-
Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Lately many players have noticed strange arrangements or decisions, regarding the factional/mercenary picks...
So I thought we could start gathering sources, discuss changes etc, in order to collect more accurate rosters...
New idea
Speaking with Kival, he proposed a 10 factionals minimum, 4 mercenaries maximum and 10 allies (new category) maximum.
What to do think?
I can agree with it, but it's a lawyer technicality, that basically allows what I had in mind, but preserves from nonsensical spams that some players might've used...
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
The biggest controversies are going to be:
- What exactly constitutes a mercenary?
- Should autonomous subjects be considered factional or mercenary?
- Should nominal overrule, or very limited (for example few months or just two years), still count as factional?
- Should we consider the largest expansion in the EB's timeframe, as our limit for factionals, or the "homeland"?
I have my own opinions, but I think we should reach an accepted agreement in the community ^^
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Hmm, I just did every unit so here goes. If you'd like to parse through it Arjos go ahead. A few things you may like to revise anyway. I'm just here to do the grunt work.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
my revisions of AS and epeiros, possibly not correct.
Epeiros:
Keltohellenikoi Hoplitai - Factional
Taxeis Triballoi - Factional
Hoplitai - Factional
Elephantes Indikoi - Mercenary
Pezoi Brettioi - merc - i dont recall that epeiros was ever allied with the brettioi in fact i recall that the tarantinioi called in epeiros to help fight against them
Hastati Samnitici - merc - same as above
Samnitici Milites - merc - ""
Thraikioi Prodromoi - merc - i just plain disagree, i dont think epeiros owned thracian lands
Thraikioi Hippeis - merc ""
Thraikioi Peltastai - merc - ""
Hippeis Thessalikoi - Mercenary
i feel that as far as AS goes, all galatians should be mercs, IIRC galatia was a mostly autonomous region, also it was claimed by pontos aswell, also as far as gameplay goes i kind of prefer them that way for some reason
Arche Seleukeia:
Anatolikoi Phyletai - Factional
Lugoae - merc
Galatikoi Kuarothoroi - merc
Galatikoi Tindanotae - merc
Gaeroas - merc
Galatikoi Lavotuxri - merc
Galatikoi Kluddolon - merc
Keltohellenikoi Hoplitai - merc
Thraikioi Hippeis - merc - i dont think AS moved into thrace and held those lands long enough
Thraikioi Peltastai - merc
Harmata Drapanephora - Factional
Elephantes Indikoi - Mercenary
Elephantes Kataphraktoi Indikoi - Mercenary
Hippakontistai - Factional
Kôfyârên-î Verkhânâ - Factional
Shipri Tukul - Factional
Gund-î Nîzagân - Factional
Toxotai Kretikoi - merc - they were well known mercenaries
i might be wrong so just tell me if i am
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Arjos, why are we making a bunch of GREEK units factional for the DACIAN/GETIC faction?
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
capomafioso
i dont recall that epeiros was ever allied with the brettioi in fact i recall that the tarantinioi called in epeiros to help fight against them
Taras called for help against the SPQR, but after few months people from Samnium and neighbouring communities, abandoned Roma to join Pyrros, who promised them local autonomy...
Now I know this happened few years prior to the EB start date, but imo in EBO that isn't such a big deal, especially when we have factions like the KH owning troops from poleis/leagues that were never part of the KH...
But this one is the only point that could go down...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
capomafioso
i just plain disagree, i dont think epeiros owned thracian lands
Pyrros was both hailed and later conqueror of the Kingdom of Makedonia, while it's not sure how far south his dominion stretched (Gonatas always regrouped), he most certainly held the north and in Upper Makedonia there were Thraikioi...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
capomafioso
i feel that as far as AS goes, all galatians should be mercs, IIRC galatia was a mostly autonomous region, also it was claimed by pontos aswell, also as far as gameplay goes i kind of prefer them that way for some reason
We have examples of Galatikoi siding with usurpers and for example after the treaty of Apamea, they didn't "revolt" against Antiochos Megas for a missing payment (if the Basileus was robbing temples, surely he couldn't pay them), instead the Galatikoi were attacked by Vulso, for the sole reason of having helped Antiochos. In my view all of this points to a symmachia and not to a status of misthophoroi. Some of them were still up for hire, but the tetrarchy (or at least one of the four cantons) always sided with whomever was in power in Anatolia...
Pontos did own the land, because Mithridates invited most of the nobility and assassinated them, but this happened decades after the aforementioned events...
