Printable View
hello!... historycally Rome conquered Tarentum in 272 or 271(can't remember right now:laugh4: ) but in my games Rome has HUGE problems conquering the Italian peninsula... playing as macedon and Carthage im trying to do what i can to help them but Epeiros is just to strong at the beging... Perhaps the garrison at Tarentum should be smaller?
I just want to know what you guys think and what happens with Tarentum in youre games.... Although... it's kinda funny seeing Rome besegied by Epeirus:clown:
The reason Taras collapsed (or partly the reason) is because Phyrros died in Sparta. Without the charasmatic king to keep everything in working order, I imagine that Rome took their chance. I believe that in return for the city, Rome allowed the Epeiros garrison to return home.
Foot
Don't pity the romans, they use to blast through everyone and everything in the games I play. If anything, the epeiros settlement on the italian peninsula is a temporary nuisance.
I also think that Epeiros pulled the troops they had garrisoning Taras. Without them the city fell easily to Rome.
If you are having trouble with Taras, you could do what I do. Assemble both armies together, then march just inside their border. They will split their forces in half and attack you with half, most of the time. Then you just besiege the other half.
I've started many campaigns as Rome and Taras is no problem.
Just send the entire Army that is near Arpi and seige immediately. I don't assault it will fall in 5 moves, sometimes Epiros lands a relief army and the garrison will always sally but these can be easily beaten in battle.
I also use that useless fleet to ferry every extra man I can to Rhegion and siege that by move 3, I detach a unit of skirmishers to block the strats of Messina and prevent those annoying Punic allies wandering into southern Italy.
By 271BC the South is secure and it's your choice to concentrate on the North or Sicily.
I've found Epiros will always make peace after Taras falls.
I'm playing on H/M.
Phyrros died in Argos, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Yup. I also don't think Taras fell because he died. It fell because he fled and left for greece. He had abandoned them to go back to greece because he was beaten many times by the romans and knew the inevitable fate of the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomma
Eh? Thats not exactly fair. He beat the romans, but only won by a small margin, not enough to secure victory. His plan was to get to sciliy and use that as a money making venture so that he could defeat the Maks. It didn't work so he changed plan and just went for a headlong attack at Pella, then at the last minute he changed tack and went to Argos. What is your proof for the inevitable loss of Taras. Epeiros was a rising star, not a falling one. It was only the death of Phyrrus that caused to to fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfshart
Foot
Yeah I was to short in my answer I agree. Though Sicily rather than Italy, which was to serve as a stepping stone, was probably his real objective from the beginning. It was wealthy and rather then the highly disputed peninsula more Greek then not considering it had two major Greek cities and only the Carths to deal with. He won 2 major victories against Rome but he got distracted by Carthage and went to Sicily. He did win almost all his battles but the war of attrition was too much for him. So in a desperate attempt he returned once more into Italy, to fight one more campaign. He was severely defeated in 275 at Malventum, as the Romans had meanwhile learned how to deal with his spearmen and elephants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
The tide having turned against him in force Pyrrhus returned home. I think his biggest folly was his inability to focus on a goal and see it through. I think Taras would have fallen eventually weather Phyrrus died or not. He was more focused on taking the Mak throne then going back to Italy. That was my point. I was just too quick with my answer. Sorry about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
He's not having trouble with Taras. He's saying the Rome AI has trouble with Taras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris1959
This game I'm now playing is my first time ever in which the Romans don't mop up the Epeirotes. And that's mainly 'cause I've given Epeiros some extra cash.
EDIT: It's also the first time that I see the Romans invading Greece from the sea... And getting anihilated by the Koinon...
Now thats cool :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
OK in my Aedui campain when I pushed into Italy Epiros had Taras and another Roman city. HOWEVER, eventhough I was pillaging northern Italy with aims to sack ROME, the Romani managed to take Taras and thier other Roman city (the one below ROME, forgot the name). So, I think the Taras Garrison is fine.
Romans conquered it before 270bc, which AI rarely does. I imagine it took you more than 10 years to get to Italy, so they conquered it pretty late. Although it's a whole different situation if Epirus took Capua. My gripe is with Romans going north. Historically they took those two regions north of the actual peninsula after 245bc, and ingame by 245bc they are somewhere Poland. If the southern garrisons and Messana garrison were smaller, then that might encourage the First Punic wars.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
Play as Carthage. The Romans will have NO problem then since they will steamroll all in their way in their rush to get to you.
Hence the term "phyrric victory"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Eh, yeh, I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Foot
I've played many times with Carthage and they were always beaten by taras... they don't attack it for many turns... and then Taras captures Arpi and Capua, while rome tries desperatly to conquer the Po valley...
