View Full Version : Swapping Chalkis for Thessalonica
I think it would be a good idea to get rid of the Chalkis settlement and move it up to Thessalonica.
From a game play view, I find Chalkis tends to be one of those unnecessary settlements that just clogs up an already packed out settlement area. It makes for quite a boring settlement that could be better used elsewhere. Also The Makedonian Ai does not really seem able to cope with having it's settlements dotted all over the place.
I think Thessalonica would be good, because it's a settlement right in Makedonian homeland. Usually, when Epirus takes Pella (Which happens basically all the time), it results in Macedon getting screwed over, unable to recover. I think Thessalonica would give Makedon a chance to recover and it would also even out the ratio of settlements in north and south greece. It would also give Macedon another place to recruit it's elites units (It only has a Demetrios and Pella).
From a historical view, I may be wrong, but wasn't Thessalonica a major city, more so that Chalkis?
Puupertti Ruma
06-08-2008, 21:25
I'dd think the major problem with Thessalonica, is that it's so close to Pella to make it impossible to implement. If I am correct in at least RTW EB I map the Thessalonica would be on the next tile west of Pella, or at most 2 or 3 tiles away. If something gloggs up the map it's two cities virtually touching each other. The hopefully enlarged map of EB II might make the close proximity of the cities less of an issue, but I still have the impression that at 272 BC Thessalonica would be overshadowed by it's neighboring city because of the Antigonid rule residing in Pella. The permanent fort ability could be used to represent Thessalonica without giving it the full status of a city, which in my opinion would be optimal and awesome!
About the removing of Chalkis, I'dd reckon the reason it is in the game is because the team wanted to have a representation of the political situation of that geocraphical area, in other words to have the island that Chalkis resides on as a territory. The fact that Chalkis was the most important city on the island (the name of which I don't know) is just a "coincident" of sorts.
The could of course be debate about whether Chalkis or the territory it resides in are viable territories in EB II, and if it would be removed where the excess settlement should be used at. I am not going to start it, because, frankly, I don't know squat about Chalkis.
I'dd think the major problem with Thessalonica, is that it's so close to Pella to make it impossible to implement. If I am correct in at least RTW EB I map the Thessalonica would be on the next tile west of Pella, or at most 2 or 3 tiles away. If something gloggs up the map it's two cities virtually touching each other. The hopefully enlarged map of EB II might make the close proximity of the cities less of an issue, but I still have the impression that at 272 BC Thessalonica would be overshadowed by it's neighboring city because of the Antigonid rule residing in Pella. The permanent fort ability could be used to represent Thessalonica without giving it the full status of a city, which in my opinion would be optimal and awesome!
About the removing of Chalkis, I'dd reckon the reason it is in the game is because the team wanted to have a representation of the political situation of that geocraphical area, in other words to have the island that Chalkis resides on as a territory. The fact that Chalkis was the most important city on the island (the name of which I don't know) is just a "coincident" of sorts.
The could of course be debate about whether Chalkis or the territory it resides in are viable territories in EB II, and if it would be removed where the excess settlement should be used at. I am not going to start it, because, frankly, I don't know squat about Chalkis.
the island is Euboaea
I'dd think the major problem with Thessalonica, is that it's so close to Pella to make it impossible to implement. If I am correct in at least RTW EB I map the Thessalonica would be on the next tile west of Pella, or at most 2 or 3 tiles away. If something gloggs up the map it's two cities virtually touching each other. The hopefully enlarged map of EB II might make the close proximity of the cities less of an issue, but I still have the impression that at 272 BC Thessalonica would be overshadowed by it's neighboring city because of the Antigonid rule residing in Pella. The permanent fort ability could be used to represent Thessalonica without giving it the full status of a city, which in my opinion would be optimal and awesome!
In regards to it being too close, Thessalonica is located in that little land shaped like a three-fingered-hand, which would be about 2-3tiles away from Pella, which I think is ample. And then considering that the EB map will be scaled up, there'll be even more space between. Also, settlements like atiqa and Carthage, and Seleukiea and Babylon are about 2 tiles away from eachother, so what's wrong with having Pella and Thessalonica? RTR have Thessalonica and Pella and it looks good on their map, so I think it would work in EB. btw, chalkis and Athens are just a few tiles away from eachother.
It isn't realistic because Thessalonike was formed only a few decades before EB starts, and doesn't have any importance at all, whereas Chalkis represents an historically important island.
Antioch was formed even after Thessalonica was built and was only finished being built after the game starts, yet it was still a major city. So why wouldn't Thessalonica be?
We need an EB member to come and tell us whether Thessalonica was a major city during 272bc.
There has been no mention of it on the internal forums, and I don't think such a change will make it into the game. Indeed, the examples of other cities close to each other may well be removed in EBII (both Atiqa and Babylon have come up). With regards Babylon, its position in the Seleukid Empire was rather unique, and that was the main reason for its conclusion.
Foot
Even if you decide not to implement Thessalonica, could you think about removing Chalkis, since it actually detracts from gameplay, and it could be better used as a settlement somewhere else. It's also one of those settlements that is only about 2 tiles away from another settlement.
Chalkis would probably make a good candidate for a permanent fortress. However, the question of Thessalonika has come up before in the Tabula Orbis Terrae preview (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=851652#post851652). In brief: in the early third century BC Thessalonika is still fairly small and obscure. It's only during the second century BC that it starts to get important.