Fact is there were a lot of highland communities and poleis that gained an autonomous status in Anatolia through diplomacy or political choices made by Basileis and the Galatikoi were just one of the many...
Not to mention military settlers and their descendants...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
capomafioso
i dont think AS moved into thrace and held those lands long enough
Roman intervention, was mostly due to Antiochos reclaiming the lands of his Progonoi, among these was Thraike, which he secured in 196 BC, refounded Lysimacheia and expanded further north, gaining oaths of allegiance: that gives 6 good years of Seleukid rule...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
capomafioso
Kretikoi were well known mercenaries
We know that many Kretikoi went as far as living in Antiocheia and Alexandria, also there are examples of symmachia, like with Doson and there were the so called Neo-Kretikoi, who depending on interpretations, could very well have been Asiatikoi armed and trained in the cretan manner...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gamegeek2
Arjos, why are we making a bunch of GREEK units factional for the DACIAN/GETIC faction?
The consensus me and Rob reached so far, was to consider the largest territorial expansion, during the EB time frame, as the base for factional units: Burebista did capture and control all the land from Slovakia to the Black Sea, Kallatis and many other greek colonies were part of that...
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Eh, I didn't say that all units within the largest territorial expansion should be factional though...
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
He did capture the cities and occupied them, what should we make of that then?
Note for example I didn't add Bouiroi, because they left or were killed...
In this case, Pontos Euxinos Greeks co-existed with Getae for a long time, the latter were even recognized as friends and protectors centuries before Burebista...
Would he pay for their services? I don't think so, they would just get their share of the loot...
But if we want factional to be strictly denoting ethnicity, well let's get ready for 3 Karti factional units at best lol
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
The thing with Epeiros is this however. When Pyrrhus controlled Makedonia, he took the title of King of Makedonia rather than making Macedon part of Epeirote territory. Essentially in my opinion, his faction at that point would be Makedonia rather than Epeiros, probably since the title being King of Macedon held much more weight than that of Epeiros. I don't think Epeiros should have factional access to Thracians because of this.
Also I don't think that mercenaries in our sense would be the same as mercenaries in real life. It includes those sure, but also would include soldiers who would not necessarily be common in the armies of said factions. The labels of Factional and Mercenary are themselves misleading.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
So in our time frame Roma was mostly a republic, imperial units are so unusual they become mercenary? XD
Armoured Keltoi were so unusual they gotta be mercenaries lol
Anyway Pyrros holding two titles and one supersiding the other makes me laugh, he was Basileus, how much land he held that was up to his conquests...
Frankly with both him and Gonatas claiming Makedonia: gah :P
If the consensus is to follow such gamey definitions, I just have no clue what unit is what...
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Bah, its hard to explain what I mean but when I say uncommon I mean that typically you would not find such units in an army, it would only be while campaigning outside the homelands, in nearby regions, etc.
I'm actually for gameyness in this instance. The only real difference between Makedonia and Epeiros if we followed through on this would be a few units here and there (Hetairoi, etc.) and the fact that Epeiros gets way more choices than Makedon. I understand your approach Arjos, but I feel we are better off leaving more clear divisions between factions rather than making them more similar.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
There are italic, illyrian, thessalikoi, thorakitai, hysteroi: lots of differences...
We are speaking of Epeiros and Makedonia, not two regions with the world between them XD
Those Thraikioi units are just perfect for Thracians and Paeonians...
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arjos
There are italic, illyrian, thessalikoi, thorakitai, hysteroi: lots of differences...
We are speaking of Epeiros and Makedonia, not two regions with the world between them XD
Those Thraikioi units are just perfect for Thracians and Paeonians...
Going only by the examples you've made here, you will notice though that this is 8 units for Epeiros and 2 units for Makedonia, one of which is a phalanx and the other currently being a 100-mnai-and-2-morale-less version of Mollosson Agema...
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Celtic Viking
Going only by the examples you've made here, you will notice though that this is 8 units for Epeiros and 2 units for Makedonia, one of which is a phalanx and the other currently being a 100-mnai-and-2-morale-less version of Mollosson Agema...
I'll just delete all this, the consensus is gamey pick and choosing and that's well up to your moods XD
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arjos
I'll just delete all this, the consensus is gamey pick and choosing and that's well up to your moods XD
Gah, you got moody here. Let's evaluate things first. I think your definition is problematic but Robin's one is too gamey for me.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kival
I think your definition is problematic
What's problematic about a king of a region, being able to raise troops from that region? XD
The only part I would've agreed with is that unfortunately as of 272 BC epeirote possessions in Megale Hellas were minimal at best...
