Merchant ,Priest and Princess in EBII [Archive]

Morte66

08-31-2007, 13:57

I've been playing M2TW lately and I really hope EB2 doesn't use pricesses, merchants and priests. Here is my reasoning...

The Total War series does some things better than others, when jusged by the standards of PC games in general (i.e. the things I could play instead).

The Good Stuff: Warfare.
RTW (especially EB) does the battlefield better than anything else I've played, and strategic maneuvring is OK.

The OK Stuff: Management.
Running your economy and recruitment is OK, seeing threats coming and deploying to be ready is interesting, but plenty of games do this at least as well.

The Ugly: Agents.
Spies who open gates (ridiculous). Diplomatic agreements that last about a nanosecond. Hitting end of turn and thinking "damn, did I move that diplomat another few inches across the steppe or did I forget". The absolute lack of a "show me all the agents that haven't moved this turn" button, which has been standard in other games for 15 years.

Now M2TW added added merchants who raise trivial amounts of money, and princesses whose diplomacy sticks about as well as the diplomats', and priests who need to be moved and monitored so you can watch a few numbers go up and down. They took the least interesting part of RTW and made it into a larger part of the game -- they made it bigger when they should have made it better. And it drags the average down.

Do not repeat this mistake EB2, EB team. Keep it lean and mean, concentrate on the good stuff. More is not automatically better.

Foot

08-31-2007, 14:27

Well, now that I've got Kingdoms there is a little thing that I want to work on which will basically use merchants (though not as they are now), so they'll have to be in. Princesses are quite interesting, and with a modifiable diplomacy engine (to some extent) I'm hoping that these will add a little something something to the game. For priests, we will probably not use if the case is true that any new implemented religions don't get access to their own priests.

Foot

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

08-31-2007, 20:03

I can agree with you on many things, Morte66. The new agents in M2 seem like a total waste. Merchants either have to be superpowered or dead. The AI will hunt down your merchants, even if they don't want the resource, and buy them out. So you either have to put tons of effort into merchants or none.

And the religious guys piss me off. The AI will cluster them around your town, and you have no way of getting rid of them. Why can't my priests denounce their Imams? Instead I have to send an assassin, who takes for ever to get them all, and then my faction leader is an evil man, because he killed them. I hate that trait system of making my leader evil for using assassins. Assassins are necessary to the game system. I've had my faction leader lose traits when I had an assassin assassinate an enemy assassin. Protecting your people from a killer makes you evil?

Son of Perun

09-01-2007, 21:33

I also think that EB does not need those characters. Playing MTW2 i have never used princesses because they can not really change anything. Priests are not suitable for EB period and merchants are useless because of things explained by MarcusAureliusAntonius.

Princesses are quite interesting, and with a modifiable diplomacy engine (to some extent) I'm hoping that these will add a little something something to the game.
I doubt that. In history there were many attempts to make diplomatic relations better this way, but often it was futile (Seleucids and Ptolemaids unsuccesfully tried to make more firm peace by marriages).

Bootsiuv

09-01-2007, 22:59

Well, it wasn't always done for firm peace....it was often done because the new husband might fall in line for the throne somehow, and then that empire would pass to the Seleukids (or Ptolemaios, depending on who the girl was....I know I've heard it before, but I can't remember if it was a Seleukid princess or a Ptolemaioi Princess).

abou

09-02-2007, 03:44

I doubt that. In history there were many attempts to make diplomatic relations better this way, but often it was futile (Seleucids and Ptolemaids unsuccesfully tried to make more firm peace by marriages).Unsuccessful for the most part, but they still did it. It seems to have worked better for the Seleukids and Antigonids. Also, marriage between tribes was common and the Carthaginians, Numidians, and Iberians are strong examples that tended to be successful.

Son of Perun

09-02-2007, 08:43

Also, marriage between tribes was common and the Carthaginians, Numidians, and Iberians are strong examples that tended to be successful.
I didn't know that. Carthaginians had kind of republic, so who did they have instead of princess? A nobleman's or merchant's daugther, perhaps?

antisocialmunky

09-02-2007, 16:49

Ancient peoples weren't usually to particular about their religion especially around the mediterranian since each culture had analogous gods/myths to each other's. The whole 'crusade' style religion system used for M2TW should be dropped unless you can find a different use for them.

Foot

09-02-2007, 18:09

The whole 'crusade' style religion system used for M2TW should be dropped unless you can find a different use for them.

We were thinking of the migrations of the nomadic people and celts for the jihad style stuff. As we are looking into making religion into culture, this makes sense.

Foot

kambiz

09-02-2007, 23:31

We were thinking of the migrations of the nomadic people and celts for the jihad style stuff. As we are looking into making religion into culture, this makes sense.

FootHmm interesting. Can you explain more please ???

antisocialmunky

09-03-2007, 01:37

We were thinking of the migrations of the nomadic people and celts for the jihad style stuff. As we are looking into making religion into culture, this makes sense.

Foot

I was refering to the priests and stuff. It would be odd to denounce your leaders and stuff...

How are you going to handle the college of cardinals?

Foot

09-03-2007, 02:56

I was refering to the priests and stuff. It would be odd to denounce your leaders and stuff...

How are you going to handle the college of cardinals?

I've already said that priests will likely not make it in.

won't exist. The papal states is going.

Foot

Zarax

09-03-2007, 09:57

Carthage: prominent Carthaginians often married the daughters of prominent locals to gain their allegiance or sometimes even gave thier own daughters.

During the 2nd punic war the battle of great plains was possible basically thanks to two factors: Hasdrubal (might be the wrong name) giving is daughter in marriage to Syphax to regain allegiance of at least part of the numidians and 4000 celtiberian heavy mercenaries to reinforce the backbone of the army.

geala

09-03-2007, 13:12

I would not deny the agents already, I'm happy with what Foot said. Merchants in M2TW can be useful if given a little love. Princesses were often a tool of politics and there was an influence on the relations. Of course some improvement above the vanilla M2TW must be done. To the spies: one of the better ways to take a town in the ancient times was to conspirate with a faction within the city; success was quite often, so see the spy + open gates as a symbol for treachery.

kalkwerk

09-09-2007, 20:42

i think the papal states can be used to simulate casus belli and balance of power.

Bellum

09-10-2007, 03:39

I think merchants can be quite interesting in EB, particularly if you can mod resources to give other advantages besides cash; I'm fairly sure you can.

It can be used to represent an active attempt by the ruling class to improve infrastructure and such, which is especially important, I think, for the success of the less developed factions.

There are already buildings to do this, sure, but if you're trying to get rid of some buildings to free up some slots for other factions... The only thing, though, I love reading descriptions. For me, it's an important part of the atmosphere in EB; puts thing into perspective. It'd be a shame to see too many missing.

Patriote

09-17-2007, 01:52

I like the idea of Bellum of resources giving bonuses others than just cash. I'm only afraid that this will end up as, in M2TW, where 10stars merchant eliminating all of the player's merchants (at least mine...)

However, maybe making merchants less expensive(maybe) and by giving resources specific bonuses then it won't just end up as a war for the more lucrative resources while cheap ones are left wasting on the map.

And I am sure to that this can be done because I was already the case in BI where land with abundance of grains(a resource) received a bonuses to the population growth.

