The Rise of Rome 2nd edition

My favorite Conquest scenario is Rise of Rome. I love the ancient era (my favorite MOD is of course “The Ancient Mediterranean”) and that’s why. But… but… the scenario is everything but historically correct. I am an avid history buff and I really wish for some more accuracy, and also for enhanced gameplay, at least compared to the rather abstract nature of the “off the box” version of this scenario.

So I started modding and went on to create something better. Bigger. Bader. And historicaly accurate. All that by ammending the existing scenario. But that doesn't seem enough.

Probably I should start from scratch, on a dedicated map, to create a decent scenario. Maybe I will, if this call brings in some interest and a couple of volunteers to work together with me on the scenario.

The general buildup of the scenario:

It is 264 BC. Rome is beginning to establish it’s role as the dominant power of the Italian peninsula, but still has some competition on their home ground. The Carthaginians are the dominant trading and naval power in the Western Med. The two major powers have finally come to arms.

On the East, a the Parthians have made their move and begin to carve an empire out of the ashes of the Persian empire, in the middle of the successor kingdoms, by getting a large chunk out of the huge Seleucid Empire, one of the major successor Kingdoms.

The latter (in this scenario shall be represented the three most powerful ones: Macedonia-Antigonid Empire, Seleucid Empire, Ptolemaic Egypt) are bound in an endless struggle that is eating away their powers. In southern Greece the old powers try to get the upper hand again, remembering their former glory, after Pyrrhos, King of Epirus, has failed to stop Rome’s reign to power.

The faction lineup (list currently under construction):

Major factions:

Rome (controls the greatest part of the Italian peninsula + some cities in the shores of Iberia). Historical Leader: ? Suggested Leader (for gameplay purposes): J. Ceasar. Attributes: Militaristic, Industrius.

Carthage (controls the western northern Africa, Sardinia, Corsica, and half Sicily): Historical Leader: Hannibal Barka. Suggested Leader: Same. Attributes: Commercial, Seafaring.

Macedonia (controls Northern Greece, Thrace, Epirus – the latter for gameplay purposes). Historical Leader: Antigonos II Gonatas. Suggested Leader: Same (adoption of Alex). Attributes: Militaristic, Industrius.

Hellas (southern Greek city-states incl. Athens, Sparta, the leagues and possibly – for gameplay purposes – Syracusae). Historical Leader: Chremonides (Athenian leader). Suggested leader: Same (leaderhead ?). Attributes: Scientific, Seafaring.

Ptolemaic Egypt (Egypt, Cyprus, Sinai): Historical Leader: Ptolemy II Philadelphos. Suggested Leader: ??? use Cleo???. Attributes: Scientific, Religius

Seleucid Empire (Half Asia Minor, Syria, most of the middle east, the whole of Persia minus a small part to the north that is Parthia). Historical Leader: Antiochos I Soter. Suggested Leader: The Same or better Antiochos (thanks TLC) III Megas (the Great). Leaderhead??? Attributes: Militaristic, Agricultural

Parthia (starts off in a satrapy of the Seleucid Empire, in the area between Black Sea and Caspian Sea but with a big and fully developed – with cataphracts and all – army. The Parnii – later renamed Parthians – started their empire in 250 BC but for gameplay’s sake we can present them 14 years earlier). Historical leader: Arsaces I. Suggested Leader: Mithridates III the Great. Leaderhead???. Attributes: Militaristic, Commercial (?) or Religius (?)

Minor factions:

Italians (Samnites?)
Iberians
Germanic Tribes
Celts
Scythes

Under consideration:
- Pergamon Kingdom
- Pontus
- Nabataea

Units to added (list currently under construction):

Ships
Cataphract Trireme
Wargalley
Quinquireme
Siege Quinquireme
More?

Foot units
Hypaspists
Peltasts
Hoplite variations (for the various Greek factions)
Phalanx (pezeteroi for the Macedonians)
Argyraspides (probably represented by one of the many existing Kryten’s Hoplites or the alternative - AOE - phalanx unit)
Cretan Archer (I plan on using the Toxotes/Greek Archer unit)
Assyrian Archer
Ifikratian Hoplite (?)
Javelineer
Imperial Legionary
Gastraphetes (?) – might use some sort of Crossbowman (that’s what it was, anyway)
More?


