Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

  1. #1

    Default Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Hi folks !
    I'm playing as Pergamon and aiming at the kingship's reform (needed for top-tier government... I want my hetairoi ! :D)
    For thoses who don't know it, we require some regions (fine) and to win a major battle against Galatians rebels and another against the Seleucids.

    Here is the part of the script for galatian battle
    Code:
    declare_counter pergamon_num_maj_battles_galatia
        monitor_event PostBattle FactionType f_pergamon
            and WonBattle
            and GeneralFoughtFaction slave
            and IsRegionOneOf region_103
            and I_BattleEnemyArmyNumberOfUnits > 10
            and NumFriendsInBattle > 1500
            and not I_ConflictType Naval
            and not I_ConflictType Withdraw
            
            inc_counter pergamon_num_maj_battles_galatia 1
            if I_CompareCounter pergamon_num_maj_battles_galatia > 1
                terminate_monitor
            end_if
        end_monitor
    So, I need to beat a galatian army of 10 units (or 11, i don't know if > means ">" or ">=") to achieve this condition.
    The problem is that the galatian garrison in Akyra has only 9 units : How can I get my reform ?
    If i modify the script to lower conditions, would it work and be save-compatible ? Or should I cheat to add a unit in garrison (It would be more fair than modding, but IDK if it's possible) ?
    In all cases, I think team should fix this for next major update :)

    BTW, is there any point to recruit Hippeis instead of Xystophoroi ? They are twice as expensive and only get 6 armor instead of 5 and a lower attack value, and they lose the armour piercing ability. I think it's a balance problem, excepted if Hippeis are meant to be used only by factions that can't recruit Xystophoroi.

  2. #2
    Minister of Useless Tidbits Member joshmahurin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    862

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    > is greater than only, so 11. The garrison could have been lowered without remembering to edit this script, or perhaps you are expected to not reach this point until they have time to recruit more units. Either way I suppose feel free to add them some garrison units, as that does indeed seem more than fair :P



  3. #3

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    I'll try to do this so :)
    perhaps you are expected to not reach this point until they have time to recruit more units.
    The last time I didn't invade Galatia, Pontic AI took it and there was no galatian army in the region :p

  4. #4
    EBII Hod Carrier Member QuintusSertorius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    21,459

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Quote Originally Posted by bisthebis View Post
    BTW, is there any point to recruit Hippeis instead of Xystophoroi ? They are twice as expensive and only get 6 armor instead of 5 and a lower attack value, and they lose the armour piercing ability. I think it's a balance problem, excepted if Hippeis are meant to be used only by factions that can't recruit Xystophoroi.
    They're a widely-available regional unit. If you're Koinon Hellenon, you often don't have better out of your factional roster.
    It began on seven hills - an EB 1.1 Romani AAR with historical house-rules (now ceased)
    Heirs to Lysimachos - an EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR with semi-historical houserules (now ceased)
    Philetairos' Gift - a second EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR


  5. #5

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    If I'm reading the script correctly, then there may be a quicker solution than waiting for them to recruit more units (aside from using the console). It appears that you don't need to fight a stack of Galatians, per se, but any rebel stack in the region that has more than 10 units. In that case, couldn't you recruit an army yourself, led by a general with very low loyalty, send it over there and wait for him to rebel and become an Eleutheroi stack? Then you defeat him and voila, condition achieved.

  6. #6
    Minister of Useless Tidbits Member joshmahurin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    862

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Correct, you only need to fight 11 Eleutheroi units in the Galatian province. However the point is to kill Galatians not Greeks :P



  7. #7
    EBII Hod Carrier Member QuintusSertorius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    21,459

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Easy enough to add units to a too-small Eleutheroi stack with the console. Also a nice way to make an easy battle into a more fun, challenging one.
    It began on seven hills - an EB 1.1 Romani AAR with historical house-rules (now ceased)
    Heirs to Lysimachos - an EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR with semi-historical houserules (now ceased)
    Philetairos' Gift - a second EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR


  8. #8

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Quote Originally Posted by MButcher View Post
    If I'm reading the script correctly, then there may be a quicker solution than waiting for them to recruit more units (aside from using the console). It appears that you don't need to fight a stack of Galatians, per se, but any rebel stack in the region that has more than 10 units. In that case, couldn't you recruit an army yourself, led by a general with very low loyalty, send it over there and wait for him to rebel and become an Eleutheroi stack? Then you defeat him and voila, condition achieved.
    Right, but I think it's cheaper to fight a bigger army by siege (i managzed to do this via the console) than losing an entire army :D

