Macedon : Total War

[Al Khalifah]

Here's the area you seem to want to cover (though I'd extend it slightly westwards to give you Rome as well).



The factions list could be as I said before, though the Nubians, Rus, Scythians and Sarmatians could also be added to that list to stop Persia being TOO much of a superpower in the East.

Hope you can make some definate decisions soon.

[themonkey]

Thanks Al Kalifah ,what you said is uuseful
but do you have any concept art of these factions?



Actually Al kalifah you're map is perfect and need not be extended

[Al Khalifah]

Because of the nature of this mod, quite a lot of the 'concept' art is already in the game. The advantage of this mod over the more Totally Converted mods is that it will be possible to build a reasonable looking working model of quite a few of the factions while only having to slightly scratch the surface of possible modification. A lot of the later units are already in the game (as early units).
This will allow the game mechanics to take priority at first with a vast host of other units to be added later for non-covered factions.

Some ideas though. Macedon should use this symbol:

The Argead Star, rather than the Greek letter in the vanilla game for two reasons. 1) Its far more accurate and better and they are the title faction 2) If you choose to include the Spartans then they should use the Lamba symbol and the two would look too similar.

Athenians:

[CrusaderMan]

You could use the oracle of Delphi as a senate.

[themonkey]

A new member on the team - spartan has done this camp map:

This is only an early version

[Al Khalifah]

Nice Map

[Patricius]

Keeping the Senate with Macedon is something that should be considered. According to F.W. Walbank (The Hellenistic World pp 79-85) there was a limited element of popular right through assemblies of leading men. Another aspect was that the Macedonians as a sort of commonwealth and the sovereign were treated as distinct. The army acted as a court in certain instances. Unlike other later Hellenistic monarchies and Persia there was a national monarchy with checks on its power through its nobility and cities. Now there was not a regular assembly like with Athens, but a distinction between king and kingdom such that some sort of assembly might work in the game for Macedonia.

Alternatively, and far better, in my opinion given the hardcoded characteristics of the Senate, an Athenian faction could give the missions to a faction wishing to lead the Greeks. Outlawing could be taken as a rebellion of the Greeks against its putative overlord.

This would work particularly well if the start date postdates Alexander and is place in the Hellenistic age. The Seleucids, the Ptolemies and the Antigonids or Macedon all fought over leadership of Greece. If one of factions wished to lead the Greeks, they would have to impress the leading city of the Greeks, Athens. It is just a basic idea, but it seems relatively simple and robust. The hardcoded blocked against rebellion and genuine warfare by the Senate would cause great problems if a larger faction acts as the Senate.

[Macedon_King]

Its important to separate Macedon with any greek states.

The most important being that Greeks never considered Macedonians as Greeks
and the second that the greeks sided with rome to remove the macedonian yoke.

[Rosacrux redux]

I think this would make for a great mod - it has potential - but there are several problems. There seems to be a lack of targeting. You seem to aim for a "macedonian" mod, but If you start a bit before or around the Persian wars, the Macedonian Greeks won't survive the first decade, as they were only a minor player of the Greek world for the whole 5th century BC. During this timeframe, the two great players are Athens (Athenian confederation, with all Aegean Islands, most Ionian cities and many others) and Sparta (Peloponesean league). Both Greek powers outmatched even the Persian mega-empire during this timeframe and only their mutual destruction during the Peloponesian war has given the chance to secondary Greek powers (like Macedonia in the Balkans and Syracusae in the West) to rise and become the strongest Greek states. This process fulfilled it's potential with Philipos and Alexandros and the creation of the huge hellenistic world.

You cannot - with the current game mechanics - portray such a vast geopolitical switch. You could if you were modding a Paradox game (yes, I am a great fan of all of them, although after 6 months of intensive Victoria playing, I am solely playing RTW now, due to lack of enough free time) but not RTW.

So, if you want a historical Macedonian Mod, you have to start later (around the end of the Peloponesian war, maybe, something like 410 BC), and allow the Macedonian to become gradually a superpower and challenge their Greek kinsmen to the south.

Otherwise, you can opt for an even later start (372 or such) to have three Greek confederations (centered around Theba, Sparta and Athens) a fourth centered around Syracusae (holder of 3/4 of Sicily and half of southern Italy, at around 380 BC) and the two Greek kingdoms of the North (Macedonia and Epirus) with the first becoming very strong by that time.

