Simply put, you were not one of the Hellenic historians, mate. First class, top of the line Celtic historian and artist, yes. I will say it again that not a one of the Hellenic historians objected, nor do they now - these accusations are simply not correct. Repeatedly it was shown that they existed, and were imporant *in 272* no less, and that this is a very appropriate way to depict them, as mercs who still accompanied the Spartan king.
Oudysseos, there are no emerging factions in RTW 1.5. If there was no KH faction at all, the region would hardly be accurate; the Maks would win over southern Greece every time. The Achaean League would not even hold a city on our map, and the Aitolian League would only hold Thermon and was doing nothing to stop the Maks from moving into southern Greece at this time. They would be a faction with one province, dead in the water, surrounded on all sides by Maks and Epeiros and it would make no sense to have other greek provinces across the Mediterranean rebel to the Aitolian League if someone failed to hold on to them (but it does work perfectly as the KH). The Aitolian League was also not expansionistic outside of a ring of a few pixels (on the map) around their borders, so having an empire as the Aitolian League, stretching across Greece and anywhere else would be much less accurate. Requiring that they definitely would have stayed together historically to be a faction is just too much - Baktria fractured over and over but we can't depict that in RTW 1.5. Makedonia did it right before our game started - Pyrrhos technically is king of Makedonia in 272. Could he have held together an empire across Greece himself even? I would say certainly not. Would one of the Celtic factions have been able to hold all of the British Isles very long? Doubtful. What about one of the Gallic ones? For a hundred years, expanding out in different directions? No way. Could Carthage have held together an empire much larger than the one they did historically? I doubt that too. The Seleukids lost time and time again sections of their empire to rebellions, and Pontos could have done no better. None of them would. We'd love to have 50 factions with a system that could make rebellions create new emerging factions. We'd LOVE it! Believe me. But it can't happen in our game. So we have factions that work differently than others - Baktria being a big one, Parthia will be very different in the next build, Pontos has to rely on mercs and local recruitment more than anyone else as is correct, the KH and Sarmatians are groups of poleis and tribes that certainly might not have held together as depicted. It really does make it more interesting than having a few superpowers to play with alone. Just roleplay more with the KH. I've had campaigns with them where I got a Cretan family member right after taking Crete - I kept my Spartans in the Peloponnese, except when they were on campaign, but they always returned, and had a Corinthian in Corinth with my Athenians in Athens. They can be played ahistorically, without much concern for any of that, or they can be played in a way that is very reasonable, like I explained. Arguing to remove the faction or that folks would have had their druthers with the faction differently will not change the faction's makeup when we have so much information about the Chremonidean war at hand.
The Spartans as bodyguards are only a temporary solution and we have said that over and over, as Foot notes.
Phil, yeah, Psycho did object to them being in the game at all, repeatedly, despite the facts posted on the Spartans at this time. I remember. He was not an Hellenic historian. That's what it came down to.