The garrison is too strong, and the General commanding it becames very early a general much more powerfull than everyone rome has...
I bribe Epeiros Army's but still rome need 10 years at best to conquer it...
Playing with BI the punic wars came relatively soon, because rome invaded corsica in 267 bc... but they only attacked messana in 252bc...
When they did so they almost destroyed my army, but as a surpise my allies the KH send a 13 unit stack to Tarentum... at no efect though:2thumbsup:
sorry if i got a little of the title... But the tarentum garrison should be weakened:yes:
I also think the Taras garrison should be weakened. The garrison is good if one plays as Rome or Epirus, but it's bad if you play with any other faction. Considering that the troops pulled out in the same year as the campaign starts, and that AI can't do the same, the troop reduction would be plausible. It would give the AI Rome a chance to expand in a historical fashion. My Saka campaign is in the year 240bc and Taras fell in 241bc with Rhegion still holding. Up north Rome has taken the Po valley and Massalia.
Another thing would be to remove the military access deal between Rome and Carthage that they have in the beginning of the game, as sometimes those tiny Carthaginian armies, trying to get from Sicily to Iberia, block the roads for Roman armies conquering the southern Italy.
First I want to congratulate the team for their excelent job, I've only played a few hours (studing away from home and without an portable computer yet, only able to play few hours a week :wall: ) but I'm in love with it !!!:2thumbsup:
And about Taras, I've played an little and I didnt had any problem conquering it (being to lazy to do an direct assauld to the city I've sieged it, waited until they conterattacked and then easly kicked their asses in the field), but many times AI is not so smart as it, so I agree that the guarnition should be decreased, or at least given them an worst general. I might be wrong but, as far as I know Pyrro had abandoned Italy, concentrating his full strenghts in Makedonia and almost giving Taras to SPQR with the peace offer. I might be wrong anyway, I've readed it long time ago...
I believe the current depiction is about correct, but the garrison was withdrawn after Pyrrhos' death (around autumn of 272bc if I recall correctly). Changing the governor of Taras wouldn't do much good, because Helenos Aiakides is a pretty stupid as he is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitan_Centurion
I played quite a few games as Makedon, and Romans never took Taras. The problem is this was most probably not due to too strong garnisson (I even tried modding descr strat) For some reason AI is recultant to weaken faction being in war with player I think. When I played as Baktria Rome took Taras with no problem.
The AI will always go for your faction first. If your faction isn't bordering them, they will go for the rebels. That is the problem, Taras belongs to someone so they go for the rebel towns first.
Its very difficult for the AI to act historically. In my VH/M Romani campain it is c.248 BC and Pontus is a dead fraction, Macedon has all of Greece under its conrtol, the first Punic War is of course over and in the east the power struggle between the Ptolemies and Selucia is at its best.
Epirus will eventually move north too, attacking and taking Dalminion. In an effort to save guard my northern border I went to war with Epirus. Dalminion was freed, ( it became an Aidui city !!!!), while Alexander refused to surronder. After an epic battle in Epirus, Ambrakia was captured and Epidamnos plunder, a heroic end to a great fraction.
Cheers.
The odds of the Romans acting historically is perhaps 0. I mean, imagine the Ai taking Iberia and Greece before Germany and Gaul? Simply not going to happen, I'd say.
AI expansion is very random, but realistic expansion should at least be a goal. In one game Rome actually went for Iberia after Po valley, but left Sicily alone. Increasing the Po valley garrisons while weakening southern Italy and Sicily just might do the trick. Maybe via a script deny the Eleutheroi the ability to recruit in Messana and Rhegion. I mean weren't those towns in the hands of rogue mercenaries?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danest
I began a Makedon game last night and something interesting happened. I proceeded to crush KH and then turned on Epeiros. It was unusually easy to take both Ambrakia and Epidamnos, and I discovered towns that had only about 500 population each (mind you, I did not enslave or exterminate). The only relatively tough fight with Pyrrhos himself, who just stood outside Pella while I trampled his kingdon (shouldn't he at least move when I threaten his capital? He never moves!).
Then around 260 I send a spy into Italy, only to find that while Rome was going after the northern rebel towns Epeiros seized all south Italy and was marching on Roma itself apparently unopposed.
Maybe something should be done so that the northern focus of the Romani is lessened and they do try and at least defend their southern cities? Cause I restarted my Mak campaign, toggled FOW and saw how they moved all their armies north and left only family members in the south, while Epeiros took all of his mainland Greece troops to Italy and began taking towns.
I just started a Makedonian campaign and Pyrrhus moved, he move his entire Greece force to Dalminion and then they all sat there until I conquered everything.
There is no way to alter the AI's focus or behavior. They love going after rebels, it is just hardcoded in.
