units are already very powerful, especially the late-game units, which are already ahistorical anyway. I'm not sure what this argument is about, or why you think their units are lackluster.

Mercenary Cretans and Rhodians should definitely not be available in the Macedonia province, but maybe we could add them as factional mercenaries for Macedon if you really can't live without them. And Macedon already has excellent pikes, second only to the Seleucids. I don't see an issue there.

[Garbad]

Its not an argument. Call it a wish list; a hope for more unique units and flavor among greek factions.

[Furgon]

As much as Macedon is my favourite, I don't really see a reason to give them ten different pike units. Their feature was some of the valuable resources - people. And it was the only successor kingdom able to constantly field good number of good quality (not super, but very decent) of phalanx soldiers. Better could've been displayed by unit caps, but no such thing in DeI.
And Massalia is truly lacking some flavor.

Some info for the sake of discussion:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[–]ParallelPain 2 очка 7 месяцев назад*

I wondering if you could support this. I read that Arrian and Diodorus both reported that Macedonian phalangists were equally trained to be skirmishers with javelins, used when pikes can't be used, as on marches or during sieges.

Also, at least in Philipp's time, the Macedonian Phalanx didn't seem necessarily better than the Argos Phalanx.
According to the theory, Philip created the Macedonian Phalanx by either copying or more likely improving Iphakrates' reform of Athenian marine (probably) hoplites and mercenary peltasts, as Macedonia did not have an urbanised population to serve as traditional hoplites so Phillip needed something he can use to turn rural "peasant" farmers to match the hoplites of the city states.
If the theory is correct, then Macedonian Phalanx was created to fight other heavy infantry, while the Renaissance pike was an answer to heavy cavalry.
But both ended up fighting infantry a lot. Also both seem to have a heavier armored first rank and less armored rear ranks. Though according to this it was a cost saving measure. Alexander's phalangists were all armored.

EDIT: The theory is found here. Iphakrates' reforms I have read in Diodorus, and is supported (or implied) in J. K. Anderson's Military Theory & Practice in the Age of Xenophon.

I can not speak for the archeological data, so I checked the citations for phalangist weapons. Curtius does mention the same Macedonian man using sarissa and javelin, and said it was the usual (though perhaps not the best choice of equipment for the occasion-a duel). Diodoros, Arrian, and Polyainos all record during various cases where the Macedonians used javelins, and all cases were which pikes would be ill-suited: being ambushed and in an assault on a city. However they don't specify the unit type doing the fighting.
So either phalangists used javelins when pikes are ill-suited, or they sat out all together -which would mean it was the skirmishers' job to assault a city which sounds weird to me. Given what Curtius says, and that sarrissas are transported in two pieces to be put together before battle so it makes sense for phalangist to have another weapon on the march, I think using javelins have a slightly stronger case.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...aissance_pike/

[Hoplitus]

Hi there

First of all, thanks for the dedicated feedback! Next, keep in mind this is DeI 1.1! It's not like some 0.75 or whatever beta! Most things (if not all ) are well thought out and designed by the team already, always relying on and regarding community feedback.

That being said, I don't see much need of a change here either. So, despite feedback is always welcome, it is impossible to fulfill everybody's wishes.

The diplomatic things you asked for already have been answered but as Ivan said I must say, it's too early for those relations. Although your suggestions seem interesting in the first place, they are actually not (sorry ). I don't see much of a game change here with those changes suggested.

About units I have to say that all Greek factions already are incredibly fleshed out and differ from each other very much, especially if you compare them to the vanilla state of the game. Where every Greek faction is basically the same but for team color.

In DeI even basic hoplites differ so much, with different shield patterns etc. No Greek faction could be called "generic" by any means in my opinion (and reading you call Athens is "so vanilla" makes me a tiny bit angry to be honest). Added to this come the different AOR units from the different starting positions which add flavor to each faction. So all in all I don't see any reason for big changes here either.

Nevertheless since your honorable ratings is 6 out of 10 in the lowest, I think things are not that bad at all!