Cavalry
Heteroi (Companions)
Seleucid Cataphracts (?)
Parthian Cataphracts
Parthian Horse Archers (?)
Thessalian Cavalry (?)
Numidian Cavalry (?)
More?

Siege
Hellepolis (?)
Ballistae
More?

What we need to make this scenario something more than a home-made for the self-pleasure of the creator, toy-scenario, are:

- A map that does not include large chunks of northern Europe (not needed in this scenario) but stretches from Iberia to Persia. If nobody can make such a map, we’ll have to stick with the one we have in the scenario RoR or… is there a larger European map? We need room for more cities.
- Some historical data concerning the non-Greek factions (those I master pretty well) and especially the minor factions. Also, city and leader lists for any faction shall be highly appreciated.
- More data on possible units/buildings/wonders. Also, a tech-tree that could span in three eras and someone to create and implement it.
- Units. Unit graphics. Anything related to graphics shall be extremely highly appreciated (I am good with words but lousy with images). Prolly we might create this scenario without creating a single unit, but if someone is willing to add more spice that would be great.
- Anything else you can think of.

Anyone interested? Mind you, this might require some serious work...

Warning !!! Too big map = unloadable scn ...

I want play your future scn :cry:

Keep the same map than Rise of Rome

Not too cities for reasons of loading ...

If not i can't wait :goodjob:

I was planning to edit Rise of Rome to get a similar result to what you have. If you are interested, here's my ideas:

Rome, Carthage, Iberia, Gaul, Goths, Parthia, Macedon, Seleucid, and Egypt.

Rome:
Legion I: 4.3.1 50
Legion II: 5.4.1 70
Legion III: 6.5.1 90
Velites: 2.1.1 20
Garrison: 1.3.1 20
Horseman: 2.1.2 30
Heavy Cav: 5.2.2 60 (or whatever it actually is, my memory is a bit fuzzy)
Galley: 3.2.4 (3) 40
Assault Galley: 3.2.3 50 enslaved to assault Galley

Carthage:
Libyan Mercenary: 2.3.1 20
Punic Horseman: 2.1.2 30 (No upkeep).
Numidian Cavalry: 3.1.3 30 (Note: Anyone with Numidian Horse resource can build)
Elephant: 4.2.2 50 +1 HP (Note: Both Macedon and Seleucid start with some Elephants, but can't build any more)
Heavy Cav (see above).
Balearic Slinger: 2.2.1 2.0.1
Carthaginian Galley 4.2.4(+1 move for Seafaring) (3) 40

Gaul:
Spearman: 1.2.1 20
Archer: 2.1.1 2.0.1 20
Swordsman: 3.2.1 30
Galic Swordsman: 4.2.2 50
Horseman: 2.1.2 30
Barbarian Cavalry: 5.2.3 60

Macedon:
Spearman: 1.2.1 20
Hoplite: 3.3.1 40
Peltast: 2.1.1 20
Companion: 3.1.2 30
Heavy Cav (see above)
Swordsman 3.2.1
Starts with a few Elephants (from India)

Seleucid
Peltast 2.1.1 20
Spearman 1.2.1 20
Hoplite 3.3.1 40
Horseman 2.1.2 30
Swordsman
Cataphract (Eastern Cataphract): 6.2.2 60
Starts with a few Elephants (From India)

Parthia
Horse Archer: 2.1.3 2.0.1 30 (starts with a bunch to initially take out a lot of Seleucid cities)
Archer: 2.1.1 2.0.1 20
Cataphract: 6.2.3
Spearman: 1.2.1 20
Swordsman: 3.2.1 30
Immortal (not sure about this, because it isn't historically accurate) 4.2.1 40

Not sure about the rest being playable

Egypt:
Basically like the other Greek kingdoms, except they get Archers for Defensive bombard
Spearman 1.2.1 20
Hoplite 3.3.1 40
Horseman 2.1.3 30
Archer 2.1.1 2.0.1 20
Heavy Cav (only if playable)

Goths:
Spearman: 1.2.1 20
Swordsman: 3.2.1 30
Teutonic Warrior (available at Military Training, or something like that) 6.2.1 70
Horseman 2.1.2
Barbarian Cavalry: 5.2.3 60

Iberia:
Spearman: 1.2.1 20
Balearic Slinger: 2.2.1 2.0.1 20
Horseman 2.1.2
Barbarian Cav 5.3.3 60
Swordsman/Iberian Swordsman 3.2.1 30 / 4.2.1 40

Techs: Add ship building of Map Making to build Galleys
Add Corvus as a Roman tech for Assault Galleys. Add Colloseum wonder, add Gladiator school as wonder that produces Gladiator units.