    About Hippeis, that's why I thought. Looks like diadochoi won't use them often ^^

  9. #9

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Like i posted in TWC, i'd rather if the requirements to fight the eleutheroi in galatia was excluded, and perhaps for the next version just add a "must own Ankyra for at least 20 years -80 turns-" to complete the reform. Makes no sense having to rebel 1 of your armies on purpose to do the reform, and even if a faction such as pontus doesnt captures the city first (like it did in my campaign...) that eleutheroi battle trigger leaves too much to chance IMO.

    And hey everyone.. just trying to get to the 3 posts count so i can put the image on the screenie competition :D

  10. #10

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Yes, this requirement should be removed for gameplay reason. Though it was a good dea, 'cause IRL pergamon's ruler became kings after winning a battle against galatians without annexing them.

  11. #11
    Member Member Kleitos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    176

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    also playing a Pergamon campaign - and didnt know there is already some reform here available.
    but reg. the requirement of fighting against an 11 unit Galatian Army: im in the year 262 now, season 41, and Pontos already conquered Galatia.
    does that mean no reform ("kingship reform?") can occur anymore?

    and would be the outcome of this reform? since in Pergamon already the top level exists: the "Episteia epi Hellenas" - or is there again some superior government which is at this time not visible in the building browser?

    ...regarding reforms of other factions: didnt find any threads which explains them really - is there some other source available where one can find information about it?

  12. #12

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    At this time, the only way to get the reform, AFAIK, is to conquer galatia and let them rebel. (You need to fight a rebel stack of 11 units in this province while it is controlled by rebels)
    Epiesteai epi Hellenas is the best gov without the reform but with reform you get access to Basilike Patris (that gives Hetairoi <3) : check antioche with seleucid or alexandira with egypt to see what it looks like, they have the same government tree

  13. #13
    Member Member Kleitos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    176

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    thanks - then i gonna try it like this. (i.e. conquer it from Pontos and let it rebel - surley the population will not revolt in Pontos favor at this early time. ..so i hope)

    and if they revolt and do not produce enough (galatian) units - how do you add more units exactly? (never did that in EB1)
    guess you did that in your campaign then - did it work after that ..i mean were you able to built a Basilike Patris?

  14. #14

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    I did this in the shell :
    create_unit "Ankyra" "hellenistic infantry hoplitai"
    I'm not sure about the quotes etc, but it's something like this.
    I didn't play my pergamon campaign long enough to get the refrom because I change the faction I'm playing nearly every day but the cheat worked :)

  15. #15
    Terrible Tactician Member Shadowwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Germania Libera *g*
    Posts
    299

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    In EB 1 it was create_unit Ankyra "hellenistic infantry heavy pezhetairoi" 4 1 1 1 (number of units, experience level, attack upgrade, defence upgrade). Quotation marks are needed for the unit name only.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kleitos View Post
    also playing a Pergamon campaign - and didnt know there is already some reform here available.
    but reg. the requirement of fighting against an 11 unit Galatian Army: im in the year 262 now, season 41, and Pontos already conquered Galatia.
    does that mean no reform ("kingship reform?") can occur anymore?


    and would be the outcome of this reform? since in Pergamon already the top level exists: the "Episteia epi Hellenas" - or is there again some superior government which is at this time not visible in the building browser?

    ...regarding reforms of other factions: didnt find any threads which explains them really - is there some other source available where one can find information about it?
    The reform has a fixed date in case you didn't manage to fulfill the "battle vs Galatians" requirements, so your reforms are still perfectly possible. :)

    There's a nice thread in this forum where some info on the different reforms can be found (it's still work in process, but so are the reforms themselves ):
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...m-requirements
    Last edited by Shadowwalker; 09-12-2014 at 17:24.
    Finished EB Campaigns: Kart-Hadast 1.0/1.2 | Pontos 1.1 | Arche Seleukeia 1.2 | Hayasdan 1.2 | Sab'yn 1.2 | Makedonia 1.2 (Alex)
    Lost Campaigns (1.2, Alex. exe): Getai | Sab'Yn
    Ongoing campaigns (1.2): SPQR (110 BC) | Sab'yn (217 BC) | Pontos (215 BC)
    from Populus Romanus

    "The state of human ethics can be summarized in two sentences: We ought to. But we don't." (Tucholsky)

  16. #16

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    There's no fixed date, the fixed dates IG are for antoher set of reforms that is not implemented yet.

