Koinon Hellenon

[James Purefoy]

MTW2 has a number of improvements over RTW, one of which is the availability of more faction slots. In EB1 we saw the "Koinon Hellenon", which is really a fictitious state.

I think it would be better to replace the "Koino Hellenon" faction with the Aetolian and the Achean League.

Greece was an important region at that time, giving an accurate representation of the political state it was in seems necessary. The "Koino Hellenon" also gives the false impression that all Greek cities or most of them were united, which they they never were.




p.s. I'd include historical information on both of these, but all I have is the pelican history of Greece, I'm sure the EB members have sources that go into greater depth.

[Brennus]

Something was recently posted in the Occultus faction thread (I believe) about the KH. Very little was revealed but there did appear to be a hint that the KH faction in EBII would be able to transform over time to represent the Aetolian and Achean Leagues.

[B-Wing]

I don't have the time to locate the thread right now, but I remember a thread from not long ago in which those two leagues were discussed. Responses from one of the EB2 team members gave the distinct impression that the Achaean League was out of the question since it wasn't formed at the start date, and that the Aetolian League was ruled out because of its sandwiched position and the effects that would have on the factions already present in the area.

But like Brennus said, he also hinted that the team had something special (and secretive) planned for EB2 that somehow relates to the Greek leagues. Perhaps the KH will have the opportunity, through scripted missions, to inspire rebellions within the Macedonian Kingdom. Of course the Aetolians are already rebels at the game's start, so I can't even guess what was implied by them. Perhaps they'll have a large rebel army scripted to attack certain regions.

[Captain Trek]

Perhaps they'll have a large rebel army scripted to attack certain regions.

Hmm, I wonder if that (scripting rebel armies to attack certain provinces) could be done using the crusade and/or jihad mechanics...

Anyway, as for me, I personally consider the KH to be an Acceptable Break From Reality that does well in balancing historical accuracy with the unfortuneate limitations of the RTW engine. Really, EB players are constantly banging on about roleplaying, so I say just roleplay that military success in the fictional timeline created by the player ends up making the bonds between the allied Greek cities stronger, not weaker (I've read on the forums that a "realistic" KH would break apart the moment they started gaining serious ground, you see), perhaps due to an extremely charismatic leader emerging from one of the cities (hail to thee oh player avatar!) who manages to convince the squabbling factions to finally put their differences aside and unite in a condeferation of sorts, hoping to emulate the past success of the Macedonians to the north and their leader Alexander (certainly I'm willing to bet the leaders of southern Greek cities are that bloody envious of the man).

[Blxz]

There is of course precedent in Athens attempting to form empire. If the player would like to more accurately portray the realism of the situation it would be more fitting to only build type 4 governments in all conquered regions to simulate the semi-autonomous nature with which athens controlled its 'allied' territories.

The only weakness is that technically Sparta is leading the KH at game start. Get creative, have some fun and have an internal crisis in which the traditional spartan agoge system is disbanded and the government brought under athenian control. Or just be an evil spartan of doom.

[B-Wing]

Hmm, I wonder if that (scripting rebel armies to attack certain provinces) could be done using the crusade and/or jihad mechanics...

Well, I'm no scripting genius, but I don't think that would be either possible nor necessary. The rebel faction can't participate in crusades or jihads, to my knowledge. However, rebel armies can already be scripted to appear and attack settlements, which I've painfully witnessed in Stainless Steel 6.3.

As far as the realism of the KH, I don't really see a problem with it. If the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues were as successful as they were, I don't see why the Chremonidean League couldn't be.

[Ca Putt]

KH are great for roleplay, they will probably get some obstacles in their way in EB2 to make it less likely they take over the Greek mainland. as it is now they succeed rather often(less than 50% but eitherway too frequently) against the maks, if they get some silly government restrictions or the like I think that'll be fine, much better than adding an other hellenic league into a already crowded area of the map

[Captain Trek]

KH are great for roleplay, they will probably get some obstacles in their way in EB2 to make it less likely they take over the Greek mainland.

Well you and I must be playing a different mod because the AI Faction Progression Thread shows very few games where the KH manage to beat back the Maks. And indeed, in my most recent Sauro campaign on Alex.exe, the Maks not only absolutely plastered the KH almost straight away, but are now doing the same to Epiros as well (they are, however, likely to suffer from the rather frightening Getai stacks currently floating around, assuming I'm not forced to take them out first).