The Seleucid leader should be Antiochus III, not?

Interesting project. I'll be following it, and can perhaps help some. I'm not a graphics person, tho.

:) I would like to see this.

I like the idea of an enlarged area - depends how big though, since slow down is a BIG problem :(

roman cav suggestions ;)

A- Equites, a basic cavalry unit, the first in the roman line

B- mercenary cavalry- the equites do NOT upgradce into this- as it is supposed to represetn the ro0ma defficency in cavalry for its pre-imperial period

C- Contarius- a strong cavalry man, firsd used in Agustian times, this would be the basic unit used to build into the mighty late Roman, and eventually Byzantine cataphracts- basically, he is a cataphract in that he is a heavilly armourd trooper weilding a large two handed pike, but the horse has no armour on it

*note the equite upgrade sintol the contarius, while the merc. cav has no upgrade

also, depending on how large the map is, Ethiopea (Axum), and Persia (under the parthians it was a subkingdom, not afully incorperated territory, that persia was) are a must

Originally posted by Ad Hominem
The Rise of Rome 2nd edition

My favorite Conquest scenario is Rise of Rome. I love the ancient era (my favorite MOD is of course “The Ancient Mediterranean”) and that’s why. But… but… the scenario is everything but historically correct. I am an avid history buff and I really wish for some more accuracy, and also for enhanced gameplay, at least compared to the rather abstract nature of the “off the box” version of this scenario.



Me too :) So I'm working on exactly the same conquest. Mine will use Rise of Rome map and cover period from 282 BC (beginning of the war with Magna Graetia, Greek colonies in South Italy) to 116 AD (peak of the Roman might under Trajan). To make things a bit harder, there will be 16 civs:

Rome
Carthage
Hellas (Macedon and the rest of proper Greece)
Magna Graetia (as mentioned before)
Aegypt
Galia
Germania
Britannia
Sarmatia
Thracia
Dacia
Minor Asia (standing for all these Pontus, Capadocia ect.)
Armenia
Parthia (at the beginning it should be Seleucides, but you've got to make compromises)
Illyrians
Iberians

As you can see, some civs will in fact represent various tribes occupying a certain territory (i.e. Illyrians or Iberians).

So far, I've made everything except from tech tree (the worst one) and buildings. O, I've also got to redo the map (cities, borders, nations). I'm also waiting for Kryten to release his Roman units (they were announced somewhere in Peloponnesian War thread, I believe), which I'd love to use - if permitted of course.

As to units or resources, I'm not tied to ideal balance between civs. There will be about 30 resources (including 16 luxuries), but tar or honey will be spotted only in Germania's forests, amber on Baltic seashore, marble in Greece and North Africa, hemp in Sarmatia, papyrus in Mid East ect. So it will be much more historically correct and it won't be so easy to gain 10+ luxuries for your civ, because you'll need to trade with many nations.
The same will go for units. I'm not going to desaign a standard developement line and just make flavour units in each category. I'd rather have all units UU in some sense. For example, Parthians, Armenians or Sarmatians will later have cataphract, but it doesn't mean Romans will recieve a comparable counterpart with the same tech. It should represent general Roman inferior in horseback warfare. OTOH, Roman legions (early and late republican, and imperial) will be better than other civs' footmen. Dacian i.e. can start even with falxmen and do not recieve any better infantry till end of the game. However, I'll probably make some barbarian mercenaries avaliable to civilized nations (such as Rome, Hellas, Carthage ect.).

Goverments will be:
Republic
City States
Kingdom
Tribal Chiefdom
Imperialism

Of course, everyone will start with proper gov, not that Rome will have to go from Tribal Chiefdom to Republic or something.

Well, that's all for now.

I think galia is a obrigatory one. I can help with resources and tech tree:
resources you'll need: Olive Oil, Lemon and orange, diferent fishes, wool, horses( a few on the north spain and south france)
and wine(with white graphics)
Techs: Colosseum, History Telling, Road run

Edited to avoid confusion

all

Thanks for the feedback and warm welcome of this effort.


