Alright, now that I have a good number of people ready to get started, I'll post the first discussion topic. This centers on the BASE faction list for this entire project. Here is the whole concept regarding factions with this mod:
-Initially there will be a Grand Campaign (what is being developed currently), that will be similar to RTRPE, RS2, XGM, XC, EB and other total conversion mods featuring a bigger map, one roman faction etc. However the difference with this mod is that the 'little factions' are not of extreme importance for the grand campaign. Instead 'super factions' will be regarded as more important. Here is why:
This mod is not mod foldered for a reason. Every faction will eventually have it's own modfolder similar to how RS2 does it. So debating over whether Pergamum, Bactria, Epirus, Arverni, or Celt-Iberians should be in or not is of no use. Eventually they will all be playable in their own mod folder. This 'Grand Campaign' is focused on the BIG PICTURE. However it will be very entertaining to play as, you just won't have the 'one region' factions like Galatia or Pergamum to choose to play as.
-With all that being said let's take a look at what the current faction list will look like for the Grand Campaign.
Start Date: 280 BC
End Date: 4 choices; 107 BC, 30 BC, 14 AD, 117 AD (Something that we can discuss as well)
Current Faction List:
1. Rome - Julii
2. Carthage
3. Antigonids
4. Seleucids
5. Ptolemies
6. Parthia
7. Pontus
8. Armenia
The above eight, represent the 'big boys' of the era at that time. There is no reason for any of them to be changed, swapped or merged. Consider them hard coded.
9. Greek Cities (Would Represent: Athens, Achaean League, Massilia, Byzantium, Rhodes)
10. Greek States - Brutii (Would Represent: Sparta, Aetolian League, Pergamum*, Bosporan Kingdom)
*Pergamum could go to the Hellenic Kingdoms in exchange for Syracuse
The above two would shadow each other and loyalty would be enabled for them.
11. Hellenic Kingdoms - Scipii (Would Represent: Epirus [Including Syracuse], Cyrene, Bactria)
The HK would shadow the Antigonids, Seleucids, and Ptolemies making it a little more interesting if there were to be a revolt. Again loyalty would be enabled.
12. Gauls (Representing: Aedui, Cisalpine Gauls, Noricum)
13. Celtic Tribes - Senate (Representing: Celt-Iberians, Arverni, Galatia)
Again Loyalty Enabled
14. Germans
15. Geto-Dacians (From my research they were the same people)
16. Iberians
17. Sarmatians
The Barbarian Factions will be in but as we all know they were composed of many tribes who were almost never united.
18. Numidia (Or Desert Kingdoms/Eastern Kingdoms) [Representing: Massylii, Cappadocia, Atropatene, Arachosia, Nabataea]
19. Illyria (Or Independent Peopled/Barbarian Kingdoms) [Representing: Ardiaei, Odrysian Kingdom, Royal Scyths, Belgae, Massagetae]
These two could or could not be super factions. Numdia/Illyria are on the bubble so to speak. - edit, they will stay as Numidia and Illyria, see post #3 for reasoning
20. Independent Peoples (Representing: Saba, Ethiopia, Mauryans, Luistani, Britons, Ligurians, Other Greek Cities such as Argos)
21. Rebels (Any state and or kingdom or tribe that was not of enough importance to get a super faction, also revolts like Spartacus)
Basically the Free People faction similar to what RS2 has.
Now these unit rosters will be based off AOR so it will greatly limit the room for expansion, but they will war with each other, trade, act in diplomacy and make things interesting.
So there you have it. Before we say 'Hell no' or 'Hell yes' to this proposition, we would need to do testing since it is only a thesis at this point.
Give me your thoughts! :)
How well does the AI deal with superbigfactions is my main question here - Epirus, Cyrene, and Bactria are a long way apart so things like distance from capital unrest would be an instant issue.
Yes, and that's why I am considering the above list to be a thesis. Extensive testing will be needed with this faction set-up. I also would need to speak to Zarax of XC, DBH of XGM and dvk901 of RS/RS2 to see how they handled it with their super factions.
Also I would like to keep Numidia and Illyria as a faction of their own instead of making them super factions. I thought about it a lot and it's just too much. The two greek super factions, a celtic super faction, and an independent peoples faction (which will mirror the rebels but have diplomacy and trade) should suffice. We can always try the other two out for kicks later.
First of all that's an interesting concept. Taking the superfactions from RTR VII and the Swap factions from RS II sounds like a neat solution. If we have Hellenic kingdoms I agree that Pergamon should belong to them instead of Syracuse- the latter can be considered both a Hellenic kingdom and a Greek city-state, while Pergamon would be more clearly a Hellenistic kingdom. But I also have to agree that Bactria would be a big problem (Epiros, Kyrene and Pergamon together might work but Bactria is really too far away).
Mayve I'm just stupid or this is modding speech, but what do you mean with loyalty enabled?
As far as Bactria is concerned, it will require testing.
Loyalty is a BI feature used with the WRE and ERE as well as the Goths. All of your family members have loyalty similar to management, command, and influence. If your family member or General has low loyalty and your city revolts, it is very likely that he and his army will join the revolt. So by having a Hellenic Kingdoms faction, they can shadow the Diadochi Factions.
So for example, the Seleucids would start off by owning Bactria in 280 but if the General inside the city has low loyalty and the city revolts, the Kingdom of Bactria would be present! You can do the same for Egypt and Macedon.
For Gaul we would have the Celtic Tribes shadow them.
For the Greek Cities and Greek States, they could shadow each other.
Ahh yes that's a good idea. Just make sure there's a random (while logical) element in it. In RS II Commagene would always rebel from the Seleucids to join Armenia on turn 2 or 3, which made war inevitable, and when I played Parthia Palmyra joined my on turn 4 :P The first became a bit annoying, the second didn't make sense.
