Changing starting year?

[Connacht]

EB starts when the Romans are going to conquer Taras and Pyrrhus is starting his campaign in Greece.
But what about changing the start date of just a few years, that is when the Epeirotes started their campaign in Italy (or when Pyrrhus ended his campaign in Sicily)?
That would give, imho, an interesting situation where the player may try to drive out Pyrrhus from Italy or to seize the peninsula in some decisive battles, while nothing gives not chances to attack Macedonia and/or try to bring in the Carthaginians as a balancing factor in the campaign.
What do you think about?

[lenin96]

One of the team members said that EBII would start a year earlier than EB1.

[Ludens]

One of the team members said that EBII would start a year earlier than EB1.

You are referring to this topic (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=216786)? MAA wrote that EB2 might start in winter 273 B.C. but that's not certain.

[General Appo]

Personally I think that if they'd start just 2 years later they could skip Epeiros as a faction and start with Rome ruling all of Italy south of Cisalpine Gaul.
Sure I love the Epeirotes, but still.

[antisocialmunky]

There'd be Illyrians instead :-D

[BozosLiveHere]

You are referring to this topic (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=216786)? MAA wrote that EB2 might start in winter 273 B.C. but that's not certain.

While the workaround we found isn't 100% perfect, we consider it good enough for us ATM. So the starting date stays the same.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And it would not have been like you could actually play that turn anyway. (Script would lock down the game and force end-turn because otherwise the seasons would go out of sync every now and then.)

[||Lz3||]

I've been wondering for some time why 272 was chosen to be the start date... and not the Pyrrhic wars

[lenin96]

It's good that it's staying the same because otherwise the EB team would have to find out about where people were in 273 BC, so the EB team doesn't have as much researching to do.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The start date will remain the same. The main reason: the starting positions of factions, their territories, and their armies will not have to be reresearched for EBII.

There are many reasons for 272BC. Under Pyrrhos, Epieros still has a chance to become a power. Antigonos could go either way into defeat or victory. The Syrian Wars were underway, with the chance of either the Seleukids or the Ptolemaioi becoming dominate in the east. The Punic Wars were not yet unavoidable, allowing Karthage and Roma a chance to still be friends.

[Connacht]

IMHO I don't think that only one or two years may drastically change everything, from positions to diplomatic situations between major empires (i.e. AS vs Ptolemaioi), causing only and only a lot of trouble for fixing the game.

[Macilrille]

Other suggestions;

One thing I would love would be the possibility to play different campaigns (possibly with different victory conditions), IE starting at other dates than 272 BC. Possible start dates could be:

264 BC 1st Punic
218 BC 2nd Punic
201 BC Macedonia and AC allied against Ptolomai, Rome on the verge of entering the fray.
~110 BC, Numidia, Pontos, Germans all flexing muscles.
59 BC, First Triumvirate expands Roman dominion, Germans threatening the Averni/Aedui, the latters' last chance of nationbuilding.
31 BC Augustus, can Germans and Getai resist? Ptolomai remain independant after Actium? Parthia beat Rome in the East?


-----------------------------------------------------------
New factions would be nice as well, though I am aware there is no room.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Civil Wars, like in BI or possibly even with playable rebel factions.

-----------------------------------------------------------
City States like Massilia and Syracousai, Pergamon, Cyrene and even Ptolomai Egypt changing from Rebel/neutral to Allied/Buffer/protectorate state if neighbouring faction is powerful enough.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Enforcable Peace, Second Macedonian War came about because Philip IV refused to cease hostilities against "Konion Hellenion" (sp?) and Ptolomai. Gaius Popillius Laenas drawing his circle in the sand comes to mind as well as being the most famous enforced peace ever I think (you gotta love that incident. That is confidence in one's own power and power politics for you).

As you can see I am Roman-centric, others may have other campaign suggestions as well.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It will likely not happen. Making EB 2 for X start dates essentially boils down to X versions of EB 2.

That said there may be remods of EB 2 to achieve just that (up to the fans).

[palmtree]

I've actually been thinking about modding EB1 to make a later start date campaign. Simple reason, waiting 400 turns for the Marian reforms to kick in got pretty damn dull and if you haven't conquered half the known world in 400 turns as the Romani you're not really trying.

