The answer would be no, AFAIK the only effect is to reduce the local income...
Printable View
The answer would be no, AFAIK the only effect is to reduce the local income...
Unfortunately....the answer to most of your questions is no.
Even with an enemy unit sitting on an elephant resource (or any other resource, for that matter), it won't affect the availability of this unit.
This is a problem with the R:TW engine. It's unfortunate, because even older games (such as CIV III IIRC, it's been a few years since I last played) utilized this ability to varying degrees.
Now, if one of your armies sits on a road, you should notice that the wagons disappear when they reach your army, this is to signify the disruption in trade that brings, but it's effect is minimal at best.
How often do you feel overly compelled to remove eleutheroi from one of your roads? You might make 100 extra mnai after they're gone, but it's usually not enough to distract me from my current campaigns.
Well Bovi, ancilliaries can affect income when attached to a General, perhaps this can worked into other characters?
And Boots, I think priests have been already ruled out.
Perhaps the level of economic disruption could be increased from blocking the roads/wagons?
Like a 75% reduction in income from that city? Is it just a matter of adjusting a level somewhere?
The resource thing kinda irks me: if you don't have tons of ore coming into your city, you can't make lots of metal stuff. Seems to be a reasonable assumption, if I have my laws of physics straight.
Yes, the wagons represent trade. Yes, the city loses the trade towards the region in question, which is not a big deal. In order to have 75% of the income reduced, trade along that route would have to represent that 75%, which would make trade figures hugely inflated and unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
I haven't actually tested this, but I believe that the city has the elephants available regardless. The map doesn't show any difference when parking an army on a resource at least, unlike what it does with blockading a port.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
Certainly ancillaries can. Agents, however, will not directly influence the general and thereby the city, but Bozos outlined a way to possibly implement effects by trait triggers. I'm not sure if we can differentiate between enemy and friendly characters though, but it's a good idea that we should check out further.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
Hey Bovi, thanks for all your help.
I am wondering how the dev team decided (either at CA or EB) how much trade was represented by those wagons.
I assume some amount of income to the state comes from those wagons. Where else did a Hellenistic Era despot come into wealth, esp. for the purposes of maintaining a military.
I can't imagine they had an income tax. Perhaps tariffs and levies, yes? Import and export taxes. Fees.
My main question is on any given day, how much income was a) due to trade coming in and out of the gates of a city, or b) off and on the docks or c) all other sources.
If it turns out that the city coffers of, say your average 3rd cent. B.C. city, receives "only a small percentage" of it's income from trade, then I'll shut up and just wait for the EB gods to deliver their bounty.
If, on the other hand, the majority of income comes from trade, which is my half-blind assertion, then I believe the sources of income should be adjusted to reflect this reality.
I just can't believe that, for example an enemy army camped on the Via Appia has a negligible effect on trade and more specifically income.
sigh :book:
Depending on the region, trade can become very important currently as well. The greek cities get 40-50% of their income from sea trade once they have the best trading ports and the trading partner cities are taken. You can see the income figures in the settlement details, and a breakdown of the trade figures as well by another button click.
Conversely, landlocked regions get very little trade at all, which is unfortunate. I'm not sure if we could mod that without affecting the sea trade as well.
There is also another aspect to this. Brigands turn up every once in a while and will usually park on a road to halt land trade, and these are merely a pest that I never care to remove as it's boring to monitor every road, and those battles are uninteresting. If we somehow could find a way to make blockades as devastating as you suggest, it would become necessary to play out all these boring battles. If I am not mistaken, brigands (and pirates) usually could operate without interference because they were not enough of a nuisance to warrant the high cost of sending an army to deal with them.
I have a rule: if I have as many units as the brigands, or close to it, I usually just auto-resolve w/ "auto_win attacker". That's why I usually garrison only with native units (so I can rebuild them easily).