But probably what I'm saying here in two sentences needs extensive programming ;D
Yes, lots of testing will be needed. This is why I have recruited so many BETA testers.
Honestly, I still think Baktria should be added to the main faction list, I'm thinking for gameplay reasons. I mean in my Seleucid campaign I'm able to send a stack from Antioch and steamroll Parthia in the east and Pontus and Armenia usually go at each other which frees me up to attack the Ptolemy's and claim Anatolia. I think we just needed an extra added threat to the east.
I think we can do that with the Hellenic Kingdoms by making the Seleucid Empire weak and vulnerable in the east. We can almost force Bactria to emerge with the HK. We can also try and make Parthia more aggressive and stronger, maybe even make them a horde faction. Plus with the Independent Peoples faction we can simulate the Mauryans presence. The Sarmatians also have a settlement up there. Instead of making a new faction I think we should make it a little hectic for the Seleucids with the existing factions.
Sounds like a plan :)
Just be careful though since most mods that do that end up invoking the Ptolemy issue where the Seleucids AI is so focused on the east that Egypt steamrolls them from the west with little opposition and causes the Seleucids to collapse and be taken apart extremely quick.
A Example: Take for instance my EB game as the Casse I'm currently playing, it's 235 B.C. and I turn FoW off and find the Selucids only own a small sliver of Anatolia and a few territories in the middle of Persia. The east was completely taken over by Saka-Raka, Parthia, Bactria, and the Middle East and Most of Anatolia is owned by Egypt with north Anatolia being owned by Pontus.
It definitely will be hard to keep the Seleucids afloat. It will just require in-depth testing to finally figure it out. I believe all mods struggle with the Seleucids
Just some thoughts.
1) From what I've seen playing some older variations of Roma Surrectum, the AI is very reluctant to attack superfactions, because their overall strength is so enormous. The AI doesn't think it can win, even when the superfaction's main forces are on the othe side of the map.
2) Lawfulness for superfactions is no problem at all. Since they're unplayable (right?), you can just give them as much +law on their buildings as you want.
3) You seem to have an awful lot of factions there. I thought the maximum was 20+slaves? Does your list include the vanilla slave faction, or do you only want "real" factions?
4) What's with that "Independent Peoples" faction? Since a faction needs to belong to a culture, wouldn't you end up with barbarian settlements in Arabia, or with eastern settlements in Britain?
That's an excellent point wrt the Independent Peoples, the culture would be quite messed up.
I'll answer everything:
1. That's interesting, I'm eager to test that out once we get started on the next phase.
2. They will have the option to be playable. I don't see why we should make them unplayable. Maybe the Independent factions could be unplayable.
3. There is only 21 :) by having superfactions it allows us to use mod folders for swap factions.
4. I will be in talks with dvk901 about how he managed to do it with RS and RS2.
Well, being an inactive member of RS myself, I know that RS2 has (or had in the beta I played; I have never actually played the final release) one Free Tribes factions (miscellanious barbarian tribes) and one Free Greeks faction (miscellanious greek cities/states). RS1 only had one faction, which resulted in Greek cities in Ireland and the Sahara.
Are you sure it would be reallistic to play as a faction that encompasses both Epirus and Bactria, for instance? These areas never had anything to do with eachother, so their faction would be more a game mechanic than a "real" faction.
I take it that the Rebels are the vanilla slave faction?
Finally, for further reference, here is a link to the French Wikipedia and a map showing the borders of the Aedui confederation. Red are the Aedui, pink their clients, brown their allies, and grey their major ennemies. The map and corresponding article usually refer to Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico
The confederation seems to have included these tribes:
Aedui
Clients: Ambarri, Segusiavi, Mandubii
Confederates: Brannovici, Bellovaci, Bituriges, Senones, Parisii
They also seem to have been on friendly terms with their northern neighbours, the Lingones.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maps_of_Eduens_people-fr.svg (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maps_of_Eduens_people-fr.svg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_Gallia_Tribes_Towns.png)
Yeah I remember that. Well, we can't really know until we test. The faction list that we currently have is the one that we have decided to test first. Things could always change.
You make a good point. The alternative would be to make provincial campaigns where the player could choose to play as Epirus, Pergamum, Bactria, or Cyrene. Similar to XGM.
Yes the rebels are the slaves of vanilla.
Thanks for the map. Could you put it in the 'Resources' thread? It's kind of a storage for everything that can be used as reference.
Bactria would probably be the obvious one of those to keep for the main campaign - though Cyrene I'm not sure has been done by anyone else and could be an interesting campaign to do.
Quote from: Jubal on February 23, 2014, 06:02:13 PM
Bactria would probably be the obvious one of those to keep for the main campaign - though Cyrene I'm not sure has been done by anyone else and could be an interesting campaign to do.
I think either XGM or XCM have Cyrene as a playable faction. But I like the Idea of using the provincial campaign method of XGM, allows for more creativity in regards to the campaign in my opinion.
Some more thoughts on factions.
1) Right now we have three Greek superfactions that don't really make much sense when played by the player. Wouldn't it be better to have one Free Greeks faction, and two playable factions instead? For instance, I find it odd that Epirus isn't its own faction (but forms one with Bactria and Cyrene. Isn't Phyrrus' invasion of Italy one of the main reasons for choosing this paricular starting date? Also, from what I've read, Syracuse joined him in 278 BC, not 280.
2) Doing some "research" (the only extensive source I have access to is Wikipedia...) in order to find other Greek faction contenders, I stumbled on mentions of the Amphictyonic League. Does one of our historians know more about this?
3) What are your thoughts for including Illyria as a faction? Did they achieve anything of note that I'm not aware of?
4) And finally, it seems that the celts settled in Galatia only after the starting date of our mod. How are we going to implement their presence in the area?
