Tarentum too strong?

[Imperator]

HamilcarBarca brings up a good point- after 272 Epirus was practically done for. But in the Spring of 272, which is when the game starts, Epirus was more than ready to take over Macedon- then Greece and become a super-power. Funny how quickly things can change.

I think maybe the team should reconsider Epirus' starting position. First of all, I do believe the forces in Italy are waaay to big. They have a half-stack army with solid troops, which can easily hold off a Roman legion (ie half stack). I am under the impression Taras was actually vulnerable to Roman aggression (which is why they called in Pyrrhus in the first place) so it seems silly to give them an army large enough to easily and consistently beat the Romans. Perhaps moving some of those soldiers over to Pyrrhus' army in Macedonia would be a good idea. Pyrrhus should be able to conquer Macedonia at least SOMETIMES, but they almost never do.

It's kinda backwards really; Epirus loses in Macedon but dominates S. Italy. In 272 the opposite was true: Pyrrhus has screwed up and Italy was all but lost, but he had great prospects in Greece. The Epirote campaign-er should have a relatively easy road to Macedonia (given how weak they were at the time) but he should have to sweat to keep Italy.

[Foot]

Pyrrhus should be able to conquer Macedonia at least SOMETIMES, but they almost never do.

It's kinda backwards really; Epirus loses in Macedon but dominates S. Italy. In 272 the opposite was true: Pyrrhus has screwed up and Italy was all but lost, but he had great prospects in Greece. The Epirote campaign-er should have a relatively easy road to Macedonia (given how weak they were at the time) but he should have to sweat to keep Italy.

We really cannot help it if the Ai decides to move away from a vulnerable target. We've done all we can, but often we find that pyrrhus moves away from Pella rather than to take it.

Foot

[keravnos]

was driven from Sicily by Carthage

Ok, now where did you get that? Mammertines and rivalry between city states, yep, but Qarthadastim driving Pyrros out? Nope. Unless you call losing Eryx to Pyrrhos and trying to make a lasting peace with him, holding on to their cities at Sicily "a dastardly ploy to keep him occupied"

There are many reasons to either pick Epeiros or not, and I agree that it faded to obscurity pretty much after the start of the game, but NOT haveing them?

Even your namesake, called Pyrrhos a better general than himself, with Alexander being first. It seems he appreciated Pyrrhos' and his kingdom more than present day people do. Had he been victorious in Sparta at 272 BC, being a ruler of both Sparta and Macedon, what do you think Antigonos Gonatas would, or could do?

Oh, and for the record, I am an Epirotes, so I am not the most subjective person. Still, I believe my points to be valid.

[The Errant]

Playing with the money script I noticed several things about Taras. It's garrison is decent. Good mix of decent factional troops. The problem rises out of three things. Money, mercs and RTW AI.

- Money means the Epirotes can repenish their losses easily.

-The province is also crawling with mercs, which means that the governor of Taras can easily recruit more troops to defend his city. Some of them are of a far better quality than the ones he can train locally.

- RTW AI. You can stick an army right next to a weak city, and for no reason at all it will walk off into the vilderness.
AI Pyrrhos has a nasty habit of disappearing up north or turtling in Ambrakia with his stack. Neither which helps much.

The AI is not stupid. Just stubborn and persistent. When playing the Epirotes myself I noticed that after defeating enough Roman armies consisting of mostly Rorarii, Accensii and Leves. They finally started showing up with stacks made up of Principes, Triari, Samnitici Milites and Perdites Extraordinari.
Both Phalangitai Deuteroi and Hoplitai Haploi are good troops, but not quite on par with the later Roman stacks.

The problem is that the RTW AI can't be as agressive towards another AI faction that it is against the human player. If it was. Taras would be sure to fall. Maybe not in 272 B.C but within the first decade of the game for sure.

I've noticed that an early Epirote defeat in Taras sets the stage for their Greek expansion. They can often become the dominant power in Hellas, Thrace and Illyria.

On the other hand a prolonged conflict in southern Italy, often has them become a protectorate of their far more agressive neighbor. The Koinon.

As for history. Pyrrhos was one of the great generals of the age. He simply lacked self restraint and focus. Had he gone trough with his conquests as planned, Epeiros would propably have dominated the entire Greek peninsula within a decade.
And with the resources of Hellas at his full disposal, going up against Rome or Carthage for control of Sicily, might not have felt like such a bad idea after all.
At the beginning of the game Epeiros is a rising power. Historically it is true, that the kingdoms fortunes rose and fell on the whims of a single man. But had that man succeeded, there is no telling what sort of mark they would have left on history.
Pyrrhos was as much a military and political genious as Julius Caesar. They where both opportunists. The only difference is, the other gambled and lost. The other gambled and won an empire. Along with everlasting fame.
Might just as easily have been the other way around.

Nothing justifies removing Epeiros as a faction. Period.

[Pharnakes]

I entirley agree with the above. Thank you Errant.