Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

Thread: Improvement Ideas for RTW

  1. #1

    Default

    This is mostly for the Devs, but of course you all can chime in as you want, i am writing many things that i think would improve the game, hopefully you all and they will agree

    (1) diplomacy appears to have been covered greatly by other posts so ill just say, from what ive read gj CA and I hope it is implemented as good as it appears, also when in doubt, you guys should load up Master of Orion and EU for ideas

    (2) technology trees, i hope that you streamline the tech trees, I have done this myself by modding MTW and it seems to workalot better. Tie unit production to varying degrees of catle/forts and / or barracks. No more spear 1 thru 4 bowyer 1 thru 4. How about just a barracks or fortress level that is capable of creating certain units.

    This streamlines the building process and lessens micromanagement and is more realistic.

    (3) Map Size and Tactical use of units: again appears to be improved, but for cavalry units etc to be truly useful, maps need to be much larger. For instance, in MTW, the Turks great stregth, hit and run horse archers, was greatly negated by the fairly small map sizes, and secondly, there were very few maps were one couldnt spot the other army, so scouting was pretty much useless to nonexistant.

    These factors really hampered the use of eastern horse armies as they were used in history. Byzantine armies were mostly horse armies, but due to map size there was no real strategic need for makin horse based armies.

    (3a) Hit and run raids, would also be a nice addition, perhaps make border forts something more than a "spy" but an actual small fort in border ares that can be used as a base against border raids or from which one can launch border raids, and they must be garrisoned

    (4) Agents, this may have been addressed by readings, though it seemed kind of vague. So here is my idea, have a Agent panel or what not, where you can access assassins, diplomats etc. From here you can see who you have and then assign them missions, after the mission is complete they return and can be assigned again.

    This would reduce micromanagement - and i have seen this style of agent use implemented in many games before, Master of Orion comes to mind again.

    (5) Embassy: instead of diplomats running all over, why not set up an embassy, which gives you constant access for the improved diplomacy in RTW? this was common and is still today. People would establish embassies because it was important to be in constant communication with nations deemed to be important, and it was a good place to launch espionage from as well

    (6) Movement : make it more realistic, in every aspect. no more small movements of troops, 1 province at a time, or whatever your equivalent will be in RTW.

    (6a) example, the first crusade (in history). the princes of the first crusade managed to gather armies, sign treaties, arrange transport, march and sail armies across europe, into constantinople, march across modern day turkey, siege and capture Nicaea, Antioch, Tripoli, and Jerusalem all within (2) years.

    In MTW it often takes 6-9 years to get a crusade from france to the holy lands,not to mention the 4 years it takes to make a crusade. Crusades were a great idea, but the game mechanics of it really stinks im sorry to say. First you should have made crusades move like agents, in that they could move between any allied ports that granted them access/permission - this one improvement would have overcome most of the mechanical problems of untilizing crusades in game - point is, dont have similar weaknesses in RTW.

    Armies often moved vast distances in a year, so aslong as no battle is fought, armies should be able to move as far and as rapidly as (a) the enemy allows and (b) as history showed armies were capable

    (7) supply - operating in enemy lands should be more costly and natural pillaging should occur on farmlands (or equivalent) in RTW

    Sieges : Should be the truly great things they were. Rome was great at sieging, but these were great undertakings. Sieges should affect both the sieged and sieger, with outbreaks of pestilence and others unforeseen things happening to both sides.

    It should take more than one catapult to break down a great citadel in MTW i took down the citadel of constantinople with (4) catapults (took out outer and middle walls) - it tooks a massive array of cannons in 1453 to do what i did defensive fortifications should be worthy of the money spent to create them.

    Also, regarding the game mechanics, making fortificatiosn more important and powerful, lets factions stay alive longer. In MTW, factions simply died out to quickly imo, and far more quickly than they did historically, i am not asking for a historical sim, but am asking that it is hard to take out a faction.

    If you read the boards, everyone and their grandmother has taken out MTW on expert by the 1300s, with every faction in almost every campaign they start. This just should not be.

    (8) More internal strife, one major reason that the player always does good is nothing is working against him from the inside. Rome and nations in MTW always had many divisions in society working ag him - this is not adequately displayed in MTW and hopefully will be addressed in RTW.

