Europa Barbarorum - The Unofficial Late Period Project

[Epistolary Richard]

Latest release
Alpha version v0.2 (http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rtw_Uploads/RTWupload/ULP4.30.06.zip)
Incorporating the new names and descr_strat changes made by paullus

Old releasesAlpha version v0.1 (https://www.europabarbarorum.com/useruploads/ULPv0.1.zip)

An alpha version is an internal team release - it is pre-beta version and is released only in order to help development, not to be properly playable.

It installs as a provincial campaign (it's a bit stripped down to keep the file size down).

It does overwrite some base files - however you can still play the EB 0.74 version Imperial Campaign. Still I would advise you to use JGSME Mod Enabler.

The most notable CTD is that you have to reload your game in between campaigns. If you don't, when you activate the script in the second campaign of a load then it will CTD.

The campaign script also doesn't seem to be always terminating. The campaign script is quite long so be prepared for the game to hang for a while with a full loading bar when starting a new campaign. It's busy placing a load of reform buildings.
_______________________________








Europa Barbarorum - The Unofficial Late Period Project


I know that, as a moderator on the Modding forums, one of the first questions I’m going to be asked about EB when the beta’s released is “I want to use all the great post-Marian units in EB right at the start, tell me what I need to do!”

But, instead of producing some half-arsed, ahistorical travesty that will plonk a load of post-Marian legionaries at the beginning of the third century BC, I want to be able to offer them something better: a new campaign, beginning at the Marian Reforms, which is historically authentic as we can make it. An expansion that would be worthy of all the painstaking effort and time the team has taken into making EB has authentic as possible.

The Unofficial Late Period project (otherwise known as the ULP!) is – as its name suggests – going to be completely unofficial and developed entirely separately from EB. EB members will be more than welcome to help it along, but this will be a project made by the fans, for the fans.

So what’s the plan?
Though the mod isn’t released yet, what we can start doing right now is collecting the historical information that we’ll need to do it justice. We need to know, as best as we can find out, are the territorial boundaries of each of the EB factions at the new start date, the disposition of their troops as well as the names and characters of the factions most important leaders, so we can represent them on the map.

All the models and everything else will already be in there, the map itself, geographically will stay the same, all we will focus on doing is finding out for the initial release is which provinces need to be allocated to which faction.

To help us out with this, we’ll use the map done by Teleklos Archelaou so you can draw suggested boundaries.
https://img290.imageshack.us/img290/7043/mapantique4big7ib.th.jpg (https://img290.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mapantique4big7ib.jpg)

If we have all the info we need together for when EB is released, we can start with the actual modding and have an initial version of the Marius Campaign out within a couple of weeks.

After that, if there’s interest to go on, there are loads of ways we can delve even further into the period and try to make things even more authentic.

Sounds great, how can I help?
Unlike most mods, we have all the modding knowledge we need. What we really need are people who are dedicated to historical authenticity, especially those who know or are willing to find out the state of the world at the point of the Marian Reforms. We’ve chosen 107BC as our probationary start date, the year of Gaius Marius’ first consulship.

So, as at 107BC, we need to know what the status of the peoples that these EB factions represent (those that have been so far previewed):
Seleukid
Ptolomeioi
Baktria
Makedon
Pontos
Karthadastim
Iberia
Sauromatae
Casse
Aedui
Sweboz
Romans (not previewed, but I think they’re a safe assumption!)

As far as we can, we’re going to be using exactly the same historical discipline as the EB team, so if you want to help out you must read the following note on sources:
A note on sources
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=41714


Wouldn’t it make more sense to wait until the open beta was released?
The more info we get now, the quicker we’ll be able to release something once the beta does come out. After all, EB started months before RTW was released, why should we be any different?

[jerby]

EB ULP? E BULP? EBULP? sounds great, but it's a little early. I'd like to start playing EB as EB, before the sidemods come in. and perhaps, when EB is 'finished' (perfectionist's as they are) they might even help you out..

[cunctator]

Sounds very good. The campaign could later be expanded into the imperial era, with using the "marian" reforms trigger to change between late republican and imperial units.

I hope work on this will project be less secret, so that everyone can give input or little help.

[Epistolary Richard]

Yep, this will be entirely developed on the public forum. All that help is needed with is the historical research - and there's nothing secret about history, it's the same for everyone!

Once EB is actually released, the modding should really be very straightforward.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Epistolary

So, as at 107BC, we need to know what the status of the peoples that these EB factions represent (those that have been so far previewed):
Seleukid
Ptolomeioi
Baktria
Makedon
Pontos
Karthadastim
Iberia
Sauromatae
Casse
Aedui
Sweboz
Romans (not previewed, but I think they’re a safe assumption!)


For the start , and just for the start , in 107 bce the is no Makedon (since 168 bce) , and no Karthadastim (since 146 , thank EB for deleting "Tsorim") . You do have the kingdom of Numidia (under king Iugortha) and the Cimbric and Teotonic tribes (Germanic) , and of course , much more (later) .

[Epistolary Richard]

Yeah, it's a good idea to start off by working out which factions still exist in 107BC.

Still in existence:
Romans - obviously

Ptolomeioi - having dynastic disputes but still a force to be reckoned with

Iberia - in that this faction represents a variety of Iberian tribes, who most definitely still existed

Aedui - would afterwards become Caesar's allies in his Gallic wars

Baktria - something of a questionable case here, Baktra had been abandoned in around 125BC, but there were still Indo-Greek kingdoms in place

Pontos - not annexed by Pompey until 64BC

Sauromatae - these nomadic tribes still prevalent

Seleukid - much humbled but still not annexed by Pompey until 63BC

Casse - I believe they still existed and with extended territories on the British mainland

Sweboz - most definitely in existence in this period


Destroyed
Karthadastim - city razed in 146BC by Scipio Africanus Minor

Makedon - Perseus lost the Third Macedonian War in 168BC and the place had become a Roman province by 146BC

Koinon Hellenon - pretty much all Greece was under Roman rule or heavily dependent Roman allies by 107BC

[Epistolary Richard]

Some thoughts on territory of the Successors:


Baktria
Again, while not exact - the Indo-Greek kingdom under Antialcidas could be the closest successor. Possible starting area: Ghandhara, Paropamisadai and Arachosia

Seleukid
Leader: Antiochus VIII. Possible starting area: Syria, Syria Koile, Phoenicia

Ptolomeioi
Leader: Ptolemy X Alexander I. Possible starting area: similar to the EB start date but without the Palestinian territories

[Dux Corvanus]

Iberia

In 107 BC, all the peninsula was under Roman control, and all Iberian tribes submited, except Asturians and Cantabrians. August conquered them in 19 BC, after a fierce ten-year war.

http://www.tesorillo.com/imagenes1/hispania2.jpg

BTW, this map texts are wrong, where it says "till 154 BC" should say "till 29 BC", and viceversa.

Although they're my main focus of interest, and I'd love it, maybe the Asturian-Cantabrian tribes don't deserve a full faction themselves.

Unless you want to reflect the Marius vs Sulla civil wars, in which case, Hispania -this is, ancient Iberia- should be under control of Marius-Sertorius Roman faction -except the northern tribes mentioned.

[Ranika]

At this time, the Casse had wrung submission from the Dumnones and their ancillary tribes (with the possible exception of the Dobunnes), and from the tribes of Cambria (Wales) and the confederacy inhabiting most of the midlands. The Brigantes, Parisi, and everyone north of them were still indepedent. Their control of the region would fall apart in the coming years, but it seems to have been the extended height of their control; if possible, all the provinces except their capitol should be somewhat likely to rebel, and armies would start out a bit spread thin from war.

[Epistolary Richard]

Thanks very much to both of you.

Iberia
Looks like Iberia will start off with two provinces: Asturica and Cantabria. Replacing old factions with new ones is beyond the scope of this project at the moment so it looks like the Asturian-Cantabrian tribes will be the standard-bearers for a liberated Iberia. We should probably try to include the later Luisitania revolt as well that may add to their numbers. Any idea of the names of Asturian-Cantabrian tribal leaders in 107BC? My own browsing is drawing up a blank.

Casse
Sounds like they should probably start off with: Cassemor, Cornovae, Cymriae & Corieltauvae and a leader called Morganorix?

[Epistolary Richard]

Roman Republic

A stab at Roman provinces:
Pergamon in Asia Minor (Mysia, Lydia, Phrygia, Karia?)
All of Iberia except Asturica and Cantabria
Volcallra and Greseoallra
All the Italian peninsula up to the Alps
Illyria, though pressed by Germanic tribes
Makedonia and south for the Greek peninsula
Sicily, Corsia, Sardinia, Balerics, Euboia, Lesbos, possibly Rhodes as well
Zeugitana, Byzacena – N African provinces under pressure from Jurgutha

Pontos
Paphlagonia
Kappadokia Pontika
Pontos Paralios
Leader: Mithridates VI

[Dux Corvanus]

Any idea of the names of Asturian-Cantabrian tribal leaders in 107BC? My own browsing is drawing up a blank.

Unfortunately, sources are very scarce about those early times. But I can give you two names of the 27-19BC Cantabrian Wars:

Laro - a gigantic military leader famous for his skills with the small bipenne double-axe.

Corocotta - a rebel chieftain famous because he went to a Roman outpost and asked the reward that Romans gave for his head, narrowly escaping after.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

You guys want a blank map, or rather one without terrain but with province names so you can fill the borders in with your starting positions? If you have one already ER, just let me know, but if you want one feel free to ask and I'll shoot a .gif your way.

[Epistolary Richard]

That would be great, Teleklos. :thumbsup: Currently I was putting something together in Paint, which give a summary, but is nevertheless not particularly impressive :grin:

Also, a guess at the Sauromatae, this is mainly based on the details given in the Preview, and so this seems a reasonable expansion, if perhaps falling a little short in the West. I don't know, however, if there were offsetting territorial losses in the East to the tribes being displaced by the Xiongnu.

Sauromatae
Bastarnolandam
Skythia
Nurije
Budinije
Dahyu Yazyga
Maeotis
Dahyu Siraca
Dahyua Roxsalanna
Dahya Aursa

[Angadil]

Also, a guess at the Sauromatae, this is mainly based on the details given in the Preview, and so this seems a reasonable expansion, if perhaps falling a little short in the West. I don't know, however, if there were offsetting territorial losses in the East to the tribes being displaced by the Xiongnu.

Sauromatae
Bastarnolandam
Skythia
Nurije
Budinije
Dahyu Yazyga
Maeotis
Dahyu Siraca
Dahyua Roxsalanna
Dahya Aursa


Almost, just remove Bastarnolandam and Nurije and add Mykra Skythia and you got it. The final westward thrust that would bring Sarmatians into modern Hungary was still a bit later. They did keep their eastern provinces at this time.

[GoreBag]

Casse
Sounds like they should probably start off with: Cassemor, Cornovae, Cymriae & Corieltauvae and a leader called Morganorix?

Sounds a little Gallic. Morganores, perhaps? I don't quite remember the appropriate equivalent of the Gallic "rix" in this case.

[Atheist_Peace]

This looks like a great idea, although its similar to something the TFT guys are doing, this uses EB and it looks very promising. good luck ~:)

[Epistolary Richard]

In my mind there's not a great deal of comparison with TFT to be honest. It's a similar time period, the basic 'game-world' will be along the same lines because the history is the same for everyone, but the TFT guys have produced some really great stuff to immerse the player within a very specific character within a very specific scenario. As a result of that they are really using the RTW engine to its best advantage in producing colourful provincial campaigns that present a very different gaming experience to the vanilla open-ended approach.

This project, as I said, doesn't really compare. It's just a quick'n'dirty way of allowing players to use the later period troops from the beginning with as much historical authenticity as we can pack into simply rearranging characters and starting positions.

Should things take off, then there may be a few other bells and whistles, and maybe further down the road a team with the quality of TFT will use EB as their basic game system for their own ideas for provincial adventures.

[Ranika]

Sounds a little Gallic. Morganores, perhaps? I don't quite remember the appropriate equivalent of the Gallic "rix" in this case.

It should sound Gallic; the Casses (and Catuvellanians) spoke a Gallic originated continental Celtic language, not the midlander P-Celt stuff.

[Epistolary Richard]

Many thanks, Angadil. I've cleaned up the map, corrected the Sauromatae and added preliminary guesses at a couple more factions:

Aedui
Around this period, the Aedui were Roman allies (though they didn't always stay that way), even sending a mission to Rome around 70BC to ask for help against Ariovistus. Though they were subsequently subjgated by the Suebi after the Romans refused to intervene, at 107BC they were still influential and had benefitted from other Gallic tribes opposition to Rome. I figure a reasonable starting point would be to assume that they've retained the lands/influence of the EB period - less those provinces now taken by the Romans. It's likely that they will start as allied to Rome.

Sweboz
Ariovistus crossed the Rhine in 71BC, so it seems fair that the Sweboz would have either occupied or had great influence over Vindelicos to the east of the Rhine 36 years before. I presume that they had retained their lands in Swebolandam. The tangential expansion into Heruskolandam seems sensible, but is just supposition on my part. Obviously a big part of this period was the migrations of the Teutones and the Cimbri, perhaps they can be dealt with through sizeable rebel banners.

A few other adjustments:
I've removed the Romans from Massylim and Tripolitania, confining their Carthaginian possessions to the area relatively close to the city. The Jugurthine war is obviously the major event here at this time, again I could do stacks of rebel banners but that somehow seems unsatisfactory.

I've restored Ioudaia to the Ptolomaioi, though Ptolemy X was on the throne, I believe Ptolemy IX was still campaign around the area. It seems unlikely, given the power of the factions around it and its significant location that Ioudaia could be considered really independent.

In Asia Minor, I've restored Kilikia to the Seleukids and removed Kappadokia from Pontos. The attempted annexation of Kappadokia by Mithridates was one of the spurs for the conflict with Rome. Asia Minor is certainly looking like it will be a hot-bed of conflict, with no less than five factions contesting the area.

I've also added Sattagydia to Baktria/Indo-Greeks after getting information at the timing of their migrations. Helps to give them a more cohesive area in any case.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

In my mind there's not a great deal of comparison with TFT to be honest.

I agree....the start date of TFT is later than yours anyway.

I assume Parthia will be added to this mod at some point....right?

...And the Ptolemies should not have Judea. Remember the Maccabee revolt? It happened about 50 years before your start date and Judea was independent at this time because of it (until the arrival of the Romans).

[Ranika]

The Aedui had recieved the submissions of the Armoricans and off-and-on the Lemovicians, and the Aquitanians. Sometimes the Lemovicians allied with their main opposition (the Arverni), but the Aquitanians and Armoricans were more solidly part of Aedui lands (though the Aquitanians did shirk off their rule occassionally).

[Epistolary Richard]

Excellent! Thanks to both of you. As I said at the beginning, this period of history is not my strong suit, but I must admit as I learn more the more I'm finding it fascinating.


