Koinon Hellenon?

[Son of Perun]

I've got a few questions about this faction:

1.Is this faction historically correct? I don't know anything about the alliance of Athens and Sparta in 272 (I'm not a historian). The Chremodian Alliance was formed around 268/9. Was there some kind of alliance before the Cheromidene's decree?

Imo the purpose of Chremodian Alliance was merely to weaker the makedonian influence in Greece and not to form some kind of Greek empire. I think the alliance would have broken up if it had defeated Makedonia.

2.Wouldn't be better to base this faction on one city (Athens for example) with the other (Sparta, Rhodes) as its allies?

3.Is the name "Koinon Hellenon" really suitable? Afaik, the KH was an alliance of some poleis formed in 224 under Makedonian hegemony.

4.If Rhodes is part of this alliance, why Crete isn't? Crete was ally of Sparta during the Chremonidean Wars.

[Bootsiuv]

The answer to 1 is no, there wasn't a league before Chremonides'.

You are quite right that they weren't in a position to create a greek empire, but engine limitations being what they are....there is no better way to represent the league.

2. I assume you mean making Sparte and Rhodes eleutheroi allies. I think it would be interesting, but that might weaken them beyond playability.

3. I'm not sure...I always figured it meant greek league, or something like that.

4. I don't know...gameplay reasons?

[Tellos Athenaios]

1) There was de facto already an alliance; it took only sometime to formalize it through the bill. IIRC.
2) No because that'd mean that the other two were to be Eleutheroi: meaning that you cannot represent any form of diplomatic ties between those two regions alone and the other third one.
3) A koinon is a common cause. Or a settlement. Anything you might have in common.
4) Easy: Crete as you speak of it was not one political entity. Rhodos, Sparte and Athens had their influences and alliances with some Cretan poleis; but so had the Makedonians. And in fact, Cretan pirates joined with Antigonos in the war against the KH.

[Son of Perun]

1) There was de facto already an alliance; it took only sometime to formalize it through the bill. IIRC.

If the war broke out in 269, why in EB KH starts with war against Makedonia?

2) No because that'd mean that the other two were to be Eleutheroi: meaning that you cannot represent any form of diplomatic ties between those two regions alone and the other third one.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough here. I wanted them to have num.4 goverment.

4) Easy: Crete as you speak of it was not one political entity. Rhodos, Sparte and Athens had their influences and alliances with some Cretan poleis; but so had the Makedonians. And in fact, Cretan pirates joined with Antigonos in the war against the KH.

So Crete is not part of KH because of PIRATES?

[Bootsiuv]

1. To ensure the player fights Makedonia, which is the entire reason the KH exists in the first place....turning Makedonia into an ally would be even more a-historical than a KH empire.

[Tellos Athenaios]

1) I'll leave that to the real historians on the team... if you don't mind.
2) That would render them vassals of the third city. And that never was quite the case. Type IV isn't about equal allies; it's about allies who are allies because otherwise they'd be eradicated by the faction. Protectorates, if you will.
4) You have either not read my post; or you have misunderstood me.
Allow me: "Rhodos, Sparte and Athens had their influences and alliances with some Cretan poleis; but so had the Makedonians."

Just like the Karia region, that is the reason why we don't give the region to a particular faction. If a foreign power invaded Crete it would've been a Cretan army that had to deal with it.

My sentence about pirates is only an illustration of forementioned reason. Oh and for the record: there is about as much reason to give Crete to the Makedonians, as there is to give it to the KH.

(Oh and for the record: if Crete really should be among the KH, why did the Spartans consider it neccessary to send an army and force it into the alliance?)

[Son of Perun]

1. To ensure the player fights Makedonia, which is the entire reason the KH exists in the first place....turning Makedonia into an ally would be even more a-historical than a KH empire.

The war would happen sooner or later, just like in reality.

[Bootsiuv]

The only reason I can think of is gameplay reasons.

Or perhaps the city-states were in active revolt during these times, but not yet at war.

[Son of Perun]

I'm still not sure if KH is the best way how to portray a Greek faction...

4) You have either not read my post; or you have misunderstood me.
Allow me: "Rhodos, Sparte and Athens had their influences and alliances with some Cretan poleis; but so had the Makedonians."

That could be solved by placing both KH and Makedonian troops to present their influence in Crete.

[Vorian]

I think the EB team has solved the problem in the best way possible.

There was not a unified entity of the Greek Cities, just hasty alliances against a common enemy that crumbled after the threat was gone. However no historical game can leave the Greek Cities out of the game
If anyone can think of a better solution he/she should say so, cause I can't think of another way. (No, having only Sparta can't be an option the cities had hardly any power by themselves at this time period, which is the reason the Achaean and the Aitolean league were created

[Son of Perun]

Sparta was still powerful enough, its influence in Crete and Peloponessos was significant. I think Sparta alone could be a faction, with Athens as eleutheroi. It would be hard for a player to fight against Makedonians with just one city, but it wouldn't be harder than playing for Pontus or Armenia.