    For example, in MTW a monarch should have to deal with his (a) nobility (b) family/heirs © church (d) people (e) military and so on, yet in MTW it is fairly easy to solve all these to where you never have a problem.

    Sadly i have played countless campaigns on expert with every faction, and have never had a civil war, and less than 3 rebelellions period, in all my games. It is just too easy, there should be more going against a faction leader at home, in order to make his problems abroad and at the borders an issue.

    that is all for now and thanks for the great games thus far CA

  2. #2

    Default

    (9) better knowledge of the world: if you have an embassy, you should have a clue as to the relative strengths (military, econmy etc) of the person you are in contact with.

    (10) land based trade, "the silk road" etc, have roads and what not improve trade in addition to merchants, land trade was used alot and should be moreso than what was implemented into MTW

    (11)vassalization & client states, please dont force me to destroy a 1 province faction with my 20 province faction (or RTW equivalent) , vassals/client states is a great game addition, where diplomacy and loyalty can make for great fun. Smaller lands/factions can be brought within an empire, and if you treat them badly, etc they can turn on you. How fantastic would it be when the celtic tribe that has been your vassal for 50 years turns on you?

    This would add a great deal to the feel of the game, imo and would make for more diplomacy and not just the need to kill every faction/tribe etc

    (12) transport ships and battle fleets. no more (20) ships in a line to transport please, that system just doesnt make any sense logically and has no basis in reality. Make us build our merchant fleet (or have them built auto by the equivalent merchant houses), our transport and/or battle fleets and they can be assigened to certain areas and sailed to whereever we want them, as far as their range allows, and make the range realistic, not like in MTW where it takes one (2) years to sail from sicily to venice, i could walk that quicker

  3. #3

    Default

    (13) more factios, factions, factions, even if they are minor factions only make them. The Rebel concept is fine in the Shogun scale, but wasnt appropriate for MTW or RTW. If a tribe/nation etc existed let them be a faction or the chance of appearing after another factions has been destroyed, or their appropriate time period is at hand.

    Rebels should only exist as a result of localized rebellions. And should a civil war happen, let the other side become a new faction as well, they rebelled for a reason, and that reason was not to be slowly picked off one at a time by the other side of the civil war. A civil war is one side or more aginst the other, thus they should act as a new faction.

  4. #4

    Default

    (14) more on sieges:

    (14a) how about, you make a certain # of men required to initiate siege dependent upon the level of fortification. Historically, many sieges didnt stop all info, troops, food from getting into a city, but merely harrassed it. In order to prevent a city/fort of any size from getting new troops/supplies etc took a very large number of men, which is not the case in MTW, i besieged constantinople with 150 me once and that just shouldnt be the case

    (14b) make starting a siege an option, for instance, i win the battle and control the area, on a pop up it gives the option "my lord we control the area surrounding rome, would you like to begin investing/sieging the great city?"

    if you choose not to, you are just running around the area and pillaging

    (14c) the chance to actually smash an the sieger between the walls, as in the tutorial battle in MTW and historically the final battle of caesars conquest of gaul. here caesar was sieging the last holdout and a relief army of celts attacked caesar from the rear while the city attacked him from the front. luckily caesar built pallisade walls around the city and to his rear but this is something that should happen if you choose to siege, the chance of having it bite you in the arse

    in my above example, if you ar not besieging you have the option of meeting them in open combat, but f you are sieging there is a good chance (dependent upon variables ) that you are caught between an enemy army and the city walls

    (14d) have siege engineers able to build siege engines on the spot, the number built is dependent upon (a) # of troops in army and (b) length of time devoted to building (1,2, or 3 seasons, years, etc) © # of engineer units. Historically many siege engines were build on the spot, although rome did often have ones they carried and assembled as needed, mostly ballistae.

  5. #5

    Default

    (15) more unforeseen events that force the faction/player to adjust his immediate goals, things that will catch a leader by suprise and ruin that grandiose strategy that has been in development for 50 years

    (a) random invasions of barbarians from nowhere, civil wars, betrayals, unrest from stagnation (just sitting their building massive armies and nothing else).

    what this does is stops the players from just stting back and knowing everything will be ok. Caesar, charlemagne etc didnt have the knowledge that "such and such" was going to happen in the year 583 or what not, something would happen and they would have to react to it, not plan on it like we do.

    leaders didnt have the easy knowledge of one mind (ie the player) that we do. he had to plan for the unforeseen, because the unforeseen is what would kill them. espionage, spies assassinns etc were very important, moreso than it is now in MTW

    (16) succession, should be harder at times than it is in MTW, history is replete with battles of succession, in medieval as well as roman times. historically romes failure to deal with succession issues was far more detrimental to the lifespan of the empire than any barbarian horde could have hoped.