I had a theory that they were going after "Rome" with their constant northward expansion (since the hardcoded "Rome" is the island in the Baltic). But that wasn't very likely given many other, better explainations (Zebras). I was going to test the stupid theory but got sidetracked by a shiny object. :clown:
That little island up there? Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Zebras?
In 1.2, you couldn't alter the victory conditions and since "Rome" was tied to victory conditions it was moved where it was unlikely to cause problems.
An old saying... I heard hoof noises and thought 'Zebra!'.
Oh, that's a good idea. I think we know the Sweboz's secret :viking:...
In one of the AI related therads I found info that AI prefers NE expansion over any other direction (code searches for targets in clockwise direction?)
The fact is that if you play as Maks Romans wont take Taras, even if there is only one unit. (I tried)
I do see a roman army sieging Taras from time to time, but they have a harder time actually winning those battles.
Maybe removing a single Taras unit could help the situation.
Is that sarcasm or do you mean Helenos? I can't quite tell... :fishbowl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Anyway, there must be some way to restrict rebel building&recruitment. My Saka campaign is now in the year 238bc and Rhegion and Messana are still independent. But the worst part about it is that Messana is a huge city, Rhegion is a large city and they both have large walls. Not going to be conquered in a while.
Personally, I think we should make the garrison stronger. Get those super slingers in there while we're at it - the ones with 240 men per unit plus officers.
Maybe some of those horse-slingers too.
:clown:
...against human player, not AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Although AI tends to expand very ahistorycally, my campanign looks like a miracle... Rome has conquered sicily and corsica an sardinia (still playing with carthage:D... and after taking the po valley they expanded via south france into iberia.... i'm reduced to only 2 cities in iberia, and the romans have allied against me with lusotanna.... so... kinda histroycall don't you think?
P.S. i had to conquer tarentum for them and give it to them for free:furious3:
Ok fellas the garison in Taras is FINE. Usually the AI doesn't sends its troops to it. Have you guys ever paid attention to AI factions fighting eachother???? The AI is hesitant, not aggressive, and it doesn't recruit 6 merc units per general, and it trains levys most of the time.
Actually I've paid attention to AI actions all the time in my campaign (been playing with no FOW), especially Rome for the last 25 years. They tried to take Taras close to 20 times. The problem is that AI usually attacks settlements with too small armies, a problem which can't be directly helped. I don't know if reducing garrisons actually helps, it might or might not.
Good, now you why a smaller garrison won't really fix the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
9 times out of 10, the Romani will send a smaller attacking force. The same thing happens with most AI siege attacks, even against the Eleuthroi (sp).
Kalabria (Tarentum) also has 12 mercenary units available at the start , while Aemilia( Bononia ) only has 2. And Kalabrian mercs are respawning like every 3-4 turns, and we know that AI is thrilled to buy as many he can afford.
That explains Epyrotes General constant getting in and out of city.
That probably creates also huge difference in AI determining where to go first, since after AI calculates odds, they are way better in north then south.
Rhegion has huge amount and respawn rate for mercs too, in comparison to north provinces..
Exception is Mediolanum , they have 6 merc units that respawn every 3-4 turns plus almost full garrison. Thats why i never saw Romani going after that province yet....
Put simply, Taras is too strong.
Having made the decision to begin the campaign in 272 BC - the historical year in which Taras submitted to Rome and Epirus faded forever as a significant Hellenistic power - I believe EB should adjust its set-up at game start.
Epirus was a power in 280 BC; the decision by EB to start the campaign in 272 BC should carry the consequence that Epirus is not a playable faction, and that Taras has a small "rebel" garrison ready to fall to Rome.
Remember, the Epirote garrison at taras surrendered the city in exchange for being allowed to evacuate Italy. It was a pushover.
The Roma-Epirote struggle was interesting 280-275 BC; that's it.
A campaign beginning in 272 BC should be setting up the situation for a Roma-Carthage clash in the central Mediterranean. Instead, Rome rarely subdues Taras and rarely attacks Sicily.
By eliminating Epirus as a playable faction, and considering adding a new faction like the Insubres (in the Po Valley), Scordisci (on the middle Danube), Dardanians or Ardiaei (Illyrian "kingdoms" in the Balkans), would have the effect of constraining an AI Rome from expanding northwards and eastwards, and instead return an AI Roma to an historical path southwards and westwards against Taras, Sicily & Corsica-Sardinia.
Just a thought.:beam:
H.
PS Luv the Mod!