I would imagine EB has some kind of plan for Parthia. :grin: Though it wasn't as important in the 270s as it would become by 107BC it would be rather surprising if they left it out! Once that faction is previewed we can add it to the map. But in terms of territory, I would probably be working along these sort of lines:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/8/83/Parthia_map_1.jpg
Source: Iran Chamber Society (iranchamber.com)

Though probably a little less than this as I believe this map shows them in the 40s. Maybe have them up to the Tigris as they were in 129BC, if there's better info around then let us know.

[Ianofsmeg16]

With Macedonia and Hellenes gone are you bringing Numidia back? and maybe add an indian faction? Great idea for an expansion and after i'm relativly done with EB then i'll have a crack at it....once EB and this gets finished of course ;)

[Epistolary Richard]

Well, it's very tempting. Jugurtha was the big thing in North Africa at 107BC and it would be a shame to lose him. Without Carthage, north africa looks terribly empty. We could have strong rebels there, of course, but that might be missing an opportunity.

For the intial release, at least, we wouldn't be looking at adding new models or anything like that. _However_, if the open beta has any Numidian regional units that perhaps could be used to create a Numidian faction in place of Carthage, then it's a possibility as that would just be a bit of text editing (well, okay, a lot of text editing) and a bit of graphic work. It would probably be a bit rough and ready, but perhaps better than losing a faction entirely.

So, not for the initial release, because we'll be trying to get that out as quickly as possible, but maybe as an add-on.

As for an Indian faction, I wouldn't think so. The Mauryan Empire collapsed in 185BC, the closest that was around in 107BC was the Sunga Dynasty which was on the wrong side of the country.

[bodidley]

In this time period, wouldn't it make sense to take advantage of the destruction or diminishing of some of the previous factions in order to add in the Arverni?

[GoreBag]

It should sound Gallic; the Casses (and Catuvellanians) spoke a Gallic originated continental Celtic language, not the midlander P-Celt stuff.

Is "-rix" still the right suffix, then? I don't recall ever having read about an islander with a name like that.

[Centurion Cato]

I agree....the start date of TFT is later than yours anyway.

I assume Parthia will be added to this mod at some point....right?

...And the Ptolemies should not have Judea. Remember the Maccabee revolt? It happened about 50 years before your start date and Judea was independent at this time because of it (until the arrival of the Romans).


Well actually your wrong about the start date, FRRE starts in 107bc & ends in 192ad. The First campaign of FMOR will start with Marius in 107bc. See here for details http://forums.rometotalrealism.com//index.php?act=ST&f=9&t=561&st=0#entry7518 (http://forums.rometotalrealism.com/index.php?act=ST&f=9&t=561&st=0#entry7518)

The timeframe is split into 9 (maybe more) different mods, each mod will contain many individual campaigns, like TFT now.

However, and more importantly, as ER rightly said, the two projects are very different but share the same historically starting point. The only other thing we share is NGR's map, coz's it's the best out there by far. I wish ER and his team the very best of luck, and i look forward to playing the mod when it's released. The TFT team come to this forum to get ideas/inspiration from guys like ER who has made some fantastic discoveries in the scripting side of RTW - which you'll see in TFT.

[cunctator]

Vindelicos should not controlled by the sweboz in 107bc.
The great (380ha) oppidum near modern manching north east of vindelicoppidos and the whole of todays southern germany was settled by celts until well into the 1st century Bc. Some oppida as far north as modern Giessen, like Duensberg, stayed celtic until the roman campaigns in the last decades Bc.

[Ranika]

Is "-rix" still the right suffix, then? I don't recall ever having read about an islander with a name like that.

It's correct; the title of Cassivellaunus was 'rix' according to some coins in southern Britain.

[Epistolary Richard]

Thanks, cunctator. I think their ownership of Heruskolandam was a bit of a fantasy as well, according to SaFe they had expanded more to the east. Anyway, redrawn map:

https://img363.imageshack.us/img363/9840/mapantiquemarianbase10xx.th.jpg (https://img363.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mapantiquemarianbase10xx.jpg)

As for TFT, best of luck as well. I know you'll come up with something special :thumbsup: As people know, scripting is a bit of a passion of mine, so I'm always delighted as people look to use its potential. As regards to the map, the EB map has actually moved on a bit from the one DM left them with. Same geographical limits, of course, but there are definitely team members who've put a lot of time into tailoring and improving it even further - just as I imagine TFT has done.

I think a 107BC start date is interesting, but it leaves me with a problem of how to deal with the marian reforms. Obviously they didn't just happen overnight and events like the Battle of Arausio in 105BC have also been cited as a reason the Roman army changed.

An idea I'm contemplating at the moment is to have pre-Marian troops set-up at the beginning of the game - except perhaps for Marius own command in North Africa - but only allow Post-Marian troops to be recruited, so you have the gradual change. It's a shame we can't upgrade troops from one unit type to another, because that would have been perfect.

As for the Averni bodidley, the problem there is a cultural one. Whichever factions can't be used can only be replaced by factions with the same culture, there are too many icons shared between resources and culture hardcoding to get around it. So while we maybe could replace Carthage with Numidia, I don't think we could use the Greek culture of the Macedons or the KH to do the Averni.

Would the Averni really be the best candidates for 107BC anyway? It's my limited understanding that at that point they'd really gotten the worse of the Roman expansion and we're licking their wounds around Gergovia, essentially subjugated by the Romans. Yes, there's Vercingetorix some decades later, but aside from those few years, were they really as important as they had been? Would you really favour them over say the Cimbri and Teutoni, who were having a much greater impact on that area and could have completely ravaged the Roman republic?

[Centurion Cato]

@Epistolary Richard

"I think a 107BC start date is interesting, but it leaves me with a problem of how to deal with the marian reforms. Obviously they didn't just happen overnight and events like the Battle of Arausio in 105BC have also been cited as a reason the Roman army changed."

We are also working out the best way to deal with this issue. May i suggest that you aquire two books to help you and the team with this:

1) The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire
Lawrence Keppie (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books-uk&field-author=Keppie%2C%20Lawrence/202-9084678-9788602)


2) First Man in Rome (Masters of Rome S.)
Colleen McCullough (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books-uk&field-author=McCullough%2C%20Colleen/202-9084678-9788602)


Dont know if you have these but they are excellent books and cover this area in detail.

Good luck

CC

[Epistolary Richard]

Thanks for the tips, CC. I'll see if I can russle them up.

As for the map in it's current state, I'm pretty happy with most of the factions that we know exist so far, my only concerns with it would be the following:

- the western and southern borders of the Ptolomeioi (and Petra, did they control it or not?)
- the Seleukids, should they control Palmyra? Edessa?
- Pontos, should it run all the way up to Kotais?

[cunctator]

Petra was not controlled by the Ptolomeioi, it was the capital of the Nabataen kingdom. But i don`t know if that is also true for the whole Sinai peninsula.

[khelvan]

FWIW, I have a copy of the Keppie book, as well as Connolly and Goldsworthy along the same lines.

[GoreBag]

It's correct; the title of Cassivellaunus was 'rix' according to some coins in southern Britain.

Fair enough, then; "Rix" it is.

[King of Atlantis]

If im not mistaken eygpt should have most of the sanai, but petra and everyhting east would have been part of nabatea.

[Narayanese]

At this (http://nabataea.net/ehistory.html) page it says the nabateans held Wadi Tumilat (a little west of sinai) in the generation before 96 BC.

[Epistolary Richard]

Hmmm... interesting. I think that we're going to have to follow who actually occupied the settlement within the province at the start date. I think we have a similar thing in Babylonia - the Parthians held Seleukeia, but the Seleukids held the other bank of the river. We can nudge the boundaries a bit, but ultimately I think Babylonia will have to be given to the Parthians, perhaps with Seleukid banner in the south of the province.

[Shaun]

wow, this is a great idea! i cant help out but i wood download it.

[King of Atlantis]

Yeah i like the idea, but EN regular will still be a priority.

[Epistolary Richard]

Okay, I've been looking into doing the Marian Reforms. There's really no accurate way to portray the shift in the make-up of the army. Marius opened his Numidian campaign up to the poor in 107BC, that meant the poor had to be provided with their equipment, so it meant a certain regularisation of troop type. But this shift towards allowing nonlanded men to serve had been going on for a while, it was just that Marius was the first person to do it officially. Plus, the old style army was the one that lost the battle of Arausio two years later.

So I think it's going to have to be that the initial garrisons will be old style (aside from Marius legions), but new troops raised will be new style.

[GoreBag]

You could always start a little later than 107.

[Epistolary Richard]

Could do, but I really like starting in the Jurguthine war, because at that time the Republic was being hard pushed in the south, the north and subsequently going to embroiled in a war in Asia Minor. The Roman faction is obviously going to start from a seriously powerful territorial position, I'd like to offset that with having them assailled on all sides.

Another thing we're going to have to look into is the type of government in each of these places. As was announced a while back, EB are going to have the ability to install different types of government in different provinces, so we'll need to do some reading on each one of the factions and discover how they ruled their different areas, so that when we know exactly what government options are available to them we can choose the most appropriate.

[Xanthippus of Sparta]

Well actually your wrong about the start date, FRRE starts in 107bc & ends in 192ad. The First campaign of FMOR will start with Marius in 107bc. See here for details http://forums.rometotalrealism.com//index.php?act=ST&f=9&t=561&st=0#entry7518 (http://forums.rometotalrealism.com/index.php?act=ST&f=9&t=561&st=0#entry7518)

The timeframe is split into 9 (maybe more) different mods, each mod will contain many individual campaigns, like TFT now.

However, and more importantly, as ER rightly said, the two projects are very different but share the same historically starting point. The only other thing we share is NGR's map, coz's it's the best out there by far. I wish ER and his team the very best of luck, and i look forward to playing the mod when it's released. The TFT team come to this forum to get ideas/inspiration from guys like ER who has made some fantastic discoveries in the scripting side of RTW - which you'll see in TFT.

I was talking about the original TFT, I didn't realize there were any changes to the startdate...and I didn't know about FRRE or FMOR.

[dark_shadow89]

I have a stack of Osprey book scans covering this period, if you need...

[LorDBulA]

Damn ER i must say that you choosed very interesting period for your mod.
I just regret that RTW is to shallow to represent it properly.


1) The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire
Lawrence Keppie
If someone have electronic version of this book i would definetly like to put my hands on it.

[Epistolary Richard]

Yes, I've found a fair bit on the _significance_ of the Marian reforms now, but little on how the army actually changed from one to the other.

Thanks dark_shadow we're generally relying on EB getting its post-Marian units correct as we're not going to be adding any new units, but I'd be interested if you had anything Numidian (Jugurthine) or Nabatean?

Anyway, in anticipation of the Parthian (?) faction icon, here's a map with a first attempt at the domains of Parthia in 107BC.

https://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1192/mapantiquemarianbase18tv.th.jpg (https://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mapantiquemarianbase18tv.jpg)

I'm particularly interested in whether they held Edessa at this time, and the accuracy of the expansion to the east as I may have taken them too far...

[Stuie]

http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/numismatics/parthia/images/pamap.jpg

~:)

More good stuff:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/numismatics/parthia/frames/pargeo.htm

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Epistolary Richard] Plus, the old style army was the one that lost the battle of Arausio two years later.

You came to that from ? because it was Catulus's army ?

[Epistolary Richard]

Thanks for the link, Stuie. I think this map in particular is going to be useful when it comes to deciding the question over governments (though it's at the end of the period):
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/numismatics/parthia/frames/imapki.htm


You came to that from ? because it was Catulus's army ?
Hmmm... no, I read somewhere that it was the loss at Arausio was a principal driver behind the introduction of the new army. But I realise now that nothing to do with the Roman army was simple at that period.

Recruitment of the landless was already widespread (though not official) before Marius. Gaius Gracchus had already made it the responsibility of the state to supply equipment and clothing to the troops in around 123/122BC - which is where I would have thought a certain standardisation would have come in.

As I say, I'm really not that knowledgeable about this period, if you can tell me anything about the composition of the Roman military at this time I'd appreciate it.

[caesar44]

Thanks for the link, Stuie. I think this map in particular is going to be useful when it comes to deciding the question over governments (though it's at the end of the period):
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/numismatics/parthia/frames/imapki.htm


Hmmm... no, I read somewhere that it was the loss at Arausio was a principal driver behind the introduction of the new army. But I realise now that nothing to do with the Roman army was simple at that period.

Recruitment of the landless was already widespread (though not official) before Marius. Gaius Gracchus had already made it the responsibility of the state to supply equipment and clothing to the troops in around 123/122BC - which is where I would have thought a certain standardisation would have come in.

As I say, I'm really not that knowledgeable about this period, if you can tell me anything about the composition of the Roman military at this time I'd appreciate it.



OK ,
Before Marius -

The Roman army of the middle republic was a militia army. It was composed of a number of legiones recruited among the citizen body which were levied for specific campaigns. Under normal circumstances four such legions were under arms which were assigned two apiece to the two consules. In case more units were needed these were placed under the command of praetores or pro-magistrates.

The legiones were numbered sequentially with the numbers I to IV being reserved for the units under the command of the consules. Contrary to imperial practice the numbers carried by the units were not duplicated. The shifting of the composition of the army over the years meant that from time to time existing units received a new numeral. As units were levied for specific campaigns and disbanded when no longer needed, units did not have the opportunity to develop a distinct identity. The honorary titles so familiar of the imperial legions only developed during the first century BC as legions were kept under arms for a prolonged time.

Recruitment
In republican Rome the right to serve in the army was a privilege of the assidui or propertied citizens. Together these formed the classis or populus. This restriction was imposed by the fact that the government generally did not take responsibility for the arming of its fighting men. Citizens were expected to equip themselves at their own cost with the necessary armour and weaponry when called up for service. Those not able to meet the property requirements for army service were known as the capite censi, the headcount, or as proletarii. These poorer citizens were only enrolled in times of emergency and equipped at state expense. Though the capite censi usually served as rowers in the navy they were at times incorporated in the legiones. Extreme measures were taken in the aftermath of Cannae with the formation of several units composed of volones, freed slave volunteers. Property qualifications for service in the army were gradually lowered as time went by to enlarge the potential pool of recruits. Generally the number of volunteers in the army was limited, though campaigns with lucrative prospects of plunder like those against Macedonia could attract larger quantities of men eager to serve.

Roman citizens that met the property qualifications were liable for conscription from the age of seventeen, though repeated legislation against the enlistment of younger soldiers indicates that recruits could be very young indeed. Up to the age of 46 citizens of means remained under the obligation to serve. The maximum number of years to be spent in the army was set at sixteen, though this limit was removed in time of emergency. Gradually however it became the norm to serve six years in succession before being discharged with reservist obligations. Cavalrymen on the other hand had to serve ten campaigns before being released.