As if this could a global bonus for the faction or only for the region, I don't know the limitations to this modding

Anthony

09-17-2007, 03:07

Princesses for Celts would be fine, and presumably Germans. Ariovistus had a wife who was the daughter of the king of Noricum (at the time a Roman client state).

Charge

09-21-2007, 14:51

All new agents can find its use in EB2, you only need to correctly implement them( first suggestion is strongly limit their amount to prevent flooding map with them).

HistoryProf

09-24-2007, 00:58

I agree with an earlier post that one of my least favorite things about MTWII are the innumerable characters one has to keep track of. And merchants create incredible amounts of cognitive dissonance for me: something as endemic and pervasive as trade is going to be summed up in a few merchants? Not bloody likely. Better to use them for something else, if at all. Perhaps they could be used as Regents? They were fewer and had more impact politically, afaik. Double as diplomats?

Princesses I can get behind. <ahem> Marriage-created alliances I think can be proven to have been very important diplomatic efforts, successful or not. Not to mention the off-spring caused huge upheavals in the transferring of power.

Priests, my secular humanism aside, are particularly troubling. Someone lamented earlier at suffering the use of them merely to watch some numbers move. I concur. Perhaps they could be changed into philosophers? A good example would be Archimedes at Syracuse: +3 morale for the garrison, +2 stars for the general, etc. It'd be like a moveable ancilliary.

Brasidas

09-24-2007, 19:59

It's quite natural this temptation of using new possibilities. In case of M2TW we have priests, merchants and princesses. IMHO these characters are totally killing playability. Ridiculous trade wars ("duels in the sun" with pouches instead of guns), stupid endless journeys of princesses in search of ideal candidate to marriage. Finally priests who suddenly transform into zombie-heretics. Ekhm, Quo vadis Total War?

I love EB for role playing traits & ancilliaries system. It greatly supports atmosphere and doesn't affect negatively playability of game. I know that diplomacy inherited from CA is not funny retardation. We have so much fatigue with diplomats, please don't give us extra time-wasting strawheads.

ps. Sorry for emphasis ;)

HistoryProf

09-25-2007, 03:31

Elminster12

09-25-2007, 06:38

It's kind of nice to marry a 3-star rebel general with nice ancillaries into your family. And if there were a young lady playing this game, and I am sure there are a few, I'd guess it would be received as very forward-thinking and welcoming. Perhaps the dev team is all guys and couldn't care less, but you guys are on the fence, I'd hope that would a consideration. It's not like princesses are totally useless. Merchants and Priests are, imo. I still like the philosopher-character idea.
I know girl gamers, and they could care less about such a thing. What is more stereotypical than marrying off to some guy you don't know 'cause your a princess? It's a dumb reason to utilize a game element anyhow. Girls would play EB for the same reasons we do....

HistoryProf

09-25-2007, 18:18

Well, anecdotal evidence aside, I'd for one (being male, even) would like to see women represented in some way, however that happens.

I remember one of my first thoughts I had when playing RTW, "No women? Typical." Not only were princess influential, but female regents were, as well. Even faction leaders. The Iceni had this one, if I recall...

bovi

09-27-2007, 17:49

Priests, my secular humanism aside, are particularly troubling. Someone lamented earlier at suffering the use of them merely to watch some numbers move. I concur. Perhaps they could be changed into philosophers? A good example would be Archimedes at Syracuse: +3 morale for the garrison, +2 stars for the general, etc. It'd be like a moveable ancilliary.
I don't think it's possible to affect generals' abilities with other agents.

HistoryProf

09-27-2007, 18:18

Bootsiuv

09-27-2007, 18:56

Their is no mechanism to use the priests for earlier religions?

An example would be the Romani would recieve a priest who would attempt to spread the Romani Pantheon, the Greeks would recieve a greek priest, etc. etc.

Is there a limit on the number of different priests you can have in game? Could you have 30 different priests? Would this take away from the model and/or unit caps, thus be totally not worth it?

I just thought it would add a little flavor to have priests of Jupiter, Baal, Zues, etc. etc.

Something tells me that it either won't work, or isn't worth the unit spaces it will take up. I was just curious. :2thumbsup:

bovi

09-27-2007, 20:23

You're probably right, though an agent can affect a city: priests can effect religious adherence, merchants/income, etc. So perhaps the many brilliant minds at EB can use that characteristic to enhance gameplay.
Can agents affect city income, you mean? You're not talking about the merchant income when staying on a trade resource? I don't think I've spotted any change to the city from agents staying there. Then again I haven't played the game all that much.

Bellum

09-28-2007, 02:14

Their is no mechanism to use the priests for earlier religions?

I don't think there is a valid reason to use them, or even religion. Culture would be much better, IMO. Most peoples in those days just werent very worried about what gods other people worshiped, as far as I know. They were much more willing to accept other gods, or to compare them to their own.

BozosLiveHere

09-28-2007, 04:20

I don't think it's possible to affect generals' abilities with other agents.

We couldn't in RTW, but we can in M2TW using the same conditional that makes witches and heretics affect other characters.

HistoryProf

09-28-2007, 06:21

I've already said that priests will likely not make it in.

won't exist. The papal states is going.

Foot

So, The Papal States are getting tossed only because nobody can think of a good way to implement their unique ability?

I thought someone had the idea of having the Seleucid Empire be the Papal States and various Satrapies be the 'catholics' with varying start values of loyalty? Like the Maccabee and Bactrian rebellions would equate to excommunications. So if you were playing the Seleucids you'd have a few factions that were closely allied to you, but you had to maintain that relationship or they'd go to war with you.

Actually, I just came up with that off the top of my head. You guys are smart. You can't get this sorted out?

Have you guys asked any other mod teams what they thought? Seems like an awful waste of something useful. If nothing else, they can surely be a faction, right?

HistoryProf

09-28-2007, 06:26

Can agents affect city income, you mean? You're not talking about the merchant income when staying on a trade resource? I don't think I've spotted any change to the city from agents staying there. Then again I haven't played the game all that much.

Well, Generals can affect the happiness of a town with traits and ancilliaries, there may be some mechanism for something similar with priests: they can make a religion go up, and that affects another value, in this case religion. But I am thinking scrap the works and replace it with religion, culture, language or trade.

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

09-28-2007, 08:36

The current plan is to make M2TW religions into cultures. I don't recall what the hardcoded max is on religions, but hopefully it is more than 4.

Zaknafien

09-28-2007, 11:18

So, The Papal States are getting tossed only because nobody can think of a good way to implement their unique ability?

I thought someone had the idea of having the Seleucid Empire be the Papal States and various Satrapies be the 'catholics' with varying start values of loyalty? Like the Maccabee and Bactrian rebellions would equate to excommunications. So if you were playing the Seleucids you'd have a few factions that were closely allied to you, but you had to maintain that relationship or they'd go to war with you.

Actually, I just came up with that off the top of my head. You guys are smart. You can't get this sorted out?

Have you guys asked any other mod teams what they thought? Seems like an awful waste of something useful. If nothing else, they can surely be a faction, right?

Doesnt seem useful to me at all. sorry.