Having said that, I'm off to work on the stuff I was actually hired for...
1. Yeah let's see what ahowl makes of this, but I think basically your point is a good one. Having played the Greek cities in the Beta that is strange enough to actually play four or five different factions. I see why we make a difference between a hellenistic kingdoms superfaction and a Greek cities faction, but to me the distinction between the latter and the third Greek states faction isn't quite clear to me either.
2. The Amphictyonic League was more of a super- structure for the Greek states to regulate the affairs of the Oracle of Delphi. It was claimed by Macedon, the Aitolian League, Athens and the polis Delphi itself, and later the Romans. Perhaps we could represent them by a trait, but I don't think Delphi is on the map...?
3. Well it seems Illyria is popular with TW players :P They fought against the Romans and Macedon in the late 3rd century BC, interacted with the Greeks and later often rebelled against Roman rule, to make it short. I'm not specialized on their history, but obciously they were also split into different tribes (Rome II actually has a number of them), but we have similar problems with Gaul.
4. Yeah that's true, the kingdom of Tylis was only erected in 279 BC as well. But sometimes we have to bend history a little bit I think, if it's only such a short time. Otherwise we would need to have the Odrysian kingdom in it (like Thrace is represented in the Beta) and have two huge Gallic armies standing on their doorstep, with both factions being at war. Or make the Galatians their own faction as a horde? In both cases they might never cross into Asia, though, or the AI might be too stupid to capture any settlement in the region at all.
You bring up good points again. One thing you should know is that this mod will not just consist of a Grand Campaign. The Grand Campaign is just a base for what we are really wanting to achieve. Eventually there will be a mod foldered campaign for every faction focusing on that faction only. To do this, we need a certain amount of 'super factions' to interchange with the swap factions. So when you play as Epirus, the Hellenic Kingdoms faction will not be present, instead they will be split up amongst the Greek Cities and Greek States.
Also in regards to three greek super factions. One of them is the old Greek Cities faction from vanilla. The next is the independent greek cities that you find in other mods. The Hellenic Kingdoms represent the different Hellenistic Dynasties that were not the original Diadochi. By having three factions, it will accurately simulate the chaos that was in the Greek World. We will be able to simulate the Achaean and Aetolian leagues, Sparta and Athens, the Bosporans and other smaller states such as Massilia, without overloading a certain faction.
The Illyrians will be in starting with the next BETA version.
Mausolos is right, we will have to somewhat bend history in order to get everything working properly. If the creation of settlements in game was possible, it would make things easy but it isn't. So what do we do? Have Tylis as a rebel settlement and have the Gauls attack it as a horde? Have another Gaul army above Macedon and send them south? Have yet another army headed towards Ancyra? Or just give Ancyra and Tylis to the Gauls/Celtic Tribes to begin with?
All of these questions can only be truly answered through testing. That is why I am bringing as many testers over as I can. Putting something out to the public with no testing can be disastrous, but also testing ideas before throwing them in the garbage is necessary because what if we throw away something that works and we didn't even know about it?
So to conclude, let's test the current faction set up, if it ends up being unbalanced or there are better options then we will make the necessary changes.
Quote from: Mausolos of Caria on February 24, 2014, 04:40:10 PM
3. Well it seems Illyria is popular with TW players :P They fought against the Romans and Macedon in the late 3rd century BC, interacted with the Greeks and later often rebelled against Roman rule, to make it short. I'm not specialized on their history, but obciously they were also split into different tribes (Rome II actually has a number of them), but we have similar problems with Gaul.
Ah, yes. I remember reading a comic about Arminius, where they showed a rebellion in Illyria. Goriest non-Japanese stuff I've ever read.
As for the other issues...
1) Is there even any need to include Tylis as a settlement? From the looks of it, it was rather insignificant and short-lived.
2) Making Ancyra revolt should't be too hard, and if all else fails, we still have scripts. It just means that we won't be able to represent the celtic migration towards Asia Minor. Maybe it would be enough to have a historic message telling the player about how the celts retreated to Galatia.
3) Damn, there is so much potential with these celtic invasions of Greece. I need to read more about this. But regardless, it will be a very interesting experience for the Macedoniona player - being greeted by an army of bloodthirsty barbarians right at the start of his campaign...
Tylis isn't in the current map but who knows if we will add it in the new map or not.
As for the Invasions, it will require a lot of testing and some scripting.
I hope Mausolos can correct me on all this, since I only have wikipedia, but from what I read, the situation in Macedon was really chaotic.
280: Macedon is ruled by the former Ptolemaic prince Ptolemy Keraunos. Antigonos Gonatas, son of the former king of Macedon, holds Thessalia, Attica and other parts of Greece.
279: The Celts invade Macedon. Ptolemy Keraunos is defeated and killed by a celtic army under Bolgios. A general called Sosthenes assumes control of Macedon - although he does not claim the throne - and defeats Bolgios, only to be defeated in turn by another celtic army under Brennus. The celtic armies merge and march south to plunder Greece, but are defeated at Termophylae and Delphi. The celts retreat to Thrace.
278: Antigonos Gonatas attempts to invade Macedon, but is defeated by Sosthenes.
277: Presumed death of Sosthenes. Antigonos Gonatas leads an expedition to the Hellespont, where he defeats a celtic army under Cerethrius at the battle of Lysimachia. His victory makes him popular enough to claim the Macedonian throne.
How the hell are we going to represent this?
We just need to represent the 280 a.C. situation and then let the game flow. Obviously it won't happen exactly like it did historically, but that it's pretty much impossible with the current AI.
In regards to the "divided" Macedonia, maybe set the happiness of all the settlements that were not ruled by Ptolemy Keraunos to very low.
Sad but true.
