What faction should WE play as?

[Molinaargh]

My initial idea would fit better for the Romani, but I thought of something that can work really well for KH: .org EB forums control one city and TWCenter EB forums control another (example: TWC as Sparta and .org as Athens). By "control" I mean vote for what should be done.

So there are yearly internal sessions held to decide what the city will do, and every 4 years the cities submit their candidates for the roles of Strategos (can control the main army) and Hegemon (can build and recruit more) of the Koinon Hellenon.

I think this could be really fun and unique, what do you guys think?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

This is quite interesting idea you have here! I'll keep my eye on this thread.

Looks like the faction is already chosen (KH?) but I would recommend Karthadastim as a faction.

[Drag0nUL]

I too think Karthadastim would be an interesting option given the way frictions between different factions in the Carthaginain senate affected the war against Rome. Would be interested to see if we can do better, and put quarrels aside for the greater good of the state....or not;)

[Walle]

Definitely Rome, since it would probably be more interesting than the other factions with the various reforms, reformators, political attributes, the fact that one FM might become emperor and stuff.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I voted for Koinon Hellenon.

I'd recommend that instead of generals, players should control one city each, and any family member who ethnically belongs to that city (i.e. the Spartan player controls all Spartan FMs). Plus any troops that start in that city, or are recruited in that city.

So there would be 3 players to start with, one each for Sparta, Athens, and Rhodes. As Krete, Corinth, and Chalkis are taken early on, more players can join in - to be followed later by Demetrias and Thermon. Players who want an very active role should take a large city (or Sparta, who has the largest starting army) - those who have less time available should take a small city.

Each player can only spend the income actually earned in his particular city (view this on the settlement detail screen.) So while Sparta has lots of initial troops and FM's, Sparta is only a small, poor city, so can't do much recruiting. While Athens and Rhodes starts with only 2 units and an FM, but are rich, so can recruit lots more and afford to hire mercenaries too. (Each city also controls one ship each at the start of the campaign, but if it is voted in council, the fleet can be left united to better defeat enemy fleets - if so, I'd recommend the Rhodian player acts as the admiral of the fleet.)

Each player can choose how to spend his income - on buildings or on troops. This will require someone (ideally Molinaargh, as the guy who's running the actual campaign on his PC) to keep detailed notes of how much income each city has received, how much they've spent, and how much they've got left in their treasury.

To make the start of the campaign easier, I strongly recommend that the Athenian player be given all the starting money (since to begin with the entire faction will go into debt anyway) and the Athenian player is best advised to use this money to hire a unit of Cretan Mercenary Archers - this addition will make the small Athenian army powerful enough to take Chalkis right at the start, while the Spartan player takes Krete.

What do you think?


P.S. I'm happy to play as Athens or Rhodes, but not Sparta, please.

[Ca Putt]

my vote goes to the KH aswell. tho I'd like to point out that a (some years into the game) sweboz would be a valid option aswell(as they begin "pre-unified". anyway if i remember correctly that had been done already some time ago, a nice aar that was!

[Ludens]

My initial idea would fit better for the Romani, but I thought of something that can work really well for KH: .org EB forums control one city and TWCenter EB forums control another (example: TWC as Sparta and .org as Athens). By "control" I mean vote for what should be done.

That sounds like a great idea, but if you've never organized one of these before I recommend against it. Team-based PBM campaigns take more time to organize than you think, so do a try-out game first to get the basic rights before you add more teams.

Also, there should be only one or two players that need to play the game per turn. If the save-game needs to go through four players to advance one turn (Spartan Hegemon, Athenian Hegemon, Spartan Strategos, Athenian Strategos) you will be lucky to do three turns per week.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Also, there should be only one or two players that need to play the game per turn. If the save-game needs to go through four players to advance one turn (Spartan Hegemon, Athenian Hegemon, Spartan Strategos, Athenian Strategos) you will be lucky to do three turns per week.

Agreed - although in this case, Molinaargh suggests that only he actually plays the campaign, and the rest of us simply tell him what we want him to do with our generals, troops and cities. Also, if we go for one player per city, instead of one player per family member, that will cut down the number of players needed.

[Molinaargh]

That sounds like a great idea, but if you've never organized one of these before I recommend against it. Team-based PBM campaigns take more time to organize than you think, so do a try-out game first to get the basic rights before you add more teams.

Also, there should be only one or two players that need to play the game per turn. If the save-game needs to go through four players to advance one turn (Spartan Hegemon, Athenian Hegemon, Spartan Strategos, Athenian Strategos) you will be lucky to do three turns per week.

I wouldn't try a PBM, but thanks for the warning. My idea is that forum members will only act as advisors (a council), I will be the only one playing the game, as Titus Marcellus Scato cleared up.

I appreciate all of your input, guys. I'm pretty much set on the Koinon Hellenon idea where the .org advises Athens and TWC advises Sparta, but only one controls the main army.

Cool comeback by Karthadastim, but I think it's been decided!

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Can I be a Rhodian advisor?

[Molinaargh]

Can I be a Rhodian advisor?

I'm currently inclined to exclude Rhodes, as it doesn't share the same rivalry as Athens/Sparta and the idea is that 2 cities will be controlled (1 for the .org and 1 for TWC). Rhodes also starts will a very old character and a single very young son, making it hard for them to submit FMs for the Strategos and Hegemon elections.

[Ludens]

I wouldn't try a PBM, but thanks for the warning. My idea is that forum members will only act as advisors (a council), I will be the only one playing the game, as Titus Marcellus Scato cleared up.

Ah, I see.

As for the shadow faction: check out this thread. Setting one faction to shadow another is easy, but to avoid bugs you need to make sure they have the same units (and culture, if I am not mistaken). Also: there is still a maximum of 20 factions (+ the independents), so must use an existing faction. Setting the eleutheroi as independents is possible but buggy.

[Molinaargh]

Ah, I see.

As for the shadow faction: check out this thread. Setting one faction to shadow another is easy, but to avoid bugs you need to make sure they have the same units (and culture, if I am not mistaken). Also: there is still a maximum of 20 factions (+ the independents), so must use an existing faction. Setting the eleutheroi as independents is possible but buggy.

Thanks Ludens. That sounds hard to do and CTD-inducing, so I think I'll stick to force-gifting cities to an AI faction if I ever need to simulate a civil war.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Shouldn't be too hard to do a civil war after Epirus is down to one city. We must use Epirus as only Epirus shares barrack buildings with Koinon Hellenon. The conversion modding process must take place BEFORE Epirus loses its last city - not afterwards, as it can't be done once Epirus is completely killed.

Here's a Guide on how to do civil wars:

[Molinaargh]

It's up in the EB AAR sub-forum!