Zarax

09-28-2007, 12:09

The idea has its merits, the problem is that the same principle would have to be applied at least to another faction (Carthage) and AFAIK papal abilities are unique...
Something like this would be excellent for an alexandrian era mod where the satrapal system was even stronger.

Shifty_GMH

09-28-2007, 14:21

I don't think there is a valid reason to use them, or even religion. Culture would be much better, IMO. Most peoples in those days just werent very worried about what gods other people worshiped, as far as I know. They were much more willing to accept other gods, or to compare them to their own.

I agree with Bellum.

I've always had the impression that the average Roman took a very open and relaxed attitude towards religion....at least up until Christianity took hold. Kind of viewed as more of a tool to control the masses and/or a way to justify actions taken by the senate and later by the emperors. Excluding, of course, the occasional over-zealous general, politician, and emperor.

HistoryProf

09-28-2007, 15:31

Hey, thanks Zarax. So I'm not a total idiot! LOL.

How Marcus can't see a single useful thing in the Papal characteristic seems frightfully obtuse. Someone out there has a brilliant idea for it.

The Papal States are at least going to be a faction?

Shifty, you're absolutely correct. A concerted effort was made across the Med. to link deities from different cultures. Zeus-Ammon is a perfect example.

bovi

09-28-2007, 16:28

We couldn't in RTW, but we can in M2TW using the same conditional that makes witches and heretics affect other characters.
But that would be an action against an enemy character, not joining up with him. Assassins already have an effect on characters, but AFAIK there is no trigger when a character joins an army or a conditional that he is staying with it? I'd love to be wrong here.

Zarax

09-28-2007, 17:38

Maybe you could have "inquisitors" with extremely low chance of success giving traits upon "trials"?

HistoryProf

09-28-2007, 18:12

Bovi: don't spies increase a Generals resistance to assassination? Some characters may have a similar line cause/effect that's just not being used?

I just can't shake the idea that Archimedes was so instrumental during the siege of Syracuse that that sort of character deserves more than ancillary status. Especially since there are so many characters that can be redefined and reskinned for EB2.

Philosophers were pretty important:

How many philosophers can the average grad. student name? Ancient Generals?

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

09-28-2007, 22:03

I believe that Priests are hardcoded to add one point of relgious/cultural conversion. If Priests were used to represent something other then religious figures, this conversion would still exsist.

Plus, you have to take into account how the AI handles Priests. They will have them standing around in territories adjacent to them, 'converting' their enemies, no matter what they are supposed to represent. Philosophers or something similar wouldn't be standing around in enemy territory, changing their culture. I've also seen the AI to increadibly stupid things with M2TW Priests, like clusting 19 in one of my territories (true story).

HistoryProf

09-28-2007, 23:49

I don't recall speaking on behalf of any particular type of character for any particular purpose (except Princesses) since I have no knowledge of the process of teaching silicone rocks to display images on a screen. The thread title is "Merchant [sic] ,Priest [sic] and Princess [sic] in EBII" and, curiously enough, that's what's being discussed. Possible uses. Personally I would like to see them all totally done away with, and a random system of effects put into place instead.

Generals, Princesses, Diplomats and possibly Regents are all you really need. Priests, Merchants, Spies, Assassins are all rubbish. To think that one of those characters can represent entire 'networks' is fairly infantile.

Bootsiuv

09-29-2007, 00:53

That might be true, but it's the only option to represent the "darker" side of government operations, like state-sponsored assassinations and intelligence gathering.

I would prefer to keep spies, at the very least.

HistoryProf

09-29-2007, 05:28

Bah, you're right. Just wish it wasn't so hokie.

Like the start map, for instance. Why the advanced factions don't have access to complete maps escapes me, at least of Greece. The leaders of Rome knew where Athens was, and what faction was controlling it at the time. Does anyone think Pyrrhus had to send a spy or diplomat to Lilybaeum to know it was a Carthaginian province? He was just there a few years earlier.

Forget that argument for a minute, even though it should suffice the most low-brow among us. Forget that a King (any King) might have access to decent maps or a functional, working knowledge of Geography, but consider this: ships plied not only goods, grains and amphorae around the world, but they also carried information with them. News got around as fast a galley in those days, and not a minute slower. As soon as a ship made harbor they were asked, "What news of Lydia?" or "I heard there was a great battle in Asia, know you who is the victor?"

The game begins in 272 BC; knowledge doesn't, and certainly not trade.

sigh...

MarcusAureliusAntoninus

09-29-2007, 06:34

BozosLiveHere

09-29-2007, 18:20

But that would be an action against an enemy character, not joining up with him. Assassins already have an effect on characters, but AFAIK there is no trigger when a character joins an army or a conditional that he is staying with it? I'd love to be wrong here.

---------------------------------------------------
Identifier: HighestAttAdjacentChar
Trigger requirements:
Parameters: attribute type, character type, logic token, level
Sample use: HighestAttAdjacentChar piety heretic >= 5
Description: Is the highest attribute rating of any adjacent character higher than specified?
Battle or Strat: Strat
Class: HIGHEST_ATTRIBUTE_ADJACENT_CHARACTER
Implemented: Yes
Author: Scott

With some creative coding it can be done.

HistoryProf

09-29-2007, 23:37

Good work, BLH.

Marcus, that's good news. I remember being impressed when I heard about the spies that were put on the startegy map, then 'killed off' before the game starts to increase the usable map by the player.

I just hope that culture takes a backseat to trade in the final run-up to the development of EBII.

The main reason is: trade has immediate effects if it is cut off: it can be extremely political. It works on a day-to-day basis, and has a year-to-year scale as well. Culture on the other hand is a generational effect, that changes over the millenia (historically anyway, pre-industrial revolution. Some (I'm not one of them) say it's even more immutable than languages.

Bellum

09-30-2007, 01:33

And yet cultures and languages do change. :book:

Cultures, even for the ancients, could change very radically within one or two generations. Think of the difference between the Romans at the start of the game and Romans after the Punic Wars. Even money can change ones behavior.

Or, more recently, the Norman Conquest of England, which had an effect on both language and culture. Or the Greek conquest of Persia. There are all kinds of examples, I think.

HistoryProf

09-30-2007, 01:53

Sure, language and culture change, but within the scope of the game is that as easily represented as trade?

Better question: Did young William make a concerted effort to alter the language (a case can be made) or even more improbably, British national identity?

It is true: certain key events, a sword-stroke, a well aimed dart, even moments in time down to a few seconds, nay! even a single word can have a lasting impression on the course of history, but I don't see those things being within the capacity of a video-game to represent.

Perhaps the AI could randomly generate events?

And Persia: exactly who absorbed who? The application of Hellenic cultural forces did not uproot the pre-existing language.

China, India and Greece have been absorbing entire populations for thousands of years, and frankly, not that much has changed.

If Rome did change over the course of some years measurably, is it perceptible (or exciting) enough to merit a time-consuming game add-on?

Keep the smithies of Athens from metals, or the drillmasters of Egypt from Horses. That is both measurable AND exciting.

My main point is that culture is too big, too chaotic, and too wonderful to be encapsulated.

HistoryProf

09-30-2007, 02:16

Bellum

09-30-2007, 02:37

My main point is that culture is too big, too chaotic, and too wonderful to be encapsulated.