The cavalry arm of the republican legion was constituted from wealthy citizens drawn mainly from the ordo equester able to meet the extra expense of providing a horse and its necessary equipment. Though a few select individuals served with a horse provided by the state, the socalled equus publicus, most cavalrymen bore the cost of their mounts themselves. The great financial burden of serving in the cavalry limited the size of the legionary horse. To some extent this lack of numbers was made up by the larger contingent of allied and auxiliary cavalry.

Pay at this date was minimal, barely meeting the expenses for equipment, food and other necessities. Soldiers in the republican army therefore needed other sources of income. With Roman armies almost continually campaigning abroad the opportunity for plunder was however great. This helped ensure a continued support for expansion of the empire.


Legionary armament
The Roman cavalrymen were armed in a similar way to their counterparts in the Hellenistic armies. Legionary horsemen were equipped with helmet, body armour, shield, sword and a thrusting spear. The majority of troopers served as shock cavalry, though there are indications that some men may have served as ferentarii, light cavalry skirmishers. Legionary light infantrymen were at times intermixed with the cavalry to bolster its strength.

The legionary infantry were divided in a number of classes with varying equipment and battlefield duties. The youngest and poorest soldiers served as light infantry which were known as velites, leves, rorarii or ferentarii. These light infantrymen were backed up by more heavily armed antesignani. The primary strength of the legio however resided in its heavy infantry. This was divided in three main divisions. The first of these were the hastati, the 'spearmen'. These consisted of relatively young soldiers and were usually deployed in the first battle line. The second class were the principes or 'leaders'. These men constituted the cream of the army and were normally deployed in the second battle line. The veteran triarii or pili made up the third class and were either deployed in the third battle line or left behind to guard the camp.

The legionary light infantrymen were mostly equipped with a parma or buckler, a number of hastae velitariae or light javelins, a sword and a helmet covered with an animal pelt. Some may however been armed with a sling. The antesignani used to support the light troops carried equipment similar to the heavy infantry with pila and body armour being mentioned in the sources. The hastati, principes and triarii were equipped with helmet, body armour, greaves, swords and large scuta or shields. Most men wore a copper alloy pectorale, though the wealthiest legionaries wore either scale or mail armour or an anatomical cuirass. The men of the first two battle lines carried heavy javelins called pila, but the usual shaft weapon of the triarii was a long stabbing spear. Double edged swords were the main weapon used in combat, the famous gladius Hispaniensis being derived from Spanish examples. Torsion gun artillery was at times used by the legions in this period, though it may not have been allocated on a regular basis.

The legion deployed usually in a formation of three battle lines of heavy infantry protected by a screen of skirmishers. The manipuli would initially deploy with the centuriae positioned one behind the other for ease of manoeuvre. Gaps were left between the manipuli but these were closed before engaging the enemy by the centuriae posteriores moving up to position themselves on the left of the centuriae priores. Tactics were generally simple consisting mainly of a blunt frontal attack. First the hastati would engage the enemy, throwing their pila before charging with their swords. These troops were relieved by the units of the principes in case of failure. The triarii were used as a last resort, the Latin expression ad triarios redisse being used to indicate that one was in a desperate position. Roman commanders confident in the ability of the hastati and principes to secure victory in battle left the triarii behind to guard the camp. Given the militia nature of the army at this point and the lack of prolonged and continuous training of the troops Roman tactics were by necessity predictable. Only when troops were kept under arms for years at a time could commanders like Scipio Africanus attempt to introduce more sophisticated tactics.


The organisation
The strength of a legio was variable and depended on the specific needs of a campaign. The authorised strength of foot varied between some 4200 to over 6000 infantrymen and the establishment strength of the horse varied between 200 and 300 troopers. In a legion of 4200 this was divided in some 1200 each of velites, hastati and principes and 600 triarii. An increase in the number of infantrymen did not affect the number of subunits as the strength of these was merely increased. It was also usual that when the legion's complement was strengthened the units of triarii generally received fewer extra men than the other classes of troops.

A legio was subdivided in thirty manipuli consisting of two centuriae. Command of the manipulus lay in the hands of the senior centurio commanding the unit on the right of the formation, the officer of the other centuria acting as his deputy. The hastati, principes and triarii each had ten such manipuli numbered I to X. The other infantrymen were attached to these units having no separate organisation. The strength of the units of triarii was generally only half that of the hastati and principes Gradually new subdivisions called cohortes were introduced in the Roman legiones, probably patterned on similar formations of the Italic allies. In these units one manipulus of hastati, principes and triarii with their attached light infantrymen were brigaded together. The need for small independent units to fight against the tribesmen in the mountains of Spain is likely to have been the stimulus for the creation of these new legionary subdivisions.

Each legio had its own organic cavalry arm. The usual strength of the legionary horse varied between 200 and 300 cavalrymen. These horsemen were organised in decuriae of each ten troopers under the command of a decurio, three decuriae being grouped together in a turma under the overall command of the senior decurio. Within each decuria a rearrank officer was appointed by its commander.


The officers
The command of a legio was entrusted to six tribuni militum drawn from the senatorial class. A minimum of five to ten years prior army service was required before men were eligible for the post of tribunus militum. Former praetores and consules as well as young men at the start of their public careers served as tribunus ensuring that at least part of these officers were experienced commanders. Part of the tribuni were elected by the popular assembly and known as comitiati while other officers of this rank termed Rufuli were selected by the commanders-in-chief. Junior officers known as centuriones were selected by the tribuni among the more experienced fighting men. Commanding the manipuli were the centurions called hastatus prior, princips prior and pilus prior with the hastatus posterior, princeps posterior and pilus posterior personally selected by the former acting as their deputies. Great prestige was attached to the post of primus pilus, the senior centurion commanding the first manipulus of triarii. As senior centurion of the legion this officer was admitted to the councils of the high command.

The centuriones were assisted in their tasks by a small number of NCO's. The republican legionary organisation was however much simpler than the elaborate imperial system of principales and immunes. An optio served as a rearrank officer keeping the legionaries in check, a signifer carried the unit's standard and a tesserarius was in charge of the watchword. Attached to each manipulus as military musicians were further a cornicen and tubicen. Contrary to imperial practice the NCO's probably earned the same pay as the ordinary soldiers, centurions themselves at this time only being paid twice the amount of the rank and file.

[caesar44]

After Marius -

The Roman army of the late republic is often connected to the socalled Marian army reforms. In fact radical reforms of the army structure were few. What novel measures were taken, were moreover in fact the work of other generals than Gaius Marius. One of the more current misconceptions regarding the Roman army in the later republican era concerns the introduction of a professional army recruited from volunteers to replace the militia army composed of conscripts. Conscription was not ended by the fact that Marius accepted volunteers from the capite censi. Draftees rather than volunteers continued to provide the bulk of legionary recruits. Neither is there much actual evidence for wide ranging organisational and tactical reforms by the great general. The cohors appears to have been incorporated in the regular organisation well before the days of Marius. Although gladiatorial trainers were employed as an emergency measure by Rutilius Rufus after the defeats inflicted on the Romans by the Cimbri and Teutones there are no indications available that this entailed a drastic improvement in training standards. It is also very doubtful that instructors of this unsuitable background continued to be employed after the emergency situation had passed. The light infantry velites were not abolished by Marius, merely being equipped with different shields and continuing to serve in the wars of Sulla against Mithridates. One measure however is very closely associated with Marius. This general reduced the size of the legion's baggage train by requiring his soldiers to carry much of their equipment themselves. This resulted in the heavily laden legionaries being nicknamed muli Mariani or Marius's mules.

The command structure of the Roman army underwent considerable changes in the late republic. The role of the consules as the primary commanders of Rome's legions diminished, finally being ended by the Sullan reforms of the constitution. In their stead proconsuls and commanders granted extraordinary powers were now the most important army leaders. The restriction on the maximum number of legions under the command of a single general was lifted. Armies could now be made up of up to several dozens of legions. The nature of the army also changed with soldiers being loyal to their commanders rather than the Roman state itself. The fact that campaigns in this period tended to be more prolonged and the securing of discharge benefits by the personal influence of the generals attached the soldiers much more closely to their leaders.

The legions

The legiones provided the citizen troops of the Roman army. As a result of the expansion of the empire the number of units under arms at any given moment had risen since the middle republic. Some of these units remained in service for longer periods, discharging soldiers who had served their time and accepting new recruits in their place. These semi-permanent units began gradually to develop their own distinctive identity, a process accelerated by the prolonged Gallic campaigns of Caesar and the civil wars that followed it. With different parties in the civil wars each levying their own armies, legionary numerals started to be duplicated. Legions started to adopt honorary cognomina and acquire particular symbols and signs. Some commanders valued this esprit de corps of their legiones to such an extent that they preferred to levy new units rather than dilute their veteran formations with the influx of new men.

Legionary recruitment

Contrary to popular opinion the majority of legionary soldiers in this period remained levied conscripts rather than volunteers drawn from the capite censi. The property qualifications that had already been lowered several times in the previous decades however appear to have been waived altogether. To enlarge the legionary strength legiones vernaculae were raised from provincials rather than Roman citizens on several occasions, notably during the civil wars of the first century BC.

Men enlisted in the army now generally had to serve for longer periods of time and were often from an impoverished agrarian background. Roman generals interested in gaining the loyalty of the troops were therefore keen on securing special discharge benefits for their men. This often took the form of distribution of land to time served soldiers. For this purpose land was on several occasions confiscated on a huge scale, both in Italy as well as the provinces.

Service conditions were greatly improved during the civil wars. Previously pay had barely covered expenses and soldiers gained only by the opportunities for plunder. The fighting between the various civil war parties enabled the loyalty of the troops to be converted in wealth. Commanders anxious to attach the legionaries to their cause distributed generous bounties known as donativa to their troops on a regular basis. Caesar did much to enlarge his popularity by doubling the standard rate of pay and providing silvered and gilded equipment to his men. The provision of weaponry and equipment by the Roman government and commanders to the troops remained an exception to the rule, the soldiers still being expected to equip themselves at their own expense.

Legionary organisation

The composition of the legio in the late republic was different from the earlier formations. The light infantry velites disappear from the records after the battles of Sulla in Asia Minor, their role being taken over by a mix of legionary antesignani and auxiliary skirmishers. The units of the triarii were by now brought up to the same strength as those of the hastati and principes and by this date carried the pilum in place of the thrusting spear. Ten cohortes combining manipuli of hastati, principes and pili with the same number had become part of the regular legionary organisation. The battle formation of the legion also changed. The triple battle lines of ten manipuli had either been replaced or supplemented by a new formation with four cohortes in the first and three cohortes each in the other two battle lines. This new deployment meant that the legion now had twelve rather than ten manipuli available for action in the front line.

The old legionary cavalry recruited from the equites Romani disappeared from the legionary organisation at some point in the first century BC. This may have left the legio without an integral cavalry arm. However if speculatores in this period were mounted troops as their imperial counterparts certainly were, a very small number of legionaries may have been cavalrymen. The apparent lack of substantial citizen cavalry was made good by recruiting large numbers of barbarian and provincial horsemen. The Bellum Gallicum relates of one interesting occasion when Caesar had the entire legio X mounted on horses from the auxiliary troopers to serve as a reliable cavalry guard during a meeting with the German chieftain Ariovistus.

In the civil wars commanders spent much effort in the formation of loyal elite units. This was partly achieved by employing foreign bodyguards from barbarians with a high reputation for loyalty and devotion to duty. Hispanic, Gallic and German horsemen served widely as personal guards. However picked citizen troops also played an important role. Caesar established the legio X Equestris as his favourite unit while other commanders selected legionary soldiers for service in cohortes praetoriae or bodies of speculatores. The antesignani were another elite corps picked from the bravest legionaries and employed in a variety of roles including light infantry skirmishing as well as spearheading assaults.

Legionary officers

There were some changes in the structure of the legionary officer corps compared to the legions of the middle republic. The status and remuneration of the centuriones in the Roman army was significantly raised in the late republican period. This was in recognition of their importance to the army. The pay raise for the centurions may well have been accompanied by an increase in pay to the non commissioned officers which would eventually emerge as the principales of the imperial army. Legionary tribuni which had previously included men of great experience, were by this date often young and lacking in experience. This resulted in the command of legiones being given to legati appointed by the army commander rather than to the senior tribunus. These legati had however not yet developed in the similarly named legionary commanders of the imperial army as they were not attached to particular units and regularly shifted commands.

The auxilia

After the Social War waged against the Italic allies Roman citizenship was granted to all of these below the river Po. This meant that Italic soldiers were now directly recruited in the legiones rather than serving in separate alae sociorum. Auxiliary forces from outside Italy were however employed on a large scale. Many of these forces were raised for specific campaigns and disbanded as soon as their services were no longer needed. Only a minority of these units, notably cavalry, achieved a semi-permanent status.

Part of the auxiliary forces levied for service in the Roman army were organised on the Roman pattern in cohortes and alae of some 500 men. Command of these units was partially entrusted to nobles from the communities that supplied the troops, though legionary centuriones and equestrian officers were also employed. Equipment and tactics of the auxiliaries were for a large part those of their native regions. Some units however were equipped and trained according to Roman standards. A peculiar feature was the formation of some cavalry formations as more or less private armies of retainers by Roman officers, the ala Scaevae being an example.

Little is known of the remuneration and other service conditions of the auxiliary forces. During earlier times allies received upkeep from the Roman state but no regular pay was provided. Other troops though are described as mercenaries in the sources indicating that at least some auxilia were paid for their services. To a limited extent auxiliary soldiers with good service records were granted Roman citizenship. However these grants were made to individuals and were not a regular occurence. Only after the reign of the emperor Claudius would time served soldiers in the auxilia receive citizenship on a regular basis.

[caesar44]

Hope it was helpfull . please tell me if want more info' .

[khelvan]

Is this your site, or did you just find it appropriate?

http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/reparmy2.html

I'm not sure I agree with everything he says, based on my own research into Livy, Polybius, and others, but it is a nice overview.

[caesar44]

Yes , this is the site .
Livius , Polybius , Cassius Dio , Appian and others wrote with contradiction to each other (my English...) , but the site is trying , with much success , to combine the sources .

[Epistolary Richard]

Interesting, thank you. My question was really what was the composition of the army as around the period of 107BC and then, leading on from that, how best we can represent it in terms of the pre and post Marian troops. From what you've posted it sounds like velites and triarii both still existed into the wars in Asia Minor against Mithridates - but were the triarii the triarii as vanilla would understand them? Still carrying spears, or had they swapped to a similar armament the other lines as they eventually would.

One likely idea at the moment is to go for a mix of post and pre Marian troops for the first few years and gradual fade out the spear-carrying triarii and the velites in favour of auxilia. Perhaps using bonuses to increase the growth of 'recruitable' population as the reforms take hold.

I think I'm happy with Edessa staying independent, perhaps using the allied cities feature recently announced to associate it with Parthia. Also, I'm considering that the Parthians may well be considered to hold Sogdiane.