Maybe we can re-enact the battle of Delphi? Since were using BI we can use the horde ability to represent the Celtic armies invading. We don't have to do the prior battles and just do the battle of Delphi and mention the other battles in passing.
The only problem is that the Battle of Delphi occurred one year after the mod starts.
Yes, your order of events is quite right there, Sloth. As for the divided Macedonia, wouldn't it be better if the player controls Antigonos Gonatas, like on RTR VII, instead of Ptolemy Keraunos? Since he died very shortly after and having a Pseudo- Ptolemaic or Sosthenian dynasty in Macedon instead of the Antigonid dynasty would be a tad strange :P
I'm not sure how we are going to put this all in game. The problem with hordes is, that this only works when the Galatians don't have any settlements, but right now the Gaul faction also represents the Gallic tribes in Gaul itself, the Celtiberians, the Helvetians and other tribes in Switzerland, the Norici, Boii and Skordisci and probably others I forgot. In 278 BC, King Nicomedes of Bithynia invited 10 000 Gallic warriors into Asia, so they would help him in a civil war. He wins, but then another pretender (Zielis or something) hires the Gauls. Even though he is defeated, the Gauls plunder around, then offer their services to Pontos, make trouble again, are dismissed and settle in Inner Asia to ransack everything around them and give the region it's name Galatia. So basically we have three stories here:
1. The Gallic invasion of Greece and Macedonia, which ends in defeats on the hands of the Aitolian League (Battle of Delphi) and Antigonos Gonatas' Macedonians (Battle of Lysimachei).
2. Following on from the defeat in Greece, the invasion of Thracia and the destruction of the Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. This obviously leads to the foundation of the Kingdom of Tylis.
3. The Crossing of the Sea into Asia, with Gallic warriors in Bithynian services, before they settle in Galatia (not only 10 000 warriors by then, but four or three ''nations'' (big tribes, like the Aedui or Helvetii, numerically/organisational speaking).
That leaves us with 100 000 - 200 000 Gauls in Thrace and probably an even higher number in Asia, both of them steadily increasing.
This is tricky, perhaps further research should be done to see if other mods have attempted this and see how successful they were or if they fell flat and perhaps learn from them.
Have any of you played The Iberian Conflict (TIC)? It was a heavily scripted campaign taking you on the journey of Hamilcar Barca. Every few turns there would be a scripted event or battle that you'd need to accomplish before moving on. We could do that. Also the first turn on the RTRVII grand campaign has two scripted battles. We would just need to know the order of events for the game.
I never played any mod that simulated the Celtic invasions of Thrace and Macedonia.
There is none. Only a few that start off on the eve of the invasion. TO do this we would need someone experienced in scripting.
I guess we would need someone VERY good at scripting to fit this all in. But if we achieve it, it would be a lot of fun and make our mod unique over all the others.
The name HouseofHam comes to mind but I'm not sure how willing he would be.
Quote from: Mausolos of Caria on February 26, 2014, 06:30:50 PM
As for the divided Macedonia, wouldn't it be better if the player controls Antigonos Gonatas, like on RTR VII, instead of Ptolemy Keraunos? Since he died very shortly after and having a Pseudo- Ptolemaic or Sosthenian dynasty in Macedon instead of the Antigonid dynasty would be a tad strange :P
This. It means that Macedon will start with only its holdings in Greece, with Macedon controled by rebels (?) under Keraunios. The celts will probably belong to the Free Celts faction. This means that they need a settlement in the area under their control (Bylazora/Tylis?), or else they will just wander back to their nearest settlement. If we're lucky, they'll stay in the area and wreck havoc. If not, they will look for easier pickings, and probably attack Illyria or Dacia. It's worth a try.
And I don't see how scripting would help us out here. Can you make an army move the way you want via scripting? If not, Thermopylae and Delphi would better be represented as historical battles.
Quote from: The Sloth on February 27, 2014, 03:26:54 PM
This. It means that Macedon will start with only its holdings in Greece, with Macedon controled by rebels (?) under Keraunios. The celts will probably belong to the Free Celts faction. This means that they need a settlement in the area under their control (Bylazora/Tylis?), or else they will just wander back to their nearest settlement. If we're lucky, they'll stay in the area and wreck havoc. If not, they will look for easier pickings, and probably attack Illyria or Dacia. It's worth a try.
I agree. Maybe we can give Macedonia to the Ptolemies, since, after all, Ptolemy Keraunos probably had the support of the Ptolemeic ruling family.
Quote from: The Sloth on February 27, 2014, 03:26:54 PM
And I don't see how scripting would help us out here. Can you make an army move the way you want via scripting? If not, Thermopylae and Delphi would better be represented as historical battles.
You can't make an army move the way you want via script, however, you can spawn an army anywhere you want and make it attack a particular settlement.
I don't think giving Macedon to the Ptolemies would be a good idea, since it might mess the campaign up too much. Also I'm not sure about the Ptolemaic support since he was more or less kicked out of Egypt and was forbidden to come back.
RTR VII had them as rebels, which is a good way to portray their ''interim''- status. On the other hand, obviously it was a Macedonian kingdom at this time and nothing else, so perhaps they could be part of the Hellenic states? The obvious disadvantage this brings is, that Antigonos Gonatas would start at war with Epiros, Bactria, Cyrene and Pergamon as well. Epiros would be realistic, Pergamon is only one town and Bactria as well as Kyrene are abroad so it's not too bad. Maybe we can make a script that they conclude peace between each other (Antigonids and hellenic kingdoms) after Gonatas captures Pella?
Ups, my bad then. I assumed, seeing as they were family, the Ptolemaics of Egypt supported Ptolemy Keraunos in Macedonia.
Your suggestion seems good.