Sure. I think the way it's done in Kingdoms: Britannia is fine, really. Give it an abstract statistic with some effects on law and be done with it.

HistoryProf

09-30-2007, 04:52

I feel you. My point is, is that if it's between this or that, I'd rather see trade as the aspect used, since it has more relativo à guerra

Can you dig that?

abou

09-30-2007, 05:11

May want to flip through "Colonisation and Cultural Resistance: Egypt and Iran after Alexander" by Donald J. Puchala if you are going to swing down the 'Hellenistic Influence' ideology. It was an article written in a journal, I think by the University of Kent.

Also:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/iran_death_alexander_resistance_hellenism.php

is another good article.
I haven't had a chance to read the article, but I scrolled down to see what sources they used and noticed a very distinct absence of the most critical and recent publication on the Seleukids - From Samarkhand to Sardis. In fact, most of their sources seem to be very old. That worries me.

HistoryProf

09-30-2007, 06:38

Bootsiuv

09-30-2007, 09:47

I think saying the Seleukids weren't as "significant" as the Achaemaenids or Sassanids is, perhaps, a poor choice of words.

The impact of hellenic culture on the middle-east was far more "significant" than the aforementioned factions because it was so different....everything official was uprooted from persian to greek. There was significantly more change for the local inhabitants under the Seleukids than either the Achaemaenids or Sassanids, because the Seleukids were a "foreign" power, as opposed to the native dynasties of the other two.

Geoffrey S

09-30-2007, 10:33

The impact of hellenic culture on the middle-east was far more "significant" than the aforementioned factions because it was so different....everything official was uprooted from persian to greek. There was significantly more change for the local inhabitants under the Seleukids than either the Achaemaenids or Sassanids, because the Seleukids were a "foreign" power, as opposed to the native dynasties of the other two.
Achaemaenids and Sassanids were hardly native. Sounds like a pretty eurocentrist view.

When it comes to organization, the positions of power, cultural leanings things only really seemed to change among the elites; down on the ground, things went on as usual, paying taxes and raising troops for foreign lords. Impact of the elites on the masses was rarely if ever significantly different from other elites, so if change is to be represented in culture it'd only really be applicable to the highest, ruling classes.

Bootsiuv

09-30-2007, 11:26

Achaemaenids and Sassanids were hardly native. Sounds like a pretty eurocentrist view.

They were far more "native" than the greeks.

Although I fail to see how Sassanids and Achaemaenids weren't native to Seleukid controlled territory.

Both came from Persia, although I suppose an argument could be made that the Persians were as foreign to those of Asia Minor and the Levant as the greeks, perhaps even more so.

It's something of a grey area, really. But to say that the Seleukid's were insignificant seems incorrect, at the very least.

HistoryProf

09-30-2007, 17:43

I didn't say they were insignificant, I said they were less significant.

Bootsiuv, that point mentioned would've received howls of laughter at your teams expense in my high school Debate Club. :smash:

But really, is your argument that the Seleucids, because they were from a different culture (or for any other reason, really) weren't mere short-lived, usurpers but in fact had more influence over Persian culture than that of the Achaemenians, who brought Persia one of the greatest Empires in history?

If only we could ask the Persian people of the time what they thought...

You have people in the most powerful, richest, information-laden society in the history of mankind who can't even point their own country out in a map of the world. What makes you think 3rd cent. B.C. Persian country-folk were any more involved?

Now...:focus:

Bootsiuv

09-30-2007, 18:31

What point would that be, friend?

HistoryProf

09-30-2007, 18:48

It's something of a grey area, really. But to say that the Seleukid's were insignificant seems incorrect, at the very least.

I never said 'insignificant', I said less significant.

The point of the thread, as I understand it, is to address the issue of what to do with the new characters from M2TW. Someone made a case for culture; I made a case for trade.

I contest that Trade is both more complaisant to the will of a faction leader, and makes for more exciting gameplay.

What say you? Emphasize Culture or Trade?

Bootsiuv

09-30-2007, 18:53

Ok, I'm still not quite understanding where I said anything that would validate "howling laughter", but we'll just move forward with the discussion, yes?

I really don't understand why we can't place a strong emphasis on both....as both are important in a broad game that spans centuries of human history.

That being said, if you have to emphasize one over the other (for some reason that I'm just not understanding right now), I would say trade, simply because it has the most immediate gameplay effects.

HistoryProf

09-30-2007, 19:06

I help moderate a High School Debate Club, and I was commenting on your advancement of my statement from grey to black. You put words in mouth, so to speak, which when identified usually elicits hisses from the crowd.

I admit, I am a dork.

The reason for having one or the other, was an idea floated by someone else, that too much management hurts gameplay. I agree.

Bootsiuv

09-30-2007, 19:08

I see....well, apologies if I put words in your mouth.

Don't worry, I'm quite the dork myself, but I have kids of my own now, so I don't have to try and be cool anymore.

HistoryProf

09-30-2007, 19:56

Right on!

What I'm afraid of, is that EB2 might become muddy with minutiae and micro-management. Too many processes to consider would detract from the simple elegance it attains in EBI. On the other hand: I don't mind triangulation. So, naturally I am a proponent of anything that I can use to affect debilities in my enemies. Trade comes to mind.

Strong treaties and alliances are another. Imploring an AI ally send an army to help attack my enemy would be historically accurate and open up a real diplomatic challenge in the strat map.

Perhaps princesses can be changed to represent hostages! The exchange of hostages was the ultimate in alliance. I'd have to see if that pertains to the Hellenistic Era. The princess disappears at marriage!

New thread.

HistoryProf

09-30-2007, 20:07

Actually, how would a faction generate these hostages? I imagine the production of princesses are related to the family tree so... never mind!

Drats...

Wish I were a modder, I'd know these things before I opened my trap.

Geoffrey S

09-30-2007, 22:40

I'm seeing echoes of a less civil and informed MeinPanzer...

They were far more "native" than the greeks.

Although I fail to see how Sassanids and Achaemaenids weren't native to Seleukid controlled territory.

Both came from Persia, although I suppose an argument could be made that the Persians were as foreign to those of Asia Minor and the Levant as the greeks, perhaps even more so.

It's something of a grey area, really. But to say that the Seleukid's were insignificant seems incorrect, at the very least.
How so more native? Certainly both hailed from a (relatively) small area in the eastern side of the empire. As you yourself pointed out they would be far from native in Asia Minor and the Levant. Whoever the ruler was, it didn't really impact those working the soil anyway.

Bellum

09-30-2007, 23:32

The point of the thread, as I understand it, is to address the issue of what to do with the new characters from M2TW. Someone made a case for culture; I made a case for trade.

This is where I'm confused. I was talking about the religion/culture statistic that converts slowly after taking the settlement. I'm not sure how this would be used to represent trade. It doesn't seem to be a concept that is compatible with that feature.

But if you were talking about agents, I don't know what they should be used for, really.

Bootsiuv

09-30-2007, 23:58

I'm seeing echoes of a less civil and informed MeinPanzer...

Less civil? How so.

Less informed? Perhaps, but I don't claim to be an expert. Everything I say on these boards are opinion, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

My original point was still correct, regardless of insulting overtones. Both of those dynasties were native to Seleukid controlled territory. Greeks were not native to Seleukid Controlled territory. This implies that their taking over of the reigns of government must have been something of an upheaval, even if it was Alexander, and not the Seleukids themselves, who caused it.

