Interactive History III: 'Antiochus' Dilemma'

**King Henry V** · 07-20-2005, 15:23

Hey Kraxis, would I have your permission to do something set during the Middle Ages? It's my historical speciality.

**Marshal Murat** · 07-20-2005, 15:26

Can you tell us where we went wrong???

**Kagemusha** · 07-20-2005, 16:35

This was a great thread Kraxis!

I hope you put another one here ,when you find an intresting subject.

**Flavius Clemens** · 07-20-2005, 22:23

It made for great reading. If only the tactics and strategy in the game could be as sophisticated.

**Kraxis** · 07-20-2005, 23:44

Henry, be my guest. I don't pretend to hold any right to this sort of storytelling (well it isn't really much more than that).
Of course I believe that it would be best if you didn't use Interactive History as the title as it might cause some confusion, also if you are successful I might pull you down to my level.

Well Murat, to be honest you guys basically made the 'wrong' turn most of the time. For the most part I merely had to adapt (and that was a good challenge), but at some point it was nigh impossible to get out again, and then the road to destruction was almost set.
I don't think it would be productive if I was to mention each time I believed someone chose the wrong turn. Obviously the person had his reasons, and to directly say 'you are wrong, because you just are' is not very productive in my view. Rather the results speak for themselves, and I thought I made small mentions in my chapters when I thought a choice was especially bad. Of course since in my view it persisted perhaps I wasn't direct enough. But hey, the true world doesn't always tell us when we go wrong until long after.

**Kagemusha** · 07-20-2005, 23:49

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Henry, be my guest. I don't pretend to hold any right to this sort of storytelling (well it isn't really much more than that).
Of course I believe that it would be best if you didn't use Interactive History as the title as it might cause some confusion, also if you are successful I might pull you down to my level.

Well Murat, to be honest you guys basically made the 'wrong' turn most of the time. For the most part I merely had to adapt (and that was a good challenge), but at some point it was nigh impossible to get out again, and then the road to destruction was almost set.
I don't think it would be productive if I was to mention each time I believed someone chose the wrong turn. Obviously the person had his reasons, and to directly say 'you are wrong, because you just are' is not very productive in my view. Rather the results speak for themselves, and I thought I made small mentions in my chapters when I thought a choice was especially bad. Of course since in my view it persisted perhaps I wasn't direct enough. But hey, the true world doesn't always tell us when we go wrong until long after.

Im sorry to bother you,but was the second trip to Creece the greatest stategicall error that lead to the defeat?

**Marshal Murat** · 07-21-2005, 00:04

I'd say yes,
The Greeks were against you having abandoned them to the Romans.
The Romans were able to land in Anatolia
You outnumbered the Romans

Antiochus should have attacked south, and with overwhelming numbers he could have beaten the Romans.

Anyway, I had two ideas for some other interactive stories.
Sulla, just as he is about to attack Greece with the Pontus invaders, and Marius stirs up trouble!

Or visa versa, where your Pontus, and you have taken Athens and you can either march to Macedon, or elsewhere.

**Kagemusha** · 07-21-2005, 00:10

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I'd say yes,
The Greeks were against you having abandoned them to the Romans.
The Romans were able to land in Anatolia
You outnumbered the Romans

Antiochus should have attacked south, and with overwhelming numbers he could have beaten the Romans.

So at one point we were both right.

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 07-21-2005, 00:13

You encountered the same problem that the Romans encountered when fighting Hannibal using the 2 consul system. One day one was trying to get into a battle and the next the other was avoiding a battle.

**Kraxis** · 07-21-2005, 00:17

Lets just say that it was one of the worst cases. But not a single one was a cause for the downfall, and almost to the end they could have been reversed, at least partially. The last choice would have lead to two versions of defeat (even acknowledged by Antiochus himself

), one very bad and one where the furture held some promiss.

I know too little about Pontus and Sulla. But I didn't invent the death of Mithridates III, he did die around the time of his death here (a perfect case for me to jump at).

I'm thinking about a campaign of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus in Spain, but it really is limited and we have all those rather complicated republican politics, and Gracchus was a very proper Roman. So in effect it would be quite short before the Senate pulled him home.

Perhaps Ceasar in Gaul. There are enough forks on the road for it to end in disaster, but outside the tribes directly in his path we know very little.

Argh... It is not easy.

**Marshal Murat** · 07-21-2005, 00:29

Ceaser would be nice, however, lots of people are well versed in the history, and it would be very easy to determine the correct choice.