    I am not suggesting that everytime your faction leader dies there should be a civil war, BUT every time you get a new and relatively weak faction leader, while their are very capable and powerful generals and other heirs in the wings, there should be a greater chance of a war for succession.

    They need not always be huge or happen everytime, but depending upon the circumstances, they should be more frequent than in MTW (where they dont really happen at all), and should be something that the player has to deal with and consider.

  6. #6
    Member Member Elwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Mar. 01 2003,16:37)]It should take more than one catapult to break down a great citadel in MTW i took down the citadel of constantinople with (4) catapults (took out outer and middle walls) - it tooks a massive array of cannons in 1453 to do what i did defensive fortifications should be worthy of the money spent to create them.
    Just being picky... its a vice of mine.

    Constantinoples walls were breached by two cannon. One of them was so big it could only fire once every 4(?) hours.



    Cheers.
    -- Elwe --
    I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War

  7. #7

    Default

    from the magazine Military History, an article written regarding the 1453 siege and fall of constantinople.

    "In February, Mohammed mustered a force in excess of 80,000 men, a siege train of 70 heavy cannon"

    a few more than 2 cannon


  8. #8
    Member Member Elwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Mar. 03 2003,13:34)]from the magazine Military History, an article written regarding the 1453 siege and fall of constantinople.

    "In February, Mohammed mustered a force in excess of 80,000 men, a siege train of 70 heavy cannon"

    a few more than 2 cannon

    Interesting. My information comes from 'A Short History of Byzantium' by Norwich... I'll see if I can get a quote when I get home tonight.

    Cheers.

    -- Elwe --
    I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War

  9. #9

    Default

    well, im guessing the difference comes from something along these lines, many times in history, they only mentioned special/unique units or equipment, there may have been only (2) cannons that were humongous sige cannons (they probably had impressive names) or something, and the rest were just normal heavy cannons.

    Often they only speak of the special stuff and not the normal, for instance, trying to find out information regarding infantry is very hard, simply cuz people didnt care enuff about them to mention, it doesnt mean there wasnt infantry, if you follow my meaning.

  10. #10
    Member Member Elwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Anything is possible. I'll see what the book really says (my memory is notorious for having holes in it), and see if I misinterpreted what was actually said.

    From memory, the book said they only had two cannon capable of breaching the wall, and that process took a couple of days due to the slow loading time of the biggest cannon.



    Cheers.
    -- Elwe --
    I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War

  11. #11
    Member Member Heraclius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Greece (where my heart is)
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    "A short History of Byzantium" is by far my favorite and in my opinion one of the best books I ever read about the Byzantine Empire. So, after reading this thread, I decided to discover which one of you distinguished gentlemen was right. After digging through the book's final chapter I was presented with a rather ambigous answer: Norwich mentioned two massive cannons that did much of the damage to Constantinople's wall but he also maybe implied, I'm not quite sure, that there were more in this passage: "Although the larger cannon could be fired only once every two or three hours the damage they did was enormous...." The word "larger" might mean that there were also smaller cannons present at the siege. I'm not sure though and will do some more research.



    Heraclius you are just being a silly Greek...-Galestrum

    The early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  12. #12

    Default

    stop talking history anyways, did you like any of my ideas?


  13. #13
    Member Member Elwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 03 2003,19:35)]"Although the larger cannon could be fired only once every two or three hours the damage they did was enormous...." The word "larger" might mean that there were also smaller cannons present at the siege.
    I think I came to my conclusion because earlier he had mentioned that the two (main?) cannon were of different sizes, and that the slow loading of the 'larger' one was in contrast to it's smaller partner...

    I wait with baited breath for your expanded research..



    Cheers.
    -- Elwe --
    I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War

  14. #14
    Member Member Elwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Mar. 03 2003,19:46)]stop talking history anyways, did you like any of my ideas?