Quote from: Bercor on February 27, 2014, 03:56:30 PM
Ups, my bad then. I assumed, seeing as they were family, the Ptolemaics of Egypt supported Ptolemy Keraunos in Macedonia.
Your suggestion seems good.
A general note on the Diadochs: Never trust your family ;D The Attalids of Pergamon stand out as the only ones who didn't constantly betray each other.
(http://mentalunlockdown.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/The-more-you-know.png) ;D
;D Also I must praise your work on the unit cards. When you talk about that I have little idea, what you mean, but they look splendid ;) We'll need new ones after this Beta for all the new units, though :D
Thanks! Yeah, I look forward to have amazing new units, from which I can make my marvellous UI's
You can move an army via script.. Play TIC lol.
We could always give the 'Macedonians' to the Independent Peoples as well.
Really? I always thought you could spawn an army through script and then tell it where to attack in that turn, but you couldn't move an army through various turns and not attack.
Quote from: ahowl11 on February 28, 2014, 05:49:34 AM
We could always give the 'Macedonians' to the Independent Peoples as well.
The Independent Peoples are another thing I've been thinking about.
Every province needs a "creator", a faction to whose culture it belongs at the start of the game and that it will often join when revolting. This leads to some strange stuff in the current beta, and you'll see India revolting to Parthia.
We already have one barbarian "free" faction, and two Greek ones. It would make sense to have the Independent Peoples as an eastern one. That way, they can be the "creators" of provinces that don't fit anyone else, like Arabia or India (which they're supposed to represent anyway). If we do that, there'll be no giving them settlements in Greece or anything like that.
Now here's what's been bothering me. I was thinking that it might make more sense to have the Ptolemies shadowed by a non-Greek faction, since they had a lot of native Egyptian revolts. But I don't know what faction that could be. If we take the Independent people, we'll end up with an "eastern" presence in a very western location. Another idea would be to change the "Carthaginian" culture into "African", and have the Ptolemies shadowed by Numidia, but that would turn one of our factions into a fourth "free" faction.
We will test out this version first. If it ends up being to strange then I have the idea of making Numidia an eastern kingdoms superfaction and the independent peoples would represent only barbarians that were not celtic. However, I'd like to keep Numidia as a faction
Are swap factions still Planned? If so maybe we could include massylia as one so the numidia issue could be solved. By the way we should probably list the swap factions as well, otherwise when the mod goes public people are gonna ask why a certain faction isn't in and said faction is probably one of the swap factions.
Yes swap factions are still planned for later.
As for the Greek states and cities, I think this would be the best distribution:
Greek cities faction: Sparta, Athens, Syracuse, Massalia, Boiotian League, Byzantion
Greek states faction: Achaian League, Aitolian League, Bosporan Empire, Cretan League, (Thessalian League)
This has the advantage of most ''cities'' actually being cities and ''states'' being the Leagues. Furthermore, it's based on political alliances and oppositions:
Athens was allied with Sparta during the Cleomenean War, the Achaian League fought against Sparta, the Aitolian League fought against the Boiotian League, Syracuse was always quite close to Sparta, Sparta had a campaign on Crete, the Aitolian League made war on Sparta once etc.
Later with our new map we'll have to see if and where other Greek towns that are still rebel territory right now (Apollonia, Sinope etc.) fit in.
I agree with Mausolos.
Hmmm I was thinking in terms of gameplay with these factions.. You cannot have two sub factions too close together or they will become too strong. Here is what I was thinking:
Greek Cities - Athens, Achaean League, Rhodes, Massilia
Greek States - Sparta, Aetolian League, Bosporan Kingdom
Hellenic Kingdoms - Epirus with Syracuse and Tarentum, Pergamum, Cyrene, Bactria
Independent Peoples or Rebels - Crete, Byzantium, other small cities
Philadelphos and I went to great lengths to get this set up and we both agreed it was the best. I know it is not the best historical set up but it balances out gameplay. No two sub factions are close enough where they'd join up. There is at least one or two regions in the way. That way it accurately simulates the small independent states.
If we test and it doesn't work we can try other ways.
I also forgot about Rhodes... what about Boiotia? Can you add that to the ''Cities'' faction? (It's next to Athens but they were quite close during this period and Athens also controlled it partly for a while). Otherwise it won't be able to pose a threat to Aitolia.
Apart from that it's accurate enough. Maybe we should rename the factions, though ;)
Well weren't they controlled by Macedon anyways?
Nope, they were allied to Macedon in the late 3rd century, but maintained independence. Otherwise they wouldn't have introduced the Macedonian phalanx themselves in 250 BC and fought a war against the Aitolian League in 246 BC ;)
It's more complicated for Thessalia. I'll have to look up if Keraunos controlled it or Gonatas or if the Thessalian League was free in 280 BC.
I couldn't find anything out about Thessaly. Demetrios had it under his control, but no idea about Keraunos. Do you have an idea how to name the two Greek factions yet?
Also, I found this during my research ;D
How about Greek States and Greek Leagues?
We would still have a League among the States and Non- Leagues among the Leagues, though... but I don't have a better idea right now. So can we add Boiotia to the faction with Athens in it?
Sure why not :)
Er, what does that leave Macedon with, though? They won't be much of a kingdom if all they have are Euboa and Lesbos. And wasn't Athens under their control in that period?
Ptolemaios Keraunos: Pella, Thessalonica, Larissa
Antigonos Gonatas (playable Macedon): Chalcis, Corinth, Lesbos - and his army near Lysimacheia, which would be either Celtic (Tylis) or Ptolemaic and could be taken immediately
Athens was free after the flight of Demetrios Poliorketes from the city, but a Macedonian garrison remained in Piraios. I don't think there's a way to represent that, though.