Government wise: well, the biggies are Rome and Parthia. Obviously indebted to Stuie's map above and also for the following from EB member VandalCarthage

They had 'upper kingdoms' and 'lower kingdoms,' 17 of the first and 11 of the latter I think... but the upper kingdoms were basically satrapies, while the 11 lower kingdoms were variously independent kingdoms that swore fealty or regions directly controlled by relatives of Parthian nobles in the upper kingdoms.
This seems a good distinction to draw the line between the 'core' style of government and other forms.

For Rome - I would imagine that, as historically, 'core' government would be the one required for the recruitment of legionaries. As Italian legionaries were extremely similar to Roman, I think it would be appropriate to have the core government on the Italian peninsula (and perhaps some of Sicily) and then some for of provincial governship/client king for the rest of their holdings.

[khelvan]

Richard, as you know military reforms are often long processes, not overnight reshaping of entire armies. The "Marian Reforms" are no different. Basically, the actual change in tactics and troop composition was a long-term process. What Marius did was to, among other things, remove the property ownership requirement for volunteers to join the legion - they simply had to be citizens now. He also ended the practice of legions being re-enrolled for every campaign and gave them individual standards, the legionary eagles, giving them a shared identity.

Until we reveal our Roman faction, further discussion on how we should handle the Roman troops in the late-period project should probably be continued in our hidden area.

[VandalCarthage]

Epistolary, your map up there as far as the Ptolemies isn't accurate.

In 107, Ptolemy IX Soter, was actually the independent ruler of Cyprus and Cyrenaica - completely independent of Egypt. At this period, the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt was characterized by dynastic feuds, so he'd actually held the throne in Alexandria previously, and would rule there again less then two decades afterwards. But, at the onset of the late period project, he would rule a completely independent kingdom that included Cyprus and Cyrenaica, and was allied with the current Seleucid dynast - as he'd sent his own troops to his aid... since the Seleucid dynasty at this point was also characterized by dynastic feuds ~D

[Centurion Cato]

@ER

Marius based the new legions on Principes, ala units were still in use but dissappeared soon after as the ala got there citizenship. Later ala became the aux units. Keppe, McCullough, Goldsworthy & Connely will tell you this. This new military system stayed in place untill the 40's bc. What caesar44 is telling you is correct.

If you got my PM then in the DL you'll find information on exactly this topic.

(http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books-uk&field-author=McCullough%2C%20Colleen/202-9084678-9788602)

[Centurion Cato]

Further to this, you should also note that the composition of the Marian army in 107bc still contained Velites. Velites were last recorded being used by Sulla in 88bc in his campaigns in the east. Also there are records which state that some units were armed as slingers, but no specific unit was committed to this.
The Romans also used Gallic horsemen, Sulla recruited these horsemen for the Numidian campaign.

As i see it, hastati & triarii were dropped as tactical units and the principes formed the core of Marian legion. Equipment stayed largely the same until the Augustan reforms.

ER, have a look on RedRampant.com for more info on this.

I hope this helps with the roman area of your mod!!!! ~;)

[VandalCarthage]

As an aside regarding my notes there on the independent Ptolemaic kingdom in Cyprus and Cyrenaica... since Ptolemy IX was formally distinguished as 'Lathyros,' a good name for this independent kingdom would simply be the Lathyrosian Kingdom, in keeping with the presumed idea of dynastic rule - again presuming that he would be set up as irreconciled with the Alexandrian backed Ptolemies in Egypt. Of course for the first release, this would just be a good name for a new rebel faction there.

Some other more interesting specifics that I referenced in one of the Ptolemaic histories I have, is that he actually became powerful while still ruling this independent kingdom. He sent 6,000 Cypriot levies to aid one of the feuding Seleucid dynasts, and actually maintained the loyalty of Cyrenaica throughout his time on Cyprus. Apparently he also emplyed a good many mercenary pirates in his navy, and some of the peoples of Southern Asia Minor in a small local force on Cyprus, which he successfully fortified and defended several times.

[Dux Corvanus]

About Iberian faction, there is something that worries me.

You know, that it must limit itself to the only peninsular areas still not conquered by Rome at your start period. This is, Asturia and Cantabria.

We have some units from that area. The problem is the rest of Iberian stuff. Asturian-Cantabrian culture was very different from the SE and central stuff we normally take as Iberian. This means that a good portion of EB Iberian faction-specific stuff -gameplay, cultural references, artwork and most common recruitable units- is simply not fit for those northern provinces, Iberian as they are.

:embarassed:

[caesar44]

Europa ...(?)

[caesar44]

As an aside regarding my notes there on the independent Ptolemaic kingdom in Cyprus and Cyrenaica... since Ptolemy IX was formally distinguished as 'Lathyros,' a good name for this independent kingdom would simply be the Lathyrosian Kingdom, in keeping with the presumed idea of dynastic rule - again presuming that he would be set up as irreconciled with the Alexandrian backed Ptolemies in Egypt. Of course for the first release, this would just be a good name for a new rebel faction there.

Some other more interesting specifics that I referenced in one of the Ptolemaic histories I have, is that he actually became powerful while still ruling this independent kingdom. He sent 6,000 Cypriot levies to aid one of the feuding Seleucid dynasts, and actually maintained the loyalty of Cyrenaica throughout his time on Cyprus. Apparently he also emplyed a good many mercenary pirates in his navy, and some of the peoples of Southern Asia Minor in a small local force on Cyprus, which he successfully fortified and defended several times.


Please if you can , a short chronology of the Ptolemaic dynasty since 166 bce ~:) the confusion...

[Epistolary Richard]

The Ptolemies were indeed confusing, I believe that Ptolemy IX that VC refers to held power on three different occasions, swapping back and forth with Ptolemy X. But anyway, I would suggest you start with this (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Ptolemy+VIII+of+Egypt&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Ptolemy%20VIII) and then click on the successor to follow the story along.


As an aside regarding my notes there on the independent Ptolemaic kingdom in Cyprus and Cyrenaica... since Ptolemy IX was formally distinguished as 'Lathyros,' a good name for this independent kingdom would simply be the Lathyrosian Kingdom, in keeping with the presumed idea of dynastic rule - again presuming that he would be set up as irreconciled with the Alexandrian backed Ptolemies in Egypt. Of course for the first release, this would just be a good name for a new rebel faction there.
Sounds very interesting, he was deposed in 107BC right? I suppose that leaves the question of do we go with Ptolemy IX or X as the faction leader? Both could present exciting challenges if their kingdom starts divided.

I imagine these dynastic struggles were feuds that took place mainly at the highest levels and the common man was not much involved. Would it be the case that different cities would support different dynasts? Or would it all be handled behind closed doors more than on the field of battle?


We have some units from that area. The problem is the rest of Iberian stuff. Asturian-Cantabrian culture was very different from the SE and central stuff we normally take as Iberian. This means that a good portion of EB Iberian faction-specific stuff -gameplay, cultural references, artwork and most common recruitable units- is simply not fit for those northern provinces, Iberian as they are.
To be sure, Iberia will be a challenge to play. :grin: But we're not really able to play around with changing the factions around for the first release. Plus it gives Iberia great potential for development, as it expands and beats back the Romans it liberates its homeland and gains access to new troops and reclaims its sacred sites.


I hope this helps with the roman area of your mod!!!!
It does indeed, many thanks for your help. Obviously there's a lot to think about as to how best to represent this all :thinking:

[VandalCarthage]

Sounds very interesting, he was deposed in 107BC right? I suppose that leaves the question of do we go with Ptolemy IX or X as the faction leader? Both could present exciting challenges if their kingdom starts divided.

I imagine these dynastic struggles were feuds that took place mainly at the highest levels and the common man was not much involved. Would it be the case that different cities would support different dynasts? Or would it all be handled behind closed doors more than on the field of battle?

I believe they should be divided, as independent faction leaders, since he was deposed early in 107 from his rule in Alexandria. Ptolemy IX obviously should head the Cypriot/Cyrenaican Ptolemaic faction, while Ptolemy X Alexander and his wife Berenice III should rule in Alexandria, over the rest of the Nile territories. With some unique Cypriot units, and Cyrenaican auxilia, it would be pretty awesome to see the two go at each other - with what were by all accounts pretty equally equipped forces.

And the feud was actually not a behind the scenes affair. Ptolemy IX deployed troops independently in Syria during his reign in Cyprus. The Alexandrian citizens were also known for a good deal of individual personal activism - most notably lynching a king 20 minutes after he poisoned his mother. The people of Alexandria were always active in the political struggles, often forcing upper level decisions through their own insistance, while the people of the country outside the city were equally active and frequently supported the factions outside of Alexandria ~D Though they never confronted each other on the battlefield in any significant fashion, they were clearly rivals; one for holding the throne in Alexandria, and the other for taking it. Since similar rivalries had very frequently in the past brought native populations to arms in the defense of their individual faction leader, it stands to reason that under Ptolemy IX's stable rule in Cyprus, that the condition would have been equally inflammatory to subject populations.

[VandalCarthage]

Since I mentioned his intervention in Syria, it seems like the Seleucid's situation als bears some discussion.

For our period, the Seleucid kingdom being restricted to Syria, was divided between Antiochus VIII Grypus and Antiochus IX Cyzicenus. Grypus was allied with Cleopatra III and Ptolemy IX on Cyprus, and was the recipient of his aid, while Cyzicenus was supported by Ptolemy X in Alexandria. This is probably one of the most confusing points of the dynastic feud, as the Ptolemaic factions were reversed at this point; the Alexandrian party having been previously supported by Cyprus, while being opposed by partisans in the Egyptian country. Despite that, in 107, the positions were reversed yet again - with Ptolemy IX supporting Cyzicenus, and even sending him the 6,000 local levies I mentioned earlier.

(As an aside, the numbers here demonstrate how much stronger the Ptolemies in Cyprus were then those centered around the 'old kingdom' regions. They simply had less local loyalty and fewer resources to maintain an army abroad, and Ptolemy IX may have controlled more of the Libyan coast East of Cyrenaica)

Fortunately, there are a lot of specific dates regarding some of the local events around here. Around 108, Grypus granted Seleucia it's independence in Syria, but retained personal control of the Northern reaches of the now entirely Syrian cenetered kingdom, including Pamphylia. Cyzicenus also granted the independence of Tyre and Sidon a few years earlier, and Samaria was taken by the Hasmoneans only a couple years later, indicating that the last of his power was centered around Southern Syria and Northern 'Palestine/Judea' with less significant possessions to the East. Grypus also probably controlled Cilicia, as his son later established his own court there when he was defeated.

So, again we find out that the there were two distinct independent kingdoms of the Seleucids, in much the same boat as the two independent Ptolemaic kingdoms (save in the respect that they weren't at war) ~D The individual alliances make it even more interesting... the more powerful Ptolemaic kingdom supported the declining Seleucid faction, while the more powerful Seleucids were ostensibly supported by the declining Ptolemaic faction - in so far as they could support them. The latter alliance wasn't of substantial use to either faction, but in game, with a Jewish kingdom between the two, it would make for some incredible interaction - especially considering that the two Seleucid kingdoms had a stable peace bewteen each other that lasted for a goodly while.

[Epistolary Richard]

Most interesting. It strikes me that perhaps there is a way we can allow the player to try their hands at both dynastic lines. It would just be a matter of swapping the territory and changing the names and the Ptolomeioi and Seleukid factions would portray the other side of the struggle. We could have a Provincial Campaign for these 'alternate dynasties'. This would allow us to offer a different starting position and a different challenge to the Ptolomeioi, the Seleukids, we could represent a different Indo-Greek kingdom, a different Roman faction (though not at civil war, a game starting in Gaul facing the Cimibri & Teutoni would be very different from one as Marius facing the Numidians).

[GoreBag]

Most interesting. It strikes me that perhaps there is a way we can allow the player to try their hands at both dynastic lines. It would just be a matter of swapping the territory and changing the names and the Ptolomeioi and Seleukid factions would portray the other side of the struggle. We could have a Provincial Campaign for these 'alternate dynasties'. This would allow us to offer a different starting position and a different challenge to the Ptolomeioi, the Seleukids, we could represent a different Indo-Greek kingdom, a different Roman faction (though not at civil war, a game starting in Gaul facing the Cimibri & Teutoni would be very different from one as Marius facing the Numidians).

In such an alternate campaign, would it be possible to change the Gallic faction to the Arverni, or are they no longer faction material at this point in time?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

what is the evidence for the Casse in the late 2nd century BC?

[Ranika]

A lot of it comes from Roman's understanding of the region; further, coins with their king (Cassivellaunus; the title of the king of the Catuvellauni as reported by Caesar about 50 years later; the 'Casse' had developed into this tribe through the influence of Belgae, like the Atrebates) were present in the regions ascribed; midlanders didn't use coinage themselves, but Gallic-Britons did. Remaining understandings of Celtic histories point to the same development; it was the extent of any British king's holdings in this period, and represents the appex of any single Celtic-Briton's individual power in this period.

[Epistolary Richard]

In such an alternate campaign, would it be possible to change the Gallic faction to the Arverni, or are they no longer faction material at this point in time?
Not just in a simple provincial campaign as you can't change the name of the factions - so they'd still be called the Aedui. It would take a proper expansion mod of EB to do, rewriting some of the primary text files and lord knows how many other places where their name might be mentioned as well as creating a patch pak to overwrite the Aedui symbol.

As for the Averni in 107BC... to my (limited) knowledge they had rather gotten the worst of the alliance between the Aedui and the Romans. Bituitus was defeated by the Romans in 123BC and a Roman 'Provincia' was established. I believe they are largely subjugated at 107BC and their lands would be limited to around Gergovia.

Their glory days will return again, though, with Vercingetorix and his revolt against the Romans, but that won't be until 52BC.

[VandalCarthage]

Most interesting. It strikes me that perhaps there is a way we can allow the player to try their hands at both dynastic lines. It would just be a matter of swapping the territory and changing the names and the Ptolomeioi and Seleukid factions would portray the other side of the struggle. We could have a Provincial Campaign for these 'alternate dynasties'. This would allow us to offer a different starting position and a different challenge to the Ptolomeioi, the Seleukids, we could represent a different Indo-Greek kingdom, a different Roman faction (though not at civil war, a game starting in Gaul facing the Cimibri & Teutoni would be very different from one as Marius facing the Numidians).

I'm not certain what you mean... are you suggesting that in the various campiagns, cumbersome factions would be relegated to status as rebels to accomodate the others, and then reversed in the other campaign?

So, there aren't enough faction slots to represent them both in the same campaign?

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Epistolary Richard]The Ptolemies were indeed confusing, I believe that Ptolemy IX that VC refers to held power on three different occasions, swapping back and forth with Ptolemy X. But anyway, I would suggest you start with

Thanks

[Epistolary Richard]

I'm not certain what you mean... are you suggesting that in the various campiagns, cumbersome factions would be relegated to status as rebels to accomodate the others, and then reversed in the other campaign?