If it were Rebel, AI Rome would wipe it out in a few years, so it's not too strong. The problem is that AI aggression is focused about equally on the human player and rebels, while other AI factions are a distant third. The EB Team is happy with Epeiros as a faction, so that option is off the table. But Tarentum almost always survives deep into the game, and that's annoying. And it may lead to some of the other problems that you and others have discussed. The team is looking at this.Quote:
Originally Posted by HamilcarBarca
I'm sorry but I have to desagree with you on this matter. EB is a game dedicated to alternative history and it is not a Discovery channel documentary.Quote:
Originally Posted by HamilcarBarca
History is based on mere chances more often than we would like to acknowledge.
The biggest city of Magna Grecia had every chance to stand against Rome. With or without epirotean help provided. It didn't happened in real life, but this doesn't mean they were doomed to fall.
Since you name yourself HamilcarBarca, I suppose you have some simpaties for the Carthies ;-)
Well, we all know one thing for sure: Carthage was destroyed. Then why bother playing Carthage campaign, if it would be completely ahistorical for Carthage to overcome Rome?
Wrong. In mine Carthage and KH campaigns Rome did it. Despite its weak starting armies, Rome is a strong EB faction, it comes to power a bit later.Quote:
Instead, Rome rarely subdues Taras and rarely attacks Sicily.
By eliminating Epirus as a playable faction (hope, that's never going to happen :laugh4: ) you won't provoke Rome from expanding northwards. Even if Epirus would be eliminated from the game, Rome would expand northwards and southwards only when it has enough power to do it.Quote:
By eliminating Epirus as a playable faction, and considering adding a new faction like the Insubres (in the Po Valley), Scordisci (on the middle Danube), Dardanians or Ardiaei (Illyrian "kingdoms" in the Balkans), would have the effect of constraining an AI Rome from expanding northwards and eastwards, and instead return an AI Roma to an historical path southwards and westwards against Taras, Sicily & Corsica-Sardinia.
Best regards,
Minime.
Hi,
I agree, and disagree, with both sides of this discussion. I'm rather torn about who's arguements are more 'relevant'. At the games start Tarentum is NOT too strong.....from a historical perspective. From a gameplay perspective it is.....in a very awkward position. It presents the AI with 'difficulties' that it does not seem able to surmount. Do we care? Some do, some don't. So what is the right answer.....or for that matter, question?
The overall goal of EB seems to be to represent the historical situation (within factions limits) as it existed in 272BC. This ultimate goal is at times 'compromised' by the desire to present players with factions that became powers at some point within the mods timeframe (Pontus, Bactria etc), when some of them did not technically exist, and others held virtually no power, in 272BC. I think we would all agree that these are necessary 'compromises' for the sake of a well rounded 'histogame'.
I don't know who's making the final calls on what is or is not 'permissable' for the sake of gameplay, but obviously some things are. So in that light-
Is the start date the real issue? Would 271/0BC be a better start dates? Or would the loss of Pyrrhus (and Tarentum) relegate the Epirote faction to a position where they would lose their 'right' to exist as one of the invaluable faction positions? And if so, why? Gameplay, or history this time?
Cheers,
Quilts
We definitely won't be changing the start date. Just think about the positioning of soldiers and armies, the ages of generals, some would be dead, some cities might even change hands. Political relationships might be a little different too.
That is my point. I think Rome should wipe it out in a few years.Quote:
If it were Rebel, AI Rome would wipe it out in a few years, so it's not too strong.
terrific.Quote:
But Tarentum almost always survives deep into the game, and that's annoying. And it may lead to some of the other problems that you and others have discussed. The team is looking at this.
Minime said;
I like alternative history too. My view is that if you want to have an "alternative history" featuring Phyrrus and Epirus - the last opportunity for the Greeks of Magna Graecia and Sicily to assert themselves as a power in the central Mediterranean - then start EB in 280 BC.Quote:
I'm sorry but I have to desagree with you on this matter. EB is a game dedicated to alternative history and it is not a Discovery channel documentary. History is based on mere chances more often than we would like to acknowledge. The biggest city of Magna Grecia had every chance to stand against Rome. With or without epirotean help provided. It didn't happened in real life, but this doesn't mean they were doomed to fall.
By starting in 272 BC I think you have thereby made the decision to start AFTER Rome had overcome Epirote-Italiot opposition, and the issue of Roman hegemony in southern Italy was settled.
The biggest city of Magna Graecia had every chance to stand against Rome prior to 275 BC. By 272 BC it was all over.
[QUOTE]Since you name yourself HamilcarBarca, I suppose you have some simpaties for the Carthies ;-) [QUOTE]
Guilty.:embarassed:
A campaign starting in 272 BC - the eve of the First Punic War (264-241) should obviously feature Carthage. A game starting in 146 BC should not.Quote:
Well, we all know one thing for sure: Carthage was destroyed. Then why bother playing Carthage campaign, if it would be completely ahistorical for Carthage to overcome Rome?