**Kraxis** · 07-21-2005, 00:45

Yes that is a also a problem. But the option is there to change a few things, such as I did with Hannibal's Fate where he had won Zama. But honestly I do not know where to do that and make it strong enough, but not too strong. A Gaul victory at Alesia would be downright disasterous and so on... It was really a balance act done very well by Ceasar himself.

**Steppe Merc** · 07-21-2005, 01:02

Well, it's better to die in a blaze of glory than to make peace with Romans. Ah well.

Sorry, all!

**The Wizard** · 07-21-2005, 01:21

How about having the next Interactive History be about Lucius Lucinius Lucullus? Not just any given point in his illustrious career, but most importantly his dilemma when Pompey was coming to the East after defeating the pirates in the Mediterranean, demanding that Lucullus surrender his position as proconsul of the East, and that after so many great successes. In my opinion this is an excellent scenario with a great many choices.

The problem is of course Lucullus' relationship with his troops. This is the fulcrum of the scenario -- could he have gotten his troops to support him and go on with him, and as such start a civil war, or was it simply impossible and was there no other choice than what happened in history?

~Wiz

**Marshal Murat** · 07-21-2005, 01:24

How about, what if a larger portion of Phyrrus fleet landed at Tarentum?
Hannibal kills the younger Scipio when his father dies?
Philip joins Hannibal?
The maniples are not detached at Cylescophele?
(i've got to go on hehehe)
Caeser isn't assasinated?
Something about Teutenburger Massacre?

Just suggestions from a rambler.

**Geoffrey S** · 07-21-2005, 12:33

Originally Posted by The Wizard

How about having the next Interactive History be about Lucius Lucinius Lucullus?

Nice one. Having read about him recently he does have the interesting dilemma of being an excellent commander who is less liked by his troops than Pompey was. Could be a good one.
Perhaps a what-if with Alcibiades staying with Athens? Or Pompey against Ceasar? Or maybe even Vercingetorix against Ceasar?

**Kraxis** · 07-21-2005, 14:39

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

How about, what if a larger portion of Phyrrus fleet landed at Tarentum?
Hannibal kills the younger Scipio when his father dies?
Philip joins Hannibal?
The maniples are not detached at Cylescophele?
(i've got to go on hehehe)
Caeser isn't assasinated?
Something about Teutenburger Massacre?

Just suggestions from a rambler.

Hmmm... Good to have suggestions.
Pyrrhus had a large enough army, he was simply beaten with losses (though there are indicators that he wasn't beaten at Beneventum bur rather had a draw). Pyrrhus as an Interactive History is problematic. He did the right thing, yet it went wrong. Yes he could have stayed in Italy and not gone to Sicily, but nothing indicates that he wouldn't have suffered more pyrrhis victories where the Romans would have been able to come back soon again. So the choices are limited with him.

Hannibal kills young Publius, that will just result in a campaign like the one I made for the first Interactive History (set at the victory of Cannae).

Philip joining Hannibal could have been interesting, but the Roman fleet was in control and it seems unlikely that he would try to ship over with no fleet and the Roman fleet patroling the sea.

At Cynoscephalae the Roman would have won eventually. While the left flank was under pressure, the result would likely have been like Pydna. THe Romans would get pushed back until the phalanx was broken by the rising and broken terrain. Roman losses would have been much greater and the Macedonian losses quite a lot fewer, but the result would politically be the same.

Being in control of the burgeoning Roman Empire seems to be too 'eas'y, at least militarily. Politically I'm not good enough, but hey this might be a great chance for someone else.

I guess a short Interactive History as Varus could be done, but it is very well known and people wouldn't find it hard to pick the correct choices. But I will remember this one.

When I lay down to sleep I actually remembered an Interactive History I ahd thought about after the second installment. One about Manstein just after his successful counteroffensive in 43. He advocated a quick offensive against Kursk. And this one would really be about using the correct way to persuade others, recruit or ignore people and so on.

**Kraxis** · 07-21-2005, 14:42

Ohh, forgot.

I'm afraid I know too little about LLL, also the situation is a bit constrained. What would he do? Go to war? He didn't have any territories to recruit proper troops from, and he wasn't all that well liked. It seems he would have been in deep trouble if he chose to oppose Pompey militarily. "I have my army, and you have the empire and endless potential for new armies."

**The Wizard** · 07-22-2005, 01:31

What about Sertorius in the civil war? There are a great many possibilities, and Sertorius certainly was a capable general. Not only that, but his struggle was unique to say the least, and, in the beginning, had quite the chance of success.

~Wiz

**pezhetairoi** · 07-27-2005, 06:41

this thread has me hooked...