So, there aren't enough faction slots to represent them both in the same campaign?

Two different Ptolemy, Seleukid & Indo-Greek factions? Perhaps there would be, but there wouldn't be room for anything else, based on the number of faction slots we know to be free at present.

Also, you have to consider that to have, say, a Ptolemy IX and a Ptolemy X faction - you'd still need to put in the work to swap the Ptolemaioi stuff across into the other faction space you're using, which is all possible, but it would be at the level of having a patch.pak to overwrite some of the EB UI.

My approach to these split 'dynastic' factions would be this:

Ptolemy IX & Ptolemy X - which one of these really represents the Ptolemaioi in 107BC? An argument could be made for both sides.

So instead of just picking one, we have two campaigns where the player has the choice which one he wants to play as - and that faction is the Ptolemaioi faction, and the other 'dynastic' faction is represented by strong independents. The first objective for the dynastic player would therefore be to defeat the other claimaint to his position.

Doing Ptolemaic and Seleukid dynastic wars would be really interesting, and I know a lot of other people would be keen to have them, but I think they would really need their own EB campaign so they could be focused on - that way you could really do them properly with separate dynasts as separate factions.

[VandalCarthage]

Ok, I understand ~:) Sounds good.

I do however think that leaving Ptolemy IX's faction in the game as opposed to the other Seleucid faction, would be preferable. But of course I might be misunderstanding you again, and you meant that we'd have dynastic campaigns for both ~D

You're right though, it would be easier to just make another campaign - cut Iberia, West Africa, and Britain off to accomodate the faction slots.

[Epistolary Richard]

Now the EB OB has been released, work will actually begin on converting it. Of course, those of you who've had a look in the text files will realise that it may not be exactly easy, so patience and coding help appreciated. :thumbsup:

[Shrapnel]

from Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_provinces#List_of_Republican_provinces

List of republican provinces

241 BC Sicilia, propretorial province
231 BC Corsica et Sardinia, propretorial province
197 BC Hispania Citerior and Hispania Ulterior, propretorial provinces
167 BC Illyricum, propretorial province
146 BC Macedonia-Achaea, propretorial province
146 BC Africa proconsularis, proconsular province
129 BC Asia (province), proconsular province
120 BC Gallia Transalpina (later Gallia Narbonensis), propretorial province


107BC

Events
Gaius Marius arrived in North Africa to lead the war against Jugurtha, with a young quaestor name Lucius Cornelius Sulla as a subordinate.

106BC

Events
Sulla captured Jugurtha, thus ending the Jugurthine War.
The Chinese and the Persians establish diplomatic ties.

Births
January 3 - Cicero, Roman politician and author (d. 43 BC)
September 29 - Pompey the Great, Roman general and politician
Servius Sulpicius Rufus, Roman politician

105BC

Events
October 6 - The Battle of Arausio, where the Cimbri destroy two Roman armies on the Rhône, is the most severe defeat of Roman forces since the Battle of Cannae.
Marius, together with the consul P. Rutilius Rufus, initiated sweeping reforms of the Roman army.

104BC

Events
Aristobulus I succeeds John Hyrcanus as king of Judea.
Sima Qian starts writing his Shiji.
Athenion starts a slave rebellion in Segesta.
Gaius Marius is consul of Rome, the first of five successive consulships.
Second Servile War starts in Sicily

103BC

Events
Alexander Jannaeus succeeds his brother Aristobulus I as king of Judea.
Tryphon and Athenion lead the Second Servile War in Sicily.

102BC

Events
The Chinese capture Kokand.
Marius defeats the Scirii and Teutones at Aix-en-Provence (or Battle of Aquae Sextae).
Cimbri defeats the Consul Q. Lutatius Catulus in the Adige Valley.


101BC

Events
The Roman consuls Marius and Catulus defeat the Cimbri in the Battle of Campi Raudii (or Battle of Vercellae).
Ptolemy Apion inherits the kingdom of Cyrenaica.

100BC

Events
Tigranes II of Armenia is placed on Armenian throne by the Parthians in exchange for the cession of "seventy valleys". (approximate date)
Quintus Caecilus Metellus Numidicus is banished from Rome, as the only senator not to support the land redistribution plan of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus, and goes to Rhodes to study philosophy.

Births
July 13 - Julius Caesar, Roman general and politician (according to the Julian Calender's solar years)
Titus Labienus, Caesar's chief lieutenant in the conquest of Gaul

99BC

Events
Consul Manius Aquillius suppressed the rebellion in Sicily, thus ending the Second Servile War

Births
Lucretius, Latin philosopher and poet

Deaths
Gaius Servilius Glaucia - ally of Lucius Appuleius Saturninus (suicide)

98BC

Events
The Roman Senate passed a resolution forbidding human sacrifice.


96BC

Events
Start of the Taishi era in the Han Dynasty
Cyrene left to the people of Rome by its ruler Ptolemy Apion.
Seleucus VI Epiphanes becomes king of the Seleucid Empire following the death of his father Antiochus VIII Grypus, and defeating in battle Antiochus IX Cyzicenus.

Deaths
Antiochus VIII Grypus, king of the Seleucid Empire (murdered)
Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, king of the Seleucid Empire (died in battle)

95BC

Events
Philip I Philadelphus and Antiochus XI Ephiphanes succeed as co-rulers after the deposition of Seleucus VI Epiphanes.
"Forty metre structure" at Emain Macha (near modern Armagh, Northern Ireland) built and destroyed, presumably for ritual or ceremonial purposes.

Births
Marcus Porcius Cato, the younger, Roman politician
Clodia, daughter of Appius Claudius Pulcher and Caecilia Metella Balearica.

94BC

Deaths

Bakru II bar Bakru, ruler of Osroene
Events

The first failed attempt to open a Latin rhetorical school.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla elected praetor urbanus.


92BC

Events
In the first diplomatic contact between Rome and Parthia, Sulla meets with a Parthian envoy, resulting in the parties recognizing Euphrates as a common frontier.
Sulla repulsed Tigranes of Armenia from Cappadocia.
Gaius Sentius becomes Roman governor of Macedonia, serves until 88.

Births
Publius Clodius Pulcher, Roman politician

91BC

Events
Beginning of the Roman Social War
Nicomedes III succeeds his father Nicomedes II as king of Bithynia.

90BC

Events
The Etruscans are granted Roman citizenship.
Corfinium in south-central Italy is the center of a rebellion against Rome.
Nicomedes_III_of_Bithynia is defeated in battle by a coalition of Nicomedes' brother Socrates, and Mithridates_VI_of_Pontus. Nicomedes flees to Rome.

Births
Aulus Hirtius-consul 43 BC

Deaths
Dionysios Trax, Greek linguist
Antiochus X Eusebes, king of the Seleucid Empire (approximate date)



ALL OF THESE WERE RETREIVED FROM WIKIPEDIA

[Epistolary Richard]

A WIP shot - I've managed to sort the background script to start in 107BC and removed the factions no longer present:

https://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7601/ulppromo4ea.th.jpg (https://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ulppromo4ea.jpg)


And here's the intended faction distribution, including the newly revealed factions.

https://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3928/ulpmapjpg1ez.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

[Spitful]

When is this intened to end? Id really like it to go to the year of the four emperors, i reckon that could be scripted by locking the other family members in settlements deep in the Sahara which are impossible to get to (surrounded bt high mountains or something) so that when the time comes you spawn all the correct characters in the right places. But thats just my two cents as there are enoguh faction slots

[Epistolary Richard]

Ends at 14AD, same as EB, as we can't have additional 'later' units than those already in EB. Even a 121 year game still gives you 484 turns to play with - almost as long as the vanilla game.

[VandalCarthage]

Looking great ER ~:) Love those two in the far East; though you may want to consider changing the map a bit around India to reflect just how wealthy their territory was.

As an aside, I've never seen Heliokles II dated to that period. What's your source for that?

[jurchen fury]

IMO, the eastern part of the map could definitely call for several more steppe powers. Namely Kangju, which would be in Kangha and Sogdiane provinces, with Kangha as their capital. The Wusun can probably just be conventionally given Wusun Yabgu. Dayuan, though not entirely a steppe power, can be given namely Dayuan province. By 107 BC, these powers were definitely on the current EB map by this time. Also, maybe some Indo-Sakae kingdoms could even do. Perhaps Sakae in Drangiane and Gandhara. Interestingly, just a few years after 107 BC, the Han empire conquered current "Yuezhi Yabgu" and made Dayuan a tributary vassal; of course I'm not suggesting the Han should be in as a faction, but perhaps make rebels more active in provinces in Dayuan or west of it to sort of "simulate" the Han conquest of those areas.

[QwertyMIDX]

The Himyarites are rising to power at this time in Southern Arabia, if you want to put a faction down there. The Nabateans are more valid for this time frame than they would be in 272 BC as well.

[Epistolary Richard]

Would be nice to use the spare faction slots of course, however, until this little project acquires artists/skinners/modellers etc. I'll just have to make do.


As an aside, I've never seen Heliokles II dated to that period. What's your source for that?

Nothing fancy, of course. As I said up top, I'm not a historian and am quite happy to be corrected. As for where I got the info from, it was down to a choice between Strato I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato_I) who seems to stop around 110BC and Heliokles II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliokles_II) who pops up around 100BC. If it's a toss-up between the two I'd prefer to go with a faction leader who I can be confident will be around for a few years.

[VandalCarthage]

Tarn dated his rule up to, and potentially past 100 BC (which is why I find that wikipedia article odd, as it's only cited source is Tarn), and even the Cambridge History of Iran (2003 reprint, incase you think it's out of date ~D) presents his rule as enduring around the same length of Antialkides (100 BC). So, I'd be inclined to say Strato would be a better bet... plus, for Indo-Greek history fans, it'd be really cool to have Menander and Agathokleia as the deceased faction founders ~;)

Also, if Strato I didn't live past the end of his rule, it wasn't because he was old (obviously, considering he only ascended to his position after his mother's fairly recent regency).

[Epistolary Richard]

Good point, cooler name anyway. I'll make a couple of changes.

Talking of names, I need to start completing the list of faction leaders and other named characters: quibbles, comments and additions to below gratefully received:

Baktria/Indo-Greek
Antialcidas - Faction Leader

Baktria/Indo-Greek alternative faction
Strato - Faction Leader
Heliokles

Ptolemaioi
Ptolemy IX Soter - Faction leader

Ptolemaioi alternative faction - I've decided to switch these two around
Ptolemy X Alexander - Faction Leader

Seleukid alternative faction
Antiochus IX Cyzicenus - Faction leader

Seleukid
Antiochus VIII Grypus - Faction leader
Seleucus (VI) Epiphanes
Antiochus (XI) Ephiphanes Philadelphus
Philip (I) Philadelphus
Demetrius (III) Eucaerus

Pontos
Mithridates VI Eupator - faction leader
Pharnaces (born yet?)

Romani
Gaius Marius - faction leader
Lucius Cassius Longinus
Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Hayasdan
Tigranes - faction leader
Tigranes - faction heir

Pahlava
Mithridates II

Sauromatae
None recorded?

Casse
Morganorix

Iberia
None recorded?
If no other names present themselves:
Laro - faction leader
Corocotta

Aedui

Averni

Sweboz

Yuezhi
None known?

Getai
Choice of Rholes, Dapyx, Cotiso

[VandalCarthage]

As a note, for the Indo-Greeks under Strato, Sagala will need to be added as a city in a new province, since it was an Indo-Greek capital for Strato and both Menander's reigns.

After 30 minutes in front of the damn computer with some of my books, I've put together a family tree for both Indo-Greek factions (with Indian dynastic names for faction leaders):


Indo-Greeks under Antialkidas
-Lysias = Founder, deceased age-68
-Antialkidas (Maharajasa Jayadharasa Antialikitasa = Victorious King Antialkidas) Faction Leader age-42
-Amyntas = brother age-27
-Demetrius (III) = son of Antialkidas age-22
-Heliokles (II) = brother age-39

Indo-Greeks under Strato
-Menander & Agathokleia = parents, deceased age-65(though if possible, it would be neat to have Agathokleia alive, age-63 either way)
-Strato (Maharajasa Pracachasa Tratarasa Stratasa = Savior King Strato, Manifestation of God) = faction leader age-36
-Polyxenios = brother age-33
-Epander = brother age-29
-Menander (II) = son of Strato age-15
-Thraso = son of Strato age-12
-Apollodotus = son of Strato age-1

Also, I wanted to suggest switching these two as well, making Antialkidas' faction the alternate. Strato was the heir of the greatest Indo-Greek/Baktrian-Greek king of their couple of century run, and ruled a much larger kingdom (that probably extended a great deal East of our current boundaries). Antialkidas' borders can't actually even be set for certain, considering the way things had been going for his bunch.

[Justiciar]

Should the Sauromatae be a unified power?

[Epistolary Richard]

Should the Sauromatae be a unified power?

As part of the initial scope I decided that as far as possible we would be representing the original EB factions. That's the approach to the Sauromatae taken in the original EB. It may be changed in the future, but that's how it'll stand for the first release.

[VandalCarthage]

Since Justiciar bumped the thread to a fourth page (~D), ER, take a peek at the bottom of page 3.

Also, here's a family tree for the Seleukids, Pontus, and the Ptolemies:


Seleukids under Cyzicenus
-Antiochus (VII) Sidetes & Kleopatra Thera - parents, deceased, age-51 and age-43, respectively
-Antiochus (IX) Cyzicenus - Faction leader, age-29
-Laodike (I) - sister of Cyzicenus, age-27
-Laodike (II) - sister of Cyzicenus, age-24
-Antiochus (X) Eusebes - son of Cyzicenus, age-6

Seleukids under Grypus
-Demetrius (II) Nicator & Kleopatra Thera - parents, deceased, age-40 and age-43, respectively
-Antiochus (VIII) Grypus - Faction leader, age-32
-Seleucus (VI) Epiphanes - son of Grypus, age-14
-Antiochus (XI) Ephiphanes Philadelphus - son of Grypus, age-12
-Philip (I) Philadelphus - son of Grypus, age-12
-Demetrius (III) Eucaerus - son of Grypus, age-9
-Antiochos (XII) Dionysos - son of Grypus, age-5
-Laodike - daughter of Grypus, age-6

Ptolemaioi under Ptolemy IX
-Ptolemy IX Soter & Kleopatra Selene - Faction leader, age-36 and age-28
-Ptolemy XII - son of Ptolemy IX, age-10
-Ptolemy of Cyprus - son of Ptolemy IX, age-9
-Berenike - daughter of Ptolemy IX, age-7

Ptolemaioi under Ptolemy X
-Ptolemy VIII & Kleopatra III - parents, father deceased, age-68 and age-52 (
-Ptolemy X Alexander - Faction Leader, age-33

Pontos
Mithridates (V) Euergetes - father, deceased, age-72
Mithridates (VI) Eupator - faction leader, age-25

The problem with the Ptolemies, is that they were the sons of the same couple, and Ptolemy IX's family actually stayed behind in Alexandria when he left for Cyprus. Since they eventually went there, I don't think it's really a problem, but his wife married Ptolemy X a little after he'd left. The only way out I can think of, is to consider her an 'absentee' wife, since she remarried a turn or two after our starting point (same year though), and presume that she'd have followed him later if marriage wasn't an option in our 'timeline.'