Louis
I like your unit lineup, but I plan on adding more units for most factions – and that’s because I wish for an expanded techtree as well. But I can use your unit lineup as a basis and build upon it. If you wish, we could work together on this


TLC

I’d agree on Antiochos III “The Great”, that’s the suggested leader I have in my list as well. I’d appreciate any help concerning historical data, since you seem to be quite a history person yourself.


Xen

Well, as for Persia, there was no independent (or semi-independent) Persian kingdom at the time of the scenario start (either 264 or 250 BC). The Parthians took Iran in the very late 3rd century BC – early 2nd century BC. And the Parthian empire was really an amalgam of semi-independent kingdoms anyway, modeled on the earlier Persian satrapy system. Axum… well, in the current map can’t be included, but if someone is brave enough to make a new map… who knows ;)

Contarius (their later incarnation are the Byzantine Kondarati, no?) are a bit late for the timeframe of this scenario, ain’t they?

Kristoff

I like your approach, but mine seems a bit different. I will try to focus on the Latin-Greek world, the Great powers of the times, and have the others (bar Carthago-Parthia, they are Great powers too) for filling purposes.

I especially like the approach on resources and unit lineups – that’s precisely what I’d like to do too: Unique unit lineups. We could cooperate if we could find a common ground (somewhere in the middle? :) ) and work on a single scenario. But it’s up to you. Let me know.

Boreas

Was your offer for Kristoff’s scenario, mine or both? If it was about this scenario too, you could provide a huge help, dealing with the resources. Let me know and I’ll tell you my thoughts.

ALL

I think my initial post was somewhat cluttered with lots of stuff so probably I wasn’t clear as to what I need to proceed with the scenario. So, here are some jobs some of you might find interesting:

- Unit lineup for most factions
- Resources (concept and graphics)
- Tech Tree (concept, Graphics, Creation)
- Building lineup (concept, creation)
- Leaderheads suggestions

So… any daring volunteers?

Originally posted by Ad Hominem
all

Xen

Well, as for Persia, there was no independent (or semi-independent) Persian kingdom at the time of the scenario start (either 264 or 250 BC). The Parthians took Iran in the very late 3rd century BC – early 2nd century BC. And the Parthian empire was really an amalgam of semi-independent kingdoms anyway, modeled on the earlier Persian satrapy system. Axum… well, in the current map can’t be included, but if someone is brave enough to make a new map… who knows ;)

Contarius (their later incarnation are the Byzantine Kondarati, no?) are a bit late for the timeframe of this scenario, ain’t they?


well, first of, from when are you starting, and stopping the scenario (what dates) helping to dofine things woul aid just about everything as for when the game ends...

anyway, as far as the contarius goes, its descendent would have been the Cataphracts- "cont" anything just describes a horseman as a type of mounted lancer
and no, I doubt it would be to late if you cbsidering using J. Caesar as the Roma great leader,as the Contarius rose into use with the Augustian reforms of the military

* note that Ceasr importance in that reasoning is that I assume, since Caesar will be used as a leader, the game goes to at least the late republic period, makeing it not much of a stretch to imcorperate som troops from the early Imperial period into usage in the end part of the game

Hmm... ok Xen, I was thinking more in the lines of a 264 BC - 116 BC scenario, but I think we could stretch it to the end of the century or so, in order to justify the inclusion of JC (maybe Cleo too for Ptolemaic Egypt) as a Roman leader We'd need quite a tech tree for such a prolonged period, though, with vast changes and all...

I know about Kondos (it's almost the same word in modern Greek, "kondari", meaning the same thing) but I was wondering about a more linear linkage between the early Byzantine Kondarati and the Roman Contarius... BTW as I've seen in other threads Cataphract seem to be your personal Holy Grail :D

Too bad only Parthian, Seleucid (and perhaps Armenian, if we include those) should have Cataphracts in this scenario...

wha dose condos in greek mean?

Contarius is latin, and is based off of the word 'Contos', meaning "barge pole"- which was the name given to cavalry Pikes

Kondos or Kontos in Medieval Greek means lance and/or pike (especially the particular byzantine lance, the one used also by the Cataphracts). Prolly it's an adoption by the Roman word, but I wonder about the true origins of the word, because Contos has obviously Greek root... maybe I'll check it out.

Kondari in modern Greek means the same thing and also a pole or a very long and thick stick.