A third option would be to start a few years later, when Philipos rose to power in Macedonia. You could then have the Macedonians being extremely strong from the start, while the weakened Persian empire wouldn't pose a threat for the determined player (in the 5th century Persia was still THE superpower, despite having lost the wars against the Greeks - the Greeks controlled only a 5% of former Persian territory, namely the Asia Minor coast which was inhabited by Greeks anyway, and parts of Karia and Lykia inland, with vast hellenized populations).

Anyways, I know it's a tough decision and I know it's gonna be a great mod if you get it going. I can offer some historical advice, if you need one, but very little beside that (I have seized aiding with the Hellenic TW because of lack of free time).

Good luck!

[themonkey]

Yeh i spotted that problem while reading through Macedon's History last night and say around 5TH Century BC Macedon was all but swallowed into a Greek State so i will probably have to change the starting date
Kalifah ,i had that symbol thing sorted out before but thanks for the athenean symbol

[Al Khalifah]

The best start date IMHO would be 367. In 367, Perdiccas III had taken the throne after killing his own brother King Ptolemy. Perdicass III's other brother was Philip II father of Alexander the Great (unfortunately he cannot be accurately included from the start in this setup as he was born 3 years after his uncles death).

The Greek city states were weakenned by this point but by no means anaemic. Macedon was by no means dominant at this point, there had been 5 kings and a civil war in the last 20 years, but was emerging.

Persia was still the dominant force in the world at this point, despite many recent setbacks they would soon reclaim the Greek territories in Asia after this date.

Lots of battles to be fought at this point as the old empires declined and the new ones rise.

[Rosacrux redux]

The best start date IMHO would be 367. In 367, Perdiccas III had taken the throne after killing his own brother King Ptolemy. Perdicass III's other brother was Philip II father of Alexander the Great (unfortunately he cannot be accurately included from the start in this setup as he was born 3 years after his uncles death).

The Greek city states were weakenned by this point but by no means anaemic. Macedon was by no means dominant at this point, there had been 5 kings and a civil war in the last 20 years, but was emerging.

Persia was still the dominant force in the world at this point, despite many recent setbacks they would soon reclaim the Greek territories in Asia after this date.

Lots of battles to be fought at this point as the old empires declined and the new ones rise.

This starting date is appropriate. You are partly right about the Persian empire too, since they got themselves seriously weakened after 350 BC, trying to put down the Egyptian revolt that swept the land for three decades (come and go) and ended only just before Alexander made his move into Persia.

Truth is that real Macedonian power rose with Philipos (he reformed the military, seized the gold mines to finance his expeditions, tripled the land of his kingdom, secured the northern borders by defeating the Illyrian tribes, subdued the Thracian tribes and "united" the Greeks under his banner - truly an extraordinary ruler).

The Greek city states in 367 were fairly strong (Thebes) not-so-strong (Sparta) or weak (Athens) and only the confederations that formed around this date, had some potential to actually confront the Macedonian power. The Thessalian Greeks had a confederation of sorts, but they were traditional allies of Macedonia and always sided with them in the struggles for the control of the Greek world. In the times of Philipos they became formally and more or less willingly, a part of the Macedonian kingdom.

[Al Khalifah]

Truth is that real Macedonian power rose with Philipos (he reformed the military, seized the gold mines to finance his expeditions, tripled the land of his kingdom, secured the northern borders by defeating the Illyrian tribes, subdued the Thracian tribes and "united" the Greeks under his banner - truly an extraordinary ruler).

Exactly the reason why I like this start date, because it would let the (Macedonian) player take the head of the Kingdom at the time when it was really beginning to become a dominant force in the world. The Macedonian army was by no means well organised at this point and still contained many barbarian elements that wouldn't be removed until Philips reign. Therefore the challenge for the player would be to fight off the Greek cities allied against him until he/she has developed their military to a point where they can make a real challenge against them as Philip did. The player would also need to (like Philip) secure the gold mines that would start the campaign in Thracian held territory to gain a source of income. From here the player would be in a position to cross the Helespont and challenge the Persian empire. Essentially the player can mold the Argead dynasty in his own graven image.

Macedonia should have some territory but their cities except for the capital should be under-developed.

