Macedon : Total War

[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...

[Al Khalifah]

At present it doesn't seem possible to set diplomatic arrangements between the factions pre-game. The only exception to this is that by default: The senate faction and three other factions are all allied. Thought needs to be given over which if any in game factions share this special relationship. The mechanic of it is that:
- There is one controlling faction that cannot expand its territory.
- There are three (or fewer) initially co-operating factions that eventually will fight each other if one becomes too dominant but not until then.
Do any factions of this period have this relationship? The Greek confederations possibly.

[themonkey]

In the game when playing i have noticed that certain factions are more likely to ally than others so we may be able to use this to make Macedon and Epirus allies early.