That is my point. 272 BC is the year Taras surrendered to Rome.
Quilts said;
Yes. That is why I think a weak Taras - ready to fall into Rome's hands - would be both accurate and good for the game.Quote:
The overall goal of EB seems to be to represent the historical situation (within factions limits) as it existed in 272BC.
At least worth play testing.:book:
Yes I think the start date is the critical point. If we want a strong Rome-Epirote contest for southern Italy then start the game in 281 or 280 BC. If you don't, then start in 272 BC - and Epirus should lose their 'right' to be a playable faction. And that is a view I hold based on both history and gameplay.Quote:
Is the start date the real issue? Would 271/0BC be a better start dates? Or would the loss of Pyrrhus (and Tarentum) relegate the Epirote faction to a position where they would lose their 'right' to exist as one of the invaluable faction positions? And if so, why? Gameplay, or history this time?
H.
PS Luv the Mod!
Your vision of the world in 272 is way to focused on Rome. Rome didn't overcome 'Epirote-Italiot opposition' so much as the Phyrrus got distracted first in Sicily and later in mainland Greece. If he hadn't died in Argos late in 272 things could have gone very differently. Most importantly this game isn't only about Rome. At the start of 272 Phyrrus seems certain to conquer Pella and become King of Macedon and seems to have a chance to subject a large number of the greek cities to client-state status. The role of Eperios is incredibly important to situation in Greece and Macedon in 272, even if the role of Eperios in Roman history and Italy have wanned. In 272 Macedon and Greece are much more important places than Rome, its important to keep that in mind.
I don't agree. Phyrrus was driven from Sicily by Carthage, rival Siciliots and Mamertines in 275-274, and decisively defeated in Italy by Rome in 274. He didn't leave Italy because he was distracted. He left Italy beaten.Quote:
Your vision of the world in 272 is way to focused on Rome. Rome didn't overcome 'Epirote-Italiot opposition' so much as the Phyrrus got distracted first in Sicily and later in mainland Greece.
I think Pyhrrus' struggle for the throne of Macedon in 272 was not nearly as clear as you portray. Antongas II Gonatas had defeated Gauls and rival Macedonian claimants in 279-276, and was not going to be easily dislodged. As events show...Quote:
If he hadn't died in Argos late in 272 things could have gone very differently. Most importantly this game isn't only about Rome. At the start of 272 Phyrrus seems certain to conquer Pella and become King of Macedon and seems to have a chance to subject a large number of the greek cities to client-state status.
Yes. I agree. Greece & Macedon are important centres in 272 BC. But Epiros was dissapearing as an important power. In "our" period the Kingdom soon vanishes, to be replaced by a "league" that is largely a pawn for the Antigonids and Aetolian League.Quote:
The role of Eperios is incredibly important to situation in Greece and Macedon in 272, even if the role of Eperios in Roman history and Italy have wanned. In 272 Macedon and Greece are much more important places than Rome, its important to keep that in mind.
Epiros was a "power" only briefly, because of Phyrrus, rather than any inherent strength in Epiros itself. Phyrrus himself was powerful only because in 281-280 he was able to build the strongest field army of its day. And he was only able to achieve this because he attracted (1) support from Ptolemy Keraunos of Macedon in 280 BC in the form of Macedonian phalanx troops and elephants so as to to facilitate his departure from Greece, (2) moneys from Antigonas II Gonatas (then only ruler of Athens, Corinth and Calchis) so as to facilitate his departure from Greece, (3) moneys from Ptolemy II so as to facilitate his departure from Greece, (4) moneys from Taras soas to attract him to Italy, and (5) his own reputation as a war leader that enabled him to attract a host of professional mercenaries.
So, in 272 BC, with the death of Phyrrus, Epiros survives only briefly as a minor kingdom, then becomes a fractious league of little significance.
H.
HamilcarBarca brings up a good point- after 272 Epirus was practically done for. But in the Spring of 272, which is when the game starts, Epirus was more than ready to take over Macedon- then Greece and become a super-power. Funny how quickly things can change.
I think maybe the team should reconsider Epirus' starting position. First of all, I do believe the forces in Italy are waaay to big. They have a half-stack army with solid troops, which can easily hold off a Roman legion (ie half stack). I am under the impression Taras was actually vulnerable to Roman aggression (which is why they called in Pyrrhus in the first place) so it seems silly to give them an army large enough to easily and consistently beat the Romans. Perhaps moving some of those soldiers over to Pyrrhus' army in Macedonia would be a good idea. Pyrrhus should be able to conquer Macedonia at least SOMETIMES, but they almost never do.