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
I would like to force players to use core troops. That's why I would advocate three categories: core/factional, regionals/allies, merc/very-shorttime-allies. Possible would be rules:
1.) 10 core min., 10 allies max., 4. merc max.
2.) 12 core min., 8 allies max., 4 merc max.
3.) 8 core min., 12 allies max., 4 merc max.
About the detailed number, we might have to discuss further but I never liked it to categorize merc and short-time-allies together with regional troops and long time allies.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
Also I don't think that mercenaries in our sense would be the same as mercenaries in real life. It includes those sure, but also would include soldiers who would not necessarily be common in the armies of said factions. The labels of Factional and Mercenary are themselves misleading.
This, basically. Thanks for bringing this up Rob, because I was foolish enough to assume people approach the labels the same way I do (and perhaps you as well, apparently). That is, these are labels. They are categorically different for administrative purposes in the case of EBO, not different for purposes one would find in reality (i.e., representing hired warriors). These labels are here so you as a player know when you have or have not surpassed the limit on that unit type (i.e., merc).
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Agriankioi mercs? NO WAY!!!;o Your list just nerfed epeiros so hard robin its beyond redemption...;o
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yavana
Agriankioi mercs? NO WAY!!!;o Your list just nerfed epeiros so hard robin its beyond redemption...;o
Agriankioi were loyal to Makedonia, not necessarily to Epeiros. And I made units like Samnites factional. Samnites are better than Agriankioi. Anyway, don't bother with that list since we haven't decided anything as of yet.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brave Brave Sir Robin
And I made units like Samnites factional. Samnites are better than Agriankioi.
Depends. Against heavily armoured units, Ariankioi are of course better than Samnites. The Samnites also suffer under the use of the kopis... still I have no problem with that.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Yeah, because of the kopis I'd pick the Agrianians over Samnitici Milites any day: they've ap, they're cheaper, they've better morale, and did I point out that the kopis is crap? :tongue:
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Bah, there is hardly a noticeable difference between the kopis and a celtic longsword, a weapon that is a proven winner.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
No, you're being fooled by their stats. Spears are much better vs low armoured units than the kopis is, as the Thorakitai Hoplitai vs Milnaht tests that Kival and I made showed (with the spear they defeated Milnaht, with the kopis the Milnaht kicked their arses). That's why you only saw me use those Thorak Hops in the first few battles in last month's tournament, since that was before we made the tests.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Yeah, kopis at best has 10 attack...
In the end an elite kopis is like a kardaka longsword: awful :D
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
True, I don't think the kopis attack ratings were changed once AP was taken away. If we were going to keep them without ap, perhaps 0.2 with an attack bonus of +2 would be better?
Though I have to say I was never disappointed in the performance of Samnites or Pedites Extraordinarii. Perhaps the Thorakitai Hoplitai problem is rather one of spear/sword units. I've always found Mori Gaesum to be under performing as well. And Kardaka longsword deserves its own tier of awfulness along with the Babylonian mace. 8 attack? Gross.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Gaesum are fine imo, and I'd prefer the kopis with AP instead...
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
I don't know that I prefer kopis with ap, or at least not as they were before as they did use to be a little OP.
In any case, I doubt it's anything to do with spear/sword and I think GG2 was more likely correct when he said it was an animation issue. I did make another quick test though, which I will equally quickly grant as imperfect since it was vs AI and with general units, however, what I did was to give Samnitici Milites the stats and formation of Thorakitai Hoplitai. The only difference was the javelins, though I changed to 1 volley and 1 attack (since they shouldn't get that advantage, and the result was they killed none with javs). The Samnitici Milites got their asses kicked, killed 20 and lost 71. Went slightly better for the Milites when I controlled them, though that was because the stupid AI kept disengaging and recharging (something it didn't do with the Milites), which is when the Milites did their extra kills (amongst them the Milnaht general... sigh...). Until they started doing that, however, the Milnaht were doing just the same as they had when I controlled them, and they still won in the end.
-
Re: Reworking the mercenary and factional status...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kival
I would like to force players to use core troops. That's why I would advocate three categories: core/factional, regionals/allies, merc/very-shorttime-allies. Possible would be rules:
1.) 10 core min., 10 allies max., 4. merc max.
2.) 12 core min., 8 allies max., 4 merc max.
3.) 8 core min., 12 allies max., 4 merc max.
About the detailed number, we might have to discuss further but I never liked it to categorize merc and short-time-allies together with regional troops and long time allies.
So no opinion whatsoever with this guys? :O