I just don't think we should downplay hellenic influence in the middle east. This was my original point.

Now, as to the less civil bit, I really fail to see where you get that from....but, whatever, guy.

I'm just here to enjoy the discussion.

HistoryProf

10-01-2007, 00:03

I'm not sure how this would be used to represent trade. It doesn't seem to be a concept that is compatible with that feature.

But if you were talking about agents, I don't know what they should be used for, really.

That's just it: what to do with Merchants, Priests, and Princesses in EB2.
With religion, there are a number of interlocking aspects that could possibly be re-written to create a totally new and different representation. I don't think every aspect of the "religion factor" has to be used. Maybe just Crusades/Jihads for one thing and the enumeration of percentages of different religions represent something totally unrelated. Perhaps only one religion need be used to represent some common thread of society. I don't know, but I don't see any reason to limit the conversation to the expected. Let's turn this biotch out.

Krusader

10-01-2007, 02:32

I haven't read most of this thread, but we will see how the AI can be configured in regards to agents.

As someone pointed out, the AI actually sends merchants around solely for taking down other merchants, and not to trade. If that can not be modded, we might just as well remove Merchants. One idea was to use them to represent governors and add a trade resource called Minor City or something like that, but would be unrealistic if a Macedonian governor showed up in Gaul and put a Gallic governor out of office ~:)

Priests. These would go towards culture, but all depends on how moddable it is. Would be strange to have one area go completely Hellenized in 10 years for example.

Princesses though can probably be used in same role as vanilla. There are references to many marriages between various courts and dynasties. Antiochos III had a Pontic princess as wife. Hannibal had an Iberian princess. A Numidian king married the daughter of Mark Antony & Cleopatra VII. Although Romans might not get princesses (they will probably not have a family tree either) as it seems it was a great shame if a Roman noblewoman would marry a foreigner.

Geoffrey S

10-01-2007, 08:55

Less civil? How so.

Less informed? Perhaps, but I don't claim to be an expert. Everything I say on these boards are opinion, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

My original point was still correct, regardless of insulting overtones. Both of those dynasties were native to Seleukid controlled territory. Greeks were not native to Seleukid Controlled territory. This implies that their taking over of the reigns of government must have been something of an upheaval, even if it was Alexander, and not the Seleukids themselves, who caused it.

I just don't think we should downplay hellenic influence in the middle east. This was my original point.

Now, as to the less civil bit, I really fail to see where you get that from....but, whatever, guy.

I'm just here to enjoy the discussion.
Dude, my mistake in posting unclearly. I was not referring to you. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Bootsiuv

10-01-2007, 08:59

Ohhhhh....my bad then.

Come to the tavern for a drink on me.

~:cheers:

HistoryProf

10-01-2007, 15:24

Hey Krusader, thanks for adding to the conversation.

First, I must say I don't think culture was widely, consciously affected by state influence. It's hard for me to imagine any Iron Age faction leader making a conscious effort to turn a population from say, Celtic to Roman. Or from Macedonian to Germanic. A case can be made for Alexander, but was it measurable? Were his efforts effective? Does it warrant more micro-management? Does it warrant the same application to the Saka or Casse?

As for hellenization in 10 years:

It would be strange for Persia to go completely Hellenized after 200 years. Know what I mean? :book:

I'm as cerebral as the next guy, but this is a game first and foremost, and it should be fun. Anything not related to the acquisition of some tactical or strategic advantage (in a tangible way) should be avoided. This is after all, one reason why religion isn't being utilized in R:TW now, IFAIK?

Have you looked at Deus Lo Vult? (You could be part of the mod team for all I know, sorry!) But they have worked out some interesting applications of traits for generals/govenors you may want to check out.

Zarax

10-01-2007, 15:43

I don't have time to rewrite right now so I will just point my POV: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=124675

bovi

10-01-2007, 16:14

I just picked up a bit from that thread:

Is there a way to link the resource, say horses, to the production of cavalry units?
We can have resources (both hidden or visible) affect the recruitability of units, for instance you can only recruit elephant units where they lived (except for Pyrrhos who imported and bred them at home). I think you're talking about having a shut down trade route making it impossible to recruit though? This can only affect the "home" territory of the resource, not the ones trading with it. I think.

I wish I were a modder, or had one in my pocket!
You can become a modder yourself fairly quickly. Simply sit down and choose one of the aspects you'd like to change in the game files, make backups, study the file in question (you can ask here which file to work on for a specific goal) and start hacking away to see if you can make the change you want. Computer knowledge is a plus for working on it, especially the script or traits, but not 100% necessary. Several current EB members simply started tinkering with the game files and were absorbed, like some who set forth to balance the AI money assistance, or myself who found the solution to a CTD.

HistoryProf

10-01-2007, 17:49

I just picked up a bit from that thread:

We can have resources (both hidden or visible) affect the recruitability of units, for instance you can only recruit elephant units where they lived (except for Pyrrhos who imported and bred them at home). I think you're talking about having a shut down trade route making it impossible to recruit though? This can only affect the "home" territory of the resource, not the ones trading with it. I think.

Well that seems to be an aspect of the game that is not being utilized. If I am blocking the roads to Athens, for example, and have the port blockaded, they should not only lose all trade and income, but unable to produce cavalry units. Really, as the map is now, it wouldn't be worth it to invest any time in a strategy like that: the map is too confined in relation to unit size, city proximity, etc.

If the map were larger... I know: before anyone says anything... :dizzy2:

But if there was more room for tactical movement, then it would be a serious consideration for the player: "Do I hold the nearby hill for battlefield advantage, or stay on the road, disrupt trade, recruitment, better foraging (maybe the player won't have a choice, and has to stay on the road for foraging, or near the coast for supply replenishment by sea (see Byg's Grim Reality Mod)

bovi

10-01-2007, 21:14

I was unclear. The resource requirement is the thing with only local effect, and not affected by trade.

Blockading a settlement will never affect recruitability anywhere.

HistoryProf

10-01-2007, 21:46

Zarax

10-01-2007, 22:27

The answer would be no, AFAIK the only effect is to reduce the local income...

Bootsiuv

10-01-2007, 22:39

Unfortunately....the answer to most of your questions is no.

Even with an enemy unit sitting on an elephant resource (or any other resource, for that matter), it won't affect the availability of this unit.

This is a problem with the R:TW engine. It's unfortunate, because even older games (such as CIV III IIRC, it's been a few years since I last played) utilized this ability to varying degrees.

Now, if one of your armies sits on a road, you should notice that the wagons disappear when they reach your army, this is to signify the disruption in trade that brings, but it's effect is minimal at best.

How often do you feel overly compelled to remove eleutheroi from one of your roads? You might make 100 extra mnai after they're gone, but it's usually not enough to distract me from my current campaigns.

HistoryProf

10-01-2007, 23:07

Well Bovi, ancilliaries can affect income when attached to a General, perhaps this can worked into other characters?

And Boots, I think priests have been already ruled out.

HistoryProf

10-01-2007, 23:13

Perhaps the level of economic disruption could be increased from blocking the roads/wagons?