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Now now Hoplitus. Garbad can be a brash, as was abundantly clear from the Wot forums, but I never took him as an idiot or a fanboy. So I think those comments are unwarranted. We can civil.


"or factional merc for the Cretan archers and rhodian slingers."

Perhaps all successor states should have the key Alexander the Great era mercenary troops available as factional mercenaries? Cretan archers, Rhodian slingers, Thracian Peltasts, and Argranian axemen available as factional mercs for Macedon, Egypt, and the Selecuids. Maybe Epirus too since he made a lot of use of successor type troops compared to the greek polisis.


Now back to the discussion.

I think massilia should be like Galatia in that their imitation legionnaires retain the formations of roman legionnaires, unlike the standard greek imitation legionnaires. These factions were very close to Rome and would have had the training, not just the observe and copy method behind the idea of the other imitation legionnaires.

So I'm thinking a unique Massilian Legionnaire unit. Perhaps they could have some more celtic influenced cavalry, but between their existing cavalry options, I don't see what use they have for other cavalry. Maybe something in the cheaper bracket since their lancers, tarantine cavalry, and noble cavalry are all quite expensive.

Infantry wise, any celtic spear units would be inferior options to hoplites. Skirmishers inferior to peltasts. And I'm not a fan of spreading more two handed and certainly not more berserker units in areas where they shouldn't be.


As for cimmeria. You can still use them as you expand, just get them from the Cimmerian provinces and ferry them to new armies.

Infact, recruitment may be overhauled for 1.2 along the lines of Augustus's roman recruitment sub mod, where it will be increasingly difficult to recruit core troops outside of core provincial areas.

Oh god, don't suggest Sparta not be a faction, we'll have people almost instantly jumping in and going "oh what if we have the achean league in instead!?!?!!?" and then we have to get into that whole discussion again.

[Augustusng]

So I'm thinking a unique Massilian Legionnaire unit. Perhaps they could have some more celtic influenced cavalry, but between their existing cavalry options, I don't see what use they have for other cavalry. Maybe something in the cheaper bracket since their lancers, tarantine cavalry, and noble cavalry are all quite expensive.

I think they already have a legionary-style unit. Well, they of course have Thorax Swordsmen, which are basically legionaries.

Infact, recruitment may be overhauled for 1.2 along the lines of Augustus's roman recruitment sub mod, where it will be increasingly difficult to recruit core troops outside of core provincial areas.

Goddamnit, not again. You keep mistaking me for Flashheart! I am not a Flashheart!

[FlashHeart07]

Goddamnit, not again. You keep mistaking me for Flashheart! I am not a Flashheart!

Dont be too harsh on Ivan. It is a common mistake considering how good looking we both are.

Besides. When did we ever talk about changing recruitment based on my submod? I though the PoR was ment to solve that problem

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Oh god why does it keep happening?!?!

I was even thinking, "No, it was probably Flasheart."

[Hoplitus]

Wait what??

Where did I call him brash? Where did I say you took him as an "idiot or fanboy"? I think you totally misunderstood me... I was the most civil I could be tbh...

My comment was in no way intended to be offensive neither to him nor to you mate!

[Ivan_Moscavich]

Wait what??

Where did I call him brash? Where did I say you took him as an "idiot or fanboy"? I think you totally misunderstood me... I was the most civil I could be tbh...

My comment was in no way intended to be offensive neither to him nor to you mate!

No worries, I didn't see it as offensive, I just wanted to make sure that both parties didn't suddenly start going at each other like can happen around these parts.


The Sparta infantry already do have some increased power, and their top three units (heroes of Sparta, Royal Spartans, and Spartan imitation legionnaires) are some of the most statistically powerful troops availalble to the greeks where infantry is concerned already.

I just don't see what could be added to them that they don't already have. And their existing units are good enough already that they don't need any buffs.



Another thing with the diplomatic thing is it can easily unbalance starting politics for other factions. Plus it gives Rome access to even more trades from turn one. I know you can just send a ship over there in about 3 turns anyways, but we would still have to see how the ai handles suddenly "seeing" more enemies. You could start with Rome declaring war on a faction in asia instead of one in or around Italy, completely screwing up their initial targeting priority.

