How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?

[Catmand0]

In a hypothetical multiplayer EB campaign where every civilization was controlled by a human how would the campaign be fundamentally changed? How would actual human diplomatic relations play out? How would tactics change to face a much more intelligent threat? Would any civilization have a disproportionally unfair advantage and how would that effect the rest of the game? What civilization would you want to be and how would you play?

[seleucid empire]

In a hypothetical multiplayer EB campaign where every civilization was controlled by a human how would the campaign be fundamentally changed? How would actual human diplomatic relations play out? How would tactics change to face a much more intelligent threat? Would any civilization have a disproportionally unfair advantage and how would that effect the rest of the game? What civilization would you want to be and how would you play?

Whoever's turn is last will have a huge disadvantage.

Also it's impossible to fight battles unless its an online thing and they can only attack when your also online

I would go casse, sweboz, Carthage or saka. Seleucids will get raped so hard and so will the Macedonians

Also there would have to be ground rules such as no private messaging the other players and only doing so through the game diplomats

[Ludens]

It depends a lot on the people that play it, particularly whether they know one another, how much they like to role-play, and how well their skill-level is matched.

If the answer to all these is no, I expect a very competitive and "hostile" game, where the weaker factions will be wiped out quickly. If the answer to all these is yes, diplomacy will be more important (and more effective) and there is less incentive for cheesy tactics, so aggression is limited and weaker factions stand a better chance.

I agree that Macedon will be in trouble in either case, though.

[Catmand0]

I imagine that mikra-asia would be a very interesting area in the first 150 turns. The gallic tribes would have to decide early on if they were going to unite or fight for supremacy. Rome would have to make an alliance with the sweboz to help keep the gauls in check. I could see an alliance between the saba and the seleucids to help deal with the egyptians.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I really think Carthage wipes the floor with everybody. They can invade Italy by sea quickly and sack Rome and/or Capua to stunt Rome's growth. The Lusos would only be able to contest their Iberian holdings and would be hard pressed to kick Carthage out of two towns when they only start with one. Their only threat by sea would be Rome early on and the Carthaginian navy starts much stronger than any other faction, and it takes way too long for the Ptollies to march overland to Carthage. Their priority targets would be Syria and Greece instead and of course the Seleucids are a powerful foe to leave at your back while you marched west. Carthage also gets fantastic regionals. Besides the amazing Spaniards, they get Neitos and Brihentin in Gaul and Samnites in Italy.

What would be really interesting to see play out would be how the AS would fare. A wily Seleukid player could in effect cow some of the single province nearby factions into submission with a nearby army and demand some money to go away before they laid siege to those towns. Remember, Pontus, Hayasdan, Baktria, and to a lesser degree the Pahlava can all be wiped out by a Seleukid player within a few turns if he were to move quickly enough. Also, its one thing to take a city against the AI in a blitz. Its another to take a town from even a semi-competent human player. Protracted sieges would be the name of the game.

[SoFarSoGood]

Seiges would certainly be more interesting.

[seleucid empire]

I cannot imagine Saba winning at all. They would lose all their battles to competent players

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

Saba would have to play an amazing diplomatic game but a good Saba player would certainly be the wild card that could swing the AS and Ptollie war.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I've got a little idea on how to give every human player a chance to build up and get organised at the start of the game.

Make up a list of (fairly historically accurate) Eleutheroi target towns for every faction (happy to do this myself). Have a house rule that each player has to take all his Eleutheroi target towns first (unless one or more of those targets is taken by another faction first before he gets there) before he is allowed to attack a town from another faction.

A human player can fight battles in the open field against armies from other human factions at any time, but can't actually seige, assault or occupy any of their towns unless he's taken ALL his Eleutheroi targets first. (Might be an idea to make Taras, Pella and Asaak exceptions to the rule, they are the only places where a factional army starts the game in another faction's territory.)