Guys I am having some doubts about our current faction list and here is the reasoning:
The Greeks are going to be represented perfectly in my opinion but the eastern and barbarian civilizations won't be. Initially I thought a "Free People" faction would do the trick, but after a lot of research I have found out that it would not work right since we would end up with eastern looking settlements in Gaul or Barbarian looking settlements in Arabia.
Before you pot your opinion or thoughts, remember that EVERY faction will eventually be represented by mod foldered campaigns. The Imperial Campaign is just a BASE that we can use to easily include all of these swap factions. I suggest more 'super factions' to make things easier.
So I think we need to revise just a bit before I start switching all the factions up.
We have our concrete factions which are untouchable:
1. Rome
2. Carthage
3. Macedon
4. Seleucids
5. Ptolemies
6. Parthia
7. Pontus
8. Armenia
9. Numidia
You have your major barbarian cultures that can serve as super factions as well:
10. Gauls
11. Germans
12. Geto-Dacians
13. Iberians
14. Sarmatians
And then the proposed super factions:
15. Hellenic Kingdoms - {Brutii}
16. Greek Cities
17. Greek States - {Scipii}
18. Celts - Britons, Celt-Iberians, Noreia, Belgae, Galatians - {Britons}
19. Eastern Kingdoms - Cappadocia, Atropatene, Bithynia, Nabataeans, Saba, India {Senate}
20. Independent Peoples - Illyria, Thrace, Veneti, Luistani, Ligurians, Nuragic Tribes, Baltic Tribes {Thrace}
And then finally
21. Rebels
I feel most comfortable doing this going forward. Like I said, I did extensive research and I talked to dvk901. He said that faction lists need to be based on what the campaign is centered around. Our IMPERIAL CAMPAIGN is centered on the Big factions, the main players. We are not focused on the Greeks, we are not focused on the East, Barbarians, or even Punic Wars. We are focused on the whole map with favoritism towards the main factions that were around the longest and most notable in history.
Numbers 1-14 all played big and significant roles in the course of Roman history. 15-20 are super factions comprised of multiple factions that are related to each other by the cultures given to us in RTW.
For the Rebels, we can still make them interesting. There were many slave or native population revolts throughout the course of history and they can be scripted in. Also we can script in a Celtic invasion of Italy or a Scythian Raid as well as the usual brigands, pirates and other territories that are needed as filler.
I do not want to follow through with this if you guys disagree. Just remember though that every faction will have it's own playable campaign centered on THEM. This is just a BASE imperial campaign so we can simulate every faction.
As I see it, the main strength of having pseudo-factions is to not get cultures mixed up, right? If so, I suggest only four: Greeks, Celts, 'Eastern', 'Western'.
The main strength in my opinion is to be able to represent all of the relevant factions at the time through these pseudo-factions. That way when the Imperial Campaign is complete it will be easy for us to use the pseudo-factions to make swap faction campaigns such as Epirus or Nabataea.
However, I still want the Imperial Campaign to be enjoyable that is why I have set it up to resemble:
Greek - 2
Hellenic - 1
Eastern - 1
Celtic - 1
European/Barbarian - 1
If anything we can just test this method out first and if it is not working the way I think it should work we can go back to the drawing board.
Seems reasonable to me!
I don't know about the Eastern Kingdoms. The problem with that massive superfactions is that they'll have to share the same culture, and, consequentially, the same UI and buildings. Saba and India are VERY different from the other factions, I don't think they would be well together. Plus, I'd rather have the Ardiae as a faction.
You make a good point and it is obvious but what could we do? We can't make a separate Arabian culture AND Indian culture. Even if we did, we already have the Nomad culture.
The Celts were a whole lot different than the Iberians who were different than the Germans who were different from the Thracians, yet they will all be sharing the same culture as well. I wish we could add more cultures but we just can't.
As far as Illyria goes, I know that I've always favored them but with the Rebel faction being so dumb and boring we need to find ways to simulate the lesser peoples. Thrace was just as important as Illyria, the Ligurians and Veneti were big players in Italy, the Luistani were powerful in Iberia. Then don't forget, how else can we simulate the Saka and Massagetae tribes and their raids and migrations against Bactria and India?
Like I said we can test the above list out, if it does not work well we can try other options. :)
Remember that the AI factions tend to be hesitant about declaring war on superfactions (or at least they treat them like normal factions) but everyone will fight the Rebels. So superfaction settlements tend not to change hands too often..
On RTR VII the AI didn't seem to care about that, from my campaign experience. Pergamon even attacked super factions it was allied with, and it did that in every campaign and always rolled them up completely.
That's because Pergamum is a brave guy.
Actually, wait. That depends on if the AI borders you, actually.
Because the player faction is special. But regardless the AI loves to attack the Rebel faction.
Yeah but I'm speaking about the AI doing it on it's own. I played Carthage, for example, and was therefore on the other side of the map. Pergamon is surrounded by the ''Independent Cities'' faction holding Rhodes (with which it was allied) and the ''Independent Dynasties'' holding Caria and Lydia (among others). When I put ''toggle fow'' on, Pergamon had attacked both of them, taking 3 regions, even the allied Rhodes.
Perhaps there is a way to make the AI ''braver''? I can't say this happened every time exactly like this (albeit Pergamon always attacked one of the super factions) or everyone did it against the superfactions, but in RTR VII the superfactions always lose territories quite quickly, in every campaign.
Quote from: Mausolos of Caria on March 13, 2014, 04:30:26 PM
Perhaps there is a way to make the AI ''braver''? I can't say this happened every time exactly like this (albeit Pergamon always attacked one of the super factions) or everyone did it against the superfactions, but in RTR VII the superfactions always lose territories quite quickly, in every campaign.
There is a trick. You can make an AI faction want to attack specific settlements, by editing a file so that it treats the settlement as belonging to it (and having been lost). It thus wants to "reclaim" that and will attack the factions holding it. Useful to help make the AI not do really wierd things.