It's kinda backwards really; Epirus loses in Macedon but dominates S. Italy. In 272 the opposite was true: Pyrrhus has screwed up and Italy was all but lost, but he had great prospects in Greece. The Epirote campaign-er should have a relatively easy road to Macedonia (given how weak they were at the time) but he should have to sweat to keep Italy.
We really cannot help it if the Ai decides to move away from a vulnerable target. We've done all we can, but often we find that pyrrhus moves away from Pella rather than to take it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator
Foot
Ok, now where did you get that? Mammertines and rivalry between city states, yep, but Qarthadastim driving Pyrros out? Nope. Unless you call losing Eryx to Pyrrhos and trying to make a lasting peace with him, holding on to their cities at Sicily "a dastardly ploy to keep him occupied"Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal
There are many reasons to either pick Epeiros or not, and I agree that it faded to obscurity pretty much after the start of the game, but NOT haveing them? :inquisitive:
Even your namesake, called Pyrrhos a better general than himself, with Alexander being first. It seems he appreciated Pyrrhos' and his kingdom more than present day people do. Had he been victorious in Sparta at 272 BC, being a ruler of both Sparta and Macedon, what do you think Antigonos Gonatas would, or could do?
Oh, and for the record, I am an Epirotes, so I am not the most subjective person. Still, I believe my points to be valid.
Playing with the money script I noticed several things about Taras. It's garrison is decent. Good mix of decent factional troops. The problem rises out of three things. Money, mercs and RTW AI.
- Money means the Epirotes can repenish their losses easily.
-The province is also crawling with mercs, which means that the governor of Taras can easily recruit more troops to defend his city. Some of them are of a far better quality than the ones he can train locally.
- RTW AI. You can stick an army right next to a weak city, and for no reason at all it will walk off into the vilderness.
AI Pyrrhos has a nasty habit of disappearing up north or turtling in Ambrakia with his stack. Neither which helps much.
The AI is not stupid. Just stubborn and persistent. When playing the Epirotes myself I noticed that after defeating enough Roman armies consisting of mostly Rorarii, Accensii and Leves. They finally started showing up with stacks made up of Principes, Triari, Samnitici Milites and Perdites Extraordinari.
Both Phalangitai Deuteroi and Hoplitai Haploi are good troops, but not quite on par with the later Roman stacks.
The problem is that the RTW AI can't be as agressive towards another AI faction that it is against the human player. If it was. Taras would be sure to fall. Maybe not in 272 B.C but within the first decade of the game for sure.
I've noticed that an early Epirote defeat in Taras sets the stage for their Greek expansion. They can often become the dominant power in Hellas, Thrace and Illyria.
On the other hand a prolonged conflict in southern Italy, often has them become a protectorate of their far more agressive neighbor. The Koinon.
As for history. Pyrrhos was one of the great generals of the age. He simply lacked self restraint and focus. Had he gone trough with his conquests as planned, Epeiros would propably have dominated the entire Greek peninsula within a decade.
And with the resources of Hellas at his full disposal, going up against Rome or Carthage for control of Sicily, might not have felt like such a bad idea after all.
At the beginning of the game Epeiros is a rising power. Historically it is true, that the kingdoms fortunes rose and fell on the whims of a single man. But had that man succeeded, there is no telling what sort of mark they would have left on history.
Pyrrhos was as much a military and political genious as Julius Caesar. They where both opportunists. The only difference is, the other gambled and lost. The other gambled and won an empire. Along with everlasting fame.
Might just as easily have been the other way around.
Nothing justifies removing Epeiros as a faction. Period. :smash:
I entirley agree with the above. Thank you Errant.
Considering the level of effort that has (and continues) to go into factions dispositions in 272 I completely understand your feelings about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
In fact, 272 was a very good choice in the sense that so much 'hung in the balance' in greece and surrounding territories.
Further, I would hate to see the Epirotes dissappear as a faction, hence my querying their fate 'should' there be a date change.
The Errants post highlights the major issues that 'hinder' the AI with respect to Taras and many other regions. But how to fix these issues? Are they issues? Obviously some people think so (me too :yes: ).
Considering recent experimentation with Mercs, getting rid of mercs would be a start (something I have thought desireable for some time).....but not a popular one because of the current gameplay mechanics. Currently you virtually need mercs as a 'stop-gap' between the conquest of a territory and being able to recruit troops there.
Perhaps the virtual need for mercs is the issue that 'needs' addressing? If it even can be, considering the efforts that were needed to make the current MIC system on 1.5 workable.
Would it even be possible to make Mercs recruitable in factional/regional barracks for appropriate factions without busting troops restrictions? Oh God, I feel dizzy just considering the level of coding required to make more troops only available to certain factions in certain areas.
Ok, enough of the 'soul searching'.
Cheers,
Quilts
I guess it all reduces to this:
Is it just Pyrrhus existance the reason that justifies Epeiros`s existance as a faction?