Originally posted by Ad Hominem
all


Kristoff

I like your approach, but mine seems a bit different. I will try to focus on the Latin-Greek world, the Great powers of the times, and have the others (bar Carthago-Parthia, they are Great powers too) for filling purposes.

I especially like the approach on resources and unit lineups – that’s precisely what I’d like to do too: Unique unit lineups. We could cooperate if we could find a common ground (somewhere in the middle? :) ) and work on a single scenario. But it’s up to you. Let me know.



Well, I see we try to cover a slightly different period and territory. Though, I think we could for example develop a common resources pack and units (also buildings, some techs). Maybe I'll just send you my resources (pcx + txt) and you'll take what you want. By the and of this week I'll try also to send you my units ideas and we can think of making a common "armoury". How about that?

one single "scenario pack" but with two different BIQs, perhaps? That would be a decent compromise.

Alright, when I go home (late, late, late tonight, as my spouse shall take me to furniture-hunting :eek: this afternoon after work) I'll start finishing some preliminary unit lineups/stats/reqs and send them to you when they are ready. Then you can throw your ideas at me and we can go on "developing that common armoury" :goodjob:

Re: Antiochus III, it act'ly says Antigonos III Megas in your first post. Mere thinko, I assume.

Parthia is going to need a hefty advantage or two, if they're going to eat the eastern bits of the Seleucid kingdom in a vaguely realistic manner.

You might want to add a "Barbarian Swordsman" or the like for the Celts, Germanics and the like.

Antigonos... yeah, that's what I did... Where do I keep my mind sometimes, I wonder.

Of course I meant Antiochos III, the Great (Megas), the greatest Seleucid leader of them all

Yes, the Barb swordsman sounds a must-have. Suggestion to a more accurate naming and what unit to use to represent this?

I meant both scenarios. Because of the location, those resources could be used at any conquests that happens on that map

Originally posted by Ad Hominem
Yes, the Barb swordsman sounds a must-have. Suggestion to a more accurate naming and what unit to use to represent this?

Why make a "swordman", "spearman" ect. instead of just Germanic or Gaul or whatever "warrior". Barbarians were equipped in such a variety of weapons, that it seems a bit odd to have a whole unit (unless you think it represents one man) of "swordmen". My idea is a bit different. I.e. Celts will have just "Celtic Warrior" (this one from PtW) and some other units (developed with time and techs) based rather on their origin, character and so than on a specific weapon. Celts would have for example a "Celtic fanatic" (naked Pictish warrior by utahjazz7), "Celtic noble" (kind of upgraded warrior, maybe with graphics of PtW berserker?), "mounted Celtic noble" (slavic horseman by utahjazz7 wouldn't be bad to represent it). Rome would have velites, legionaires (3 different types changing with time), auxilia cavalry, and so on.

I think the PTW Gallic Swordsman graphics would be ideal for a "Celtic Noble" unit. The Berserker doesn't look partic'larly Celtic. For a common "Celtic Warrior", something less flashy-looking could be found, p'rhaps.

Celtic Charioteers might also be worth considering. Ideally, the warrior should probably dismount to fight, but that might be hard to get.

But Barbarians are pretty peripheral, ain't they?

The Parthians, at least from the last century BC, used to field large numbers of infantry levies drawn from the subject populations. While of poor quality, their sheer numbers could be effective, and including them would free the real troops (the cav) for offensive duties. Just make them good enough that the AI thinks they're enough to garrison cities with.

I was thinking about the locked alliances or wars of this scenario and there are a few quite inevitable: Rome vs Carthago, Parthia vs Seleucia, Antigonids vs Southern Greeks & Ptolemeans... What do you think? Seems like the two first are a must for this scenario.

Originally posted by Ad Hominem
I was thinking about the locked alliances or wars of this scenario and there are a few quite inevitable: Rome vs Carthago, Parthia vs Seleucia, Antigonids vs Southern Greeks & Ptolemeans... What do you think? Seems like the two first are a must for this scenario.

It depends when you start. For me it will be 282 BC, when Romans start a war with Southern Greek colonies, so it doesn't make sense to lock them in a war with Carthage, because this will come later. OTOH, Parthia will be locked at war with Seleucides (I decided to put them in the game also), although in RL the war had started later too (in 238 BC Arsaces I succeeded in defeating the Seleucid governor of Parthia and establishing the Parthian kingdom). Without it I would have to start without Parthia, wich I don't want.

Actually Arsaces I started his campaign in 250 and established a kingdom in 247. He died allmost immediately and his successor (whos name escapes my mind now) carried on the war against Seleucid Empire.

Since I start in the era of the first Punic War (264 BC) a locked war between Rome and Carthago is a must, as is a locked war between Parthia and Seleucid Empire. Is it possible to have more than two sets of locked war situations?

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
I think the PTW Gallic Swordsman graphics would be ideal for a "Celtic Noble" unit. The Berserker doesn't look partic'larly Celtic. For a common "Celtic Warrior", something less flashy-looking could be found, p'rhaps.

Celtic Charioteers might also be worth considering. Ideally, the warrior should probably dismount to fight, but that might be hard to get.
.

remember, it wa saonly the non continntal celts (in other words, justthe ones in the british isles) that used chariots- mainland celts used cavalry, and were, along wit the Iberians the main source of Roman medium cavalry

I figure it more likely that the Britons got their chariots ultimately from the Mid East than that they invented them independently, so I suspect they were at some point in use among the continental Celts. This not to dispute that the continental Celts the Romans faced fought on foot or horseback.

Given the unwieldiness of chariots in wooded or mountaineous terrain, I've always found it odd that they were popular among peoples such as the Britons and Mycenaeans. There's always that suspicion that their function as symbols of status was more important than their military efficacy.

The relevant question is, no doubt, how far north the map goes. If the British Isles are not included, that would rather argue against including Celtic Chariots.

The word for non-continental Celts is, btw, "insular", appropriately enough.

A few ideas for leaders...

Macedonia :
Military leaders : Pyrrhos, Perseus (son of Philip V, even if it was the end).
Scientific leaders :

Hellas :
Military leaders : Aratos (Achean League), Cleomene III (Sparta)
Scientific leaders :

Lagids (or Ptolemaic) :
Military leaders : Sosibios (he organized the Egyptian support phalanx that helped win at Raphia in 217 BC)
Scientific leaders : Erathostene (he calculated the Earth size), and so many more from the Museum and the Library.

Seleucid :
Military leaders : difficult for the kings were usually in charge, the famous generals being the ones that revolted (Achaios, Diodote Tryphon).
Scientific leaders :

My two cents : I would create a civ for Pergamum + Rhodes (I can both can be associated) and maybe made allied with Rome.

Celtic chariots were rare, used mostly by noblemen and for prestige reasons. They allowed transport of chiefs to the battlefield and quick picking up if necessary and were not really used for actual chariot fighting. Their social role made them parts of important burials too. And they were mostly used by the Belgium part of the celts who had migrated to Lower England.

Those Frenchifications, again! :D

In English, "Cleomenes", "Eratosthenes" and, I strongly suspect, "Diodotes".

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Those Frenchifications, again! :D

In English, "Cleomenes", "Eratosthenes" and, I strongly suspect, "Diodotes".

Yep, must acknowledge (in case you hadn't realized already :D ) I am no native English speaker and it is a real pain when it comes to historical names :mad:

I'm no native speaker of English either, but "luckily" much historical literature isn't translated into Swedish, or only anything but promptly, wherefore I end up reading much in English. More than in Swedish by now, I suspect.

LouLong

Thanks for the suggestions on the leaders. There is quite a number for the Hellenistic kingdoms and Rome, but the rest might prove less easy. Although they are not extremely tough either.

It’s Diodotos in English too, btw. Dunno what kind of types (English-ized, original Greek types or Latin) am I going to use… any suggestions?


ALL

A preliminary unit lineup, just to attract some possible ideas, suggestions etc.

Rome:
Early Republican Legion
Late Republican Legion
Imperial Legion
Velites
Garrison
Equites
Contarius
Barbarian Merc. Cavalry (name suggestions?)


Carthage:
Carthagenian Hoplite
Libyan Mercenary
Horseman ).
Numidian Cavalry
War Elephant
Iberian Mercenaries (available in Iberian provinces by a relevant resource)
Celt Mercenaries (the same in Gaul).
Balearic Slinger

Hellenic factions general lineup:

Hoplites (variations for each faction)
Peltasts
Toxotes
Thireophoroi
Pike Phalanx
Rhodian slingers (resource in Rhodos)
Cretan Archers (resource in Crete)

Faction Specific

Hellenistic kingdoms (Selucid, Macedon, Lagids):

Heteroi Cavalry
Argyraspides Phalanx
Hypaspists

Lagids:
Egyptian Auxiliary

Seleucids:
Cataphract

The ship lineup I plan on keeping similar for the “great powers” and Southern Greece, and it should look like this:

Trireme
Cataphract Trireme
Wargalley
Quinquireme

Same with the siege engines

Ballistae
Catapult
Fire Catapult

Originally posted by Ad Hominem

It’s Diodotos in English too, btw.