On a related note, is the name of Palmyra going to be changed in EB2? According to Terry Jones (not the most unbiased of sources, I know), Palmyra is the name the Romans gave to it.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
06-10-2008, 00:20
Chalkis wasn't part of Athenian domain, so I don't think it would make a ton of sense to lump it together with them...
I can say though, if the limit on cities was increased or lifted, Thessalonika probably wouldn't be in the top ten cities added by EB. The Indus valley, Iran, Numidia, and even the Anatolia-Armenia area would probably be getting the first ten, theoretically speaking.
Well why not just make it part of Demetrios terrortory, so it's lumped together with Thessalia. I think a permanent fort would go better than having Chalkis. Maybe there could also be a permanent fort for Thessalonica too, since it was basically a fortress at the time. I agree that the Indus valley would be a better choice to place a settlement though. Because if there is going to be an Indian satrap faction like Gandhara (Which I think is very likely) then they would need more settlements in the area.
Chalkis was important in Aegean politics, and more so than Thessalonika at EB's start. Historically, it remained so at least until after Antiochos III's activities in Greece (evidenced by his interest in Euboia and his taking a Euboian wife) and probably up until full Roman control of the area.
Ergo, we won't be removing it.
Antioch was formed even after Thessalonica was built and was only finished being built after the game starts, yet it was still a major city. So why wouldn't Thessalonica be?
We need an EB member to come and tell us whether Thessalonica was a major city during 272bc.
I'm not sure if Thessalonike was formed before Antioch. In any case, Thessalonike never played an important role in history in this time, as has Antioch (Being the capital of the Seleucids). Thessalonike was just an autonomous city-state and little more I know through until Roman days.
EDIT: Seeing Thalakos post in the Open Beta Thread, actually Antioch was founded a year before Thessalonike.
Mithridates VI Eupator
06-11-2008, 16:18
I think it is right to keep Chalkis. It is an interesting province, gamplay-wise, and it was one of the three important Macedonian strongholds in Hellas. And as the other two, Demetrias and Akrokorinth are in, removing Chalkis would make no sense. Althogh representing Thessalonica with a perma-fort would be rather nice, I think.
If you should remove a province, I think that the province in the baltic called "Auvajgotanoz", or something, representing the island of Gotland, would be a better candidate.
But then again, that's not up to me to decide...
(It's a funny province, though)
I went to the link above and read through the post concerning Thessalonica. You said that the important cities were "Pella, Philippi, Kassandreia, and Amphipolis". Did you mean within that one region or within all of the Macedonian territories?
I went to the link above and read through the post concerning Thessalonica. You said that the important cities were "Pella, Philippi, Kassandreia, and Amphipolis". Did you mean within that one region or within all of the Macedonian territories?
That one region (Macedonia Homelands). Another example he gave was Demetria, which is in Thessaly (Not Macedonia Homelands historically)
EDIT: This map represents the Macedonian Homelands (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Macedonian_Kingdom.jpg).
artaxerxes
06-14-2008, 17:14
Indeed, the examples of other cities close to each other may well be removed in EBII (both Atiqa and Babylon have come up). With regards Babylon, its position in the Seleukid Empire was rather unique, and that was the main reason for its conclusion.
Since Babylon is my favourite city on the EB map (due to its history), I was wondering if there has been any definite choice of either keeping it or removing it? (I mean, I hope that, even if Atiqa is removed, Babylon, due to its unique status, will be allowed to survive).
Also, since Alexander wanted it as his capitol, I've always liked the idea that you could fulfill the Seleucid VC's and then make Babylon your capitol (quelling some riots along the way), thus restoring his empire. I'm fully aware of the Seleukid preference for Seleceia, but I would still like to make an appeal for mercy on behalf of my favourite city. Having two settlements instead of one in central Mesopotamia also makes sense to me, since, seriously, it wasn't the middle of nowhere...
As for Chalcis, I think it adds to the game having it there, as it does represent a separate territory.
Since Babylon is my favourite city on the EB map (due to its history), I was wondering if there has been any definite choice of either keeping it or removing it? (I mean, I hope that, even if Atiqa is removed, Babylon, due to its unique status, will be allowed to survive).
Also, since Alexander wanted it as his capitol, I've always liked the idea that you could fulfill the Seleucid VC's and then make Babylon your capitol (quelling some riots along the way), thus restoring his empire. I'm fully aware of the Seleukid preference for Seleceia, but I would still like to make an appeal for mercy on behalf of my favourite city. Having two settlements instead of one in central Mesopotamia also makes sense to me, since, seriously, it wasn't the middle of nowhere...
I also share this opinion, but if worse comes to worse, you can always change the city name (I think?) after you conquer it, in the respective file.
On a related note, is the name of Palmyra going to be changed in EB2? According to Terry Jones (not the most unbiased of sources, I know), Palmyra is the name the Romans gave to it.
:bump:
I would really like to know whether Jones is right about this.
Yeah, he is. I have the name published in a Saudi-Aramco magazine somewhere in my room.
Yeah, he is. I have the name published in a Saudi-Aramco magazine somewhere in my room.
Jones says it's Tadmor, and that Palmyra is the Latin translation (both mean "place of palms"). In EB1 Tadmor is used for the province.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.