[NeoSpartan]

Sparta was still powerful enough, its influence in Crete and Peloponessos was significant. I think Sparta alone could be a faction, with Athens as eleutheroi. It would be hard for a player to fight against Makedonians with just one city, but it wouldn't be harder than playing for Pontus or Armenia.

if u want this to happen... present historical information.

[Geoffrey S]

It's the only realistic way to shoehorn in a Greek faction of somekind without it becoming completely unrealistic. I disagree with its inclusion, but if strict faction portrayal was needed I doubt any of the single tribe factions could be included.

What I'd like to see to somewhat alleviate the issue is something similar to what was recently previewed for the Hayasdan, namely a long process of political integration before expansion is possible.

[MiniMe]

I'm still not sure if KH is the best way how to portray a Greek faction...

Best way or not that's the way it is now. There's no point in starting another tread on how and why EB_team've made their decisions, since they've made them already, they back them with facts, logic and common sense, and they have many other questions to solve. What's done is done, looks like EB_team focus for now is on adding new features, not changing existing ones.

BTW, there were discussions on representation of greek city states already ;-)

AND: If you disagree with EB_team view about it, it's very easy to add or subtract provinces from one faction to another by editing descr_strat.txt ;-)

[Son of Perun]

What I'd like to see to somewhat alleviate the issue is something similar to what was recently previewed for the Hayasdan, namely a long process of political integration before expansion is possible.

Yeah, that would be a good solution. From an alliance to a federation.

BTW, there were discussions on representation of greek city states already ;-)

Were they? Damn, someone should've shut me up at the very beginning...

[abou]

I'm going to try and answer your questions that have not been answered as extensively as they could have been. Hopefully you will find my answers satisfactory, SoP.

1.Is this faction historically correct? I don't know anything about the alliance of Athens and Sparta in 272 (I'm not a historian). The Chremodian Alliance was formed around 268/9. Was there some kind of alliance before the Cheromidene's decree?

Well, yes and no. At this point the Greek city-states had been fighting against the successors in an attempt to maintain their freedom. As the cynic I am, I see this more as the freedom to continue having pissing matches with each other, but whatever. Anyway, the Greek cities had been working together loosely for a while now. The Chremodian alliance was really just a formality, and probably as a way to guarantee continued assistance from the Ptolemies.

Besides, if we don't have the Koinon Hellenon everyone will complain about how we don't have a Greek cities faction

Imo the purpose of Chremodian Alliance was merely to weaker the makedonian influence in Greece and not to form some kind of Greek empire. I think the alliance would have broken up if it had defeated Makedonia.

True, but considering what happened in the run-up to the Peloponnesian war I imagine that spreading Greek democracy to the colonies (i.e. governments in Greek settlements that were favorable to the Koinon) would be too tempting to pass up.

Sparta was still powerful enough, its influence in Crete and Peloponessos was significant. I think Sparta alone could be a faction, with Athens as eleutheroi. It would be hard for a player to fight against Makedonians with just one city, but it wouldn't be harder than playing for Pontus or Armenia.

Yeah, definitely not. In our time period Sparta was continually relegated to playing the role of the annoying troublemaker who continually managed to be beaten in the field. Plus, their soldier population was in major decline and any attempts to reform their government and society was met with very conservative resistance. There just isn't any way that Sparta would have done much on its own. In fact, we know because after the Chremodian war they didn't.

[Son of Perun]

Very satisfactory, abou. Thanks.

[pseudocaesar]

Why not the Aetolian or Achaean Leagues? They were both semi powerful entitys at the time were they not?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Aitolian League would hold Thermon. Achaean League would not hold any cities on our map. Though a little early, the arrangement we have now is really the only viable way of having anything more than one city. It's a historically accurate alliance, we just precede the official nature of it by 3 years. The player can keep that arrangement going if they like it or can just play as one single united faction.

[Vorian]

Since EB represents accurately history up to 272 bC it's up to the player to do what he wants.

Who knows what would happen if a genius general with enough charisma to unite the Greek Cities in a federation appeared. When you play as KH YOU are that general

[Son of Perun]

Since EB represents accurately history up to 272 bC it's up to the player to do what he wants.

EB tries to represent history accurately. That doesn't mean they are always right.

Who knows what would happen if a genius general with enough charisma to unite the Greek Cities in a federation appeared. When you play as KH YOU are that general

I know - NOTHING! The poleis would again start their petty wars. But I understand that there is no better way how to portray this faction.

[Vorian]

EB tries to represent history accurately. That doesn't mean they are always right.

Well in most cases they are. I have yet to see an error in the Hellenic factions about which i know a lot.

I know - NOTHING! The poleis would again start their petty wars. But I understand that there is no better way how to portray this faction.

Well maybe another Alexander managed to give them a common goal and an new philosophy. The idea of independent cities was in decline after all, which allowed the Leagues to be created. Even Sparta was made to join the Achaean League at some point.