Like a 75% reduction in income from that city? Is it just a matter of adjusting a level somewhere?

The resource thing kinda irks me: if you don't have tons of ore coming into your city, you can't make lots of metal stuff. Seems to be a reasonable assumption, if I have my laws of physics straight.

bovi

10-01-2007, 23:27

O.k., so then on the strategy map, do the little commerce wagons on the roads not have anything to do with the destination to which they are headed?

In other words, if there were a way to block those wagons, could the city they were headed to be adversely effected?
Yes, the wagons represent trade. Yes, the city loses the trade towards the region in question, which is not a big deal. In order to have 75% of the income reduced, trade along that route would have to represent that 75%, which would make trade figures hugely inflated and unrealistic.

And if an enemy force is sitting on the tile with the elephants on it, that force limits the availability of elephants to the nearest city?
I haven't actually tested this, but I believe that the city has the elephants available regardless. The map doesn't show any difference when parking an army on a resource at least, unlike what it does with blockading a port.

Well Bovi, ancilliaries can affect income when attached to a General, perhaps this can worked into other characters?
Certainly ancillaries can. Agents, however, will not directly influence the general and thereby the city, but Bozos outlined a way to possibly implement effects by trait triggers. I'm not sure if we can differentiate between enemy and friendly characters though, but it's a good idea that we should check out further.

HistoryProf

10-02-2007, 00:56

Hey Bovi, thanks for all your help.

I am wondering how the dev team decided (either at CA or EB) how much trade was represented by those wagons.

I assume some amount of income to the state comes from those wagons. Where else did a Hellenistic Era despot come into wealth, esp. for the purposes of maintaining a military.

I can't imagine they had an income tax. Perhaps tariffs and levies, yes? Import and export taxes. Fees.

My main question is on any given day, how much income was a) due to trade coming in and out of the gates of a city, or b) off and on the docks or c) all other sources.

If it turns out that the city coffers of, say your average 3rd cent. B.C. city, receives "only a small percentage" of it's income from trade, then I'll shut up and just wait for the EB gods to deliver their bounty.

If, on the other hand, the majority of income comes from trade, which is my half-blind assertion, then I believe the sources of income should be adjusted to reflect this reality.

I just can't believe that, for example an enemy army camped on the Via Appia has a negligible effect on trade and more specifically income.

sigh :book:

bovi

10-02-2007, 07:47

Depending on the region, trade can become very important currently as well. The greek cities get 40-50% of their income from sea trade once they have the best trading ports and the trading partner cities are taken. You can see the income figures in the settlement details, and a breakdown of the trade figures as well by another button click.

Conversely, landlocked regions get very little trade at all, which is unfortunate. I'm not sure if we could mod that without affecting the sea trade as well.

There is also another aspect to this. Brigands turn up every once in a while and will usually park on a road to halt land trade, and these are merely a pest that I never care to remove as it's boring to monitor every road, and those battles are uninteresting. If we somehow could find a way to make blockades as devastating as you suggest, it would become necessary to play out all these boring battles. If I am not mistaken, brigands (and pirates) usually could operate without interference because they were not enough of a nuisance to warrant the high cost of sending an army to deal with them.

HistoryProf

10-02-2007, 15:44

I have a rule: if I have as many units as the brigands, or close to it, I usually just auto-resolve w/ "auto_win attacker". That's why I usually garrison only with native units (so I can rebuild them easily).

I don't know about ancient Greece as much, but medieval garrisons did have to hunt down rebels often. King Roger of Sicily had particular trouble with this for years.

The other benefit to this increased defense of trade routs is the need for larger garrisons will slow down the rate of expansion. Alexander created a huge empire very quickly, but that was the exception, not the rule (that's why he is the 'Great'). Look how long it took Rome to expand: centuries.

It would lend to the idea of creating armies specifically for the purpose of a well-planned invasion. Add in Byg's Grim Reality and you actually have a strategic challenge, that I know we're all dying to have.

Spoofa

10-03-2007, 03:18

well at first the romans weren't bent on the Rule of the entire Mediterranean world as Alexander was intent on ruling the known world.

abou

10-04-2007, 06:25

Now, THAT'S what I'm talking about! Whoo hoo! Bust out the JSTOR...

You think those two sets of authors would disagree?

I don't. In fact, I think they both might be in agreement: the tenants owned the land, the landlord just had the palace.

You see, abou, the author of the article cited in Iranchamber is using the sources cited against each other.

Sir Mortimer Wheeler was a supporter of the idea that Hellenism had a long-range and profound impact on Iranian culture.

I'd bet Sherwin-White and Kuhrt would agree with me, that the Seleucids (200-ish years) weren't nearly as significant as either the Achaemenians before (300 years) or the Sassanids after (400 years).

:book:
Sorry, I meant to get back to you earlier, but school and grad apps have kept me held up.

Anyway, I still haven't had a chance to read the article, but it seems that we're in agreement. It is a grave misconception that the Seleukids went around actively Hellenizing (if that is even a word) the lands under their control. If it extended past new city foundations or major centers of military settlements, it seems that any Hellenization was pretty much passive.

Therefore, by extension, most evidences of Hellenism and lasting influence would be lost simply due to the passage of time and that these city centers were constantly in use by anyone who came after the Seleukids. And even more so considering that the Sassanids were Persian by descent and that the Parni adopted Persian culture so vigorously that you would have to be very educated in that field to know the difference.

That being said, I think some Seleukid and Hellenic influences manage to stretch its way into the succeeding epochs, but I can't tell you for certain and to what extent.

And yeah, JSTOR is the roxors.

HistoryProf

10-04-2007, 07:36

Well said, abou. They aren't kidding when they say history is written by the victors, but they should also say 'written by the nostalgic'.

And Spoofa, at first the Romans hadn't seen the map! Once the inspired leaders of that city saw a map of the known world and realized their strategic position, I can't believe that they couldn't see the time and the place for what it was.

I'm fairly certain they told Alexander not to enter Italy.

Spoofa

10-04-2007, 23:00

I'm also fairly certain many other military leaders told him not to enter their lands, but did that stop him? :laugh4: nope

HistoryProf

10-05-2007, 15:19

I'm also fairly certain many other military leaders told him not to enter their lands, but did that stop him? :laugh4: nope

Think you "got" me? That's a laugh. Well then if that's the case, allow me to put one across your (anti-)intellectual bow:

If you're so smart and Alexander was so tough, "Why did he go east?"

I wonder if you've ever asked yourself that question (objectively). Happy surfin'...

:book:

ps: I know why.

I Am Herenow

10-05-2007, 17:22

To avenge them after SPARTAAA :clown:

Bootsiuv

10-05-2007, 18:06

He hated persia....Everyone knows that.

Tellos Athenaios

10-05-2007, 18:16

Hate....? No, not really. But he saw the opportunity; just like Caesar saw the opportunity to take over a very large & rich area with relatively little effort. (Persia wasn't anywhere near as powerful as it had been during Dareios or Xerxes' time.)

HistoryProf

10-05-2007, 18:36

Word.

Cost/Benefit analysis, Macedonian style..

Bootsiuv

10-05-2007, 19:58

I figured all Hellenes hated Persians in those days....