I don't know about ancient Greece as much, but medieval garrisons did have to hunt down rebels often. King Roger of Sicily had particular trouble with this for years.
The other benefit to this increased defense of trade routs is the need for larger garrisons will slow down the rate of expansion. Alexander created a huge empire very quickly, but that was the exception, not the rule (that's why he is the 'Great'). Look how long it took Rome to expand: centuries.
It would lend to the idea of creating armies specifically for the purpose of a well-planned invasion. Add in Byg's Grim Reality and you actually have a strategic challenge, that I know we're all dying to have.
well at first the romans weren't bent on the Rule of the entire Mediterranean world as Alexander was intent on ruling the known world.
Sorry, I meant to get back to you earlier, but school and grad apps have kept me held up.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
Anyway, I still haven't had a chance to read the article, but it seems that we're in agreement. It is a grave misconception that the Seleukids went around actively Hellenizing (if that is even a word) the lands under their control. If it extended past new city foundations or major centers of military settlements, it seems that any Hellenization was pretty much passive.
Therefore, by extension, most evidences of Hellenism and lasting influence would be lost simply due to the passage of time and that these city centers were constantly in use by anyone who came after the Seleukids. And even more so considering that the Sassanids were Persian by descent and that the Parni adopted Persian culture so vigorously that you would have to be very educated in that field to know the difference.
That being said, I think some Seleukid and Hellenic influences manage to stretch its way into the succeeding epochs, but I can't tell you for certain and to what extent.
And yeah, JSTOR is the roxors.
Well said, abou. They aren't kidding when they say history is written by the victors, but they should also say 'written by the nostalgic'.
And Spoofa, at first the Romans hadn't seen the map! Once the inspired leaders of that city saw a map of the known world and realized their strategic position, I can't believe that they couldn't see the time and the place for what it was.
I'm fairly certain they told Alexander not to enter Italy.
I'm also fairly certain many other military leaders told him not to enter their lands, but did that stop him? :laugh4: nope
Think you "got" me? That's a laugh. Well then if that's the case, allow me to put one across your (anti-)intellectual bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoofa
If you're so smart and Alexander was so tough, "Why did he go east?"
I wonder if you've ever asked yourself that question (objectively). Happy surfin'...
:book:
ps: I know why.
To avenge them after SPARTAAA :clown:
He hated persia....Everyone knows that.
Hate....? No, not really. But he saw the opportunity; just like Caesar saw the opportunity to take over a very large & rich area with relatively little effort. (Persia wasn't anywhere near as powerful as it had been during Dareios or Xerxes' time.)
Word.
Cost/Benefit analysis, Macedonian style..
I figured all Hellenes hated Persians in those days....
I just had a happy thought: if this business of permanent forts representing smaller cities and the like proves workable, would that mean factions like the Sweboz being surrounded by forts with Eleutheroi troops which need to be gradually conquered before a decent profit beyond retraining and expansion is possible? If so, that'd be so excellent!
I would like to think that Alexander was lucid enough to base his empire-building on the do-able, and where animosity may have played a part, practicality might have been more of an inspiration. Until he went to Egypt: then I think he lost his marbles... :egypt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Of course, nobody knows, nor will they ever.
Well said....absolute power would probably do that too most people IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by HistoryProf
So is there a consensus on the participants of this thread regarding the application of the new characters into the EB2 adaption?
I like princesses, but think merchants and priests are a waste of time, though I think Marcus said something about re-modelling merchants into building instead that had some campaign map application.
I really like the concept of re-modelling a character into a building (a genuinely intelligent sort figured that one out).
But I would like to see Generals, Diplomats, Princesses, Spies and Assassins and possibly regents (based on the general/governor model) as the only characters in the game. Merchants, Priests, Heretics, Bollucks..
Could a princess be reworked into some sort of diplomat type 2?
Princesses DO work as Diplomats in M2, it's just that they can also ask Generals to marry them.
That would be a problem.
