KH Disingenuous?

Does anyone else feel that forming a mighty Koinon Hellenon empire is a little disingenuous? That was the latest alliance in a series of leagues, treaties, and allianes that were constantly broken and changing. Odds are that even if they had conquered the greek pennensula (or beyond) they likely would have split again over something or other. So does anyone else feel that playing KH is a little like freezing in time greek politics, and doesn't fel legit?

Just a disclaimer- this is in no way a comment on EB itself, which is the greatest game mod ever.

Yes,this has been discussed before.

It's the only way to represent league in-game....the alternative would be no better, and far worse IMO.

Given the fact that everybody and their brother has declared rhubarb on me in my current KH game (currently at war with Rhomaioi, Epeirotes, Karkhedon, Pontos, Ptolemaioi, and Seleukeia, and only at pie with the Makedones because there aren't any Makedones left for rhubarb), and given that I'm trying to keep the Hellenic exclaves free from non-Hellenic domination (I'm currently pouring WAY too many resources into trying to keep the Sauromatae from overrunning Chersonesos), a banding-together-for-protection of city-states doesn't seem all that implausible.

If we're ever at peace, or really unthreatened at all, then yes, I imagine it would fall apart, but I'm suffering an average of two half-stack invasions a turn here.

I just imagine that my KH empire is more than just allied colonies and more of the empire that I wish they could have formed. For some reason, despite the seeming inaccuracy of a Greek city state empire, I cannot fathom conquering the map with any other faction. I kind of like to center my empire on Athens and pretend it is like a Greek Rome. In the end its all about fun and the EB team has done wonders with KH, in my mind. Gotta love the new agoge system especially.

Does anyone feel that forming a mighty Sabaean empire is a little disenguous? A Casse one? A Lusotannian one? It's the way the game works. Internal rebellions would be awesome, but the engine just doesn't do it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the approach used for Hayasdan or something similar is ideal for any faction that needs to form closer ties inside its homeland areas before being able to expand seriously. For example, I'd imagine something like:
1. Conquer Hellas
2. Lengthy political unification process, without which conquered areas must remain government IV (or III?)
3. Make Greece a Type II government area, allowing for proper expansion.

What I'm really looking forward to in EB 2 is the possibility of forts representing minor provincial cities with a traderesource attached through scripting. This could very well make the single starting provinces of a number of factions focused on one particular area within the region filled with rebel forts from the start, which need conquering before it's possible to expand out of the initial province. I really hope that using forts for minor cities thing works out, because there are a number of interesting possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the approach used for Hayasdan or something similar is ideal for any faction that needs to form closer ties inside its homeland areas before being able to expand seriously. For example, I'd imagine something like:
1. Conquer Hellas
2. Lengthy political unification process, without which conquered areas must remain government IV (or III?)
3. Make Greece a Type II government area, allowing for proper expansion.

---

Indeed, and barring a reform for the Koinon Hellon c/o the EB team, just make up your own "restrictions". Turn everything into either Type IV or III governments, and after a certain period of time has passed (maybe until the client ruler dies, for example), replace it with Type II or I. For an interesting challenge, if you want to adhere especially rigidly to the notion of allied but separate city-states, only ever use Type IV (with maybe a bit of Type III) governments. Then each "city-state" will have to draw almost exclusively on its own resources when it comes to defending itself or contributing to the "common" campaign.

Cheers.

I thought the adjective "Disingenuous" was very disingenuous.. Or, in fact you could say it was very ingenious, if unorthodox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the approach used for Hayasdan or something similar is ideal for any faction that needs to form closer ties inside its homeland areas before being able to expand seriously. For example, I'd imagine something like:
1. Conquer Hellas
2. Lengthy political unification process, without which conquered areas must remain government IV (or III?)
3. Make Greece a Type II government area, allowing for proper expansion.

What I'm really looking forward to in EB 2 is the possibility of forts representing minor provincial cities with a traderesource attached through scripting. This could very well make the single starting provinces of a number of factions focused on one particular area within the region filled with rebel forts from the start, which need conquering before it's possible to expand out of the initial province. I really hope that using forts for minor cities thing works out, because there are a number of interesting possibilities.

---

What is the approach used for Hayasdan? I had a quick look at all the factions before starting my Saba campaign and was surprised to see Hayasdan started with a level 3 govt in it's only province, I assume there's a reason for this?

John, check out the Hayasdan preview.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the approach used for Hayasdan or something similar is ideal for any faction that needs to form closer ties inside its homeland areas before being able to expand seriously. For example, I'd imagine something like:
1. Conquer Hellas
2. Lengthy political unification process, without which conquered areas must remain government IV (or III?)
3. Make Greece a Type II government area, allowing for proper expansion.

What I'm really looking forward to in EB 2 is the possibility of forts representing minor provincial cities with a traderesource attached through scripting. This could very well make the single starting provinces of a number of factions focused on one particular area within the region filled with rebel forts from the start, which need conquering before it's possible to expand out of the initial province. I really hope that using forts for minor cities thing works out, because there are a number of interesting possibilities.