[VandalCarthage]

Probably premature, but I just thought I'd throw this little map out there with some suggestions for the period map of India. It would involve one name change, which should be made in any case, and three new provinces (including Sagala, which'll need to be squeezed in anyway) and some basic suggested borders:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/InocPrime/indus.jpg

[Epistolary Richard]

Thanks for the family trees, most appreciated :thumbsup:. And I agree with you and am going to swap to Baktrian alternate faction. Name changes to settlements are possible (though increase the likelihood of errors if I don't catch all occurrences of them). New provinces are outside the scope of the initial release though, as EB are at the limit anyway, any province added means a province being lost somewhere else and a helluva lot of changes to go along with it. However, somewhere down the line it may be possible.

[VandalCarthage]

New provinces are outside the scope of the initial release though, as EB are at the limit anyway, any province added means a province being lost somewhere else and a helluva lot of changes to go along with it. However, somewhere down the line it may be possible.

I dig it, but changes will eventually have to be made (swapping the Zeugitania province's city from Kart-Hadasht to Utica for example), so I figured I'd drop the info ~;)


Thanks for the family trees, most appreciated . And I agree with you and am going to swap to Baktrian alternate faction. Name changes to settlements are possible (though increase the likelihood of errors if I don't catch all occurrences of them).

Sounds good ~:) Do you think the first release will be able to accomodate extra features; traits, ethnicities, temples, etc? Right now, I'm writing a bunch of ethnicities for both Indo-Greek factions, and trying work out some better temples.

[Epistolary Richard]

Do you think the first release will be able to accomodate extra features; traits, ethnicities, temples, etc? Right now, I'm writing a bunch of ethnicities for both Indo-Greek factions, and trying work out some better temples.

A few EB files are going to have to be added to outside of the provincial campaign. Traits are possible as there are no known hardcoded limits around the edct file, but be aware that whatever additions are made will also potentially appear in the main EB campaign.


Progress---

Redistributed province ownership:

https://img77.imageshack.us/img77/3012/minimap9dp.jpg (https://imageshack.us)


Indo-Greek family tree:

https://img98.imageshack.us/img98/691/baktriafamily5rl.th.jpg (https://img98.imageshack.us/my.php?image=baktriafamily5rl.jpg)

VC, is the Baktrios surname appropriate or is there something better I can use?

[VandalCarthage]

VC, is the Baktrios surname appropriate or is there something better I can use?

Sigerdos would be better, since it refered specifically to the Indus itself. Since Menander was born in 'Alasanda' near the Indus, and in all likelihood, Strato was born in Sagala, it would probably be the best surname we could use.

I also don't know what you want to do with the names, but here is a list of my own translations of the Greek names of the Indo-Greek kings (as well as a few unrelated extras) into Kharoshti.

Agathoklayasa = Agathokles
Amitasa = Amyntas
Anantakayasa = Antiochus
Antialikitasa = Antialkidas
Antimakhasa = Antimakos
Apalatasa = Apollodotus
Apalavinasa = Apollophanes
Arkhebiyasa = Archebios
Artemidorasa = Artemidoros
Dimetria = Demetrius
Diyanisiyasa = Dionysios
Diyumetsa = Diomedes
Epadrasa = Epander
Eukratitasa = Eukratides
Heliyakreyasa = Heliokles
Heramayasa = Hermaios
Hipustratasa = Hippostratos
Joilasa = Zoilos
Lisikasa = Lysias
Menadrasa = Menander
Nikiasa = Nicias
Pakurasa = Pakora
Pamtalevasa = Pantaleon
Palasinasa = Polyxenios
Philasinasa = Philoxenus
Piukulasa = Peukolaos
Stratasa = Strato
Telepasa = Telephus
Theudorena = Theodorus
Theuphilasa = Theopholis
Thrasasa = Thraso

[jebes]

Are you going to include the Yuezhi? Especially if it is removed from EB and you will have the space for other factions.

[VandalCarthage]

The preliminary faction lists and starting positions are on the third page ~;)

[Kralizec]

I think that Numidia should really be added, otherwise North Africa isn't going to get the action it deserves. Making them rebels just doesn't cut it IMO.

If they are going to be added, they should start out with several diplomats with high skill, Jughurta was a master of bribery and frustrated the Romans to no end. Marius was only sent to Africa because he was considered incorruptable.

[Simmons]

Yeah Africa is looking pretty bare that could cause gameplay problems.

[Epistolary Richard]

Previously on EB - the Unofficial Late Period Project


With Macedonia and Hellenes gone are you bringing Numidia back?

Well, it's very tempting. Jugurtha was the big thing in North Africa at 107BC and it would be a shame to lose him. Without Carthage, north africa looks terribly empty. We could have strong rebels there, of course, but that might be missing an opportunity.

For the intial release, at least, we wouldn't be looking at adding new models or anything like that. _However_, if the open beta has any Numidian regional units that perhaps could be used to create a Numidian faction in place of Carthage, then it's a possibility as that would just be a bit of text editing (well, okay, a lot of text editing) and a bit of graphic work. It would probably be a bit rough and ready, but perhaps better than losing a faction entirely.

So, not for the initial release, because we'll be trying to get that out as quickly as possible, but maybe as an add-on.

[Kralizec]

Yeah I did read that, but still wanted to express how I feel about it. I haven't even touched the African continent in EB yet, so I don't know if there are any regional units there that could be used for a Numidian faction. I personally think that a Numidea "light" with a rather limited selection of units and not much in the way of scripting is still preferable to no Numidia at all.

[Epistolary Richard]

If you can list any existing troops that can be used or have ideas for the different government levels then do share them, it will always be useful down the road.

[Epistolary Richard]

Progress on family trees - as far as I'm aware aside from the Casse these are the only factions for which we have details so I may as well leave the rest the same.

https://img439.imageshack.us/img439/5066/baktriafamily8qa.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

https://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9479/hayasdanfamily6ih.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

https://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5056/pahlavafamily3ke.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

https://img474.imageshack.us/img474/6387/pontosfamily1nk.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

https://img474.imageshack.us/img474/5020/ptolemaioifamily8fv.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

https://img474.imageshack.us/img474/4940/romanifamily8yw.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

https://img474.imageshack.us/img474/7172/seleukidfamily3zv.jpg (https://imageshack.us)


Quite a few of them are rather small - some with only one active family member. However with so few characters the player will be offered a variety of adoptions early on in the game - in the year 107BC several factions were in crisis after all; for example, would the faction of Ptolemy IX have managed to retake Egypt if he were gone. Equally, in other cases such as the Romani - how to portray the relationship between Marius and Longinus within the RTW family tree system? Better perhaps to allow Marius to choose his lieutenants through adoptions at the beginning of the game. Anyway, all suggestions or other information appreciated.

[VandalCarthage]

Great stuff mate ~:cheers: Too bad Grypus can't have his fifth son included.

[Epistolary Richard]

Yep, too bad blinkin' Marius and Sulla have the same portraits too.

[Masy]

So hows the mod going? whats the latest word? i'm actually really looking forward to it because i've never been able to play with the post marian units in a campaign (unavoidable crashes etc)

[Epistolary Richard]

It's edging towards an alpha build at present. As there aren't really any testers, I'll be releasing the alpha for those interested in having a crack and then feeding back opinions on the correct level of development of cities and proper composition of garrisons and the traits for the starting characters etc. After a few rounds of that we may well be in a position to release a beta for the beta :smile:

For stability reasons though, I won't put out anything that's not compatible with the forthcoming EB patch.

[Simmons]

Good stuff looking forward to giving this a go

[Christianus]

Hello!
Just wanted to say this looks great!
My first post:)

[Zenith Darksea]

Hmm, you're naming conventions might need some tweaking. Just in places like 'Soter Ptolemaios' - it should really be 'Ptolemaios Soter'. Also, 'Antiochos Grypus' isn't right - 'Antiochos Grypos' is more consistent (either Latinise everything or don't Latinise anything). Similarly 'Philip Philadelphus' should really be 'Philippos Philadelphos' and so on. 'Menander' should be 'Menandros. You get the idea.

Otherwise, it's looking very good.

[Angadil]

Hi, ER, the project looks very interesting and promising and I hope you find some of the stuff below useful...


Talking of names, I need to start completing the list of faction leaders and other named characters: quibbles, comments and additions to below gratefully received:
....
(SNIP)
....
Sauromatae
None recorded?


Well, we do know of a Sarmatian king named Tasios who threatened the Bosporan kingdom in 111-110 BCE thus giving Mithridates Eupator a good excuse to meddle in the affairs of the northern Black Sea and eventually annex the Bosporan Kingdom. Tasios seems a reasonable candidate for faction leader. Other royal Sarmatians known from I BCE were Abeakos, Eunones, Spadinos and Zorsines, though they were not related to Tasios.

Hmmm... now that I think of it, the Bosporion Tyrranessis province should probably actually go to Pontos (I think it's rebel in the latest map you posted, but hard to say). The annexation apparently happened in summer or autumn of 108 BCE. The cession of rule to the Pontic Kingdom had been agreed by the last Spartocid ruler, Paerisades V, who was killed in 111-111 BCE by a Bosporan Scythian named Saumacus. The elites of the Scythian element of the Bosporan kingdom apparently resented deeply the agreed Pontic takeover and Saumacus led them in an ultimately unsuccessful rebellion against it.

There seems to be some disagreement about the exact dates of the above events and I've seen them moved a year up or down. Nonetheless, I'd still say that, for 107 BCE, giving Bosporion Tyrranessis to Pontos seems a safe bet.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

You have to invert the names - the whole RTW system would pass down the family name "Soter" under your suggested system. I'm sure they'd rather it be inverted than just plain kooky. But you're right about the Menandros. I might go over their greek names at a later date.

[Zenith Darksea]

Ok, that's a fair point.

[VandalCarthage]

Hey Richard, for the Indo-Greek family tree - would it be possible to have a deceased brother of Menander, with a deceased son, and finally a single living grandson of the former?

[Malrubius]

You'd kill them with a script at the start, and Menander's father, as well.

[VandalCarthage]

I was hoping to do it without having to involve a father, but fortunately it's no longer concern. I do however have some changes I'd like to see go in for Menander's family (after re-reading my Narain):


-Demetrius = father of Menander, deceased age-61 (only add if Menander and Apollodotus can't be used alone)
-Menander (I) & Agathokleia = parents, deceased age-65 and age-63, respectively
-Apollodotus (I) = brother of Menander, deceased age-71
-Strato = son of Menander, faction leader age-36
-Nicias = son of Menander, age-29
-Strato (II) = son of Strato, faction heir, age-17
-Menander (II) = son of Strato, age-14
-Apollodotus (II) = son of Apollodotus (I), cousin of Strato, age-43
-Theophilos = son of Apollodotus (II), age-18
-Apollophanes = son of Apollodotus (II), age-8
-Polyxenios = brother of Menander, age-48
-Zoilos = son of Polyxenios, age-16
-Dionysius = son of Polyxenios, age-14
-Epander = brother of Menander, age-43
-Thraso = son of Epander, age-17

Pretty substantial changes... but this family tree is my masterpiece ~;)

Also, the map is going to need to shift a little.

Antialcidas should only have Gandhara, while the Paropamisadai and Arachosia (under Philoxenus age-39) should have small mixed Indian and Greek garissons. Strato's Indo-Greeks should have an army under Polyxenios (with Zoilos) on foot in Northern Arachosia, one under Epander (with Thraso) in Paropamisadai, and another fairly large army under Apollodotus (II) (with Theophilos) should be present in the far West of Gandhara. Strato and his ilk, can just be hanging out in Opiana, Sind.

As an aside, how would you feel about using Sanskrit/Prakrit/Brahmi for pertinent starting faction family members? And using the Sanskrit "Milindarajya" (Kingdom of Milinda) as a designation for Strato's Kingdom?

[Epistolary Richard]

Thanks, VC. They'll all make it in there in time.

In the meantime, here's an alpha version (https://www.europabarbarorum.com/useruploads/ULPv0.1.zip) v0.1.

An alpha version is an internal team release - it is pre-beta version and is released only in order to help development, not to be properly playable.

It installs as a provincial campaign (it's a bit stripped down to keep the file size down).

It does overwrite some base files - however you can still play the EB 0.74 version Imperial Campaign. Still I would advise you to use JGSME Mod Enabler.

The most notable CTD is that you have to reload your game in between campaigns. If you don't, when you activate the script in the second campaign of a load then it will CTD.

The campaign script also doesn't seem to be always terminating. The campaign script is quite long so be prepared for the game to hang for a while with a full loading bar when starting a new campaign. It's busy placing a load of reform buildings.

[Masy]

I just installed the alpha, and it's looking very promising. I started as the romans (very angry citizens), but i would like to see the entire map; to see the faction's layouts and so forth, so how do you remove fog of war? Also, Keep up the great work!

[Epistolary Richard]

In the console type:
toggle_fow

Oddly enough, even though the Romans don't have any garrisons - if the AI control them they only lose a few provinces to rebellion.

[paullus]

toggle_fow in the ` menu (I don't know what you call it, but that's what you press to get to it).

[paullus]

The alpha does seem pretty stable...I've played about 20 years with no crashes yet. Takes a while for factions to build up armies, but it sure was fun to actually get to fight legionaries.

[VandalCarthage]

One of you guys needs to play as the Indo-Greeks, and tell me what it's like ~D My comp is out for repairs until hell freezes over.

[paullus]

I'll give it a shot...though it was fun to play as the Seleukids and use their units etc, and not have to deal with 80 provinces (an exaggeration, I know).

[Masy]

thanks for the code, and yeah it is surprisingly playable for an alpha release, am looking forward to upcoming developments.

[Atheist_Peace]

This project looks very promising. Promising enough, in fact, that it compelled me to post here, for the first time in a while. ~:)

I've been playing the alpha release a little bit. It is obviously incomplete, but it looks like you're making some good progress already.


One of you guys needs to play as the Indo-Greeks, and tell me what it's like My comp is out for repairs until hell freezes over.

I played them for a few turns. All I can really tell you, is that they lose money very, very rapidly at the start of the game. Their armies are in good position to take 2-3 new provinces though, so it's not tough to improve the situation.

[Epistolary Richard]

I found taking Takh... whatever it's called... to the Indo-Greek north quite a challenge with the starting Indo-Greek army nearby. With a lot of effort I managed to throw Antialcidas' troops from the walls after a long, hard fight and then sent the elephants in who messed up a couple of his phalanxes - but it all took far too long and night fell before I could move my tired forces up to take the square.