[Ca Putt]

I did not say they do it often but they do it sometimes, Indeed in most games the maks conquer everything, from what I'd guess the prercentage is about M-50 KH-30 E-20 whereas Epeiros often just gets too distracted in italy(sometimes they even conquer it :D) maybe I'm wrong but I've seen rather a lot of games where the KH actually get to conquer Greece, still most of the time It's the Maks that, like in history gain supermacy

Ps: and it seems the KH often get along well with the getai, sometimes even when you're the KH :D

[B-Wing]

Well, as far as EB1 goes, the KH have some serious AI-related problems at the beginning, from what I've read. Despite starting with an army and general on the island of Krete, they rarely if ever successfully attempt to take the city, and that army just sits there draining their treasury. They also fail to utilize naval transportation properly, a problem inherent to the RTW engine, which really hampers their potential. So I think they would do significantly better in EB2 without any help from scripting.

[James Purefoy]

Well, if the Achaean League hadn't been formed yet by the start date of the mod, then not including it is understandable. I am not convinced about the Aetolian League not been used though. Having a faction that translates to "Commonwealth of the Greeks" (Koinon Hellenon) simply seems wrong, considering the fact that there are 2 other Hellenic factions (Epirus, Macedonia) at the game's start as well.

[Ludens]

It may be wrong, but that's the name used in the decree announcing (as it later became known) the Cremonidan league.

And, while the Aetolian and Aegean leagues were more stable, they were not more powerful. I don't think they would have been capable of (or intended for) serious conquest, so why spend a faction slot on them?

The KH will be substantially reworked for EB2, so it should be more difficult to hold it together.

[WinsingtonIII]

Technically, the Achaean League was formed in 280 BC, so they were in existence for the start date, although I'm not sure how much actual power they had in the 270's BC.

However, one point that bears mentioning is that we already have 8 Hellenic factions in EB2, including 2 that still utilize the classical hoplite phalanx to a good extent. For the simple sake of variety I would not be pleased by the inclusion of the Achaean League, but that's just a personal opinion.

Beyond that, as the map is set up now, the region including Achaea is controlled from the city of Corinth, which (as is historically accurate) is under Makedonian control at game start. The EB team has already said it is unlikely they will change the map very much in terms of regions/cities. Since the Achaean League did not capture Corinth until 247 BC, they certainly should not start with this whole region. Unfortunately, due to hardcoded limits, the team cannot simply add a region, and even if they did, the Achaean League would start as a one-province faction in an already extremely crowded Greece. I'm not sure they would ever be able to survive in the hands of the AI, which is certainly a consideration when discussing factionhood, as a faction that will only survive more than a few turns when used by the player is essentially a wasted faction slot in the other 95% of campaigns.

[Arjos]

Also the achean league wasn't a notable "world" figure until the 250s, before they were a regional alliance for mutual protection by achean cities...

[Captain Trek]

I did not say they do it often but they do it sometimes, Indeed in most games the maks conquer everything, from what I'd guess the prercentage is about M-50 KH-30 E-20 whereas Epeiros often just gets too distracted in italy(sometimes they even conquer it :D)

KH getting the win 30% of the time sounds about right to me, to be honest... If the KH were made weaker, that would just make the Maks win more often, hence making outcomes in Greece more predictable, something I do not think is particularly desireable.

I do love watching the Epirots taking the fight to Rome though... I played a Mak campaign not so long ago where I knocked down Epeiros to just Taras and then left them alone for a while, and the tenacious bastards had somehow managed to take Arpi and Capua by the time I got around to finishing them off (and they were probably going to take Roma pretty soon too!).

Beyond that, as the map is set up now, the region including Achaea is controlled from the city of Corinth, which (as is historically accurate) is under Makedonian control at game start.

In that case it would, I think, probably be best to represent the League using those fancy new government mechanics the EB team announced for EB II, wherein the province's capital city and the outlying region are, IIRC, dealt with seperately.

[WinsingtonIII]

In that case it would, I think, probably be best to represent the League using those fancy new government mechanics the EB team announced for EB II, wherein the province's capital city and the outlying region are, IIRC, dealt with seperately.

That's true, and I would guess that the team will try to represent that region as being not completely under Makedonian control, even if it appears to be under their control on the map. But there's a huge difference between that and what the OP is suggesting.

[B-Wing]

In that case it would, I think, probably be best to represent the League using those fancy new government mechanics the EB team announced for EB II, wherein the province's capital city and the outlying region are, IIRC, dealt with seperately.

Oh, that's a very good point that had never occured to me. Good thinking!

