Why?

[Celtic_Punk]

So here's a question I've tried to find answered for while... and come up short handed. So i'll just out and say it... Why 272 BC? why not... 270, or 275 or 230, orrrrrr 271 even? what was so special that made the original team decide "272 its gotta be 272!"

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

It is the earliest possible date to warrant the inclusion of the Koinon Hellenon (didn't you read their history, fan?), and the last year in the life of Pyrrhos of Epeiros. Hence later than 272BC would see a world without Epeiros, and earlier a world without KH.

[Celtic_Punk]

I did read it... awhile ago anyway.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

As CN says, mostly Pyrrhos. Earlier means not only KH is harder to rationalize as a faction, but also Pontos and Baktria too. Later and we don't have Epeiros as a faction probably. Also, however, later and we have the Romans as too powerful (since within a couple of years they hold all of Southern Italy at the start of the game). Maks are also in a great position in 272 (able to threaten KH, but with Macedonia itself almost under the control of Epeiros).

[Mikhail Mengsk]

Interesting, i sometimes have the same doubt!

[Fierro]

Similar question would be why does the campaign "end" in 14 AD?

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

The vanilla campaign ended in 14AD because it is the year Augustus died. My guess would be that the EB team just didn't care about it.

[Celtic_Punk]

no because it had to end somewhere. and thats when the republic era truely ended IMHO.

[Exosus]

I believe someone said somewhere that it ended in 14 AD because that was the hard limit, so to speak, of the original game. They couldn't push it further and had no reason to shorten it.

[Zarax]

14ad can be changed easily into 1999 or whatever suits you.
As it's been said before, it marks the beginning of the imperial era, a completely different context than EB's.

[Constantius III]

But didn't Pyrrhos capture Pella in 274 BC?

[Olaf The Great]

But didn't Pyrrhos capture Pella in 274 BC?

[Prussian to the Iron]

But didn't Pyrrhos capture Pella in 274 BC?

.................................274 B.C. is before 272 B.C.

[Constantius III]

.................................274 B.C. is before 272 B.C.

...yes, and he doesn't yet control Pella at gamestart in 272 BC, which he actually should, because he captured it two years earlier and hasn't died (yet).

[Prussian to the Iron]

i figured you meant that.

well, uhhh.........awkward............
perhaps he lost it soon after?

why don't you PM one of the EB team people?

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Pyrrhos came from the west and thus controlled the western part, upper Makedonia mostly. The coastal cities, like Thessalonike (in EB the port of Makedonia) and Pydna, were under control of Antigonos afaik.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Hammond says that early in 272 Antigonos had regained part of Macedonia; Ptolemy was recalled from Macedonia by Pyrrhos. I don't think there is any account of how Antigonos regained Pella, but we wanted to make the situation still as tenuous as we could for the Macedonians, basically having the city just coming back into their hands but without a strong presence there. If, as Epeiros, Pyrrhos (i.e., the player) wants to forgo any thoughts of taking his army to the Peloponnese and instead retake Macedonia, it is easily achievable within the first turn of the game. And if everything is given up in Italy and armies massed, retaking Thessaly isn't out of the question in the first year also, as it should be. Putting the Epeirotes in charge of Pella with its mines at the start of the game didn't seem to be the right way to represent the situation to us.

[Constantius III]

Actually, it looks like somebody else asked a few months ago on TWC. Makes sense. EDIT: Also what Teleklos said. Thanks!