No roman general would marry a barbarian princess, or even a greek one.
Well, indeed, so they will presumably not be included in EB2?
Marriage alliances were common in the ancient world, for example a Ptolemy princess might marry the Seleucid ruler, or Alexander himself might marry a Persian wife (Roxanne) while his generals also take such wives. Even the Romans married their daughters and sisters to men whom they wanted to adopt into their family. Just have the princess marry some general you hire to simulate that - or have her marry your adopted FM's. Some important Iberian nobles were able to marry Carthaginian daughters...Either way Princesses should be in the game. Just because you think that a Roman wouldn't marry an outsider doesn't mean it didn't happen (Cleopatra essentially "stole" a FM from Rome with Anthony). Just don't do that in your campaign if you feel strongly about it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020
Do you know one marriage between a barbarian princess and a roman general?
No.
Cleopatra was not a good example, she was greek, and the common roman people hate her and criticize Caesar and Marcus Antonius. But at least she was queen of Egypt.
But if a noble roman had married a celtic or germanic princess, he will have the contempt of all the SPQR (there were some examples of that in the post-classic age).
And on the contrary, when a barbarian marry a roman "princess"? Only in the last days of the empire.
The greeks were all the same race, and the royal houses were related, so that was not a problem.
But the greeks were reluctant to marry barbarian women, only with the example of Alexander their generals start to change their minds.
The ancient peoples were racist. They look foreigners and barbarians with contempt.
Read Iuvenalis.
I think that Princess character would be great for certain factions - I think that Ptoleis, Seleucids, Pontos, Hayasdans, Baktrians, Macedonians and maybe Pahlavans should have princesses. Because in history they really used princesses to marry into other nation/kingdom to tighten alliances and improve relations.
I think a good substitute for priests, since religion is now culture, are "great people".
Immobile so that nor you or the AI can wierdly pit them agianst each other, thier recruitment depends largly on what culture recruits them. A Barbarian great person will get picked from a pool of poets, bards, druids, ect while Romans would get orators, historians and whatnot. Traits would stem off of thier original careers, and the building that enables them would vary per culture. Romans can recruit from academys, while barbarians from advanced temples and taverns.
Advancing the buildings needed for recruitment will give your people better stats, to show that they're better able to do thier job and will reach more people, spreading your culture more effectivly.
It would also add a lot to historical flair. Traits can be gained while a general is stationed in a city with a well known scholar for example. As Alexander was taught by Aristotle, your young family members can take a que from these people (for better or worse).
Cultural spread through a province should still be as slow as possible. People like sticking to thier own ways and it's gonna be hard to change that. But if a state sponsered, persuasive agent were to convince a few people a season your ways were best...
Wait, who ever said that?Quote:
I think a good substitute for priests, since religion is now culture, are "great people".
Whoa, whoa, let's back up here for a moment. You're coming across as very angry although it may be that English is your second language.
First, let's not confuse racism with xenophobia. People in antiquity did not view other people as inherently flawed, but rather an issue of cultural clashing. Furthermore, Greek colonies may have a different view than Greeks from Greece proper. I imagine areas near Gaul got along very well with the Celts seeing as just how much Greek merchandise the Celts bought. Also, during EB's time frame the Antigonids got along very well with the Celtic tribes north of them. And that doesn't even begin to mention the relationship that the eastern Hellenistic powers had with the Galatians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartaphilus
Well, to be clear, we likely won't be having that marriage mechanism with states like Rome or powers like the Koinon Hellenon. How we may limit that (read: prevent) is yet to be seen. Hopefully we can, but I'm not entirely sure. Experimentation still needs to be done.Quote:
Do you know one marriage between a barbarian princess and a roman general?
No.