Geoffrey S

10-05-2007, 20:06

I just had a happy thought: if this business of permanent forts representing smaller cities and the like proves workable, would that mean factions like the Sweboz being surrounded by forts with Eleutheroi troops which need to be gradually conquered before a decent profit beyond retraining and expansion is possible? If so, that'd be so excellent!

HistoryProf

10-05-2007, 21:27

I figured all Hellenes hated Persians in those days....

I would like to think that Alexander was lucid enough to base his empire-building on the do-able, and where animosity may have played a part, practicality might have been more of an inspiration. Until he went to Egypt: then I think he lost his marbles... :egypt:

Of course, nobody knows, nor will they ever.

Bootsiuv

10-05-2007, 22:22

Until he went to Egypt: then I think he lost his marbles...

Well said....absolute power would probably do that too most people IMO.

HistoryProf

10-06-2007, 18:05

So is there a consensus on the participants of this thread regarding the application of the new characters into the EB2 adaption?

I like princesses, but think merchants and priests are a waste of time, though I think Marcus said something about re-modelling merchants into building instead that had some campaign map application.

I really like the concept of re-modelling a character into a building (a genuinely intelligent sort figured that one out).

But I would like to see Generals, Diplomats, Princesses, Spies and Assassins and possibly regents (based on the general/governor model) as the only characters in the game. Merchants, Priests, Heretics, Bollucks..

Flying Pig

05-06-2008, 17:23

Could a princess be reworked into some sort of diplomat type 2?

I Am Herenow

05-06-2008, 18:35

Princesses DO work as Diplomats in M2, it's just that they can also ask Generals to marry them.

Cartaphilus

05-06-2008, 18:46

That would be a problem.
No roman general would marry a barbarian princess, or even a greek one.

I Am Herenow

05-06-2008, 18:53

Well, indeed, so they will presumably not be included in EB2?

Irishmafia2020

05-06-2008, 22:37

Cartaphilus

05-06-2008, 22:54

Marriage alliances were common in the ancient world, for example a Ptolemy princess might marry the Seleucid ruler, or Alexander himself might marry a Persian wife (Roxanne) while his generals also take such wives. Even the Romans married their daughters and sisters to men whom they wanted to adopt into their family. Just have the princess marry some general you hire to simulate that - or have her marry your adopted FM's. Some important Iberian nobles were able to marry Carthaginian daughters...Either way Princesses should be in the game. Just because you think that a Roman wouldn't marry an outsider doesn't mean it didn't happen (Cleopatra essentially "stole" a FM from Rome with Anthony). Just don't do that in your campaign if you feel strongly about it...

Do you know one marriage between a barbarian princess and a roman general?
No.
Cleopatra was not a good example, she was greek, and the common roman people hate her and criticize Caesar and Marcus Antonius. But at least she was queen of Egypt.
But if a noble roman had married a celtic or germanic princess, he will have the contempt of all the SPQR (there were some examples of that in the post-classic age).

And on the contrary, when a barbarian marry a roman "princess"? Only in the last days of the empire.

The greeks were all the same race, and the royal houses were related, so that was not a problem.
But the greeks were reluctant to marry barbarian women, only with the example of Alexander their generals start to change their minds.

The ancient peoples were racist. They look foreigners and barbarians with contempt.
Read Iuvenalis.

Bactron

05-06-2008, 23:15

I think that Princess character would be great for certain factions - I think that Ptoleis, Seleucids, Pontos, Hayasdans, Baktrians, Macedonians and maybe Pahlavans should have princesses. Because in history they really used princesses to marry into other nation/kingdom to tighten alliances and improve relations.

TheOmegaWalrus

05-06-2008, 23:17

Hax

05-07-2008, 00:53

I think a good substitute for priests, since religion is now culture, are "great people".

Wait, who ever said that?

abou

05-07-2008, 01:38

Whoa, whoa, let's back up here for a moment. You're coming across as very angry although it may be that English is your second language.

The ancient peoples were racist. They look foreigners and barbarians with contempt.First, let's not confuse racism with xenophobia. People in antiquity did not view other people as inherently flawed, but rather an issue of cultural clashing. Furthermore, Greek colonies may have a different view than Greeks from Greece proper. I imagine areas near Gaul got along very well with the Celts seeing as just how much Greek merchandise the Celts bought. Also, during EB's time frame the Antigonids got along very well with the Celtic tribes north of them. And that doesn't even begin to mention the relationship that the eastern Hellenistic powers had with the Galatians.

Do you know one marriage between a barbarian princess and a roman general?
No.Well, to be clear, we likely won't be having that marriage mechanism with states like Rome or powers like the Koinon Hellenon. How we may limit that (read: prevent) is yet to be seen. Hopefully we can, but I'm not entirely sure. Experimentation still needs to be done.

The greeks were all the same race, and the royal houses were related, so that was not a problem.Now, this is a trickier matter. It is extremely debatable how related the "Greeks" were. However, as far as EB is concerned there is a distinct difference between groups people would consider "Greek". Makedonian does not equal Greek nor does Thessalian. In antiquity they considered themselves different and therefore in our descriptions and how we approach the subject we will do the same.

But the greeks were reluctant to marry barbarian women, only with the example of Alexander their generals start to change their minds.So that is what? Something like 50 years before our game start, if I recall correctly.

To be clear, we see infusions of Iranian blood into the Seleukid royal line a couple of times as well as the marrying of Seleukid princesses to different nobles whether they be Pontic or the Greeks in Baktria. Also, the family tree in EB is pretty broad. Considering how well some of the Hellenistic powers got along with their neighbors I wouldn't be surprised if a noble here or there was married to a Celtic "princess".

Finally, take a look at Carthage and a look at Hannibal's ancestry. What do we see? We see Phoenician from his father and Iberian from his mother who was the daughter of an Iberian tribal leader. Considering how nasty the Carthaginians could be to the Libyans, that they could accept a half-Iberian as such a powerful person in their government says quite a lot.

chairman

05-07-2008, 03:13

On the issue of Romans not marrying princesses from other nations, you are comparing apples to oranges. The Greeks (Makedonians included), Celts, Iranians, and others, were all using Monarchial forms of government. The reason that you don't see as many Roman nobles and royalty from other countries getting married is the same reason you don't see American politicians getting married to European royalty. It wouldn't make sense. The Romans were Republicans, so for one of their leaders to marry a foriegn princess would seem to indicate him making a bid for power. That's the real reason that the Roman people despised Anthony and Cleopatra together, because he looked like he was trying to become king (something that the Romans hated more than almost anything). And Abou's point about the difference between racism and xenophobia is very good. Argos and Sparta were both greek cities, not only that, they were both Dorian Greek cities, but they hated each other. That's an example of xenophobia, not racism.

Another reason you don't see Romans intermarrying with foreigners is that the Romans would often make large portions of those foreign populations citizens, like they did in Italy. When that happened, the Romans had no real qualms about intermarrying. A good example is the number of later emperors who came from outlying provinces, like Trajan, Septimus Severus...