So, if the start date would be December 272 (not Januar 272 as it is now), after the death of Pyrrhus, then Epeiros wouldn`t be justified as to be a faction, since without him that state didn`t had a chance?
Fair enough. Still you have to remember that many times in History, especially in our timeframe, a single man in charge may mean the difference between existence and destruction.
Let's take culprit no. 1
Eukratides, or as I call him the "Magnificent Bastard". Prior to him there were two "brother" kingdoms Baktria and the IndoGreek Kingdom both ruled by different branches of the Euthedemid dynasty. Biggest powers of Central Asia. After him and his fracking stupid civil war (because that's what it was) between IG and Baktria there was IG kingdom alright, but Baktria was on the verge of being overrun. Then his ancestors moved on to Northern India to begin the civil war anew, which led to the utter destruction of IG and Hellenism in India, as Sakae and Yuehzi picked off the pieces of a divided realm.
then there is always the case for culprit no. 2
Antiochos III Had he reigned in his cataphracts and assaulted the Romani legions in Magnesia instead of a fools' gold charge against the already fleeing Romani cav. most people would probably know him, as his plans (according to some Historians) might have been uniting all of Hellas VS Rome. That would be something with world changing implications, let me tell you.
Now, back to Pyrrhos, He had a son he lost at Sparta. If he had won the day (basically, if he assaulted the first day- one of the worst blunders in mil. history if you ask me), he would be Lord and Master of All Greece. Antigonos Gonatas and his Athenians wouldn't be able to stop him, his Epirotes, his Spartans his Makedonians and Gaul Mercs. So, it isn't just Pyrrhos who was killed but all his aggresive bloodline with him.
This is one of the things I love about EB, and why I am honoured to be part of them. Fact of the matter is that we could be debating this to Kingdom come with correct arguments to and fro.
Or you, me, anyone here, can load up EB and see if he can do himself what Pyrrhos failed to. And that would be the ultimate answer. :smash:
First of all I'd like to clarify that I agree completely with the inclusion of Epirus in EB. It is accurate to have it, and it makes Greek politics so much more fun:juggle2: . However, the Epirote behavior seems rather buggy still. I believe by weakening their army in Taras to the point where it seems almost impossible to hold then beefing up Pyrrhus' position in Greece, the Epirotes would have a much better chance all-around. They waste huge amounts of cash and men clinging on to S. Italy when they should be in the mad scrap over Greece with the KH and Macedon, which means they rarely succeed in Greece; they just retreat into their coastal forts, and play tortoise for years until they are exterminated, or occasionally dominate Italy (!)
Now we know Pyrrhus was the driving force behind Epirote power, and he was an ambitious, tireless man bent now on domination of Greece. So does it make sense for the Epirote faction to consistently follow a static defense policy in Greece and a pseudo-expansionist in Italy?
If we moved some forces out of Italy (to help the Romans take Taras, which they were poised to do) and into Greece I think Epirus would perform MUCH more true to form. Not only would they lose S. Italy faster so they stop wasting money there, but will be more likely and better equipped to menace the Macedonians and Greeks in Hellas. I may test that out myself on my install of EB, just to see if that works...
Test it then. All the information you need to change is in descr_strat. Just search for Epeiros and scroll down to where the family members are. Add more units to the armies in Macedonia and less in Taras and do some testing. If you are correct you will see Rome take Taras and Epeiros take Pella much more often. Just play a few games (ten or so) with the Casse for about ten years or so, and show us what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator
Foot
Yes, Pyrros defeated the Carthaginian field army, and stormed Eyrnx and Panormus; but his siege of Punic Lilybaeum was a disaster. The exactions of Pyrros to maintain the siege triggered Siciliot dissent; Pyrros responded harshly, excuting or exiling those Siciliot tyrants that had originally requested he come to Sicily to lead them, and thereby triggered the Siciliot factions into betraying him.Quote:
Ok, now where did you get that? Mammertines and rivalry between city states, yep, but Qarthadastim driving Pyrros out? Nope. Unless you call losing Eryx to Pyrrhos and trying to make a lasting peace with him, holding on to their cities at Sicily "a dastardly ploy to keep him occupied"
Forced to abandon the siege, Plutarch in his Lives describes how many of the cities of Sicily reverted to Carthage, Siciliot tyrants and even the Mamertines.
In evacuating Sicily, Pyrros' fleet was shattered by the Carthaginian fleet, while the retreat of Pyrrus' land forces were shadowed by an army of 10,000 Mamertines.
Pyrros departed Sicily a thoroughly defeated man.