Also, when the game starts, there are a number of strong Eleutheroi armies dotted around the map. (I can make a list of them.) Make a house rule that the players who have one of these Eleutheroi armies in their territory must destroy that army. They must do this before they are allowed to attack another human player.

This also applies to any big scripted Eleutheroi armies, commanded by an Eleutheroi FM (like Moskon's big army in Spain), that appear in your territory during the game - they must be treated as the priority, forcing the player to go on the defensive against other human players until the Eleutheroi army is destroyed.

This prevents the human players from just ignoring powerful Eleutheroi armies and cities, and blitzing each other right from the start in a chaotic free-for-all. It will also make the human players worry, because if they use up most of their troops against the Eleutheroi, it might make them vulnerable to a blitz from a neighbouring faction that achieves its own Eleutheroi target list first.

So you can blitz at the start, but (apart from the above named exceptions) you can only blitz the Eleutheroi, not each other.


Suggestion:

Here’s a list of what towns you must capture for each faction, before you can attack any other town. You can take them in any order.

Note: Some of the towns are on the list of more than one faction. You can take the target yourself, or you can make an agreement with someone else to let them take it first, but you may not attack any town belonging to another faction (unless it was yours at the start of the game and you are recovering it) until ALL the towns on your list are no longer in Eleutheroi hands.

Note: If you are attacked by another faction, you may defend yourself, and attack enemy armies in the field, and retake any towns that you have lost - but you may not attack any other enemy towns, that were not originally yours, until you have taken all the Eleutheroi ones on your list first (except those that are taken by another faction before you reach them.

Aedui: Avaricum, Dariortum, Lemonum, Patavium, Bratosporios.

Arveni: Aventicos, Tolosa, Burdigala, Avaricum, Lemonum.

Baktria: Kophen, Alexandropolis, Gava-Haomavarga.

Carthage: Garama, Kirtan, Siga, Lixus, Sala, Arse, Emporion, Messana, Syracuse.

Casse: Ictis, Ratae, Ynys-Mon, Attuaca, Emain-Macha, Ivertis (the whole of Britannia and Ireland, in other words).

Epirus: Pella (Macedonian, you can take it right away), Thermon, Dalminion. (Note: you can recover Taras if it is taken.)

Getai: Sarmiszegethusa, Kallatis, Naissos, Serdike, Tylis, Singidunum, Ak-Ink.

Hayasdan: Phraaspa, Ani-Kamah, Kotais, Mtskheta.

Koinon-Hellenon: Kydonia (on Krete), Thermon.

Lusotann: Sucum-Murgi, Tyde, Baikor, Pallantia, Vellika, Numantia.

Macedon: Thermon, Byzantion, Serdike, Tylis. (Note: you can recover Pella if it is taken.)

Pahlava: Asaak (Seleucid, you can take it right away), Gava-Mazskata.

Pontos: Sinope, Trapezous, Nikaia, Ankyra.

Ptolemoi: Ammonion, Kyrene, Augila, Meroe, Axum, Petra, Bostra, Kydonia (on Krete), Halikarnassos.

Roma: Taras (Epirote, you can take it right away), Rhegion, Bononia, Segesta, Massilia, Messana, Syracuse.

Sabyn: Tamane, Sabata, Carna, Ubar, Homna, Gerrha, Bostra, Petra.

Saka: Chach, Gava-Saka.

Sauromatae: Tanais, Gava-Yugra, Gelonus, Gava-Thissakata, Olbia, Chersonesos, Pantikapaione, Kabalaka, Kotais, Mtskheta.

Seleukia: Ankyra, Pergamon, Halikarnassos, Nikaia, Palmyra, Ani-Kamah, Phraaspa, Alexandropolis, Pura. (Note: you can recover Asaak if it is taken.)

Sweboz: Gawjam-Rugoz, Gawjam-Kimbrioz, Gawjam-Skandzawarjoz, Gawjam-Habukoz, Gawjam-Heruskoz, Arctaunon, Gawjam-Silengoz, Ascaucalis, Carrodunum, Gintaras-Ostan.