Players of the Greek factions would be wise to try and destroy the Macedonains before they are able to rise to any real dominance, but there should be enough potential enemies to stop a player from being able to focus enough force on them to totally eradicate the Argeads. The Greek cities should have numerically small, yet strong starting armies. They should also have a limitted amount of territory yet good starting cities.

Persian players should have the same experience as playing the Holy Roman Empire in Medieval - a massive strong Empire but enemies on all sides. Their major cities should be well developed and their armies should be large yet mostly light infantry and archers.

Rosacrux you seem to know your stuff... do you think there should be an indepedant Egyptian faction in this game to represent the rebellious element in the country - the Persians had still not totally subdued the rebellions even by 367. I am unsure because if they are included they are either likely to become too powerful or get annihilated quickly.
Also what about Epirius? Though to leave them out would be unrealistic, chances are they would end up constantly fighting the Macedonians, which just wouldn't have happened - Alexander and Alexander were related and good friends (Alexander The Great's dream of conquering the Rising Sun and Alexander of Epirius conquering the Setting Sun).
Rome???

[Rosacrux redux]

Exactly the reason why I like this start date, because it would let the (Macedonian) player take the head of the Kingdom at the time when it was really beginning to become a dominant force in the world. The Macedonian army was by no means well organised at this point and still contained many barbarian elements that wouldn't be removed until Philips reign. Therefore the challenge for the player would be to fight off the Greek cities allied against him until he/she has developed their military to a point where they can make a real challenge against them as Philip did. The player would also need to (like Philip) secure the gold mines that would start the campaign in Thracian held territory to gain a source of income. From here the player would be in a position to cross the Helespont and challenge the Persian empire. Essentially the player can mold the Argead dynasty in his own graven image.

Macedonia should have some territory but their cities except for the capital should be under-developed.

Players of the Greek factions would be wise to try and destroy the Macedonains before they are able to rise to any real dominance, but there should be enough potential enemies to stop a player from being able to focus enough force on them to totally eradicate the Argeads. The Greek cities should have numerically small, yet strong starting armies. They should also have a limitted amount of territory yet good starting cities.

Persian players should have the same experience as playing the Holy Roman Empire in Medieval - a massive strong Empire but enemies on all sides. Their major cities should be well developed and their armies should be large yet mostly light infantry and archers.

Rosacrux you seem to know your stuff... do you think there should be an indepedant Egyptian faction in this game to represent the rebellious element in the country - the Persians had still not totally subdued the rebellions even by 367. I am unsure because if they are included they are either likely to become too powerful or get annihilated quickly.
Also what about Epirius? Though to leave them out would be unrealistic, chances are they would end up constantly fighting the Macedonians, which just wouldn't have happened - Alexander and Alexander were related and good friends (Alexander The Great's dream of conquering the Rising Sun and Alexander of Epirius conquering the Setting Sun).
Rome???

Starting from the easy part, Rome. The Roman strenght in the West was not really anything beyond that of a quite strong city state (like, say, Spart in the end of the Peloponesian way - they had a network of allies, consolidated power in their lands and slowly making inroads to other lands. The Spartan effort to "liberate" Asia Minor from the Persian was stopped by the Persian gold - they financed their rivals and started the second large civil strife in Greece, the Korinthian war - but Rome didn't have any Persian empire nearby). I think it is easy to portray this in-game.

I do suggest the inclusion of Syracusae. During the whole 3rd century it was the strongest Greek city state, controlling the largest part of Magna Graecia and being a serious contestant for Carthago, before Rome came into the picture.

Including an Egyptian faction shall give a meaning of life to the endless horde of circus units CA has created for the vanilla game, but little beyond. Give Persia one well developed province of Egypt (to portray that they were the nominal rulers of Egypt) and the rest would serve their purpose better as strong (thous not easy to take out) rebels. That is my opinion, of course. The Egyptians rebelled in the second half of the 5th century every decade or so and from 380 on constantly.

Epirus (Kingdom of Molosses would be an appropriate formal name) can be a medium-sized, completely underdeveloped (thous not dangerous for Macedonia or the city states in the first 10-15 years of the game) state, an ally or even a Macedonian protectorate (is it possible to start a country as protectorate of another?).

Of course, we all know that protectorate is broken...