Since it would involve a lot of work and it was way easier to just change the event trigger for the reforms to let them start early I decided against it.

I'd probably give it a go for EB2 though. I'd like to see an EB campaign with advanced starting positions. Less Eleutheroi, built up cities, most or all reforms active.

[Banzai!]

I think EB2 should be released iteratively as each faction is completed in the form of provincial campaigns. These campaigns should be set at different critical points in history, eg Pyrrhic Wars, Wars of the Diadochi. This will all culminate in v1.0 with the Grand Campaign release. Thus a completed EB2 would end up as "definitive" Classical-era mod that allows players to recreate many points in history.

I believe this has several advantages:

Players can begin playing earlier
Text men (EDB, EDU, traits, scripters) can work in parallel with the content creators (modellers/skinners), instead of twiddling their thumbs at present (and creating a serial delay overall).
Text men can extensively test out their ideas in the provincial campaigns (including trying out different concepts in different provincial campaigns) and receive lots of feedback from the public.

I do not believe provincial campaigns will require much extra work as:

The map can simply be cropped parts of the main campaign map.
Because map regions are a subset of the Grand Campaign, EDB, Traits, text elements do not need to be changed.
The only thing that needs to be done basically is plonking stuff down onto the stratmap


I propose these provincial campaigns to go with factions as they are done:
Campaign Order - New Factions Completed - Campaign
1st Campaign: Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucids Gaza Campaign
2nd Campaign: Rome and Epeiros Pyrrhic Wars
3rd Campaign: Makedon and Koinon Hellenon Macedonian Wars
4th Campaign: Carthage and Iberians 2nd Punic War
5th Campaign: Pahlava, Hayasdan and Baktria Wars of the Diadochi (I would love to play as Eumenes and kick some Macedonian butt)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Love that idea Banzai! but I don't think they will go for it.

[Cybvep]

I'm afraid this concept is both not that simple and not that easy to balance properly in order to be used by EB Team. Provincial campaign is a whole different thing. It allows for much better care of details, but at the same time it must be carefully balanced and it has to have many features that can't really be introduced in Grand Campaign (too small and too detailed). IMO things work much different in a campaign concerning a small area and very limited number of factions, and if they won't be different, it will become too boring and repetitive. So, in fact it would have been a project on its own.

[seienchin]

264 would imo be the most interesting starting year. It would be possible to force rome and Carthago into war, the Epirotes were still there, as well as all the other factions.

[Thaatu]

I had an opinion about this a while ago for the original EB, which I still think would fit very well. 272 is a bit abrupt date, because there are many events that are underway (some of which AI can't handle). Pyrrhos being the king of Macedonia and controlling Pella, supposingly dying in three turns from the beginning of the campaign, Rome conquering two settlements within eight turns, the king of Sparta stuck in Crete...

Changing the date to 275 wouldn't be of much trouble I think. It would be just before the battle of Beneventum, after which Pyrrhus decided to abandon the Italian campaign, with many more doors open for Epirus. Antigonos would be in full control of Macedonia, but still in a precarious position. I'm not sure, but if I remember correctly, Manius Curius Dentatus is the faction leader of Rome in the first EB, who just happens to be a consul in 275 BCE. He lead the Roman army against Pyrrhus at Beneventum. It would fit perfectly for some factions. Ptolemaics and Seleucids wouldn't even need any changes, so it wouldn't amount for as much work as changing the date more drastically.

I could do some more research for this, if the team is willing to consider.

[Cartaphilus]

One or two years could be no problem for EB, but no more.
I think that the starting year will not chage more than that.
The EB team has repeated that the year will not change (one year change is not significative).

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The problem with starting with Pyrrhos in Italia would be that a defeat woule mean the end for Epeiros in game, but in real life he just started again in Makedonia.

Plus, there are a couple things that are pushing the timeline as it is. Both the Chremonidean League and Baktria didn't exist until after the start date. They are somewhat justified, but moving the date earlier streaches those sustifications.

Then there is the issue of having to completely reorganize possessions and diplomacy with regards to the Syrian Wars.

The start date's territorial and army locations as well as people and army composition has been thouroughly researched and changing the start date would force all of that extensive research to be redone.

[keravnos]

EB starts at 272 BCE.