[Ludens]

There should be a house rule against blitzing full stop. It's too easy to launch long-distance raids, particularly over sea, to devastate lightly-garrisoned cities. Obviously, an undefended border province would be asking for it, but there's nothing to prevent cheesy tactics like marching through eleutheroi provinces or using a few boats. In reality, logistics made such attempts very difficult*, but in EB it's easy and devastatingly effective. It takes only a few turns to assault a city and raze all the buildings - and infrastructure is expensive and takes a long time to rebuild.

So my proposed rule would be that you can only invade neighbouring provinces, and that naval invasions are allowed only over short distances and when escorted by a sufficient number of ships. (But there would be no restriction on ferrying troops to allied cities, provided you have military access. That way, smaller factions can be used as beachhead by stronger ones.)

Are there other cheesy tactics that need to be checked?

(* It's true the Vikings did so successfully, but circumstances were rather different. For one thing, Europe was thoroughly disorganized and defences were primitive. For another, individual raids were often small and, though traumatizing, didn't take out an entire province. The major, long-term destruction came from the fact that these raids happened again and again and again. Then there was the superior design of the longship and the fact that logistics are substantially easier when the warriors are also the rowers, etc.)

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Good ideas, Ludens.

RE: "Marching through eleutheroi provinces or using a few boats"

How about a house rule that says you can march into an Eleutheroi province, but you can't march out (unless you retreat back into your own province) unless you take the Eleutheroi town first.

Same with amphibious landings in Eleutheroi provinces - your army can't leave that province until you take the Eleutheroi town first (unless your army retreats back to its fleet, and then the fleet retreats, over two turns, to a friendly port).

My own view on naval invasions and ferrying troops by sea is that armies can only be embarked in ports, not anywhere on the coastline - although they can land anywhere. No player's fleet should be allowed to both leave port and land troops in the same turn, no matter how short the distance involved - even if it's a tiny, tiny distance. The invasion fleet must stop in mid-ocean between 50% and 75% of the way to the target, and wait there until the player's next turn. This is to give any opposing fleets a chance to intercept - and it must happen this way even if no enemy fleets exist.

[Ludens]

Those are good suggestions, but in an MP game it's best to keep the rules as simple as possible. That way there's less chance of mistakes and less scope for wrangling about what is and is not a legal move.

[Arjos]

I think that golden chevrons Horse Archers, will kill every moving creature :P

Pretty much like EBO, rules will be decided as it goes on: I hope we'll have a MP campaign in EBII!

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

And much like IRL, those golden chevroned HA won't be able to do anything against a stone-walled city. :p

[Tanit]

I think that golden chevrons Horse Archers, will kill every moving creature :P

Pretty much like EBO, rules will be decided as it goes on: I hope we'll have a MP campaign in EBII!

Function is currently turned off to ease modding, but I think its a simple fix to turn back on.

[Arjos]

And much like IRL, those golden chevroned HA won't be able to do anything against a stone-walled city. :p

Oh, they can graze in the fields and wait, there's no rush :D


Function is currently turned off to ease modding, but I think its a simple fix to turn back on.

Awesome!

[mikepettyrtw]

I strongly look forward to an EB MP Campaign. The turn times would be monstrous. It would require hours of free time, and there would have to be a limit on how long battles can be. This however makes a problem for Steppe factions and possiblely of Romans. Whenever I play as either, battles take a very long time. This also applies to a lesser extent the eastern factions in general.
None the less, those battles would be amazing.