If the start date was a bit later and we had overlooked the Rome/Pergamon treaties I'd be all for it, but it is just a little bit too out of place I think for the grand campaign start.

[Garbad]

Let me clarify my phrasing:

- By "bland" I mean little differentiation from the core greek. As I said in the OP, the core greek is amazingly well done. My suggestions are primarily concerned with making each sub faction seem unique and interesting. The reason we are all here is because DEI has done an amazing job making the game better, more varied, and more realistic than vanilla. But that doesn't mean it can't get even better.

- I'm aware some of my suggestions aren't strictly historical (although they are historically "themed," such as perg getting roman diplomatic ties despite knowing its too early). This is mainly for historical "feel" and gameplay distinctiveness. As I see it, these trump literal realism as we are talking about an alternative timeline where massalia somehow comes to dominate the world anyhow, so why not make realistic projections of what they would be?

- Mass: I like the ideas presented so far. Perhaps early game celtic influence (light horse, perhaps a 2h melee unit) that gives way to more roman style upgraded thorax swords. Then maybe elite gallic medium calavry similar to the ones the romans get late game. But something to make them distinctive.

- Sparta: Yes, I know its not realistic by this era...but still, spartan infantry should be stronk. As it is, they are at best slightly improved versions of vanilla. Rome or Thrace would crush them. If sparta somehow managed to become a superpower again in this era, I think we would see some kind of extremely elite infantry supported by cheap allies/forced mercenaries. That's what I would like to see.

- Athens: Its a testament to how good the vanilla greek modding has become that athens feels generic, because all other factions have the same units. Again, its not that they are bad its that they have nothing special about them, so why not play arche? To make them special, I would like to see more marine themed land units or something.

[Furgon]

- Sparta: Yes, I know its not realistic by this era...but still, spartan infantry should be stronk. As it is, they are at best slightly improved versions of vanilla. Rome or Thrace would crush them.

At Sellasia (222 BC) spartan elite troops of that time met pike phalanx head on and were annihilated. Indeed they are strong, but that doesn't mean they should come on top in every situation where other similar infantry fails. Rome and Thrace have deadly units, so why not use tactics instead of trying to win by brute force.

[Irishmafia2020]

As an avid Hellenic faction player I would love to see more factional mercenaries for the successor factions, however it may be better in gameplay terms to attach them through the barracks system like the Tarantine cavalry. The Egyptians, for example, already have some neat mercs that are available everywhere like Galatians, Nubian Archers, and Karian spear men - all of those units are part of the flavor of the faction, and are really useful for inflating your armies when needed. Adding Cretan archers and Thracian peltasts would be a bit of overkill for that faction, and take away from their regional flavor. The Seleucids on the other hand don't have ANY factional mercs, and those units would be a really nice addition to their military. Maybe the Cretans, Thracians, Rhodians, and Agrinian axe men could be added as factional mercs for all of the successor factions that don't already have their own factional mercenaries.... Also, Athens is a great faction, but maybe some specific "Marine" land units would be a nice addition. I personally think that Massalia, Syracuse, and Cimmeria are some of the most unique factions in the Greek world already, and I wouldn't change a thing.

[Ivan_Moscavich]

it definitely makes sense for Macedon and the Selecuids. Perhaps at a very slow rate of replienishment.

I don't think they should be in barracks for them though, by making them mercs you will have access to them, but they are still very expensive (except Thracian peltasts who are dirt cheap even as mercs) so you would still be put in situations where cheaper regional mercs or aor may be a better bet.

We moved marine units from land units to navies intentionally, and I am not supportive of undoing that and making them trainable land units again.

[Ritter-Floh]

1.2 will bring a few unique units to some greek factions, the majority for minor factions - just be patient, as always

[hotcobbler]

Playing a campaign as Massalia, and I'd agree on the changes to give them slightly more variety. Maybe one or two Gallic flavored units and perhaps something to differentiate their Royal Hoplites from the commander unit, it just seems a little underwhelming.