Are you an Ashoka or an Alexander?

Hi everyone. I just thought I would ask wheather people prefer the conquering aspect of EB or the more civic aspect?

I know we all enjoy that feeling when, in a hard pressed battle, you commit your reserves at that pressure point in the enemy lines and watch with delight as they rout. But how many of us take equal, if not greater delight in building gigantic temples and watching as your ports throng with shipping fleets and your coffers overflow with riches? Yes its not as adrenaline fueled but its certainly longer lasting.

Not sure what you mean, Ashoka was a conqueror in every sense of the word, and a pretty brutal one at that.

I'd say equally enjoyable, but with the warring aspect getting quite annoying when the war is far too protracted, just like RL lol

But yes, Ashoka was already both, in a way so was Alexander :P

It's fun to find new administrations for your empire and role play the shift between puppet rule, loose control and tight control. It's fun to civilize your empire and slowly convert it towards your culture. And it's certainly fun to beat your enemies to pulp.

Ok, perhaps I mis named the thread. Originally i was going to say are you a Croesus or a Caesar.

lol, and since I actually read some kind of Lydian history now, Croessus is practically brutal conqueror as well, his history just have been softened in Greek records because he actually allied with the Hellenes.

it's a very rare thing to had "Great" kings in ancient world who wasn't a conqueror at some point on his life

Dammit! Ok how about "Are you a Ptolemy I or a Pompey Magnus?"

lol!

Pompeivs Magnvs actually built the first (iirc) stone theater in Roma and Ptolemaios had his fair share of military campaigns :P
Easy to say that you just can't separate the two, not until the last century :D

just say this, do you prefer Brutal Military Campaign and Occupation, or Peaceful building and political manouvering roleplaying to build your empire... :D

Playing as the AS I like a little expansion, I think of it more as reclaiming lost territories or putting down rebellions- a Makedonian Basileis has to live up to Alexander. But I do love to build huge theatres, and start new festivals to the gods etc. It would be really nice if you could see unique temples and such in your cities, also libaries!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

just say this, do you prefer Brutal Military Campaign and Occupation, or Peaceful building and political manouvering roleplaying to build your empire... :D

---

Good point, that will teach me for trying to come up with flashy thread titles.

I actually find that Hellenic and Roman cities are more rewarding to build up than "barbarian" and Semitic cities. Its the bright marble temples, columns and theatres which do it for me. Although I prefer "barbarian" factions the brown, green and slate colours of a Celtic oppida arnet the most eye catching.

^
|
| what he said altough not really the theaters as much as moving population around developing lands seing the caravans and the trade ships busy around my favourite part of playing the koinon hellenon is conquering the agaeus see and see it almost white with the sails of the ships moving there and here or when you finally managed to save up just enough mnai for your 1st mine upgrade thanks to carefully choosing what to recruit and what to build so you can save up that x amount of mnai every turn

one of the biggest turn off´s when playing makedonia for me is the lack of thorokitai just because after a while fighting every single batle gets monotonous and thorokitai do make a big diference in auto calculated batles

also brennus most of the "marble" of the hellenistic and roman cities was not so bright as we might believe today since many archeologists are finding that the statues and maybe even many of the buildings where painted (i´ve seen some reconstructions of a few classical sculputes on how they should be in the classical age and gotta say i do find them far more beautifull and full of life when they´re coloured)

A pity the blood from temple sacrifices isn't shown having ran down and dried on the steps of the temples. I agree on trade fleets, always a cheering sight.

I am most definately a builder. For most civilizations I will conquer a set amount (for example modern day greece as any western greek faction) and then sit down and just build for pretty much the entire game. When I get annoyed enough or a particularly un-influencial king comes to power I will go conquer a modern geographic region with him to roleplay reinforce his power and then sit down and build again. Honestly, the fighting part has become the least interesting part of Rome/EB/M2/etc.

One of my favourite sights on the campaign map is when you click to end your turn and then watch as the walls around one of your cities beefs up or the roads go from a simple trackway to a lovely shining stone highway.

I personally prefer the empire building aspect a lot, seeing what every region has to offer in terms of troops and buildings etc. of course, one has to defend it's borders...

But my assaults are usually carried out by fully complemented armies, and I prefer starving a settlement to assaulting it.

Ashoka is more appealing. I prefer the rule of law to the constant warring. (and yes, I know about Kalinga)

in strict EB gameplay terms, somehow, exterminating and "destroy, kill, leave, let em revolt" and go back to kill the revolting apeleutheroi with arrows, are actually more worth... at least if I want to permanently take the city, I'll only destroy government and enemy barracks that I can't use (if the enemy barracks is in one culture with me, I won't exterminate them...