[Kralizec]

Press the ~ button.
Then [type toggle_fow] without the brackets, and press enter.

[Atheist_Peace]

I found taking Takh... whatever it's called... to the Indo-Greek north quite a challenge with the starting Indo-Greek army nearby. With a lot of effort I managed to throw Antialcidas' troops from the walls after a long, hard fight and then sent the elephants in who messed up a couple of his phalanxes - but it all took far too long and night fell before I could move my tired forces up to take the square.

I waited until the last turn of the siege. They "sallied" at this point, and I was able to defeat them. The elephants are a big help. I lost quite a few men though.

[VandalCarthage]

Beautiful ~D Thank you guys! Have any of you hit the Parthians or Yuezhi yet?

Though I did give Rich the stats for those armies, one thing I'm considering if it's viable later on, would be to set the Northern guys up with some Sakae cavalry mercs and give Antialkidas a larger Indian contingent.

[paullus]

I'm still playing the Seleukids. And wow, I didn't realize how deadly the Roman cav could be. So now my most promising general (3 stars, 4 when attacking, age 20) is lying dead in the grass outside Ipsos.
https://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6350/deadheir8tv.jpg

At least he'll be properly buried, unlike the 3000 other dead. I love the idea of this late period. Its a shame most games don't last long enough to see those beautiful Roman units.

[Atheist_Peace]

I played until the winter of 98 BCE with the Romans. Unfortunately, I've encountered a CTD when ending this turn, so I can't play any further right now. I haven't looked into what's causing the problem at all, because errors like that are, I think, very hard to track down.

[paullus]

If I wanted to help with things like province distribution, family members, troop levels etc, which files contain that sort of information?

[nic]

How do I install it?

[Epistolary Richard]

If I wanted to help with things like province distribution, family members, troop levels etc, which files contain that sort of information?
Pretty much everything being changed is in the descr_stat file.


How do I install it?
Use the JGSME - link in sig.

[nic]

Thanks. I look forward to progress with this project.

[paullus]

I've been working on putting proper armies and rulers either in cities or in the field in the eastern med area of the map. I have a couple of questions:

1, how do I figure out the x, y coordinates? EDIT: nevermind, I realized I could get them from the EB strat
2, who should control Sidon? I have Antiochos Kyzikenos in the field, his son Antiochos in Damaskos, but I don't know who should control Sidon.
3, is there a list somewhere of the proper entries for unit names, eg "rebel pantodapoi" so that I don't put in names that will not work?
4, are you ok with giving Side in Pamphylia to the Seleukids? They clearly controlled the city a little before and a little after 107, so they probably controlled it in 107 as well, do you think?
5, has someone else already done this since the alpha came out, such that I am now just wasting time?

Thanks for the answers!

[VandalCarthage]

I handled the city arrangements for most of the Hellenic factions, and believe me, it was fairly time-consuming determining the exact extant of each Seleukid competitor. The information is there, but none of my authors elected to make it easy and just come out and say "Antiochus controlled X, Y, etc..." It's been a while, and right now my mind is occupying itself by sorting occassionally through the 40+ Greek Kings of India, since their faction is my pet here, but if I recall correctly Sidon had been granted it's independence (the army is there because most everything else was under Antiochus) in 111, like other Phoenician cities would be later. Regarding Pamphylia, I could see putting a small mercenary band in the East. After the Romans defeated the Seleucids, they were restricted to a tiny segment of Eastern Pamphylia, perhaps including Aspendus (where Grypus resided in 110 when he needed to refresh his mercenary forces from the environs). Side however had been independent here for a bit, being under the influence of pirates and that sort, eventually becoming a massive center for the Mediterranean slave trade under the Cilicians.

[paullus]

True, Antiochos controlled Aspendos, not Side. My apologies for getting that wrong. On the other hand, Aspendos is only a day's march from Side, and the whole area saw several battles in the time after the two Antiochos's died. So do you think it would be better to put the small merc band there, or just give it to them?

Similarly with Sidon, Antiochos Kyzenikos controlled Tripoli and most of the land south toward Samaria, only he didn't control Sidon, or, Tyre (I think). So should I put one of his lieutenants in Phoenicia, but not in Sidon itself? What should go in Sidon then?

[Epistolary Richard]

Hi paullus, Great that you're interested in helping out, especially as I don't have the time I used to. I'm following VandalCarthage's lead when it comes to province distribution and I'm pretty happy with all the factions provinces at this time.

Armies and general locations and so forth, though, have only been set around the Indo-Greeks/Baktia.

The traits of generals and buildings/population in settlements are both completely open as well.


--- Best way to find map co-ordinates BTW is to bring up the console and type
show_cursorstat
when your mouse is over the tile you want the coordinates for. It'll tell you the coordinates of each.

[VandalCarthage]

True, Antiochos controlled Aspendos, not Side. My apologies for getting that wrong. On the other hand, Aspendos is only a day's march from Side, and the whole area saw several battles in the time after the two Antiochos's died. So do you think it would be better to put the small merc band there, or just give it to them?

Well, Side is the concern, and since they didn't control it, there's no reason to give it to them. What's more, the area of Seleucid control in the Pamphylia of EB's map, would be miniscule. So, a small band plopped a little within their border would best represent the small Macedonian and mercenary garissons that held it.


Similarly with Sidon, Antiochos Kyzenikos controlled Tripoli and most of the land south toward Samaria, only he didn't control Sidon, or, Tyre (I think). So should I put one of his lieutenants in Phoenicia, but not in Sidon itself? What should go in Sidon then?

Same situation as Side. He appears to have controlled the countryside, but the Phoenician coastal cities like Tyre and Sidon, as well as a number of small city-leagues, were independent of his control. Since these cities were really the lifeblood of the region, they're independence is the best thing to represent. Eventually I imagine we'll be able to associate cities like this with one or another faction to make things more interesting though.

All of this stuff will certainly becovered later on though, so no worries ~;)

[paullus]

That makes sense. Perhaps I can find an inscription from Sidon for a general's name, and I'll put a small force under one of Kyzikenos' lieutenants in the countryside. I've also put Hyrcanos in Jerusalem, and one of his sons in command of an army in northern Judea. That sound ok?

And what sort of units would belong in Side if it was controlled by people associated with piracy? peltasts? akontistai? sphendonatai?

[VandalCarthage]

Some of our Cilician units should garisson Side, once they've been designed.

[paullus]

Yeah, I thought maybe some slingers could work as placeholders, and then a smattering of other units. Any chance the Kilikians might be in with .8? Should Side just stay empty until they do come on line?

[Simmons]

Been playing the alpha and I've had some problems with the Ptolemaioi they don't seem to like merging armies and it has also crashed when they battled a rebel army.

Is this pretty much what everyone is experiencing?

[paullus]

Also on the Ptolemies, should they have Kilikia? I guess there's probably a good bit left to be doing with them. How hard would it be to give Ptolemy IX a faction with KH as the template? Not artwork or anything, just basic stuff to get both Ptolemies in there. And wasn't Ptolemy IX only booted from Alexandria in fall of 107?

And I couldn't find a ruler for Sidon or Side, should I just use something reasonable for each? For Side I'll use a Kilikian name, I guess. For Sidon, would it be better to go with a Phoenician name, or a Greek name?

And I was thinking I'd increase the population of both Side and Antioch, to better represent not only the size of those cities, but also their close neighbors, Tyre and Apamea, respectively. How does that sound?

[VandalCarthage]

I'm confused Paullus; what are you actually doing?

[paullus]

sorry! I'm mostly just fiddling with the descr_strat to get armies into place in the cities and territories--especially rebel-held ones--around the eastern med, and get rulers with their armies when I can. So my questions on Sidon and Side were in regards to what names might be suitable for the generals of their garrisons.

The Ptolemies question was out of the blue. I haven't touched their stuff, but I was wondering about their ownership of Kilikia.

[VandalCarthage]

So it's just for yourself?

In any case; no, Kilikia should not go to the Ptolemies. Ptolemy IX only managed to maintain himself in Kyrenaia and Kypros, while Ptolemy X kept only the Nile territories.

The particular month of the former king's departure was October. As far as turns, I imagine we'll push our start date over one or two to handle that.

As far as Sidon, I'm trying to find out better information, but it looks like they'd begun to come under the sway of the Romans; so a Pheonician or a Greek name variant would be appropriate - Strato would be a fun and appropriate to one. The name will eventually need to be changed to Nauarchis, and I honestly can't off-hand recall what extent the Roman authority had reached, but it's on my to-do list ~;)

[paullus]

No, I'm perfectly happy to be contributing with it, that's why I'm trying to work out what's most accurate where. Right now I'm trying to figure out where I screwed up something recently, because its crashing now. I think I screwed up an x or y coordinate somewhere, but I haven't figured out where yet.

And I doubt Rome would have much sway over Sidon at this point, they were only given autonomy a few years earlier, by Kyzikenos, if I remember correctly. Anyhow, Roman control in the east was pretty slack until the Mithridatic wars, and as far as I know influence in Sidon only reached significant levels after the Romans started clearing pirates out of the med.

[VandalCarthage]

And I doubt Rome would have much sway over Sidon at this point, they were only given autonomy a few years earlier, by Kyzikenos, if I remember correctly.

Yes, as I said; which would hardly be prohibitive of anything, hehe ~;)

In any case, Sidon was integrated as a provincial Roman city when Pompey reorganized the defunct Seleucid Kingdom into the new Roman province of Syria. It did however become a Roman tributary much earlier, being granted a sort of 'colonial' status (though the name was changed sometime later). It's hardly amazing considering how much involvement the Romans had directly in the Eastern Mediterranean coast; checking up the on Seleucids, the Jews, the Ptolemies, etc.

[paullus]

tis true, if by checking up you mean, occasionally installing kings.

here's a question, how do you use the show_err function? I've got something wrong somewhere in the descr_strat, but I can't figure out what. I'm thinking I may have assigned a unit to a faction that is not included with that unit's entry in the exportdescr_unit. Could that be causing the problem?

EDIT: ok, i've got changes made to the Ptolemies and Seleukids, as far as province distribution, armies, and they may need a little more as far as buildings. that works fine. my problem is with rebel armies in the area. i'm trying to insert antiochos kyzikenos, a couple of judean generals, and rebels in pamphylia and sidon. now, to use their real names (eg, antiochos kyzikenos), where do i need to put those names in the "names" file? under their sub faction, under slaves, or both?

[Epistolary Richard]

Just a general note, as the Late Period Project is open development anyone is able to post specific edits to the many areas of the map that are incomplete. Obviously, they're not able to directly edit the files that can be downloaded - so problems with a copy downloaded can only be lain at my door.


here's a question, how do you use the show_err function? I've got something wrong somewhere in the descr_strat, but I can't figure out what. I'm thinking I may have assigned a unit to a faction that is not included with that unit's entry in the exportdescr_unit. Could that be causing the problem?
Yes, a wrongly assigned unit would most definitely cause a CTD. Be aware of the campaign_script.txt file - a unit can be created 'out of faction' there without breaking the game, though they may look a bit funny on the battlefield.

For how to use show_err check my sig.

How hard would it be to give Ptolemy IX a faction with KH as the template? Not artwork or anything, just basic stuff to get both Ptolemies in there. And wasn't Ptolemy IX only booted from Alexandria in fall of 107?

Errr... Ptolemy IX is the active Ptolemaioi faction. It's Ptolemy X that's going to be represented by rebels.


Been playing the alpha and I've had some problems with the Ptolemaioi they don't seem to like merging armies and it has also crashed when they battled a rebel army.

Is this pretty much what everyone is experiencing?
Can't say I have - I'll have to get back to you on that score.

[paullus]

Well, I got it working. It was the names. I hadn't put the names in the text/names file.

What I meant by ptolemy ix was this: it would clearly be optimal to have both ptolemy ix and ptolemy x represented with factions in game. Because ptolemy x controlled the majority of the traditionally Egyptian provinces, and ptolemy ix controlled provinces composed largely of Greeks and mercenary settlers, it might be a quick way to get both in the game to just treat ptolemy ix as the KH. I was just wondering how difficult it would be to turn the KH into the Lathyrosians or something.

Anyway, what you were saying about posting contributions, do you mean I should just post the text changes, rather than actual files?

EDIT: hmm, I actually had show_err working already, I just wasn't clear on what it did. I was hoping I could find a way to get at errors more than one at a time.

And a more specific question on units and factions. With rebel armies, does the "sub faction" matter as to what units can be put in? or since its overall slave, can any slave unit go in?

Anyway, I have garrison and field armies and family members working for Pamphylia, Phoenicia, Syria Koile, Hierosolyma, Galatia, and to a reasonable degree for Ptolemy IX and Antiochos Grypos

[VandalCarthage]

The reason Ptolemy IX is represented despite Ptolemy X controlling more territory (3 provinces vs. 4), is the actual hold each one represents. Ptolemy IX eventually settled into the Pharaodom later on anyway and was actually distinctly more powerful and influential than his ouster, and Ptolemy X's support outside Alexandreia was lukewarm.

As an aside, you can hardly say that Ptolemy IX ruled only mercenaries and Greek settlers. Kyrenaia was a several century old bastion of Greeks, and Kypros was mostly Pheonicians and older Greek families. In any case, as far as we know, he ruled as a Pharaoh - not a tyrant.

[paullus]

Ok, that's fine, I was just wondering. However, I did say "Greek and mercenary settlers" not the other way around. Good point on the Phoenicians on Kypros.

But my main question was this: how do you want the data changes? do you want them at all?

And as another question, do you think Ptolemaios should have a small force in Ioudaia, to represent the 6,000 he had sent to try to relieve Samaria?

And something cool: playing the descr_strat I've got right now, Ptolemaios put 2/3 of his troops in Kypros in his fleet, and sailed them down to take Alexandreia. Of course, that was easily done, since I haven't got troops in the Egyptian cities at the moment.

[Epistolary Richard]

Anyway, what you were saying about posting contributions, do you mean I should just post the text changes, rather than actual files?
As it happens, you're okay to post the files as I'm currently tied up on other projects. If there were more than one person working at once then one would have to post changes rather than complete files - as the files wouldn't reflect the other people's work.


EDIT: hmm, I actually had show_err working already, I just wasn't clear on what it did. I was hoping I could find a way to get at errors more than one at a time.
Alas not, it would be nice though :sad:


And a more specific question on units and factions. With rebel armies, does the "sub faction" matter as to what units can be put in? or since its overall slave, can any slave unit go in?
Not sure on this topic.

[paullus]

Not sure on this topic.

I'm getting some rather funky visuals with some rebel army units, they disappear if you aren't right up on them, and then when they do appear they look like vanilla units transmogrified with EB units, and a little bit of transformers...I noticed it with phalangitai pantodapoi and a general's cav unit. I thought they would work as rebel units, but maybe not. But shouldn't there be a rebel pantodapoi?