Now, this is a trickier matter. It is extremely debatable how related the "Greeks" were. However, as far as EB is concerned there is a distinct difference between groups people would consider "Greek". Makedonian does not equal Greek nor does Thessalian. In antiquity they considered themselves different and therefore in our descriptions and how we approach the subject we will do the same.Quote:
The greeks were all the same race, and the royal houses were related, so that was not a problem.
So that is what? Something like 50 years before our game start, if I recall correctly.Quote:
But the greeks were reluctant to marry barbarian women, only with the example of Alexander their generals start to change their minds.
To be clear, we see infusions of Iranian blood into the Seleukid royal line a couple of times as well as the marrying of Seleukid princesses to different nobles whether they be Pontic or the Greeks in Baktria. Also, the family tree in EB is pretty broad. Considering how well some of the Hellenistic powers got along with their neighbors I wouldn't be surprised if a noble here or there was married to a Celtic "princess".
Finally, take a look at Carthage and a look at Hannibal's ancestry. What do we see? We see Phoenician from his father and Iberian from his mother who was the daughter of an Iberian tribal leader. Considering how nasty the Carthaginians could be to the Libyans, that they could accept a half-Iberian as such a powerful person in their government says quite a lot.
On the issue of Romans not marrying princesses from other nations, you are comparing apples to oranges. The Greeks (Makedonians included), Celts, Iranians, and others, were all using Monarchial forms of government. The reason that you don't see as many Roman nobles and royalty from other countries getting married is the same reason you don't see American politicians getting married to European royalty. It wouldn't make sense. The Romans were Republicans, so for one of their leaders to marry a foriegn princess would seem to indicate him making a bid for power. That's the real reason that the Roman people despised Anthony and Cleopatra together, because he looked like he was trying to become king (something that the Romans hated more than almost anything). And Abou's point about the difference between racism and xenophobia is very good. Argos and Sparta were both greek cities, not only that, they were both Dorian Greek cities, but they hated each other. That's an example of xenophobia, not racism.
Another reason you don't see Romans intermarrying with foreigners is that the Romans would often make large portions of those foreign populations citizens, like they did in Italy. When that happened, the Romans had no real qualms about intermarrying. A good example is the number of later emperors who came from outlying provinces, like Trajan, Septimus Severus...
Chairman
I believe that Megos Alexander's mother was Epirote, and therefore not Macedonian, so that would be another example of a prominent state political marriage in the ancient world. As to the Romans, I won't argue that they frequently avoided marriage to non-Romans, however it did occur occasionally, and while Anthony/Cleopatra might have represented an anomoly, it is clearly a high profile one. I would hope that Roman Princesses could be used to cement Roman political alliances and adoptions. Roman suitors will appear for any unmarried princess anyway, but I personally like to hire a general and adopt him into my family by marrying off my daughter/sister to him. Even so, as Rome grew from a city-state to an empire, their soldiers must have started families with local women in Spain. Africa, and Britain. Their descendants would be Roman. Perhaps it is possible to script that Roman FM's can't marry barbarian women without a massive influence/unrest penalty, or that Roman Princesses simply do not have the marriage option in their diplomacy screen, and they must therefore wait for a proper Roman suitor to appear with a proposal that appears from the adviser at the beginning of the turn. Either way, princesses add depth to most factions diplomatic options. One possibility is simply to not have Roman princesses at all like in vanilla MTW2 where the Islamic factions lack princesses. The other factions should get them though - and they should be able to marry within their culture at least.
I know that. The problem is not for greeks or if you prefer macedonians, but mainly for the romans.
In the time-game there was not any great roman politician that marry a non roman woman. In the patricii that would be almost impossible.
In fact the mix of bloods was only made when roman became an Empire. And this was first ill-considered for the romans.
But this changed with the passing of the years - we all know the origin of the different emperors.
But I insist, please read Iuvenalis, and the other classics - They hate/despise the "graeculi" and other foreigners - "in Tiberim defluxit Orontes".
Well, I've talked about racism to simplify the matter but if you prefer we better speak of xenophobia.