[Vilkku92]

How people think Casse would do? My guess is that under player control they would become a real superpower in the west after the Isles have been unified. Their economy just is so strong that they could easily afford some three medium-quality fullstacks and still have money to spare, while the sea would provide them with strong natural barrier against most invasions. As their most likely rivals would either likely have their hands full with other factions (Aedui, Arverni, Lusotann) or have a very weak economy (Sweboz), there wouldn't be much resistance against their expansion that couldn't be overcome by sheer numbers and money. Of course, if the mainland factions could combine their strenght against Casse situation would be much more evenly matched, although they would also have to deal with Rome and Carthage. So many diplomatic options... :dizzy2:

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

It would be hard for the Casse to maintain a fleet against any of the mainland factions if certain houserules were instituted. Namely that ships in ports being blockaded cannot leave without beating back the blockaders. That being said, conservatively it takes about 20 years to gain all of the British Isles at which point you are raking in the money. The Gauls would beat each other bloody and the Sweboz aren't much good at naval invasions either so I think the Casse could come to dominate most of Northern Europe before whoever won the Carthage/Rome duel showed up.

[Tanit]

For those who haven't played MP games in M2, the 'who fights which battles?' question is answered by only allowing players to control their armies on their turn. This forces you to be more aggressive during your turn, and to position your armies and fortify your cities in a much more defensive manner towards the end of your turn.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

How people think Casse would do? My guess is that under player control they would become a real superpower in the west after the Isles have been unified. Their economy just is so strong that they could easily afford some three medium-quality fullstacks and still have money to spare, while the sea would provide them with strong natural barrier against most invasions. As their most likely rivals would either likely have their hands full with other factions (Aedui, Arverni, Lusotann) or have a very weak economy (Sweboz), there wouldn't be much resistance against their expansion that couldn't be overcome by sheer numbers and money. Of course, if the mainland factions could combine their strenght against Casse situation would be much more evenly matched, although they would also have to deal with Rome and Carthage. So many diplomatic options... :dizzy2:

I'd be willing to play Casse historically and act as referee for the game. I'd play Casse like I do in single player campaign - turtle, remain at peace with the Eleutheroi as long as possible, focus on building up my home city. In my Casse SP campaign, it's 242 BCE, and I've yet to conquer a single town.

[Ludens]

Yes, once the Casse unify the British Isles, they'll become the dominant economic power of the West. If the Casse player is skilled at diplomacy, he can probably acquire parts of Gaul as well without alienating his allies.

On the other hand, I think the Casse won't do as well in combat against other human players. Maybe an MP player will correct me on this; but the Casse lack heavy cavalry, and their heavy infantry is either unarmoured or elite (expensive) and small in number. Against the A.I. you can make due with lighter units, but against human players it's a whole different story.

The lack of cavalry can be corrected by conquering a Belgian province (Remi Mairepos), but it will take some time to get the necessary infrastructure and it forces the Casse to become involved on the mainland, thus risking war and loss of trade-income.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

We edited the Casse a bit for MP but the general idea remains. You use eagles and druids to keep your forces from breaking while you use fear units (chariots, druids, uridusios) to quickly break some weaker units and start chain routs. Casse battles are often among the shortest we have in MP. They do really well against the Romans oddly enough (since Romans don't kill quickly and usually rely on morale as well) while they do poorly against factions like the other Gauls, especially the Aedui (who can do almost everything the Casse can with heavier suits of armor).

[Ludens]

Another suggestion for an MP campaign would be to ditch the standard victory conditions. These are designed for playing against the A.I., so they may be too ambitious for an MP game. Also, they more or less require you to go to war with your neighbours at some point. That'll hurt diplomacy right from the start - knowing that, eventually, it will be you or them.

As an alternative, faction specific missions could be used (e.g. "reunite Alexander's Empire" for the Ptolemeans and Seleucids, "unite the Celts" for Casse, Aedui and Averni, etc.). Or you could ignore the victory-conditions entirely and just play until an agreed year.

