Pontic Expansion

[Antinous]

So I was wondering why the Pontics have to go all the way into the Baltics and Germanic areas. I think that Greece should be the European goal, and that going further into the Seleucid lands to form a Achmeanid Empire. I just want the input of the guys who make those goals.

[anubis88]

Why would Greece be the European goal? Who knows what would've happened if Sulla failed...

[Antinous]

Well don't let that stop you, but I'm just thinking that they wouldn't want to go move next door to the Swezboz, knock on their door and say "Hello".

[vartan]

So are you asking why the Victory Conditions for Pontus are the way they are? Also, if you would change the Victory Conditions for Pontus, how would you change it? (I've never thought too much about Pontic VC, so I'm curious.)

[B-Wing]

I think it kind of makes sense that as Pontus, the player would be expected to control the regions surrounding the Black Sea. After all, if I understand correctly, the historical kingdom of Pontus did expand across the Black Sea. I can't check the victory conditions right now, but I recently played (or started, rather) a Pontus campaign and don't remember the target provinces going all the way to the Baltic or Germania. I think the northwestern ones were all adjacent to the Black Sea.

I'm more curious to know what the Bosporan Kingdom's target regions will be. It's hard to imagine them stretching through the steppes or toward the Baltic, but they can't really be expected to take over much of Alexander's former territory either.

[Tudhaliya]

I think it kind of makes sense that as Pontus, the player would be expected to control the regions surrounding the Black Sea. After all, if I understand correctly, the historical kingdom of Pontus did expand across the Black Sea. I can't check the victory conditions right now, but I recently played (or started, rather) a Pontus campaign and don't remember the target provinces going all the way to the Baltic or Germania. I think the northwestern ones were all adjacent to the Black Sea.

I'm more curious to know what the Bosporan Kingdom's target regions will be. It's hard to imagine them stretching through the steppes or toward the Baltic, but they can't really be expected to take over much of Alexander's former territory either.

No no no. All the Pontids should have to do is hold all of northern and central Anatolia, and control the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. Historically, if they had done that, they would have had a stranglehold on all east/west trade, and would have been richer that Croesus (who did quite well with much less territory).

Gameplay-wise, this would be pretty hard. The Pontids would have to hold off Seleukid and Armenian expansion, destroy the kingdom of Sardis, and take the tip of the Thracian peninsula from the Macedonians and Dacians, and then defend it from the Sarmatians. But if they did, they would be rediculously wealthy.

[Foot]

No no no. All the Pontids should have to do is hold all of northern and central Anatolia, and control the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. Historically, if they had done that, they would have had a stranglehold on all east/west trade, and would have been richer that Croesus (who did quite well with much less territory).

Gameplay-wise, this would be pretty hard. The Pontids would have to hold off Seleukid and Armenian expansion, destroy the kingdom of Sardis, and take the tip of the Thracian peninsula from the Macedonians and Dacians, and then defend it from the Sarmatians. But if they did, they would be rediculously wealthy.

Thats something like 15 provinces. Hardly a campaign isn't it. And we aren't talking about what the Pontic Kingdom could realistically achieve that would ensure its survival, but what the player can realistically achieve given their role as the Pontic kings.

Foot

[Tudhaliya]

Thats something like 15 provinces. Hardly a campaign isn't it. And we aren't talking about what the Pontic Kingdom could realistically achieve that would ensure its survival, but what the player can realistically achieve given their role as the Pontic kings.

Foot

Ah, well that's different. Realistically, it would have been nearly impossible for Pontus to control those 15 provinces for any length of time. It would have been like standing in the middle of busy crossroads and yelling "Stop!" and hoping that the Seleukid lorry driver would listen.

Gameplay-wise, a good player should be able to hold all of Asia west of the Zagros, and most of Greece too, not to mention all of the Black Sea.

[vartan]

a good player should be able to hold all of Asia west of the Zagros, and most of Greece too, not to mention all of the Black Sea.

A good player rules the known EB world.