As long as the player isn't nearby, that's a standard caveat. If you're bordering a faction it has a tendency to just forget everything but its hatred for you...
Sorry that I only made two posts and disappeared. Internet issue and beta testing trouble due to being new to this.
Anyway, one problem that I noticed in BETA testing the Gauls for 0.5 (do you still want that report ahowl11?) is that it took the Julii nineteen turns to summon the guts to attack me. Granted, I sort of blitzed northern Italy and they got no rebel cities there, but it was sheer passiveness that I didn't expect to happen from Rome. Do factions specifically like to pick on smaller/weaker ones? If so, I have a possible solution to that if we don't want to make the AI attack certain settlements.
If we wanted to be historically accurate, the Gauls didn't exist, they were a conglomeration of various tribes. We could shrink Gaul's borders into a tribe or two, and have it become something Rome is more willing to take a stab at. Europa Barbarorum uses the Aedui and Arveni, for example, competing for France while the Aedui have a foothold in Italy.
The problem with this is that I can't think of a tribe or confederation large enough to be something that plausibly controlled parts of Italy and France. Confederations of tribes that I know of are Hevetii (border the Alps), Aedui (near the Rhone and Loire Rivers), and Nervii (in Belgium). The Gauls were simply too fractured. Vercingetorix did make an alliance with a lot of Gaulish tribes though. If we do that we could theoretically make Gaul whatever size we want and call it the Gaul Alliance or a Gaulish confederacy of some sort.
I don't know, you make good points. In most play throughs the Julii expand well into Gaul. We won't really know for sure until we test the unified rome
I also don't like those vague and unhistorical terms as Gaul, Iberia or Germans, since they weren't unified states. I would much prefer something like Celtic Tribes, Iberian Tribes and German Tribes (it's not perfect but it's much better). In this way, we could, as The Sloth suggests, get rid of the superfaction Celtic Tribes and merge it with Free Tribes, opening a place for the Arverni.
Quote from: Mausolos of Caria on March 13, 2014, 04:30:26 PM
Yeah but I'm speaking about the AI doing it on it's own. I played Carthage, for example, and was therefore on the other side of the map. Pergamon is surrounded by the ''Independent Cities'' faction holding Rhodes (with which it was allied) and the ''Independent Dynasties'' holding Caria and Lydia (among others). When I put ''toggle fow'' on, Pergamon had attacked both of them, taking 3 regions, even the allied Rhodes.
That's because, as you say, Pergamon was "surrounded". The AI will always attack the weakest faction it shares a land border with, even if that faction is or seems stronger than itself. If there had been another faction close by, Pergamum would probably have gone after them.
Quote from: Bercor on March 14, 2014, 10:23:42 AM
I also don't like those vague and unhistorical terms as Gaul, Iberia or Germans, since they weren't unified states. I would much prefer something like Celtic Tribes, Iberian Tribes and German Tribes (it's not perfect but it's much better). In this way, we could, as The Sloth suggests, get rid of the superfaction Celtic Tribes and merge it with Free Tribes, opening a place for the Arverni.
I think we could rename the Germanic Tribes into "Suebi" without much trouble. As for the Free Tribes, we'll need to test it out first and see how the AI reacts to such a huge superfaction.
As for Gaul, my ideal setup would be the Aedui holding most of central Gaul, with all their major allied cities (Bibracte, Avaricum, Alesia, Lutetia, Lugdunum), and the Free Tribes holding Cisalpine Gaul, Gergovia and Belgium. That way, Rome can fight some good celts in Italy while the actual Gauls can continue to build up in France. I'd avoid a celtic civil war, as it seems to cripple both sides way too much (although we could try to have Aedui and Free Tribes start at war for the heck of it).
In regards to Germanic Tribes etc I'm fine with that.
As for discarding the Celtic faction, I've already thought about doing that and it wouldn't work properly. We can make it so that the Gauls are only in Gaul, and the Celtic Tribes can resemble the Cisalpine Gauls.
The Free tribes are already going to possibly represent the Ligurians or Venetians, as well as Illyria, Thrace, and the Luistani.
The Celts would represent the Galatians, and the Galatians fought the Thracians, the Luistani warred with the Celt-Iberians as well. We need both factions.
Also by combining the factions, it would be a huge and ambiguous faction in my opinion.
Quote from: Bercor on March 12, 2014, 08:23:43 AMI don't know about the Eastern Kingdoms. The problem with that massive superfactions is that they'll have to share the same culture, and, consequentially, the same UI and buildings. Saba and India are VERY different from the other factions, I don't think they would be well together.
I also dislike that, I find the 'Eastern' epithet a truly ugly one. Interestingly though, India and Southern Arabia had a
lot of contact with each other since very early in history due to maritime trade routes, and resembled each other more than one would think. Also, as the main definition of culture in this particular context is just the building appearance, and simple structures all over Western Asia were adobe-made, it's not so bad. Only if the map encroached far into Mauryan territory would this become a serious accuracy problem.
They'll also need share the same portraits, so, no chance of Indians character portraits. Also, the Indian settlements, on the battlemap, will only be generic eastern settlement in some desert.
Are you planning to make new portraits? If so, the lack of variety the engine limits bring would be a pity, but could be worse; a northern Indian can easily resemble an eastern Iranian. As for the Indian settlements, unless the map goes far beyond the Indus, they wouldn't have been vastly different from other settlements to the West. The desert part does not apply with a good map :)
Ok, you're the specialist.
In regards to the portraits, yes, for the nomad culture. We have a member in the team who is capable of making them. However, sadly, the Indians won't have new ones, since we have no spare culture slots.
Thank you for clarifying that Tekowiat
My pleasure.
I was going to bring this up for a while now...why would we call the Germanic tribes ''Suebi''? After all, they were only a little part of the hundreds of Germanic tribes, and especially in the 3rd century BC there is very little known about them and I doubt they were a dominating tribe in any sense.
Also I would agree about ''Eastern'', but what alternative do we have to include all those different cultures?
Exactly my thoughts Mausolos. Good to hear from you, it feels like forever since you last posted :)
Hehe aye sorry, first I was ill, then in Scotland, then a bit busy again and visiting my friend in Bavaria- while I was working on my paper for uni all the time. However I don't think I'm making any good progress on it... good to see you agree, though ;)
Quote from: Mausolos of Caria on March 25, 2014, 01:05:34 AM
I was going to bring this up for a while now...why would we call the Germanic tribes ''Suebi''? After all, they were only a little part of the hundreds of Germanic tribes, and especially in the 3rd century BC there is very little known about them and I doubt they were a dominating tribe in any sense.
I've noticed people seem to gravitate towards a "specific tribe" type of name rather than a more general one, even if there were hundreds of tribes that either (1) put up uncoordinated resistance and were destroyed or (2) unified under one leader as a ... superfaction ;D
Must be because having a name that sounds kickass rather than really generic is cool...
Hehe true, but we should be realistic, not cool! ;D (Well, if possible, we should be both, though ;) )
Realistic IS cool :)
It's like that discussion about "did thousands of people really wear elaborate bronze cuirasses".
Rome Total Coolism
Hah, indeed. So Germanic tribes should do? I've also read authors, even in English (like Peter Heather) calling them Germani, if we want a more ''immersive'' name. Otherwise, Germanic tribes or peoples.
Germani is simple the latin correspondent of Germans. We could call then Germanorum Tribus (which roughly means German Tribes), if we choose the latin nomenclature, but then we should use it for all the barbarians.
Germanic Tribes is perfectly fine.
Yeah I know it's Latin. Germanorum Tribus would mean''Tribe of the Germans'' though ;D I would also say Germanic tribes is good enough.
It would, if tribus was of the 2nd declination. However, it's tribus, tribus, thus 4th declination, and not tribus, tribe. So, the correct form is actually Germanorum Tribus "Tribes of the Germans". ;D
Okay, but it must be pronounced tribūs then! haha Nevermind, I guess we should stick with Germanic tribes, otherwise the other Barbarian names will be similarly confusing. As we are speaking about languages already, are we going to stick with Latin names for all cities, like the current map has?
I don't know, but there's some settlements we only know the latin/greek name and other's that would be really complicated in their native tongue, so, I guess we should continue the path we're taking...
That's true. I was more hinting in the direction of Greek settlements, like all the Eastern Mediterrenean world could have Greek names and the Western could have Latin names (but I feel like having posted this before right now). Also, for some other peoples like Carthage or Armenia we do know the names of most of their settlements, too. Obviously this would not be possible for Germanic towns, e.g., to find Latin names alone for them seems like a Sisyphos work.
Greek Mithology casual references? Me like it ;D.
Get me the Eastern Mediterrenean settlements greek names and I'll make sure they're in-game. I also agree, well-known settlements can have their names in their native tongue.
Oh.. ah yes sorry it's a normal saying in German ;D
Yeah most things are easy, it's just stuff like ''Halikarnassos'' instead of ''Halicarnassus'' or ''Pergamon'' instead of ''Pergamum''. I realise English usually favours the Latin names, but since the Greek ones are quite similar I think we can do this without causing too manny problems for the sake of realism.
Good then, although we might discuss the fact about well- known settlements again. The thing with them is, that every language has an own name for them to make them sound smoother in everyone's own tongue. Like:
Rome (English)- Rom (German)- Roma (Latin)
Athens- Athen- Athenai (Greek)
Syracuse- Syrakus- Syrakousai
Carthage- Karthago- Carthago (Latin)- Karchedon (Greek)- Qart Hadasht (Phoenician)
I think especially the last two names highlight the problem, that otherwise well- known names might irritate the player. Accessibility vs. Realism.
Don't worry about that. Let's stick with mainly Latin and Greek names, while some major settlements can use their own language. Take EB as an example, they have semi-unpronounceable names for both units and settlements, and look how well it went for them. Surely, if we don't venture that far, will be good :D.
I was never convinced by EB, but it also crashed all the time in difference to RTR so maybe that was a reason, too ;D
We should compel a list for all settlements soon then.
Meh I am not a fan of Greek names.. I'd rather just have Athens. Can you imagine Jack on his next Let's Play trying to pronounce everything? It would be hilarious and entertaining, but it would be frustrating to play with. What's so wrong with Athens, Rome, Carthage? All the other mods give native, latin, and Greek names. I think we should be different and give the easy to say, most recognizable names. I know I am the leader, but if you guys really feel strongly about this I don't mind doing it. I'm just giving my opinion.
Well, the vast majority of people aren't youtube commentators, so I can't see how it would be frustating for them, since they would not be prounouncing it. Also, most greek and latin names aren't really that difficult, most european languages are heavily influenced by them, anyway. Athens - Athenai, Rome - Roma, Carthage is a bit more tricky, sure, Qart - Hadast, but not too much. The problem is that we, currently, have a lot of English names, a lot of Latin names and some Greek ones, we should thrive for uniformity. And I reckon they would be a nice touch.
Maybe we could do this to make everyone happy. We could make it an option. For those that want the Latin, Greek, Native names they could select the option in the install. And the same goes for the people who want the common english names.
That's actually a good idea, and quite do-able as it's just replacing one text file.
If it's so easy, I'm surprised no one has done it before. But it sounds like a decent solution to our problem :)
I liked that feature in EB, choosing what language you wanted the units name in at start of installation.