Anyway, I think my computer may have just hiccupped, all the other units have looked great. And I got ambushed by one of my pirate armies when I invaded Pamphylia...that was cool. But yeah, if I can make sure its working fine, I'll go ahead and post it.

[Stuie]

And a more specific question on units and factions. With rebel armies, does the "sub faction" matter as to what units can be put in? or since its overall slave, can any slave unit go in?

To my knowledge, any slave unit can go in any rebel army. As far as I can tell the only thing that has to match the sub faction is the leader name.

[Stuie]

I'm getting some rather funky visuals with some rebel army units, they disappear if you aren't right up on them, and then when they do appear they look like vanilla units transmogrified with EB units, and a little bit of transformers...

The first problem sounds like missing sprites, the second... not sure.

[Epistolary Richard]

The first problem sounds like missing sprites, the second... not sure.
The second sounds like there isn't a slave texture defined in descr_model_battle and its grabbing a different EB skin as default.

It sounds like the added diversity of rebels in this period will require a replacement dmb file - which means using the my_mod switch when compiling the next version.

[paullus]

The odd thing is this: the thorakitai showed up just fine, but pantodapoi phalangitai and the cav unit I was using did not. So I switched up the pantodapoi for taxeis phalangitai, and the cav unit for hippeis...perhaps that will fix it all up.

[Simmons]

The odd thing is this: the thorakitai showed up just fine, but pantodapoi phalangitai and the cav unit I was using did not. So I switched up the pantodapoi for taxeis phalangitai, and the cav unit for hippeis...perhaps that will fix it all up.
As Epistolary Richard was saying not all units have a texture defined for the rebel faction as can be seen here in EB's descr_model_battle.txt from the Data directory.


; Hellenistic infantry - Pantodapoi Phalangitai / Machimoi Phalangitai

type hellenistic_infantry_pantodapoi_machimoiphalangitai
skeleton fs_thp_f_spearman_p, fs_swordsman_barb ; combat spear
indiv_range 40
texture carthage, data/models_unit/textures/ebunit_SPW_greek_phalangitai_Pontic.tga
texture romans_julii, data/models_unit/textures/ebunit_SPW_greek_phalangitai_Seleucid.tga
texture romans_brutii, data/models_unit/textures/ebunit_SPW_greek_phalangitai_Bactria.tga
texture numidia, data/models_unit/textures/ebunit_SPW_greek_phalangitai_Bactria.tga
texture thrace, data/models_unit/textures/ebunit_SPW_greek_phalangitai_Bactria.tga
texture macedon, data/models_unit/textures/ebunit_SPW_greek_phalangitai_Bactria.tga
texture parthia, data/models_unit/textures/ebunit_SPW_greek_phalangitai_Bactria.tga
texture merc, data/models_unit/textures/ebunit_SPW_greek_phalangitai_Ptolemaic.tga
model_flexi data/models_unit/ebunit_SPW_unit_greek_phalangitai_high.cas, 15
model_flexi data/models_unit/ebunit_SPW_unit_greek_phalangitai_med.cas, 30
model_flexi data/models_unit/ebunit_SPW_unit_greek_phalangitai_low.cas, 40
model_flexi data/models_unit/ebunit_SPW_unit_greek_phalangitai_lowest.cas, max
model_sprite numidia, 60.0, data/sprites/seleucid_greek_pike_phalanx_sprite.spr
model_sprite romans_brutii, 60.0, data/sprites/seleucid_greek_pike_phalanx_sprite.spr
model_sprite romans_julii, 60.0, data/sprites/seleucid_greek_pike_phalanx_sprite.spr
model_sprite carthage, 60.0, data/sprites/seleucid_greek_pike_phalanx_sprite.spr
model_sprite thrace, 60.0, data/sprites/seleucid_greek_pike_phalanx_sprite.spr
model_sprite macedon, 60.0, data/sprites/seleucid_greek_pike_phalanx_sprite.spr
model_sprite parthia, 60.0, data/sprites/seleucid_greek_pike_phalanx_sprite.spr
model_sprite merc, 60.0, data/sprites/seleucid_greek_pike_phalanx_sprite.spr
model_tri 400, 0.5f, 0.5f, 0.5f
Something like this would have to be added

texture slave, data/models_unit/textures/ebunit_SPW_greek_phalangitai_Bactria.tga
Along with an appropriate sprite.

model_sprite slave, 60.0, data/sprites/seleucid_greek_pike_phalanx_sprite.spr
Update:
I made the changes and here is the end result a battle just outside Damaskos
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/jared_simmons/EB/Rebel-Pantodapoi-Phalangita.jpg

What where the other units you where having trouble with Paullus?

[Epistolary Richard]

paullus, don't know if you're already doing this, but if you're not here's a tip. When modding any file outside of the campaign file, I've been marking any changes with ;EBULP in the line above and below. It means when it comes to convert it to the next version of EB (as I had to do to 0.74) it's a lot easier to find the changes that need to be repeated. (Files in the campaign folder, though, like descr_strat, tend to be so heavily modified that _everything_ is pretty much changed, so there's no point in marking them).

[paullus]

Yeah, I think so. At least with names.txt. There may have been insertions in the other text/names file that I didn't put "; EBULP" on. I'll go back and insert those.

Decimvs, that's great! There are actually quite a few that would need to be changed, to properly represent the Ptolemaic and Seleukid rebel factions: thorakitai, successor generals cav, most of the "numidia"-specific units unfortunately. But I think that would cover it pretty well, at least in the eastern med.

And another update...I put a rebel army in Alexandreia, ran it again, and it took a few extra years, but by 103 the Ptolemies had invaded from Kypros with a full stack. I just think that's cool.

[VandalCarthage]

EDIT: ok, i've got changes made to the Ptolemies and Seleukids, as far as province distribution, armies, and they may need a little more as far as buildings. that works fine. my problem is with rebel armies in the area. i'm trying to insert antiochos kyzikenos, a couple of judean generals, and rebels in pamphylia and sidon.

What province distribution changes have you made?

And what's up with Galatia?

[paullus]

Seleukid: Kilikia and Syria
Ptolemies: Kypros, Kyrenaika, and the coastal province E of Kyrene

As for Galatia, I just put a few more troops in there. I was thinking of changing the gen's name, but I wasn't sure if that name was based on an actual figure. I know of a few from the time period, but not of a Caratawc (I think that's it). At some point I wanted to do a little more with Bithynia, and distribute some merc troops and local troops in Pergamon, since those were the garrisons at the start of the Mithridatic War.

And VC, any thoughts on whether the Ptolemies should start with a small (~6 units?) army in Ioudaia? At some point in or near 107 the force is there, but I'm not sure if its there at the start point.

[VandalCarthage]

Nah, the 6,000 Cypriots shouldn't be around at this point. Once we have some Cypriot units skinned for EB, Salamis should just have a big ol' Cypriot + Pezhetairoi garisson, Kyrene with Pezhetairoi, and Paratonion with some Klerouchial units.

Right now, the Ptolemaioi are probably as good as they can be, but the only concern I have is whether or not to include Ptolemy IX's direct deputy on the island in his family tree, who apparently was very loyal to him, and thoroughly rewarded on a couple of occassions. Though it's not necessarilly pertinant, he was granted an office normally reserved for royal family members. What would you think of including him Paullus? Rich?

Sorry about the earlier question though Paullus, your post just confused me - it seemed like you said you were changing the original distributions, which those are, so far as I know ~:)

[paullus]

Those weren't the distributions in the alpha, though I'd seem 'em that way in some older posts, so yeah, I just put them back.

I kinda think adding a general for the Ptolemaioi would be a good idea. With 3 provinces, you might get an adoption proposal anyway. Do you know the name of the governor of Kyrene? I'd thought about proposing making Antiochos' military number 2 and chief advisor, Herakleon, an adoptee, but he's got all those kids coming of age within a couple of years, so there's no need.

EDIT: though now I think of it, the governor would be named as heir, wouldn't he? and the AI wouldn't think to change the heir over to the son would it? if not, that would destroy the lineage, and that would be, well, sad.

[Epistolary Richard]

Include him, I say :thumbsup: The more detail the better. As for the heir concerns - well, we place the player in the position of the faction leader, it's his choice whether to stick to his own lineage or groom his favourite general to take over the position.

[paullus]

I'll be really busy the next few days. I've zipped the files, can you recommend somewhere to host them? I haven't gotten to update the unit file, so that's not included...for now I just changed the soldiers to taxeis phalangitai to get around the slave faction limitations.

[Epistolary Richard]

If they're less than 2meg then host them at the Org:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37799

Otherwise, drop me a PM and I'll send you my email address.

[paullus]

Its in the RTW uploads section here at the org. This *might* be the link to it.

http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rtw_Uploads/RTWupload/ULP4.30.06.zip

ok it is.

[Epistolary Richard]

Cool, cheers paullus, added to the first post. Could you give a brief outline of what areas you adjusted, was it just Seleukids & Ptolemaioi? - just so others don't go back and change them again?

[paullus]

Changes:
Seleukids
Ptolemies (may add new general and new units with next build)
Rebels: Sidon, Iudaia, Pamphylia, Galatia, Bithynia


Now I'm trying to figure out what should go in the regions south and east of Iudaia, and working on putting in Ptolemy X and some of his generals. And I changed the Galatian general to Sinorix, and put a field army in under Deiotaros.

I have a question about what you're thinking for the Romans. If you want to keep just the two family members and leave the rest for adoption, should I just try to get proper names for garrison commanders, in the hopes of getting some good adoption/man of the hour options?

[cunctator]

Have you ever thought about turning this into a BI mod? After EB 0.8 is released it should be no problem. The teutones and cimbrii could be represented as invading horde, the mod could have roman civil wars, use the freed unit space without all the early units, etc etc.

[Epistolary Richard]

Well, maybe. But the priority at the moment is to get a fully working version for the current version of EB. If EB moves to BI then so will the ULP.

[Masy]

Long time no chat on this thread, so hows the mod coming along? Any signs of a beta yet?

[Simmons]

Long time no chat on this thread, so hows the mod coming along? Any signs of a beta yet?
Its likely things will pick up again once the new EB patch is out.

[Epistolary Richard]

I'm afraid my RTW time's been taken up with forum improvements and Res Gestae. Anyone who wants to help push things along, though, is more than welcome to download the alpha and help with positions/garrisons/traits which haven't been worked on yet.

[the_handsome_viking]

So would this basically be like a historically accurate barbarian invasion?

if so.

YES!!!

[Simmons]

So would this basically be like a historically accurate barbarian invasion?

if so.

YES!!!
No barbarian invasion is the late empire this mod will move EB's start date to the late republic 107BC instead of 272BC the Marian reforms in other words

[Avicenna]

In BI, the Roman Empires were close to collapse (but the East survived of course, partly due to their 'gifts' to the Huns); in the ULP, the Roman Empire wasn't officially existing yet, and it was in a period of Pure Ownage, destroying the Gauls, Pontics and soon absorbing the Egyptians. :2thumbsup:

[Simmons]

So I've been playing around with the ULPP over the weekend with not much happening here lately I decided to do something that might just be useful I have added a basic garrison for the Romani, Pahlava, Pontos and Hayasdan cities

The Romani cities got 2 x Rorarii and 1 x Leve
Pahlava 2 x Greek Pantodapoi and 1 x Eastern Archer Thanvabara
Pontos 2 x Greek Pantodapoi Phalangitai
Hayasdan 2 x Aspet Cavalry 1 x Eastern Archer Thanvabara

All garrisons have the generic city info filled out eg

; City: Mtskheta
; Region: Kartli
; --------------------

So changing a garrison to something more accurate when more information becomes available is as easy as searching a city name in DESCR_STRAT.txt and with a bit of luck 0.8 won't make to many changes to the city locations :sweatdrop:

Heres the download ULP27.08.06.zip (http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rtw_Uploads/RTWupload/ULP27.08.06.zip)

[Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom]

Wow, so whats the deal with this mod then people? Come on this is a really good idea! Yaul have almost finished it so why the sudden stop?:shame:

[Zaknafien]

I would be more than happy to help on this wonderful idea for a project such that I am able to. I'm not much of a modder, but I do possess a wealth of knowledge on the middle and late Republican periods and the early Principate.

As far as ideas for buildings, traits, ancilliaries, etc, I would love to help.

[Foot]

With 0.8.0 so close (not that close!) any proper modding work of the Late Period Project would seem wasteful of peoples time. Once EB has made the great changeover to 1.5 later then I would think work would begin once more.

Foot

[Roderick Ponce Von Fontlebottom]

I see, awsomeness!

[Epistolary Richard]

The EBULP is on hiatus at the moment, as Foot says, until 0.8 is released. It seems doubtful though that I'll have the time to put any significant work into it. It, however, remains a community project in which anyone is able, nay encouraged, to download the files in the first post and develop it further.

[Simmons]

I will definatley be doing what I can even if I have to add things and test one line at a time.

[Christianus]

One simple question:

Julius Caesar was as known born 100 BC. Will he be included as a family member at all, with a biography and everything. Wondering since he was born seven years after the start of the campaign.

[Warmaster Horus]

I, like Zaknafien, have no modding capabilities, but a "good knowledge" of that period(especially for Rome)
I'd help however I could.

[Inuyasha12]

I just downloaded the alpha because i am very interested in this mod. Good luck guys, i'll tell you guys how it goes.

Edit - I can't get it to work, i dropped the data folder into the EB folder. And when i try to start the game it CTDs before the loading screen.

[The Celt]

I just downloaded the alpha because i am very interested in this mod. Good luck guys, i'll tell you guys how it goes.

Edit - I can't get it to work, i dropped the data folder into the EB folder. And when i try to start the game it CTDs before the loading screen.
This minimod hasn't been updated in awhile and it only works for the 7.2 version of EB which can only be played on a 1.2 version of RTW.(I.e not BI compatible :sweatdrop: )

[Dan_Grr]

Too bad, it looks promising. :book:

[Pharnakes]

I am no historian, but I am more than willing to do the work, if other people will tell me what work should be done, in other words I am ready to raise this mod from the dead, anyone else interested?

[Zaknafien]

I'd hate for you guys to do all that work on your on when... *edited by EB Gods*

[Warmaster Horus]

When you release EB 1.0 as the next update?
When you totally change everything in EB?

[Christianus]

HEY!
What about making this for the original RTW introduction campaign instead of replaceing the main EB campaign. Is this possible?

[Pharnakes]

Yeah, its a bit pointless though, you can have more than one campaign at once.

[Shahanshah]

I downloaded the Alpha, but where do you install the files within the folder, and how do you play it?

[Ludens]

I downloaded the Alpha, but where do you install the files within the folder, and how do you play it?

Hello Shahanshah, welcome to the .Org and to EB ~:wave: .

I am afraid that the late project was abandoned quite some time ago. If I recall correctly, it was intended for the first (v0.7) release of EB only. It most likely won't work with the current version.