  17. #17
    Terrible Tactician Member Shadowwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Germania Libera *g*
    Posts
    299

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Quote Originally Posted by bisthebis View Post
    There's no fixed date, the fixed dates IG are for antoher set of reforms that is not implemented yet.
    You're right, I neglected a "not" (as in "if not I_LocalFaction f_pergamon") in the script.
    Finished EB Campaigns: Kart-Hadast 1.0/1.2 | Pontos 1.1 | Arche Seleukeia 1.2 | Hayasdan 1.2 | Sab'yn 1.2 | Makedonia 1.2 (Alex)
    Lost Campaigns (1.2, Alex. exe): Getai | Sab'Yn
    Ongoing campaigns (1.2): SPQR (110 BC) | Sab'yn (217 BC) | Pontos (215 BC)
    from Populus Romanus

    "The state of human ethics can be summarized in two sentences: We ought to. But we don't." (Tucholsky)

  18. #18
    Member Member Kleitos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    176

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    thank you both - im gonna try this with EB2.01 then - (if requirements and situation there are still the same) ...but anyway good to know that!
    just in case i'm missing something: you both used a hellenistic unit in the example.? is this the way it works, or was it just for an example? and for Ankyra i have to type there some Galatian unit name - the number of units is obvious - the others: experience level, attack upgrade and defence upgrade, are they a must to define or just in case you want them stronger? i.e. if no numbers were used, then the units were spawned with standard data?
    @Shadowwalker: yes i stumbled upon this thread today as well - good work this.
    ..so if Pontos conquers Galatia first - one has to conquer it from them and let it rebel two times (and produce enough units) in order to defeat twice a Galatian Army to get the reforms.?

  19. #19
    Terrible Tactician Member Shadowwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Germania Libera *g*
    Posts
    299

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    I just used this unit as I remembered it when I needed an example unit. You can use almost any unit that is available in the campaign.
    Just look it up in the EDU and use the name under "type". You should make sure that the unit you want to use is accessible by the faction you want it to give, though. Otherwise you will encounter bugs or maybe even crashes.
    Finished EB Campaigns: Kart-Hadast 1.0/1.2 | Pontos 1.1 | Arche Seleukeia 1.2 | Hayasdan 1.2 | Sab'yn 1.2 | Makedonia 1.2 (Alex)
    Lost Campaigns (1.2, Alex. exe): Getai | Sab'Yn
    Ongoing campaigns (1.2): SPQR (110 BC) | Sab'yn (217 BC) | Pontos (215 BC)
    from Populus Romanus

    "The state of human ethics can be summarized in two sentences: We ought to. But we don't." (Tucholsky)

  20. #20

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    I love the idea of the script it adds real historical depth to the campaign. Hellenistic kingship was based on right to rule, military prowess, doriktetos chora. Below is a short extract from an article on Hellenistic kingship, for anyone interested. The link in the reference will take you to full article.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    §24 Hellenistic kings needed to radiate the power of a “military hero”, even if their dominion over a land relied essentially on recently implemented dynastic principles. Here, one thing must be taken into consideration: troops needed to be convinced of their general’s capacity to lead them safely during a campaign or in battle. The power of a king relied on his excellence and that meant being as good a general as possible or expected. If a general’s capacity was doubted, the natural reaction was disobedience to his commands or even desertion, which for our purposes means opposition to domination. It is clear that the regent Perdiccas, during his invasion of Egypt, a clear attempt to punish Ptolemy and regain Alexander’s corpse, (Errington 1970), was not able to deal with his troops’ mutiny at the time of his disastrous crossing of the Nile (Diodorus 18.36). Although Diodorus and Arrian gave us a different account for the reasons why the army betrayed its general, both still insisted on the same idea. According to Arrian, Perdiccas was twice defeated and in other respects behaved in camp more arrogantly than became a general. Because of his attitude, he was murdered by his own cavalry during an engagement.
    §25 As one of the main intended audiences of self-proclaimed kings, Hellenistic armies shared many short and long-term expectations with their sovereigns. Those mutual expectations, though assured by custom (royal patronage) or oaths, could be surprisingly volatile. Thus reciprocity became a very important aspect of Hellenistic kingship. Nearly every kind of interaction between the king and other groups (including his army) was related to war or the threat of war, and it was expected that the king, in order to “fulfill the expectation of others”, would offer “privileges, material gain, protection, and peace to those who supported his rule” (Chaniotis 2005: 74). That is not a position of a legal ruler; instead, it is a position that could be “invented” on the basis of charisma.
    Acknowledgements
    In the U.S.: I am most grateful to the Center for Hellenic Studies for making this research possible and to Erich Gruen, Angelos Chaniotis, Joseph Manning and Michael Brumbagh for their valuable suggestions. In Brazil and Europe: I am grateful to Vicente Dobroruka, Andre Araujo, Hans-Joachim Gehrke, Mark Heerink and George Roberts.