[James Purefoy]

However, one point that bears mentioning is that we already have 8 Hellenic factions in EB2,

No, currently there are 3 hellenic factions, the rest are simply hellenistic though I suppose from a gameplay perspective it doesn't make much of a difference.

I thought Koinon Hellenon was something of an invention of the EB team, in which case the name would have been a bit inappropriate (and an actual league's name more fitting imo), but if there really was a league with such a name (as Ludens said) then I'm a happy camper. It's just hard to find any more info on this. Does anyone have any books, or online info (JSTOR) articles they would recommend? Thanks

[Ludens]

The old KH preview thread has a list of suggested books.

It also contains the text of the decree announcing the alliance, which does not mention a "koinon hellenon", but merely implies it. So I was wrong in posting that KH was the contemporary name.

[WinsingtonIII]

No, currently there are 3 hellenic factions, the rest are simply hellenistic though I suppose from a gameplay perspective it doesn't make much of a difference.

Yes, you're right, I mixed up the words. And, to be fair, I admit there is quite a difference in playstyle between some of these factions. However, I personally don't see much benefit in adding what would essentially be a KH clone in terms of units, especially since they would also almost be a clone in terms of starting postion and victory conditions. If they had more historical importance at the start date, then maybe they could be justified, but as it is I don't there's much justification.

I have to admit, I'm not sure why the KH isn't called the Chremonidean League (in Greek of course) in game, given that Chremonides formed the alliance, but I guess they probably never used that name themselves.

[bobbin]

I have to admit, I'm not sure why the KH isn't called the Chremonidean League (in Greek of course) in game, given that Chremonides formed the alliance, but I guess they probably never used that name themselves.

Bingo.

[Arjos]

That was simply ancient Greece...
It wasn't a single entity, most likely at the time of the Chremonidean League, all their members simply thought that they were allied against Makedonia...
In the end if you look at it closely every hellenic league, actually was the recognition of an Hegemon...
In my personal view, the only time that ancient Greece could have united, was during the turmoil generated by the peloponnesian war and the fall of the Spartan hegemony: Koine greek was being used more often and many people believed that a greek state should have faced Persia...
Philippos of Makedonia got it first, but applied a monarchic grip; it could have been something more "democratic", oligarchic it's better, like the Theban hegemony...

[Ludens]

That was simply ancient Greece...
It wasn't a single entity, most likely at the time of the Chremonidean League, all their members simply thought that they were allied against Makedonia...

Indeed. Anyway, "Cremonidean league" makes it sound like it's all the work of one Athenian politician. No doubt the Spartans and Rhodians had a different view of this matter.

In my personal view, the only time that ancient Greece could have united, was during the turmoil generated by the peloponnesian war and the fall of the Spartan hegemony: Koine greek was being used more often and many people believed that a greek state should have faced Persia...
Philippos of Makedonia got it first, but applied a monarchic grip; it could have been something more "democratic", oligarchic it's better, like the Theban hegemony...

I doubt it would have been that easy. Although the idea of a shared Hellenic culture was played up in the wake of the Persian wars, Greek still identified themselves primarily by their family and their city. Hellenic culture was hardly homogeneous anyway: there were major differences in religious rites, society and dialect of the various city states. Finally, the competitiveness that defined Hellenic culture was not conductive to long-term cooperation between cities. Greek city states were too independent-minded and too distrustful of one another to readily work together.

Basically, Greek unification could never have happened voluntarily: it would have be the result of the threat of an outside power or by one state dominating and/or forcibly incorporated the others. Neither the threats of Persian or Macedonian dominance were able to cause the former; and attempts at the latter were always met with ad-hoc alliances and rhetoric about the freedom of Greece.

[Arjos]

Absolutely, but Hellas was so shattered that the common view was a kind of cooperation, no poleis had the strength to do it alone, and Makedonia took over...
BTW I wasn't implying that Chremonidean League was the right name, I used to make clear which league I was talking about, and I agree with you, that name sounds more like from the Athenian point of view...

[James Purefoy]

The war started no earlier than 267 bc and the decree had been made public soon before, so it's some years after the start date of the mod (272 bc).

The Athenian Decree ("chremonidean") lists an alliance of Athens, Sparta and a few other poleis against Antigonos II of Macedonia. It was basically a declaration of war, heavily influenced by King Ptolemy. In fact, in some sense it was a rematch: The anti-macedonian party of Athens striving against Macedonian dominance all over again.

It was hardly a political union of any sort, let alone a commonwealth.
Now I don't know if there is a better alternative (I'll keep searching... ) though it certainly would be nice to be able to play as an actual league of that time .