Pyrros was never aiming to make himself "King" of Sparta; he was seeking to install in power a client. And you have a certainty of Pyrros future in Macedon that I think is unwarranted. I think Pyrros' forays across the Greek stage in 272 amounted to the last spasms of a condottiere rather than a considered strategy to recover his (already shattered) political ambitions.Quote:
Had he [Pyrros] been victorious in Sparta at 272 BC, being a ruler of both Sparta and Macedon, what do you think Antigonos Gonatas would, or could do?
I agree that having 3 factions in Greece is good; it creates a competition for Greece that is exciting and historical. But Epiros in 272 is not the lead candidate to be the third; I think the Achaean League and the Aetolian League ar better "Hellenistic" options for a game beginning in 272 IMHO.
Well, if we want a game that enables us to re-enact the meteoric career of Pyrros, start it in 280 BC. It isn't a rising power in 272; its a broken force in Italy and Sicily, and nearly so in Greece - where Pyrros had a field army he could only maintain by rapine and plunder, and by the end of 272 both he and it had ceased to exist.Quote:
At the beginning of the game Epeiros is a rising power. Historically it is true, that the kingdoms fortunes rose and fell on the whims of a single man. But had that man succeeded, there is no telling what sort of mark they would have left on history. Pyrrhos was as much a military and political genious as Julius Caesar. They where both opportunists. The only difference is, the other gambled and lost. The other gambled and won an empire. Along with everlasting fame. Might just as easily have been the other way around.
Nothing justifies removing Epeiros as a faction. Period.
But if the decision to keep Epiros is irrevocable, then at least consider reducing the garrison at Taras so that it resembles a forlon hope only days away from final surrender, rather than a beach-head for a super power!
H.
This subject has been discussed internally and changes are going to be made to the garrison at Taras. It will be easier for Rome to take the city in the future, though they probably won't decide to. AI loves killing 'rebels'.
As to the Pyrrhus/Epirus argument: :shrug:
I was doing some testings , just for fun of it .
Even if you remove barracks in Tarentum (representing Epeiros garrison withdrawal in 272), and all units, and i mean to leave Tarentum fully empty, Roman AI will :
- go south but still ignore Tarentum or,
- by the time they finaly get to Tarentum, it will take them 3-4 turns and they will be 3-4 units of hoplitai haploi in there. Romans will try to take it once with inferior force, fail , then ignore it completely again.
So it's not garrison , but AI inability.:help:
I even tried place units from Capua and Arpi literally next to Tarentum walls ,with only general inside , and Romans would just walked away towards north or Rhegion.:wall:
Only way i see it to get Romans to take Tarentum, for sure, is if you fully emptied town from Epeiros and place Roman army next to the walls of empty city. Hopefully they will walk in then, lol.
well in my KH campaingn (KH = best faction) its like 244ish and i pushed epirites out of greece at the start of the game and when i reasently took Syracuse from the eluethroi the epirittes them steamrolled through Rhegion and Messana all of a sudden and attacked me but i beat back there force and took messana/rhegium after watchin like 20+ years of constant besiging of Taras and Arpi =p so the Garrison deffinitly should b weakended
If the problem is with the Rome AI, why not just try to make the Romans more willing to expand south? Didn't the team have a similiar problem with Bakria, which also always went North into the steppe instead of South in Seleucid lands or India? Well, whoever fixed up Baktria should have a look at Rome, and try to "persuade" the Roman AI that South is where the money is. That way the Romans don't swallow Gaul and Germania so quickly- I rather like seeing the Celts fight it out, and would prefer to see the Romans fighting in Sicily.
What if Rhegion is not Rebel - would that change things?
In 272 it was held by a Campanian force that had been sent there by Rome as a garrison, but had seized the city fo themselves, following the example of the nearby Mamertines.
So it would be a bit of a stretch - but what if it started as being a Roman province. Would Taras be targeted then?
H.
Rhegion will start as a Roman rebel sub faction held province (there are none of those in the build currently) so there is a slight hope/expectation that they might look there first instead of to the north. The culture and creator of the province will still be Greek though, but the owner will be Roman rebel sub faction.
Wow, I dont want to see Epirus gone! I'm actualy playing with them and loving!!! :2thumbsup:
I think the problem is realy in the AI... Taras is useless to Epirus at begining and very usefull to Romani, but Epirot AI use to spent money rienforcing it and Roman AI dont make it an priority. And about making Taras rebeling after few turns to the Eleutheroi? Pyrrus power was decreasing in Italy, so that would not be unhistorical at all... And that would surely make Romans to take it soon.
Clearly the AI has degrees of at-war hatred toward the player, and I assume other than setting the countries to "at war" there is no way to set them to "ultra hateful stack-spamming angry" ;) Which, I suppose, would be sufficient to get Rome to Take Taras right away...