    Modanez de Sant Anna, Henrique. “Domination and Legitimacy in Early Hellenistic Basileia: The Rise of Self-Proclaimed Kings.” CHS Research Bulletin 1, no. 2 (2013). http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hlnc.es..._Basileia.2013


    Member thankful for this post:



  21. #21

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Intersting text :)
    Though it's a serious problem in terms of gameplay to force us to win a battle when there's no ennemy :D

  22. #22

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Quote Originally Posted by bisthebis View Post
    Intersting text :)
    Though it's a serious problem in terms of gameplay to force us to win a battle when there's no ennemy :D
    Add some via desc_stat_text at the beginning



  23. #23

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    I dont think a reform should require a player to change some text files himself....

  24. #24

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Quote Originally Posted by Wulfburk View Post
    I dont think a reform should require a player to change some text files himself....
    Perhaps not, it was a suggestion to guarantee you a stack or two of Galatoi. Otherwise one will come along eventually.



  25. #25
    EBII Bricklayer Member V.T. Marvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Directing the defence of Boiotergion
    Posts
    3,361

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Quote Originally Posted by Wulfburk View Post
    I dont think a reform should require a player to change some text files himself....
    You are absolutely right!

    We need to think this through and provide backup options in the script for he next release. Please forgive this inconvenience.

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  26. #26
    EBII Hod Carrier Member QuintusSertorius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    21,459

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Quote Originally Posted by Wulfburk View Post
    I dont think a reform should require a player to change some text files himself....
    You don't need to, just use the console and the create_unit command.
    It began on seven hills - an EB 1.1 Romani AAR with historical house-rules (now ceased)
    Heirs to Lysimachos - an EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR with semi-historical houserules (now ceased)
    Philetairos' Gift - a second EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR


  27. #27

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    Leave the essence of the script though, it was a great idea! And the article I provided, more than justifies your choice historically speaking. Not that you required my justification, I just like to post interesting information.



  28. #28
    Minister of Useless Tidbits Member joshmahurin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    862

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    @paullus @Arjos @V.T. Marvin would you think perhaps a slightly larger garrison in Ankyra, lower requirement or remove the requirement? Or perhaps add a roaming stack?



  29. #29

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    (I've just seen you were askng this to the team, but I will say what i have to say no matter :D)

    There should be a roaming stack, because we don't need to fight against a 11-units stacks, but to fight TWO stacks, so taking the city after adding units will not be enough.

    What would be fine, IMHO, would be a huge roaming stack + the garrison. Pergamene player must defeat the large stack (technically speaking, "a huge rebel stack in the province if it is owned by rebeles") OR take the city : Pergamene kings became kings after a battle against galatians, but didn't conquer Galatia, if I'm right. But if we conquer Galatia, galatians should be seen as subjects and requirements be OK.
    So, Galatia would become an additionnal required province, BUT, if we fight the stack instead, we can get the reform without taking Ankyra.
    Last edited by bisthebis; 09-19-2014 at 18:53.

    Member thankful for this post:



  30. #30
    Member Member paullus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    always in places where its HOT
    Posts
    11,860

    Default Re: Pergamene kingship and Galatia

    We can cover this internally, but I agree, we need to depict the Galatians in-game better, which means with roaming stacks of significant size. The Pergamene requirements were created, but we were slow to revisit Galatian starting positions because there are still a few Galatian units in deveopment. But we'll need to go ahead and adjust those things.
    "The mere statement of fact, though it may excite our interest, is of no benefit to us, but when the knowledge of the cause is added, then the study of history becomes fruitful." -Polybios

    Member thankful for this post:



Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO