-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Paths
So what were the different paths which tribes or civilizations could be on in this period?
This is a list with more questions than answers at the moment - I might be very wrong about some of it.
Military
Western Tribal Warfare - were Gauls any different from Iberians or Germans
Steppe Warfare (for Rhoxolani? Armenians? the Iberi of the Caucasus?)
(What kind of warfare did the Illyrians or Dacians practice?)
Civilized Warfare: Hellenic vs Roman vs Carthaginian (What was different in Carthaginian warfare from Greek or Roman, exept the elephants?)
Religion - I think the religious paths are fairly well-deffined at the end of the techtree but they need to differentiate before Religious Tech 20
Roman
Greek
Semitic/Phoenician/Carthaginian child sacrifice cult
Monotheisms (Zoroaster, Jews)
Politics (Civic)
Tribal organisations (were there really 5 kinds of tribe?)
Republics
Despotisms (Despotic Monarchies and Dictatorships)
Conventional monarchies
Are there any other big areas I've missed out?
So what were the different paths which tribes or civilizations could be on in this period?
This is a list with more questions than answers at the moment - I might be very wrong about some of it.
Military
Western Tribal Warfare - were Gauls any different from Iberians or Germans
Steppe Warfare (for Rhoxolani? Armenians? the Iberi of the Caucasus?)
(What kind of warfare did the Illyrians or Dacians practice?)
Civilized Warfare: Hellenic vs Roman vs Carthaginian (What was different in Carthaginian warfare from Greek or Roman, exept the elephants?)
Religion - I think the religious paths are fairly well-deffined at the end of the techtree but they need to differentiate before Religious Tech 20
Roman
Greek
Semitic/Phoenician/Carthaginian child sacrifice cult
Monotheisms (Zoroaster, Jews)
Politics (Civic)
Tribal organisations (were there really 5 kinds of tribe?)
Republics
Despotisms (Despotic Monarchies and Dictatorships)
Conventional monarchies
Are there any other big areas I've missed out?
TheLand said:
What I know about that is that the Carthaginian didn't have a proper national army. They were using mercenary for thier conflicts mainly.
carthaginians did not use any of their own people to fight, while the romans and greeks (except the ptolemys) used their own people to fight, so you could have the carthaginians have a series of events that make it so they have more mercs and have regular recruitment for them expensive.
If this sounds like a path that you want to take I will be able to work on it.
If this sounds like a path that you want to take I will be able to work on it.
They did, though not extensively. Tanit´s Sacred Band is a good example of that (though it was disbanded, according to Plutarch, afte I Punic War).2763r57651265 said:
Still, the officers and so on where carthaginian.
Regarding combat style, Carthage worked under helenic parameters but Hannibal heavily modified them by using iberian/numidian infantry and extensive use of skirmisher cavalry.
I forgot about the sacred band 
, but still the Carthaginians used pretty much all mercs, with few exceptions. And since the units in the game are generic I think having carthage be able to get mercs easier than national armies is the right thing. This could probably be done by having some of the positive merc events fire more often for carthage, or have a chain of events for them while at war, and you could also lower their manpower so they have less national armies?
, but still the Carthaginians used pretty much all mercs, with few exceptions. And since the units in the game are generic I think having carthage be able to get mercs easier than national armies is the right thing. This could probably be done by having some of the positive merc events fire more often for carthage, or have a chain of events for them while at war, and you could also lower their manpower so they have less national armies?
I can answer only for military It's gonna be a quick tour, as I'm pretty tired and drunk. I won't toutch Roman military, because it's so well know that it's obvious
Hellenistic military was very tightly connected to hellenistic state, so I more or less describe 3 main states, because diffrences existed. Today I'll post something about Macedon, since, as I mentioned, I'm too drunk to continue longer
Macedon was far weaker then Philips' or Alexanders' Macedon; it's population was far lower, either because depopulation during Persian Expedition (as Bosworth argues) or because of devastating 'barbarian' invasions (N.G.L. Hammond among many others). Many key 'provinces' (mainly vassal states) regained independence, Macedon lost it's valuable military contingents (Agrianian light infantry, Thracian cavalry and peltasts). Macedons' military was reduced to its' core - phalanx, supported by far less numerous cavalry and light troops (mainly mercenary peltasts). Phalanx after 220 BC was getting heavier - it needed more breaking power, and less losses (manpower problem). Sarissas (phalangites's spears) increased in lenght (up to 6m); first ranks got heavy armour. Disadvantage was inferior tactical maneouverability, something badly needed vs legions. Combined with inferior leadership (both Philip V and Perseus didn't control battles, as their predecessors did) ended in crushing defeats.
It's gonna be a quick tour, as I'm pretty tired and drunk. I won't toutch Roman military, because it's so well know that it's obvious Hellenistic military was very tightly connected to hellenistic state, so I more or less describe 3 main states, because diffrences existed. Today I'll post something about Macedon, since, as I mentioned, I'm too drunk to continue longer
Macedon was far weaker then Philips' or Alexanders' Macedon; it's population was far lower, either because depopulation during Persian Expedition (as Bosworth argues) or because of devastating 'barbarian' invasions (N.G.L. Hammond among many others). Many key 'provinces' (mainly vassal states) regained independence, Macedon lost it's valuable military contingents (Agrianian light infantry, Thracian cavalry and peltasts). Macedons' military was reduced to its' core - phalanx, supported by far less numerous cavalry and light troops (mainly mercenary peltasts). Phalanx after 220 BC was getting heavier - it needed more breaking power, and less losses (manpower problem). Sarissas (phalangites's spears) increased in lenght (up to 6m); first ranks got heavy armour. Disadvantage was inferior tactical maneouverability, something badly needed vs legions. Combined with inferior leadership (both Philip V and Perseus didn't control battles, as their predecessors did) ended in crushing defeats.
Dacians, for their part, fought in a style assimilated from that of the later eastern Celts (whom they predated in Europe, and had defeated to gain their strategic position in Carpathia). It seems to have been mainly their geographic situation, rather than real fighting prowess or stylistic superiority, which enabled them to survive while other tribes were swept away around them.
Although not quite scholarly, this source is accurate enough to give you alot of useful information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_warfare#Iron_Age_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_warfare#Iron_Age_Europe
The Europa Barbarorum website has a big links directory, some of which look very interesting.... http://www.europabarbarorum.com/links.html
In the short term I'm working on Gaul - hopefully this will be in a reasonably balanced state within a week.
I would like to focus on the civilizations/cultures - governments, ideas, religions, technology - as the next step after this. We will know roughly what the end product needs to be for the Gallic tribes. For the rest we can aim at retaining (roughly) the existing balance.
That work will hopefully inspire us to think up some more interesting internal politics event-series ;-)
@Keraunos: Look forward to hearing more about the military aspects when you're sober! Remember: Hic, haec, hoc...
In the short term I'm working on Gaul - hopefully this will be in a reasonably balanced state within a week.
I would like to focus on the civilizations/cultures - governments, ideas, religions, technology - as the next step after this. We will know roughly what the end product needs to be for the Gallic tribes. For the rest we can aim at retaining (roughly) the existing balance.
That work will hopefully inspire us to think up some more interesting internal politics event-series ;-)
@Keraunos: Look forward to hearing more about the military aspects when you're sober! Remember: Hic, haec, hoc...
I would love to help with the governments and ideas, since I have already worked a lot on it. I dont really know how much you want to change them (like adding new governments and such) but I'll work on whatever you need help with .
P.S. Has anybody found out why adding new modifiers into the localisation files screws up everything.
.P.S. Has anybody found out why adding new modifiers into the localisation files screws up everything.
2763r57651265 said:
Have you been able to replicate this?
Warning, braindump follows:
Re the governments. I am still trying to get my head around the forms of government which existed a bit more. Many of the governments that come with the game seem to be a bit redundant. Aristocratic republic, democratic republic, and theocracy all seem not to actually be used. What is the difference between an "aristocratic" republic and an "oligarchic" republic meant to be, in any case?
I've just got my copy of Aristotle's "Politics" off my shelf and will see if that gives me any help. But basically, I am thinking we should slim down the number of government types available. I think we should also make more slots available to many governments, there is no reason dictatorships shoudl be the only one with 4.
I was thinking about making national ideas entirely (or nearly) independent of technology, and instead triggering by religion, culture, or techgroup. Some Ideas might also be more mixed blessings!
To give an example of the kind of things I have in mind... Deification should only be open to the countries worshipping the Egyptian pantheon - and might be the only religious NI available for them.
Military Citizenship (+ discipline, + organisation, - manpower, - citizen conversion) should be a civic idea only open to - well, Sparta...
Open Ranks (+ conversion freedman to citizens, + conversion slaves to freedmen, -rr) should be a civic Idea quite widely available.
Human Sacrifice (+ omen power/chance?) should be a religious Idea available to druidic types and the Phoenician pantheon - and it should be removed from the religious techtree...
Looking at the existing Ideas, I would say we should scrap the last 6 military ones and make them techs, because that's what they really are. In their place we should bring in some things which are or might be techs - e.g. the benefits for light infantry on the tribal techtree, or for horse archers/cavalry for steppe nations. It would be nice to find another naval Idea or two if possible. All of that, incluing horse lords, professional soldiers, martial ethos and naval ethos which are basically fine, should take us up to 10 again.
(Afterthought: Maybe militarized society should be retained as well, but in a slightly different way)
Civic Ideas: I would probably retain the philosophy Idea (good for Greek techgroup nations) and perhaps the populist politics Idea. For the others, we need to find something more detailed and sophisticated.
There is no way (for instance) that "Siege Train" is a natinal idea. It's a technological innovation and we should model it as one...
TheLand said:
In my NotAHistorian estimation, an "aristocratic" republic would be more hereditary, with one having a voice or not dependent on whether one was born into the right families, while an "oligarchic" republic, one's representation was dependent more on the respect one was able to garner, and the money one possessed. Though certainly, the lines would blur between the two from time to time.
In short, the difference between closed and open nobility
. But I could readily be mistaken, of course.Aristocratic Republic is used, however; they just tend to get eaten up fairly quickly. Theocracy has a chance to be used as well, if Religous Tribes amass enough civilization to convert.
Could Egypt be a theocracy ?, but some gov types are redundant.
regarding what you said with the military Ideas.
would you like to take those techs, like the plus light infantry for the tribes, and make them NI's with them specific to the tribes of their area. If this is what you mean (I'm a little slow right now ) then I will get to work on this.
And do you want techs to be completely out of it so deification would look like this
deification = {
trigger = {
religion = egyptian
}
(whatever bonus is)
}
P.S. the modifier displays fine for me, this is weird.
regarding what you said with the military Ideas.
would you like to take those techs, like the plus light infantry for the tribes, and make them NI's with them specific to the tribes of their area. If this is what you mean (I'm a little slow right now
) then I will get to work on this. And do you want techs to be completely out of it so deification would look like this
deification = {
trigger = {
religion = egyptian
}
(whatever bonus is)
}
P.S. the modifier displays fine for me, this is weird.
Last edited:
2763r57651265 said:would you like to take those techs, like the plus light infantry for the tribes, and make them NI's with them specific to the tribes of their area. If this is what you mean (I'm a little slow right now
I've not gone through a list of "techs which should be ideas" - but if you wanted to get started by turning the Massed Charge tech into an idea which triggers on the nation having a tribal government that would be cool
As you can probably tell I'm still at the brainstorming stage and hopefully other peoples' brains will storm a bit as well. However since you're keen to get started you might as well do so!
Yep. Unless anyone can see why doing so would be a bad idea!
I will try it again now my PC is actually up to the minimum specs for the game - there is an off-chance it was a memory issue. If not I'll make a bug report.
Could other people try to replicate the localisation problem as well, or shout if they are sure it doesn't affect them?
I have fixed the mass charge and the deification. We could probably use cohort system ( + manpower and offensive and defensive heavy infantry ) or maniple system for Rome (-manpower, + offensive and defensive heavy infantry). We could also use parthian shot which boosts horse archers for parthia, numidia, and rhoxalani. and an improved steppe cavalry for the steppe nations, giving a cavalry bonus to both offense and defense.
How does this sound?
How does this sound?
Rome should get the maniple system to begin with - it was the basic tactical unit of the Roman army at this time. I'm not convinced it should lower manpower though, as Rome was/is famous for the sheer amount of men it was able to field.
Another thing - and here I am going with the idea of brain storming ideas - Professional soldiers, or rather the idea. One of the key marks of professional armies of this early republican period was that a professional force tended to be much smaller than conscripted armies. The Hellenic states at this point fielded far more professional armies than any other power - hence why they were often less keen to pursue a 'total war' approach; they simply did not have the men to do so. A major defeat was catastrophic - a thousand dead troops was far more important to Macedonia or the sucessor kingdoms of Asia than to Rome. To take the professional soldiers idea should radically cut manpower, but at the same time provide a very decent boost to the effectiveness of the force.
More storming - again on the same subject. Professional soldiers of the 'Hellenic model' were very much the descendents of the hoplite citizen armies of ancient Greece - they supplied their own equipment, and were able to do so due to them being wealthy. Rome though, when it 'went pro' was of a size that it could afford to provide the equipment. Perhaps some sort of 'State Supplied Equipment' idea, or tech to reflect this? Reflected perhaps in a much increased cost per unit, but increased manpower - as wealth was no longer an issue in determining status in the army.
Sooooo...in an attempt to summarise:
-Professional Armies had low manpower, few could truly afford to dedicate themselves to war. Aside from the cost of arms and armour, you must rely on others to feed and clothe you. Professional troops shouldn't necessarily cost more to raise (they are of course equipping themselves), but the loss of these troops in battle should not be something that can be shrugged off, regardless of the size of the nation.
-Conscript armies (such as the Roman army during most of the game period) should be far more numerous, but less effective in battle. Sure the Roman conscript armies defeated the professional armies of Macedonian and the Seleucid Empires, but they (Rome) had been involved in large scale warfare for a very long time. The men that conquered Macedon were not raw conscripts, but men that had likely served several times in their lifetime. Leading on to:
-Experience should play a greater part. An experienced army should be able to overcome almost any obstacle, especially one that has seen less action than it.
-To counter the reduced manpower issue of professional armies, Rome opened up recruitment to anybody that was a citizen (later, men would even be granted citizenship in order to allow them to join up legally) and, crucially - was able to pay to equip and provide for these men out of the states coffers.
Storming over...
I like the idea of unlinking ideas and tech - the Romans didn't dedicate themselves to the idea of siege trains....
Another thing - and here I am going with the idea of brain storming ideas - Professional soldiers, or rather the idea. One of the key marks of professional armies of this early republican period was that a professional force tended to be much smaller than conscripted armies. The Hellenic states at this point fielded far more professional armies than any other power - hence why they were often less keen to pursue a 'total war' approach; they simply did not have the men to do so. A major defeat was catastrophic - a thousand dead troops was far more important to Macedonia or the sucessor kingdoms of Asia than to Rome. To take the professional soldiers idea should radically cut manpower, but at the same time provide a very decent boost to the effectiveness of the force.
More storming - again on the same subject. Professional soldiers of the 'Hellenic model' were very much the descendents of the hoplite citizen armies of ancient Greece - they supplied their own equipment, and were able to do so due to them being wealthy. Rome though, when it 'went pro' was of a size that it could afford to provide the equipment. Perhaps some sort of 'State Supplied Equipment' idea, or tech to reflect this? Reflected perhaps in a much increased cost per unit, but increased manpower - as wealth was no longer an issue in determining status in the army.
Sooooo...in an attempt to summarise:
-Professional Armies had low manpower, few could truly afford to dedicate themselves to war. Aside from the cost of arms and armour, you must rely on others to feed and clothe you. Professional troops shouldn't necessarily cost more to raise (they are of course equipping themselves), but the loss of these troops in battle should not be something that can be shrugged off, regardless of the size of the nation.
-Conscript armies (such as the Roman army during most of the game period) should be far more numerous, but less effective in battle. Sure the Roman conscript armies defeated the professional armies of Macedonian and the Seleucid Empires, but they (Rome) had been involved in large scale warfare for a very long time. The men that conquered Macedon were not raw conscripts, but men that had likely served several times in their lifetime. Leading on to:
-Experience should play a greater part. An experienced army should be able to overcome almost any obstacle, especially one that has seen less action than it.
-To counter the reduced manpower issue of professional armies, Rome opened up recruitment to anybody that was a citizen (later, men would even be granted citizenship in order to allow them to join up legally) and, crucially - was able to pay to equip and provide for these men out of the states coffers.
Storming over...
I like the idea of unlinking ideas and tech - the Romans didn't dedicate themselves to the idea of siege trains....
I have made human sacrifice and military citizenship National Ideas, and added Nervii along with Sparta to military citizenship because according to Caesar they lived a spartan existence. I was going to add open ranks but I am not sure what RR is. I like Timmy's idea about the professional soldiers and conscript armies thing, but I think cohorts should be the national idea instead of maniples, just because of the bonuses because I think they are more fair.
also I agree with Timmy on the experience thing,but I think it is hardcoded
EDIT: I have also done the steppe cavalry national idea
P.S. The most national idea slots that still look OK is 5, so in my mod I have 5 for each gov.
EDIT2: apparently I'm an idiot but I just found out what RR means, revolt risk. Man my stupidity amazes me sometimes. Now I'll get to putting in open society.
EDIT3: For some reason I can't get any of the national ideas to be based off of governments or be nation specific, e.g. TAG = SPA (this could just be me), so I have created events that set flags for open society, mass charge, and military citizenship. (this is my all time record on edits )
EDIT4: I have set up the events for these three that are now working, I am now going to set up a national conscripts idea, but I don't know exactly who to make it for. Should I make it for all but the greeks and egyptians and have the greeks and egyptians use the professional soldiers model explained by Timmy. I will have the national conscripts idea will take a minor hit in the troop level with a decent increase in the manpower. I will do this now and if anyone has any complaints please tell . ( now this is really an edit record for me, someone else post because this is not counting towards my post count, this is 5 right here ).
also I agree with Timmy on the experience thing,but I think it is hardcoded
EDIT: I have also done the steppe cavalry national idea
P.S. The most national idea slots that still look OK is 5, so in my mod I have 5 for each gov.
EDIT2: apparently I'm an idiot but I just found out what RR means, revolt risk. Man my stupidity amazes me sometimes. Now I'll get to putting in open society.
EDIT3: For some reason I can't get any of the national ideas to be based off of governments or be nation specific, e.g. TAG = SPA (this could just be me), so I have created events that set flags for open society, mass charge, and military citizenship. (this is my all time record on edits
)EDIT4: I have set up the events for these three that are now working, I am now going to set up a national conscripts idea, but I don't know exactly who to make it for. Should I make it for all but the greeks and egyptians and have the greeks and egyptians use the professional soldiers model explained by Timmy. I will have the national conscripts idea will take a minor hit in the troop level with a decent increase in the manpower. I will do this now and if anyone has any complaints please tell
. ( now this is really an edit record for me, someone else post because this is not counting towards my post count, this is 5 right here ).
Last edited:
TheLand said:
A major thing people just don't seem to understand (me included for a long time) is that "barbarians" represent the tribes of the era. The non-colonized areas are not "empty space". During the game's time period no "tribal empire" managed to emerge. A "nation", meaning a faction able to directly compete with major powers, prerequires things that simply not existed in the tribal societies.
So, instead of filling the map with tribal factions (which, among other things, would kill game speed-believe me, i tried it at a small scale and the game became very slow after a while), why don't we just make the "barbarians" MUCH more difficult to subdue, so it won't be easy for a major power to just sent 6 heavy infantry units to "clear" the area and then colonize?
I don't have a problem with having the ability for the player to choose a tribal faction and try to create a nation. I have moded a few things myself to enable me to play a game as a tribal nation, and it was the most enjoyable i ever had. But filling the area with minor nations crying out "annex me" isn't a solution.