Certain of that? There certainly is an ancient Greek name anglicized as "Diodotes", and Diodotos>Diodote doesn't seem to follow the patern of the other Frenchifications.

And whence that "also"?

No, I looked it up and I've found it with an "us" (Diodotus) too... both forms might be in use. The correct is "os", anyway.

The pattern goes like that: The Greek names that in Greek end with an "is" (as Themistoklis, Eratosthenis, Miltiadis) get anglicised with an endinge "es" (Themistokles, Eratosthenes, Miltiades).

Those ending with an -os (Diodotos, Dionysios, Apollodoros) usually aquire in English the latin "us" (Diodotus, Dionysius, Apollodorus).

There are some names not following this rule, because they are being anglicised fully (Alexandros - Alexander, Aristotelis - Aristotle, Selephkos-Seleucus, Odysseas-Ulysses) retain their original form (Heron) or get an odd ending (Ptolemeos-Ptolemy).

soem suggestions-

A) instead of "garrison; for the romans, just use "Auxilla"

B)calling a unit a phalanx is like calling a single mad a crowd, use the name "Phalangite" instead

Louis
I like your unit lineup, but I plan on adding more units for most factions – and that’s because I wish for an expanded techtree as well. But I can use your unit lineup as a basis and build upon it. If you wish, we could work together on this

I'll give suggestions :)

BTW, Numidian Cavalry is being made by Kryten, and I think I remembered him starting a Barbarian Cavalry (but, because he didn't mention much about it, expect it done in 2006 ;) ).

I've been skimming the thread, because it is so big (to be reading from my last post), but for a Barbarian Swordsman, you could use the European Swordsman.

Unrelated thought, but it might be possible that Brittons got Chariots from the Phoenicians. :crazyeyes:

EDIT: If I were you, I wouldn't put Rome and Carthage into Locked War.

Originally posted by Louis XXIV



EDIT: If I were you, I wouldn't put Rome and Carthage into Locked War.

I second that. Remember that Rome at first allied itself to Carthage to fight Italian Greek colonies.

Ad Hominem: You're right - it's Diodotos in this case. But it still breaks the pattern, since the other Frenchifications show -os>-os and -es>-e.

Alexandros>Alexander is a perfectly good Latinization, btw - Greek -ros regularly corresponding to Latin -er.

And the Greek's "Seleukos", according to every source I can find.

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Ad Hominem: You're right - it's Diodotos in this case. But it still breaks the pattern, since the other Frenchifications show -os>-os and -es>-e.

Alexandros>Alexander is a perfectly good Latinization, btw - Greek -ros regularly corresponding to Latin -er.

And the Greek's "Seleukos", according to every source I can find.

Ditto about Alexander, but Seleucos in Greek this is pronounced with the biphthong "eu" which in Greek results in "eph" (or "ef", if you like).

So the phonetic writing of that name would be Seh-leh-phkos

I'm aware of the (Modern) Greek pronunciation of Seleukos. But using 'ph' rather suggested you meant to say it's spelt with a phi.

It's, btw, "diphthong".

The ancient Greek pronunciation is precisely the same.

Bipthong sounded to me more English... diphthong is Greek to the bone :D my bad

roman cav suggestions ;)

A- Equites, a basic cavalry unit, the first in the roman line

B- mercenary cavalry- the equites do NOT upgradce into this- as it is supposed to represetn the ro0ma defficency in cavalry for its pre-imperial period

C- Contarius- a strong cavalry man, firsd used in Agustian times, this would be the basic unit used to build into the mighty late Roman, and eventually Byzantine cataphracts- basically, he is a cataphract in that he is a heavilly armourd trooper weilding a large two handed pike, but the horse has no armour on it

You could also have praetorian cavalry for imperial roman heavy cav.

-Dominator;8178033']You could also have praetorian cavalry for imperial roman heavy cav.
You've just resurrected a thread that's about five and a half years old. Please don't do that; they won't be working on it anymore.