---

These are all pretty good ideas it would seem to me....:2cents:

As for building an Empire with the KH being disingenuous...
Would it be any less disingenuous building an Empire along the Med. with the Maks, the Epeirotes, or Carthage?...I understand historically speaking the "Greek City States" and their flip-flopping alliances never held up for too long...but since there is no way to simulate this... well there you have it and for the BI proponents of using perhaps "rebel factions" to simulate something like this...No thanks...I would rather have different actual factions than rebel ones. I don't suppose any KH fans who feel disingenuous about building an empire with the current KH faction would rather have the faction dissolved and represented as rebel cities would you?

Me wants civil war. Would be pretty cool if the generals in our future succession game could fight arguments in the council out on the field.

Alas, it was not meant to be....

:sad:

I prefer to see KH expansion as Hellenic influence and indpendent city-states, not one nation.

Exactly, and you could say the same about carthage (if to a lesser extent) and also many if not all of the barbarian factions. There were only a few nations that were realy nations in the modern meaning of the word.

Even the late Roman Republic was disingenuous, or at least with its share of civil wars. Even MTW had quite a good system for simulating civil war, but RTW, or even MTWII, doesn't. Very sad, really.

Yes, they had such a very great impact on the politics of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

Me wants civil war. Would be pretty cool if the generals in our future succession game could fight arguments in the council out on the field.

Alas, it was not meant to be....

:sad:

---

Why not? Some roleplaying and imaginative use of multiplayer custom battles could quite well suffice. I'dd imagine that would make quite an experience.

Can't play the same faction in both sides of an mp battle.

I did at one point consider amking an edu that would let all factions recruit all units just for this purpose, but thenb all my atempts to start eb PBeMs have died so I never did it. If you guys wnat to do this then I will knock up an edu that will let you hold "civil wars" in five mins or so if you ask me.:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ypoknons

Even the late Roman Republic was disingenuous, or at least with its share of civil wars. Even MTW had quite a good system for simulating civil war, but RTW, or even MTWII, doesn't. Very sad, really.

---

BI brought about the Roman rebel factions which was pretty good.

But they eat up two faction slots and only work for two factions, plus it was done better in MTW IMHO.

Do you fellas realize that all factions of the EB timeframe suffered from some type of secession???? :dizzy2:

Its is true that the Greek city states had a tendency to just make alliances with eachother and break 'em a lil while later. But every other faction had the same trouble.

Hell if we make expansion of the KH be this difficult, plaged with generals and cities wanted to break apart, then the same would have to be done for the Celtic, Iberian and Germanic factions. Also, the Romani should suffer a major rebellion in Italy from all other cities towards the end of the Polybian reforms to represent the Social Wars, and then a 2nd major civil war for the imperial reforms. Just are just a few examples that I know for sure, I am sure some of you guys can come up with MANY examples for the rest of the factions.... :juggle2:

If anything a small civil war for the KH scripted once Makedon and Epiros are out of Greece. Just something to illustrate that not all cities want to be part of the alliance once the immediate threat of the Maks and Epirotes is over. So people can get the point of why the alliance continues in the game. Thats it nothing major.... maybe for EB2 you guys can go creazy with rebellions and other stuff.

I wouldn't mind if non-spartan generals ended up getting -loyalty traits if the KH is in a state of peace with a especially large hit after the capture of Pella or Ambraka or the elimination of Macedon or Epeiros and have spartan generals become despised in non-type 1 government cities with the same trigger. I believe that this is possible. The KH definitely needs some sort of loyalty system. It would definitely make an interesting dynamic considering the -> Korinthos -> Demetrias -> Ambraka route pretty much makes taking out the rest of the Balkans a cake walk.

It would be nice to make one of the most fractured factions in the EB timeline not be unrealistically united. After-all, isn't EB a simulation about what might have happened given the circumstances of 272 BCE?

Why should it be non-spartan generals and cities that become rebellious? That would be extremely lame if the player wants to stay in control of Athens & co and beat down the Spartans.

I think someone mentioned yes/no events in Kingdoms, IE in an event you can choose two different paths. Perhaps we could use this to allow the player to select who to have as prime subfaction. Or possibly by checking the ethnicity of the faction leader instead.

hum... what about the rest of the factions... shouldn't they have similar issues, in their own way. Come on fellas the "Greeks" were not he only people who had a hard time sticking together.

what about backtria??.. After their king took India and was far away, Bactria became fractured.

What about AS?... With the son of the king rebelling and taking over Syria for himself.

What about he Romani with the Social Wars, discontent in cities towards the late Republica, and later the Civil Wars of the 1st Century BC? oh what about major Slave rebellions... Spartacus???

What about the Aedui/Arverni/Sweboz/Lusotana/Casse trying to keep the many different tribes from breaking away???

To name a few....... :book:

we're working on something for Servile and Social wars...