    Sorry for hijacking your thread, mate. Roman history is a hobby of mine, and that includes the 'Byzantine' era. I am always happy to be proven wrong, I just like to know what really happened... if such can be found.

    Will comment on your suggestions later when I have some more time.



    Cheers.
    -- Elwe --
    I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War

  15. #15
    Member Member Heraclius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Greece (where my heart is)
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Elwe @ Mar. 03 2003,20:21)]
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Mar. 03 2003,19:46)]stop talking history anyways, did you like any of my ideas?

    Sorry for hijacking your thread, mate. Roman history is a hobby of mine, and that includes the 'Byzantine' era. I am always happy to be proven wrong, I just like to know what really happened... if such can be found.



    Cheers,
    ditto. Dn't worry, Elwe, I'll find something out. Heading to the library tomorrow. Internet sources rather shaky so far.
    Don't worry ,Galestrum, as soon as I'm done researching I'll return this thread to its rightful topic. I just can't stay off that history stuff.
    Heraclius you are just being a silly Greek...-Galestrum

    The early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  16. #16
    Member Member Henry V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Columbia, Mo,USA
    Posts
    7

    Default

    One thing i would like to see is the AI cooridinate its forces better and and not always simply move to flank one side and leave its other flank exposed. I also think that armies should rely more battle lines and should be more concentrated and less spread out like i also find in most sp games for MTW.
    It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

  17. #17

    Default

    Im a history buff too fellas, im getting ready to start my masters in history, focusing on medieval eastern europe and the med

  18. #18
    Member Member Heraclius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Greece (where my heart is)
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    Okay, I've found numerous sources referring to Mohammed's cannons including two massive ones, one of which could be fired seven times a day. The most reliable numbers appear to be between 50-70 cannons plus alot of other siege equipement. Hope that helps, although I must say it was quite painful to read all those accounts of the fall of Constantinople. Sniff. In Greece the fall of Constantinople is actually a national day of mourning Funny people us Greeks, we don't forget a grudge.
    Heraclius you are just being a silly Greek...-Galestrum

    The early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  19. #19
    Member Member Knight_Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,261

    Default

    what i whant is pure terror like in the midst of the battle carnage

    i whant to hear men shouting and screaming in aggony and the clashing of swords the breaking of bones i want individual taunts and most of all i want BLOOD


    a bit OTT but it would be so f****** sweet.

    British Army: be the best

  20. #20
    Member Member Elwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ Mar. 04 2003,16:02)]Okay, I've found numerous sources referring to Mohammed's cannons including two massive ones, one of which could be fired seven times a day. The most reliable numbers appear to be between 50-70 cannons plus alot of other siege equipement. Hope that helps, although I must say it was quite painful to read all those accounts of the fall of Constantinople. Sniff. In Greece the fall of Constantinople is actually a national day of mourning Funny people us Greeks, we don't forget a grudge.
    Thanks for that, mate. Seems that it was just my interpretation of the paragraphs that was wrong..

    Cheers
    -- Elwe --
    I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War

  21. #21

    Default

    Hey Heraclius, i have a few questions i was wondering if you could answer if you know about Greece?

    (1) Being that modern day Turkey has alot of former Byzantine Lands where in the past many Greeks lived, are their still sizeable populations of Greeks within Turkey, or did they all migrate to Greece and other places throughout the years?

    (2) Do modern day Greeks today, in general still look to Byzantine times as a direct link to modern day Greece? Is there a strong affinity for that empire in the hearts of many Greeks?

    (3) From all that I have read, the Byzantines (whom I still call romans ) considered themselves Romans and called themselves that, do Greeks still have a strong tie to Rome in concept as well, or is it now a "Greek only" feeling?

    (4) im not a big modern day history buff, so that being said, Macedonia is a different country today than Greece, but do both people consider themsleves Greek? Why did both countries not form one Greek country IF they both consider themsleves Greek?

    (5) from what i understand, modern day cyprus is divided between turkey and greece? and that there have been tensions over cyprus in the past and perhaps even now? Is there still a Greco-Turkish tension to this day, linked back to medieval times, or have the (2) peoples gotten along better in general?

    I know some of these questions may be tough for you to answer, i was kinda wanting to know your general opinions on the aftermath of the Roman Empire in 1453.