[seleucid empire]

It would be hard for the Casse to maintain a fleet against any of the mainland factions if certain houserules were instituted. Namely that ships in ports being blockaded cannot leave without beating back the blockaders. That being said, conservatively it takes about 20 years to gain all of the British Isles at which point you are raking in the money. The Gauls would beat each other bloody and the Sweboz aren't much good at naval invasions either so I think the Casse could come to dominate most of Northern Europe before whoever won the Carthage/Rome duel showed up.

why would they play conservative in MP tho? wouldn't a player just rush the isles and then turtle up? A casse player can unite the british isles and ireland by 266 BC and then spend the next 10 years turtling up. So by 256 BC they will be very powerful and ready to mount an invasion of Gaul (and probably succeed)

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

The Casse only start with a small army and not too much in the way of infrastructure. Its easy to rush the last 4-5 towns but difficult to rush the first 2-3.

[seleucid empire]

The Casse only start with a small army and not too much in the way of infrastructure. Its easy to rush the last 4-5 towns but difficult to rush the first 2-3.

Difficult I guess, but not impossible. I do it every casse campaign. The three chariot units you start with can rout armies very quickly. So first turn I que units in the capital and send all my forces to the first town (ratae? I think it's called). They Sally at the end of the turn. Put your units of starting infantry in a very thin line. The garrison will swarm those and you bring your chariots around. It's amazing how fast they rout. Even midlander champs and Druids rout in seconds

I find it harder to rush the last 3 towns actually since by the time you get there, your starting army is pretty much gone and you have to wait a year to recruit some more infantry

[Stark]

Why are you discussing usage of faction units against human opponents? You can't play battles against huans in hotseat, and most hotseats I've seen use autocalc for all battles. Technically you could just spam a only Pezheratoi stack as AS and it would work great, as they are strong with autocalc. Horse archers lose much of their strenght that way.

[Ludens]

Why are you discussing usage of faction units against human opponents? You can't play battles against huans in hotseat, and most hotseats I've seen use autocalc for all battles.

True, but you can't do hotseat in EB1. The script can only place homeland/expansion markers for one faction, so the recruitment/MIC system won't work properly with multiple players. So it's all hypothetical anyway.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

True, but you can't do hotseat in EB1. The script can only place homeland/expansion markers for one faction, so the recruitment/MIC system won't work properly with multiple players. So it's all hypothetical anyway.

That is a big problem.

Would be nice if we had a workaround for it. Some sort of application to edit save game files, allowing you to load a save game into it, and change the player faction from the one in the file to your faction, with a simple drop-down menu. This would automatically replace all the homeland/expansion markers in the relevant file with the ones for the faction that you are playing. Then save the files to a savegame folder of your choice, ready to load and play.

[d'Arthez]

True, but you can't do hotseat in EB1. The script can only place homeland/expansion markers for one faction, so the recruitment/MIC system won't work properly with multiple players. So it's all hypothetical anyway.
I don't think that has to be a huge problem? RTW is turnbased (and thus EB1 is as well), so you don't have to have Homeland / Expansion markers that are perfect.

Give All territories Homeland resource, so that everyone can build level 1 governments everywhere. Since the human player can apply his mind, it is relatively easy to come up with the rule that governments constructed by human players should be appropriate (i.e. as they are currently set for single-player campaigns), and thus that the Romans can't build lvl 1 Government in Greece.

Or am I missing something here?

[Ludens]

No, you're right. I was thinking about previous discussions on switching-factions mid-campaign, but when every faction is human-controlled, you no longer need the script to place governments.

[Stark]

True, but you can't do hotseat in EB1. The script can only place homeland/expansion markers for one faction, so the recruitment/MIC system won't work properly with multiple players. So it's all hypothetical anyway.

I know, but I thought you're talking about EB2? It might be possible in M2TW.

Anyway, if you find a way to play hotseat in EB1, please count me in for a game. I would really like to try it.

[Shmoof]

Hello :)
Who says that each faction has to achieve victory conditions? Wouldn't it be more fun to do what you wanted instead of staying in the rigid lines of victory conditions? I think the point of an EB multiplayer (or another TW game minus Napoleon) is to survive and/or fufill your own victory conditions. Carthage may decide to be Carthage... a trading empire while Macedonia may want to dominate the Black Sea. It's up to the player is it not?
Ludens said that there could be "faction missions" like "uniting alexander's empire". Still, there is still a lot of warfare to be had to win, and would prevent forming alliances (an AS and Ptollie bloc would be devastating, now imagine, say, a Carthage-Rome alliance versus a AS Ptollie war... an ancient world war!!) It would have to be a do what you want style of game. If you want a Iberian Empire or an Island Alliance system, you should be able to. With total freedom, the possiblilities for political scenarios would be endless!

[Stark]

Hello :)
Who says that each faction has to achieve victory conditions? Wouldn't it be more fun to do what you wanted instead of staying in the rigid lines of victory conditions? I think the point of an EB multiplayer (or another TW game minus Napoleon) is to survive and/or fufill your own victory conditions. Carthage may decide to be Carthage... a trading empire while Macedonia may want to dominate the Black Sea. It's up to the player is it not?
Ludens said that there could be "faction missions" like "uniting alexander's empire". Still, there is still a lot of warfare to be had to win, and would prevent forming alliances (an AS and Ptollie bloc would be devastating, now imagine, say, a Carthage-Rome alliance versus a AS Ptollie war... an ancient world war!!) It would have to be a do what you want style of game. If you want a Iberian Empire or an Island Alliance system, you should be able to. With total freedom, the possiblilities for political scenarios would be endless!

I completely agree, the beauty of multiplayer is that people are unpredictible. Role playing your faction would be great, but railroading someone in one direction is boring.

[Shmoof]

I completely agree, the beauty of multiplayer is that people are unpredictible. Role playing your faction would be great, but railroading someone in one direction is boring.

In my most recent campaign as the Makedonians, i wanted to have fun instead of creating the Roman Empire. I want to create the Makedonian Empire of the Pontus Euxines. In a hypothetical MP Campaign, me and, say the Pontic player may band together to create my Pontus Euxines empire. So now we have a bloc of allies there. Maybe Getai and Saromatea (spelling?) could try to stop our bloc. I just came up with that right there, just imagine it with other people. The possibilites are endless!

[Stark]

I think the biggest problem with victory conditions would be preset enemies. For example, player of AS would have a hard time negotiating with his neighboars if everyone knows he has to kill them to win. Without preset goals, diplomacy remains open as it should be.

[joshmahurin]

So the big question is: Is it possible to play an EB1 multiplayer campaign game by any means and if so who wants in? :)

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

If the technical issues around a PBEM game could be resolved (e.g. the Homeland resource thing) and the mechanics of how to load, switch faction, and save the game figured out, I'd be very interested in playing.

[Stark]

If the technical issues around a PBEM game could be resolved (e.g. the Homeland resource thing) and the mechanics of how to load, switch faction, and save the game figured out, I'd be very interested in playing.

Switching factions, saving and loading isn't the problem, there is a mod for this that works just fine. Only problem are government markers. But giving everyone homeland resource everywhere and controling what people build by house rules sounds like a good idea.

[joshmahurin]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?143488-Who-wants-to-try-some-multiplayer-campaign

[Cybvep]

But how would it work? No manually controlled battles, I guess? Wouldn't it make the game very stupid, with massive spam-stacks which work adequately in auto-resolved battles and poorly in manually controlled battles?

It looks like sth that could only work with tons of HRs.

[joshmahurin]

Why no manual battles?

[Stark]

Why no manual battles?

You can't use manual battle in hotseat, it's not possible to integrate them with campaign map.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

The only way this could be done is make houserules. For example, no siege battles would be allowed. That would create too many battles. You would have to wait until the city capitulated to take a town. Second, battles would be fought in MP, but only battles where the odds are greater than 3:2. You don't want silly battles taking up all the time, only the larger set pieces which I think human players would have to be smart about. Third, units that are damaged more than 50% would have to be sent back to be retrained or disbanded. You can't really represent partial units in MP battles.

