KH Disingenuous?

**Teleklos Archelaou** · 10-19-2007, 01:11

Does anyone feel that forming a mighty Sabaean empire is a little disenguous? A Casse one? A Lusotannian one? It's the way the game works. Internal rebellions would be awesome, but the engine just doesn't do it.

**Geoffrey S** · 10-19-2007, 01:51

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the approach used for Hayasdan or something similar is ideal for any faction that needs to form closer ties inside its homeland areas before being able to expand seriously. For example, I'd imagine something like:
1. Conquer Hellas
2. Lengthy political unification process, without which conquered areas must remain government IV (or III?)
3. Make Greece a Type II government area, allowing for proper expansion.

What I'm really looking forward to in EB 2 is the possibility of forts representing minor provincial cities with a traderesource attached through scripting. This could very well make the single starting provinces of a number of factions focused on one particular area within the region filled with rebel forts from the start, which need conquering before it's possible to expand out of the initial province. I really hope that using forts for minor cities thing works out, because there are a number of interesting possibilities.

**Landwalker** · 10-19-2007, 02:35

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the approach used for Hayasdan or something similar is ideal for any faction that needs to form closer ties inside its homeland areas before being able to expand seriously. For example, I'd imagine something like:
1. Conquer Hellas
2. Lengthy political unification process, without which conquered areas must remain government IV (or III?)
3. Make Greece a Type II government area, allowing for proper expansion.

Indeed, and barring a reform for the Koinon Hellon c/o the EB team, just make up your own "restrictions". Turn everything into either Type IV or III governments, and after a certain period of time has passed (maybe until the client ruler dies, for example), replace it with Type II or I. For an interesting challenge, if you want to adhere especially rigidly to the notion of allied but separate city-states, only ever use Type IV (with maybe a bit of Type III) governments. Then each "city-state" will have to draw almost exclusively on its own resources when it comes to defending itself or contributing to the "common" campaign.

Cheers.

**PershsNhpios** · 10-19-2007, 04:59

I thought the adjective "Disingenuous" was very disingenuous.. Or, in fact you could say it was very ingenious, if unorthodox.

**johnhughthom** · 10-19-2007, 08:13

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the approach used for Hayasdan or something similar is ideal for any faction that needs to form closer ties inside its homeland areas before being able to expand seriously. For example, I'd imagine something like:
1. Conquer Hellas
2. Lengthy political unification process, without which conquered areas must remain government IV (or III?)
3. Make Greece a Type II government area, allowing for proper expansion.

What I'm really looking forward to in EB 2 is the possibility of forts representing minor provincial cities with a traderesource attached through scripting. This could very well make the single starting provinces of a number of factions focused on one particular area within the region filled with rebel forts from the start, which need conquering before it's possible to expand out of the initial province. I really hope that using forts for minor cities thing works out, because there are a number of interesting possibilities.

What is the approach used for Hayasdan? I had a quick look at all the factions before starting my Saba campaign and was surprised to see Hayasdan started with a level 3 govt in it's only province, I assume there's a reason for this?

**bovi** · 10-19-2007, 13:36

John, check out the Hayasdan preview.

**Lysander13** · 10-19-2007, 17:42

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the approach used for Hayasdan or something similar is ideal for any faction that needs to form closer ties inside its homeland areas before being able to expand seriously. For example, I'd imagine something like:
1. Conquer Hellas
2. Lengthy political unification process, without which conquered areas must remain government IV (or III?)
3. Make Greece a Type II government area, allowing for proper expansion.

What I'm really looking forward to in EB 2 is the possibility of forts representing minor provincial cities with a traderesource attached through scripting. This could very well make the single starting provinces of a number of factions focused on one particular area within the region filled with rebel forts from the start, which need conquering before it's possible to expand out of the initial province. I really hope that using forts for minor cities thing works out, because there are a number of interesting possibilities.

These are all pretty good ideas it would seem to me....

As for building an Empire with the KH being disingenuous...
Would it be any less disingenuous building an Empire along the Med. with the Maks, the Epeirotes, or Carthage?...I understand historically speaking the "Greek City States" and their flip-flopping alliances never held up for too long...but since there is no way to simulate this... well there you have it and for the BI proponents of using perhaps "rebel factions" to simulate something like this...No thanks...I would rather have different actual factions than rebel ones. I don't suppose any KH fans who feel disingenuous about building an empire with the current KH faction would rather have the faction dissolved and represented as rebel cities would you?

**Bootsiuv** · 10-19-2007, 17:47

Me wants civil war. Would be pretty cool if the generals in our future succession game could fight arguments in the council out on the field.

Alas, it was not meant to be....

**Zaknafien** · 10-19-2007, 18:24

I prefer to see KH expansion as Hellenic influence and indpendent city-states, not one nation.

**Pharnakes** · 10-19-2007, 20:14

Exactly, and you could say the same about carthage (if to a lesser extent) and also many if not all of the barbarian factions. There were only a few nations that were realy nations in the modern meaning of the word.

**Ypoknons** · 10-19-2007, 21:37

Even the late Roman Republic was disingenuous, or at least with its share of civil wars. Even MTW had quite a good system for simulating civil war, but RTW, or even MTWII, doesn't. Very sad, really.

**Puupertti Ruma** · 10-19-2007, 22:00

Originally Posted by Bootsiuv

Me wants civil war. Would be pretty cool if the generals in our future succession game could fight arguments in the council out on the field.

Alas, it was not meant to be....

Why not? Some roleplaying and imaginative use of multiplayer custom battles could quite well suffice. I'dd imagine that would make quite an experience.

**Pharnakes** · 10-19-2007, 22:13

Can't play the same faction in both sides of an mp battle.

I did at one point consider amking an edu that would let all factions recruit all units just for this purpose, but thenb all my atempts to start eb PBeMs have died so I never did it. If you guys wnat to do this then I will knock up an edu that will let you hold "civil wars" in five mins or so if you ask me.