    For instance i found this website, forgot it, but it was from a family of Greeks living in San Franciso, and the allege that they are the descendants of Alexius Comnenus' Dynasty, which i found interesting. They went on to talk about how San Francisco USA is very similar in appearance to Constantinople and the Bosphorous, and that is why they live heere now, among other reasons.

    I just find the modern links interesting, and would like to learn more, so you or any other greeks or even turks etc can chime in. I dont want it to turn into a bitch fest, between greeks and turks, not that you would, i just would like to hear any insights.

    thanks

  22. #22
    Member Member Elwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ Mar. 04 2003,19:12)](1) Being that modern day Turkey has alot of former Byzantine Lands where in the past many Greeks lived, are their still sizeable populations of Greeks within Turkey, or did they all migrate to Greece and other places throughout the years?
    I can answer this one, at least partially. The Ottoman Turks relocated all Greeks from Asia Minor (modern Turkey) to Thrace (modern Macedonia?) and what is now Greece in the early 1400's. I'm not sure what happened to them after the fall of Constantinople...

    Cheers.
    -- Elwe --
    I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War

  23. #23
    Member Member Heraclius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Greece (where my heart is)
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    Galestrum,

    You have some very interesting questions that I would love to answer.

    1. Elwe is correct there was a mass exodus of Greeks in Asia Minor in Greece itself in the 1400's. In this time period the Ottoman Sultan sent many Turks to Greece, as well, to populate his new teritory with subjects loyal to him. But the "exodus" was only repeated once on so large a scale as the 1400's.
    After World War I Greece found itself on the winning side with the Allies greatly in debt to her for defeating Turkish and Bulgarian armies. In return, the prime minister of Greece, a great man and politician named Eleftherios Venizelos, hampered only by his dream of creating "Greater Greece" or as he called it the "Great Idea". He demanded that the region of Thrace, in Europe, and the Coast of Asia Minor be ceded to Greece by the shambles of a country that was left from the old Ottoman Empire. These regions had a healthy minority of Greeks, left over from Byzantium and classical Greece, but were mostly inhabited by Turks. Long story short, Greek soldiers occupy Asia Minor and Thrace. The local Greeks rose up and butchered many Turks, especially in the coastal city of Smyrna, for the persecution they and the Christian Armenians had suffered under the government of the "Young Turks" shortly before the WWI.
    However, within two years Venizelos was forced to resign by the recently reinstated King Constantine I , whom Venizelos had deposed after he tried to intervene in the War on the German side. Venizelos's supporters in the army were also forced to resign just as the forces of the skilled nationalist Turkish politician/general Kemal Attaturk were on the rise. By late 1921 Attaturk had defeated the Greek army, taken back Asia Minor and massacred the Greek and Armenian citizens of Smyrna in retaliation. Under the peace agreement Greece was allowed to keep Thrace and the suriving Greeks in Turkey were given safe passage to Greece while the Turks of Greece were allowed to return to Turkey, after many were killed in riots in retaliation for Smyrna. (this influx of refugees caused high rises in poverty, crime and unemployment in both nations). So nowadays few Greeks are left in Turkey and vice versa. I'd put the number at around 2%, if that, in each country. More when I return.



    Heraclius you are just being a silly Greek...-Galestrum

    The early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  24. #24
    Member Member Heraclius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Greece (where my heart is)
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    In response to question #2 (i'll try to be a little less longwinded here)

    Yes, modern Greeks do view themselves as the direct "heirs of the Byzantines" and revere them with love and admiration. Greece is strongly proud of its heritage and fully believes the Byzantine Empire to be a part of this. After all we did speak the same language, practice the same reliogion, share a similar culture etc even if they did view themselves as Romans.
    However, much as I love and admire the Byzantine Empire, this has caused quite a lot of trouble by many fiercely nationalist Greeks (almost all of us) dreaming of restoring the Byzantine Empire. This led to disaster in the '20's with the Great Idea.