[Ludens]

But how would it work? No manually controlled battles, I guess? Wouldn't it make the game very stupid, with massive spam-stacks which work adequately in auto-resolved battles and poorly in manually controlled battles?


Why no manual battles?

A MP game with the hotseat script is essentially an SP game. The difference is that when a player finishes his turn, he doesn't hit the end-turn button, but instead forwards the save-game to the next player. The next player then uses the script to switch factions and take control of his own.

So any battles will be fought against the A.I. like a normal SP game.

It is of course possible to simulate the battle in MP; but that will slow the game down. Mind you, organizing a hotseat game with more than a couple of players will require a lot of patience. Even with good organization, it's unlikely that more than three players will finish their turn on a given day. So with six players, you can only play a turn every two or three days, assuming there are no drop-outs. If the game has to stop in order to arrange MP battles, it will take even longer.

However, I still think that the King's plan (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?132878-EB-MP-campaign) for an MP campaign is feasible, and will be a lot more fun.

[Cybvep]

A limited theatre with few factions sounds like a good option. I mean, let's face it, AR battles suxx in MP - that's not why we are playing TW games, after all. It may be fun and/or convenient to use AR in SP against the AI in order to give yourself extra challenge or auto-win easy battles, but that's it. In MP, battles are much more exciting, anyway.

Yes, yes... EBRisk sounds good, indeed. However, it would be a major logistical undertaking for the Game Master, so you need a person who has much spare time and isn't afraid of tracking all the data and resolving conflicts concerning the rules.

[joshmahurin]

Awesome I've had a similar idea to kings myself in the past and I only just recently found out hotseat stuff exists so I've been fiending pretty hardcore for any chance to try some mp campaign of ANY sort with EB because it would be mind blowingly awesome no matter how slow it was. I myself am in college and don't want to be devoting my life to a game right now (and EB definitely has the power to make me do that :P ) so slow steady campaign progress would be fine with me. The game can last a whole year for all I care. I just want to get serious about organizing something, anything as far as mp campaign for EB. So lets do this people! I need my fix! :D

[moonburn]

germans pritanoi lusitani karth hadastians and selekids would be the big winners

the seuleko kids would probably end up being the new overlords of the world eventually they would go straight for the throat of the ptolomaioi nobady else could afford to loose borders for so long as to remove the big threats so either the ptolemaioi would ally themselfs with the seleukids or would end up being overrun in less then 10 years

what the game doesn´t show and what would be visible in a MP game is that the seulekids are too big to phail at the start of the game and all it takes them is normally a threat against the hay the pontians or even the persians to get them in their place and aslong as the things in hellas proper aren´t resolved their only real threat would be the ptolemaioi

if the makedonians or the epirotes or even the koinon hellenon would be able to get the upper hand they would still take around 10 years and thus 10 years+ to control the balkans and all it wealth wich would grant the seulekids all the time they needed to get the pontians hayasdan parthians and mainly the ptolemaioi in their place (wich would mean either protectorates as it happened for real or dead and extinct ) even if we added the new factions the truth if that pergamon couldn´t become too much of an hassle and the seulekids could easily find allies pre defining the borders before they interacted

this being said a new quardastim faction wouldn´t have made the mistakes of the real ones they would have probably strenghten themselfs in africa and kept a weak peace with the romans in sicily altough they would have probably been kicked out of iberia by a new arevaci or lusitanian powerhouse since in this kind of games we can´t force the limitations of real life clan politics (the weakest point of the barbarian factions)

the gauls would go at each other throat for decades if not 100 or 200 years until the romans decided that enough was enough

would be interesting and in the end it would depend if the right people took the right factions or not to get the right alliances in place but those i said would be the one with the easyest job in the game and whoever took over the pontians epirotes the gauls hay and phalavians would have the hardest job depending on either a great alliance suported by deep pockest like the romans could be created or if they could live side by side with the seulekids none of them could stand alone against the seulekids and with a human player leading the seulekids bravery isn´t enough the seulekids can pick one at a time