And I've talk about greeks for the same reason. The greeks were not all the same.
I think that you are wrong about Hannibal's ancestry - If I am not mistaken both his father (Hamilcar) and mother were Phoenicians (maybe even with some Libyan blood in them - It was quite common for Carthagiens colonisers to marry with Libyans)Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Hannibal's wife was Iberian princess (daughter of Iberian tribal leader) and her name was Imilce.
EDITED: Sorry you were right I have just checked the net and I see that his mother was of Iberian descent. I didn't knew this.
I don't think Juvenal can be used as any real means to measure the average Roman attitude toward other people for a number of reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartaphilus
The first is that he is writing well after EB's time frame.
The second is that there are a variety of interpretations of his work including the Satires as being actual satires.
The third is that the target audience of Juvenal would have been an incredibly small portion of Roman society.
Finally, the amount of acculturation the Romans had done throughout and after EB's time frame points to certain extreme hate of Hellenistic culture as being in the minority.
Also, what other works are you talking about? What are their contexts? One only needs to look at the multitude of Greek phrases that show up in Cicero or the clear use of the Classical style in Augustus' monuments to understand what their view of the Greek world actually was.
EDIT: I would also like to add that many of the portraits we have of Mediterranean personalities of EB's time frame are Roman copies. For example, one of the portraits that we have of Seleukos Nikator was found in the ashes of Herculaneum.
Learn something new every day, right? :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bactron
I really like this idea, I think that it's great. But I think that some factions could also have some religion characters for example Pahlavans could get priests of Zarathustra, Baktrians (or if Mauryan Starapy will be in) could get buddhist monks later on etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOmegaWalrus
Now I realized that this could be complicated because bards, poets, historians, druids, priests of Zarathustra are already ingame in form of ancilliaries. So maybe it is not so great idea - Because what would happen with these ancilliaries? But I personally would welcome as many agent/characters as possible if there will be some useful tasks for them.
Let's also not forget the famous Meneriphton Kubos, by Iulius Caesar, quoting Menander.Quote:
What are their contexts? One only needs to look at the multitude of Greek phrases that show up in Cicero or the clear use of the Classical style in Augustus' monuments to understand what their view of the Greek world actually was.
Perhaps the plebeians were a bit xenophobic towards Hellenes, but I'm pretty sure Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman world, and the Romans looked up to the great poems/philosophers etc.
That is true.
Maybe you could say that the romans disliked the Greeks, but liked their culture...
Anyway, I guess some factions could have princesses, because, as earlier mentioned, marriage alliances was common during antiquity too.
However, the EB-team might have other ideas for the princess-type agent.
The republica was far more conservative than the empire in this matter.
How many senators have an extra-italic origin in that time?
Note the unrest in the senate when some of these foreigners (of gallic blood) were admitted - in the end of the time-game.
The generals of the game were normally patricii (although there are some number of plebs), do you really think that a patricius will marry a sarmatian or germanic princess in the Republica? This would be scandalous and a shame for him and his family.
And what gens would give a daughter to a foreigner (greek or barbarian)?
The novi homines were looked with contempt by the ancient and noble families.
Some of the patricii were more open-minded, like the Scipiones, but they were the exception, not the rule. But I don't really think that even Africanus would consent to marry an iberian or african woman.
...............
And at first the romans were considered barbarians for the greeks, who laughed at their presumption of being the descendants of the trojans.
...............
A solution to all of this could be (if it is possible) limiting the marriages to the same "culture" factions.
For example, a ptolemaic general can marry a macedionan princess.
But a german general cannot do the same thing.
If culture is infact going to be used instead of religion, would it be possible to make the priests instead something like a group fo settlers. That way, for example, the Selukids could send Greek settlers into their Eastern lands, or the Romans could send Roman settlers into Gaul. If you want to make them immobile, perhaps you would only build them in type for governments so as to help affect the culture of the region in your favor.