    In response to question #3: No, most Greeks, in fact probably all Greeks, would not call the Byzantines Romans at all. They prove this, sometimes, with a little old fable of two men talking. I'll call them Yiannis and Dimitri for convenience.
    Dimitri: If you call a sheep's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?
    Yiannis replies: Five.
    to which Dimitri responds: No, calling a tail a leg does not make it so.
    Anyway the point of the story is that no matter what they called themselves, from a certain point in time, as I mentioned before the Byzantines spoke Greek, practiced Greek Orthodoxy etc and so ipso facto are Greek. I tend to agree with this. Modern Greeks have no ties with Rome, expect shared animosity, and their feeling towards Catholiscm and the west can be summed up in another old phrase. "Better the Sultan's turban than the Cardinal's hat." And let me tell you Greeks have no great love for the Sultan's hat. More when I return.



    Heraclius you are just being a silly Greek...-Galestrum

    The early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  25. #25
    Member Member Heraclius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Greece (where my heart is)
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    in response to question #4: Modern Macedonia is different from the ancient Macedonia of Alexander the Great. The ancient Macedonians lived in what is now Greece and, although not Greek, mostly spoke Greek and embraced Hellenistic culture completely. Over the years they mixed with Slavs, some moved north and they now speak or reverted to speaking, I'm not sure which one, Macedonian, and no nowadays they do not consider themselves Greek.
    In one of Greece's truly terrible acts, besides the massacre of the Turks, the government forced the Macedonian-speaking people of the Greek province of Macedonia, where Alexander lived, to attend Greek language schools and so completely assimilated the Macedonians into Greece. I'm not sure if there was any murder involved but the official government position for many years was that there never were any Macedonians in Greece, only Greeks. In fact the Greek government refused to recognize Macedonia as a country because they claimed Macedonia is a Greek name. So Macedonia has been forced to call itself FYROME (the former Republic of Macedonia) because many major nations decide to side with Greece Why I can't tell you.

    In response to question #5: ahhhhh, the Turks yet another neighbor that we are fighting with, not literally though but we have in the past . Greece has been Turkey's enemy since the days of the Seljuk's first migration into Asia Minor. We have fought over things as major as the future of Turkey as a nation in the 20's, and Cyprus in the 70's and recently things as minor as hunks of rock (literally) in the Aegean Sea. Things were looking up after massive earthquakes hit both countries and a sense of sorely needed companionship and comradery was reached. However after the negotiations for the re-unification of Cyprus as a fully independent nations bogged down, so did relations between the two countries. Incidents at a recent soccer game between Galatasaray and Panathinaikos have not helped. Still I sincerely hope that our nations can settle our common differences and become friends. More when I return.



    Heraclius you are just being a silly Greek...-Galestrum

    The early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  26. #26
    Member Member Elwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Now you've done it, Galestrum... we're never getting back to the original topic of this thread now

    Cheers.
    -- Elwe --
    I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War

  27. #27
    Member Member Heraclius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Greece (where my heart is)
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    In response to your last comment, Galestrum: I believe the Alexius Comnenus story is quite common. My yia-yia (grandmother for you English speakers) used to tell me we were descended from the Comnenoi and I've heard other people say this as well. I wouldn't take this claim too seriously, except of course from me: Heir to the throne of Byzantium. In reality my history is quite different I believe. My grandmother's family were Constantinopilitan merchants who moved to the Greek city of Thessoloniki but we're not quite sure when. My grandfather's family are technically Spanish My name is actually Spanish and not Greek Anyway they were Jews who were forced to leave Spain in 1492 because of the inquisition. They ended up as merchants in Thessoliniki too. i just felt like revealing a little bit of my family history.
    Heraclius you are just being a silly Greek...-Galestrum

    The early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  28. #28
    Member Member Heraclius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Greece (where my heart is)
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Elwe @ Mar. 04 2003,21:40)]Now you've done it, Galestrum... we're never getting back to the original topic of this thread now

    Cheers.
    sorry guys. Once you get me onto the subject of history its hard to stop. I'll try though
    Heraclius you are just being a silly Greek...-Galestrum

    The early bird may get the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese.

  29. #29
    Member Member Elwe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    285

    Default

    That's ok, mate. It was a perception, not a complaint

    Cheers.
    -- Elwe --
    I wish for a multiplayer campaign in Rome: Total War

  30. #30
    Coffee farmer extraordinaire Member spmetla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    2,687

    Default

    Erasing the past...
    Last edited by spmetla; 04-26-2008 at 03:17.

    "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?"
    -Abraham Lincoln

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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