Chairman

Irishmafia2020

05-07-2008, 04:12

I believe that Megos Alexander's mother was Epirote, and therefore not Macedonian, so that would be another example of a prominent state political marriage in the ancient world. As to the Romans, I won't argue that they frequently avoided marriage to non-Romans, however it did occur occasionally, and while Anthony/Cleopatra might have represented an anomoly, it is clearly a high profile one. I would hope that Roman Princesses could be used to cement Roman political alliances and adoptions. Roman suitors will appear for any unmarried princess anyway, but I personally like to hire a general and adopt him into my family by marrying off my daughter/sister to him. Even so, as Rome grew from a city-state to an empire, their soldiers must have started families with local women in Spain. Africa, and Britain. Their descendants would be Roman. Perhaps it is possible to script that Roman FM's can't marry barbarian women without a massive influence/unrest penalty, or that Roman Princesses simply do not have the marriage option in their diplomacy screen, and they must therefore wait for a proper Roman suitor to appear with a proposal that appears from the adviser at the beginning of the turn. Either way, princesses add depth to most factions diplomatic options. One possibility is simply to not have Roman princesses at all like in vanilla MTW2 where the Islamic factions lack princesses. The other factions should get them though - and they should be able to marry within their culture at least.

Cartaphilus

05-07-2008, 07:37

I know that. The problem is not for greeks or if you prefer macedonians, but mainly for the romans.
In the time-game there was not any great roman politician that marry a non roman woman. In the patricii that would be almost impossible.

In fact the mix of bloods was only made when roman became an Empire. And this was first ill-considered for the romans.
But this changed with the passing of the years - we all know the origin of the different emperors.

But I insist, please read Iuvenalis, and the other classics - They hate/despise the "graeculi" and other foreigners - "in Tiberim defluxit Orontes".

Well, I've talked about racism to simplify the matter but if you prefer we better speak of xenophobia.

And I've talk about greeks for the same reason. The greeks were not all the same.

Bactron

05-07-2008, 07:56

Finally, take a look at Carthage and a look at Hannibal's ancestry. What do we see? We see Phoenician from his father and Iberian from his mother who was the daughter of an Iberian tribal leader. Considering how nasty the Carthaginians could be to the Libyans, that they could accept a half-Iberian as such a powerful person in their government says quite a lot.

I think that you are wrong about Hannibal's ancestry - If I am not mistaken both his father (Hamilcar) and mother were Phoenicians (maybe even with some Libyan blood in them - It was quite common for Carthagiens colonisers to marry with Libyans)

Hannibal's wife was Iberian princess (daughter of Iberian tribal leader) and her name was Imilce.

EDITED: Sorry you were right I have just checked the net and I see that his mother was of Iberian descent. I didn't knew this.

abou

05-07-2008, 08:00

But I insist, please read Iuvenalis, and the other classics - They hate/despise the "graeculi" and other foreigners - "in Tiberim defluxit Orontes".
I don't think Juvenal can be used as any real means to measure the average Roman attitude toward other people for a number of reasons.

The first is that he is writing well after EB's time frame.

The second is that there are a variety of interpretations of his work including the Satires as being actual satires.

The third is that the target audience of Juvenal would have been an incredibly small portion of Roman society.

Finally, the amount of acculturation the Romans had done throughout and after EB's time frame points to certain extreme hate of Hellenistic culture as being in the minority.

Also, what other works are you talking about? What are their contexts? One only needs to look at the multitude of Greek phrases that show up in Cicero or the clear use of the Classical style in Augustus' monuments to understand what their view of the Greek world actually was.

EDIT: I would also like to add that many of the portraits we have of Mediterranean personalities of EB's time frame are Roman copies. For example, one of the portraits that we have of Seleukos Nikator was found in the ashes of Herculaneum.

abou

05-07-2008, 08:01

I think that you are wrong about Hannibal's ancestry - If I am not mistaken both his father (Hamilcar) and mother were Phoenicians (maybe even with some Libyan blood in them - It was quite common for Carthagiens colonisers to marry with Libyans)

Hannibal's wife was Iberian princess (daughter of Iberian tribal leader) and her name was Imilce.

EDITED: Sorry you were right I have just checked the net and I see that his mother was of Iberian descent. I didn't knew this.
Learn something new every day, right? :beam:

Bactron

05-07-2008, 08:10

I think a good substitute for priests, since religion is now culture, are "great people".

Immobile so that nor you or the AI can wierdly pit them agianst each other, thier recruitment depends largly on what culture recruits them. A Barbarian great person will get picked from a pool of poets, bards, druids, ect while Romans would get orators, historians and whatnot. Traits would stem off of thier original careers, and the building that enables them would vary per culture. Romans can recruit from academys, while barbarians from advanced temples and taverns.

Advancing the buildings needed for recruitment will give your people better stats, to show that they're better able to do thier job and will reach more people, spreading your culture more effectivly.

It would also add a lot to historical flair. Traits can be gained while a general is stationed in a city with a well known scholar for example. As Alexander was taught by Aristotle, your young family members can take a que from these people (for better or worse).

Cultural spread through a province should still be as slow as possible. People like sticking to thier own ways and it's gonna be hard to change that. But if a state sponsered, persuasive agent were to convince a few people a season your ways were best...

I really like this idea, I think that it's great. But I think that some factions could also have some religion characters for example Pahlavans could get priests of Zarathustra, Baktrians (or if Mauryan Starapy will be in) could get buddhist monks later on etc.

Now I realized that this could be complicated because bards, poets, historians, druids, priests of Zarathustra are already ingame in form of ancilliaries. So maybe it is not so great idea - Because what would happen with these ancilliaries? But I personally would welcome as many agent/characters as possible if there will be some useful tasks for them.

Hax

05-07-2008, 10:06

What are their contexts? One only needs to look at the multitude of Greek phrases that show up in Cicero or the clear use of the Classical style in Augustus' monuments to understand what their view of the Greek world actually was.

Let's also not forget the famous Meneriphton Kubos, by Iulius Caesar, quoting Menander.

Perhaps the plebeians were a bit xenophobic towards Hellenes, but I'm pretty sure Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman world, and the Romans looked up to the great poems/philosophers etc.

Mithridates VI Eupator

05-07-2008, 13:09

That is true.

Maybe you could say that the romans disliked the Greeks, but liked their culture...

Anyway, I guess some factions could have princesses, because, as earlier mentioned, marriage alliances was common during antiquity too.
However, the EB-team might have other ideas for the princess-type agent.

Cartaphilus

05-07-2008, 13:10

The republica was far more conservative than the empire in this matter.
How many senators have an extra-italic origin in that time?
Note the unrest in the senate when some of these foreigners (of gallic blood) were admitted - in the end of the time-game.

The generals of the game were normally patricii (although there are some number of plebs), do you really think that a patricius will marry a sarmatian or germanic princess in the Republica? This would be scandalous and a shame for him and his family.

And what gens would give a daughter to a foreigner (greek or barbarian)?

The novi homines were looked with contempt by the ancient and noble families.

Some of the patricii were more open-minded, like the Scipiones, but they were the exception, not the rule. But I don't really think that even Africanus would consent to marry an iberian or african woman.

...............

And at first the romans were considered barbarians for the greeks, who laughed at their presumption of being the descendants of the trojans.

...............

A solution to all of this could be (if it is possible) limiting the marriages to the same "culture" factions.
For example, a ptolemaic general can marry a macedionan princess.
But a german general cannot do the same thing.