[Cute Wolf]

good player blitz entire europe, half of russia, India, and north africa in less than 120 years

[Mediolanicus]

good player blitz entire europe, half of russia, India, and north africa in less than 120 years

And another good player plays 250 years and gets the same result, only against tougher AI resistance and with longer drawn out wars. It's just whatever you personally prefer.

[Apázlinemjó]

And another good player plays 250 years and gets the same result, only against tougher AI resistance and with longer drawn out wars. It's just whatever you personally prefer.

And another good player doesn't conquer the map, but roleplays everything, including his own state's downfall.

[Mediolanicus]

And another good player doesn't conquer the map, but roleplays everything, including his own state's downfall.

Like in my short AAR (which had many views, but almost no comments - although it had a very good review in the critics quill on twcenter)

[Cute Wolf]

Yeah, too bad, we cant have alternate victory condition. I personally think the pontos could choose to become hellenistic empire that rule the black sea region, or reforge the old persian empire, oh wait the kalmar union thingies made those as possibility (pontos, hayasdan, or pahlava could turn themself into the old persian empire when they capture several certain city, but that will need one faction slot)

[vartan]

Yeah, too bad, we cant have alternate victory condition. I personally think the pontos could choose to become hellenistic empire that rule the black sea region, or reforge the old persian empire, oh wait the kalmar union thingies made those as possibility (pontos, hayasdan, or pahlava could turn themself into the old persian empire when they capture several certain city, but that will need one faction slot)

Haha. Who said you can't have alternate victory conditions? Thought you were a modder!

[anubis88]

Does anyone even play EB to get the Victory conditions? I think there are 2 kinds of EB players:

1) The ones who are playing historicaly and roleplay a lot, don't blitz the enemy etc... (like me)

2) The ones that blitz right from the start, and don't stop once they reach the victory conditions

[ziegenpeter]

Well I like the victory conditions, especially when playing a faction I dont know so much of. This gives me a hint where I should expand.
On a related topic, I wonder why the Hay are always exapnding into the steppe instead of into the Caucasus and further south. And maybe more than just the seleucids should get the entire Alex empire as a VC.

[anubis88]

It seems like all factions tend to expand north if they can... Rome, Sweboz, Parthia,... (casse :D )... Dunno why... Of course Carthage who could use to go north prefers to invade the sahara :S

[athanaric]

It seems like all factions tend to expand north if they can... Rome, Sweboz, Parthia,... (casse :D )... Dunno why... Of course Carthage who could use to go north prefers to invade the sahara :S

Um, in my campaigns, the Swêboz typically invade Gaul (and never take Ascaucalis, for whatever reason), whereas the Carthies usually proceed to screw the Lusotannan or Romani, much to my ire. Sometimes, they even invade Egypt (which I find hilarious, because I dislike the Ptolies even more). I'm looking forward to a less two-dimensional AI in EB II, as well as better auto-balanced units (especially phalanxes).

[vartan]

Does anyone even play EB to get the Victory conditions? I think there are 2 kinds of EB players:

1) The ones who are playing historicaly and roleplay a lot, don't blitz the enemy etc... (like me)

2) The ones that blitz right from the start, and don't stop once they reach the victory conditions

What about the ahistorical slow-pokes who like to roleplay hypothetical situations?

Well I like the victory conditions, especially when playing a faction I dont know so much of. This gives me a hint where I should expand.
On a related topic, I wonder why the Hay are always exapnding into the steppe instead of into the Caucasus and further south. And maybe more than just the seleucids should get the entire Alex empire as a VC.

Hard-coded campaign map strategic trajectories. Correct me if I am mistaken.

[Cute Wolf]

Hard-coded campaign map strategic trajectories. Correct me if I am mistaken.

yupz, EB map is highly detailed in geographical terms... too bad, the AI couldn't understood this. Made the Gaul area with less forest, clear vision to next city, and less invisibility. Made the Hay/Sauro border got realy high mountain (but still passable), and made the dessert got high barrier will guide that factions AI in particular... but it will made the map look too artificial, and notgeographically accurate...