**AntiochusIII** · 07-27-2005, 10:27

Oh god! No! Look what happened when I was missing! JUST a few months missing! And LOOK what happened! Unbelievable! NOW I'm defeated by WHINY LITTLE Romans (and killed by mutiny)! NO!

Hmm...Kraxis, may I ask you to tell me what will happen if the player (the audience, etc.) choose to attack Egypt instead of Pontus?

**pezhetairoi** · 08-02-2005, 03:29

I say Kraxis, let's have another! I never had a chance to make a choice--beaten by all the others to the draw :( let's have another! This is an interesting exercise in historical conjecture.

**Kraxis** · 08-07-2005, 16:04

I'm back for a notice here...

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Oh god! No! Look what happened when I was missing! JUST a few months missing! And LOOK what happened! Unbelievable! NOW I'm defeated by WHINY LITTLE Romans (and killed by mutiny)! NO!

Hmm...Kraxis, may I ask you to tell me what will happen if the player (the audience, etc.) choose to attack Egypt instead of Pontus?

Egypt... Well, that was the 'wrong' choice for that particular chapter. That would have meant a disasterous invasion into Egypt (sickness and stalemate) while the Romans invaded Asia Minor and thus beat your leaderless army there. Basically you would have the result of Magnesia without the battle itself. But as with the others it would only have been a temporary setback if the 'right' choices were then made after it. Who knows, maybe the west could be taken back? I only made the stuff up as I went.

**Azi Tohak** · 08-07-2005, 17:29

Ah poo! I find this thread after it is all done with! I didn't even know this thing existed

This is neat though Kraxis, thank you for putting it on. Made for some interesting reading this morning.

Azi

**AntiochusIII** · 08-11-2005, 06:15

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I'm back for a notice here...

Egypt... Well, that was the 'wrong' choice for that particular chapter. That would have meant a disasterous invasion into Egypt (sickness and stalemate) while the Romans invaded Asia Minor and thus beat your leaderless army there. Basically you would have the result of Magnesia without the battle itself. But as with the others it would only have been a temporary setback if the 'right' choices were then made after it. Who knows, maybe the west could be taken back? I only made the stuff up as I went.

Thanks for answering.

I expected it so, but, well, being a reckless player of R:TW...

It seems that the "right" choice, though, is easier to recognize in many situations than what it seems if people have time to think thoroughly. At least in this chapter of "interactive history." The right choice for Antiochus all along seems to be going on the line of "be on offensive with confidence when circumstance gives, using his kingdom's massive manpower and wealth to full effect, but never go reckless and got isolated/delayed/occupied/etc for whatever overly ambitious campaigns you are tempted in...such as Egypt, the full-scale invasion of Macedonia, etc." I believe so because he was a strong ruler and while his land is extremely rebellious, a strong ruler who is near can quell down the rebellious thoughts. Also, as long as he stays in near Asia Minor, which is the key to this war, practically, he would be able to respond to all changes. And if he holds it he would always have a comeback chance, which all its wealth and diverse manpower resource and all. Antioch, the capital, was just "over the mountains" from Asia Minor and Greece is, well, just "over the sea."

Or so I presume...

However, I am still wondering his true intentions in this war. What did he want out of it? A complete control over Greece and Macedonia? Just lands in Thrace he "claims?" A crippling success, or even total victory, over Rome? Or just enough to beat Rome back far enough to keep him (and all his ambitious plans I don't really doubt he possessed over Egypt and such) safe and sound?

Hmm...

**Kraxis** · 08-11-2005, 20:46

Nice analysis there, and yes that pretty much says it.

I tried to hide teh 'right' choices every time but still make it visible if you took your time. Of course the trouble is people want to be the first so they don't have the time. If they think it over somebody else will jump at it. That is part of the challenge. Can you analyse the situation in a rush?
Of course there has been a significantly bigger interest here than at the .com initially. There people often had th time to respond, and that is part of the reason for the failed outcome here, or at least that is my theory. For I honestly doubt people here are worse at reading the subtle hints or at strategy for that matter (which has often been indicated by subsequent posts wanted the 'right' choice).

Personally I don't know what his hope was. But given that he jumped at a very weak chance to gain a political advantage in Greece seems to me that he 'merely' wanted to curb further Roman expansion in Greece and Macedonia. I doubt he wanted the land for himself just yet. Of course it might have been that he did this as the first step. You know, "Stop the Roman, check. Secure the rear, check. Take hold of Macedonia, check. Take hold of Greece, check. Sit back and enjoy, check." He just never managed the first point on the list.