Moral peep?

[Zarax]

What you say is extremely rational.
My point though was not about everlasting balance but rather about the fact that it is a bit overpowered.
I am one of the worst levy spammers that you can find, and my guilt tactic is the abusing of golden chevron fodder for extreme turtling, however historically a veteran of many battles would often have gained enough through pay and loot to buy himself some extra/better pieces of equipment, thus becoming a different unit in game terms.

[paleologos]

What you say is extremely rational.
My point though was not about everlasting balance but rather about the fact that it is a bit overpowered.
I am one of the worst levy spammers that you can find, and my guilt tactic is the abusing of golden chevron fodder for extreme turtling, however historically a veteran of many battles would often have gained enough through pay and loot to buy himself some extra/better pieces of equipment, thus becoming a different unit in game terms.

Historically speaking the game is staged at a time when the concept of absolute unit uniformity was unknown. The in-game realism in that department is inherently (and for the time RTW was first published) unavoidably handicapped by the fact that every unit of, say classical hoplites is identical to the previous not to mention every hoplite in the unit starts out identical to the soldiers left, right, front and rear of him. Beyond clone trooper uniformity, what comes to mind is six sigma quality control. It doesn't bother me though. I consider far more detrimental to realism things such as a fleet of one naval unit having a transport capacity of twenty units while a fleet of twenty naval units also having a transport capacity of twenty units, or that arrows cost nothing (they were actually rather expensive), or that attacked cities rarely or never spawn a total citizen's defence, or that a besieged settlement will hold for a number of turns regardless of expenses made on provisions, or that two super spies can open all the gates at high noon and the besieged will not barricade the openings (would it not be much more realistic and challenging and fun if only one gate could be opened, only at night and only stay open for a short period of time, requiring for such an operation a night fighter of a general?), or that the capital of a wealthy nation can only construct one facility at a time and so on and so forth. However I believe that the game is as good as they can get. My objection about EB is that the Greeks are made to start the Chremonidian war with their economy being pretty much as it is today.

[vartan]

My objection about EB is that the Greeks are made to start the Chremonidian war with their economy being pretty much as it is today.

I must agree with all you said. Unfortunately the engine is a creation of the past. The only hope is to look to the future for an engine that takes into account all that you mention. As for the war, were the Greeks any better off than they are now? Is there something astray in the game?

[paleologos]

Is there something astray in the game?

What I meant is that when the economy is like that, people don't think about going to war. Historicaly nations go to war when they realise that the balance of power is changing to their disadvantage and that war later will be much more difficult to cope with than war now, which -in my opinion- is not the case with the Koinon Hellenon in the game. Historicaly the Athenians and Rhodians of the time, although not as rich with trade as before, could afford a fleet and a land military with Ptolemaic financial assistance while also supporting the Spartan military. What is astray in the game is the absence of that Ptolemaic assistance and the oversized military of the Greeks compared to what they could afford by themselves (in the game that is). Every strategy guide about Koinon Hellenon starts with disbanding the fleet, that in a tactical environment of an archipelago(!!!) and hiring all the mercenaries they can with good morning and hello -as if the mercenaries would stick around unpaid for any second- but there seems to be no alternative. They have no chance of catching a breath unless they capture the gold mines of Pella. Vartan, how have you played Koinon Hellenon?

My objection about EB is that the Greeks are made to start the Chremonidian war with their economy being pretty much as it is today.

Today the Greek tax payers have to pay more public servants than they can afford, they 've been paying them with borrowed money for two years or more and the last thing the Greeks want now is to hear about another arms race. So I don't see how Chremonides could have persuaded the Athenean Congress for war if they had been in such a predicament.

[vartan]

That's nice. Why don't they take loans? Pay back with interest. Haha. Amusing but I await a thoughtful answer to these questions. This is becoming intriguing.

[Zarax]

Greece is not my area so my answer will be limited.

The chremonidean league economy was historically not exactly flourishing either for a few reasons:

- Alexander and the Diadochii favoured mass emigration, depopulating many cities

- The allegiances near the provinces were very fragmented, meaning that both camps had "enclaves" alligned with the opposite one within their territory. While they were not military significant they were detrimental for trade.

- The whole area was subject to intermittent conflicts every few years, meaning impoverished farmland.

- Greek were increasingly reliant on mercenaries, both as fighters and source of income during peace years. Sparta especially (Xanthippus being the best example) was pretty heavy on that.

- Last but not least, Ptolemaic support was often effectively distrupted by the macedonians, not to mention that the ptolemies had their own fronts (Cyrene, Seleucids) to deal with as well.

[paleologos]

Greece is not my area so my answer will be limited.

The chremonidean league economy was historically not exactly flourishing either for a few reasons:

- Alexander and the Diadochii favoured mass emigration, depopulating many cities

- The allegiances near the provinces were very fragmented, meaning that both camps had "enclaves" alligned with the opposite one within their territory. While they were not military significant they were detrimental for trade.

- The whole area was subject to intermittent conflicts every few years, meaning impoverished farmland.

- Greek were increasingly reliant on mercenaries, both as fighters and source of income during peace years. Sparta especially (Xanthippus being the best example) was pretty heavy on that.

- Last but not least, Ptolemaic support was often effectively distrupted by the macedonians, not to mention that the ptolemies had their own fronts (Cyrene, Seleucids) to deal with as well.

That is a good answer, still does not explain the willingness of the Athenians to go to war when their economy was in such shape, unless they were enormously overconfident.

[paleologos]

That's nice. Why don't they take loans? Pay back with interest. Haha. Amusing but I await a thoughtful answer to these questions. This is becoming intriguing.

Greece has recently become the recipient of a behemoth of a loan provided by the IMF and EU with an interest rate much lower that what the free financial markets would offer, yet significantly higher than what is normal. Brutal austerity measures have been required as an insurance clause so that the Greeks will be able to repay. The populace are not happy. For too long the combination of Values, Assumptions, Beliefs and Expectations of the Greeks have made them feel that the purpose of the state was not to organise society but to take care of poor little me, poor little you, poor little everyone. The political leadership of the country has yet to tell the people in no uncertain terms that governments and the general public sector in any country do not produce wealth but rather consume it only. Like a huge standing army, the oversized government of Greece has to be provided for no matter what the outcome of it's function. And the Greek constitution, which is the supreme law of the state, explicitly prohibits the executive branch of the government to layoff public servants so as to prevent electortal "hostage taking". The Greek version of the Trivial Pursuit game contains the question what is the name of the plazza in front of the Ministry of Labor in Athens. The answer is "Plateia Klafthmonos", translation Plazza of Crying, because before the constitution was altered in 1957 IIRC to protect public servants and democracy for all that matters, every time there was a change in government the new ministers would layoff the emploees hired by the previous government and hire in their stead their own electoral clientele. The dismissed ones would gather in front of the Ministry of Labor and cry for days, hence the name of the plazza. That story is no bullshit. I don't see how things can be fixed swiftly.