Peloponnesian War Scenario Development Thread

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by Kryten


After all, is it not strange that in a war lasting for some 27 years, it never once entered the Spartans mind to say to themselves "....'ere, if we storm the city of Athens, then we could end this war overnight!"
Either we today are a lot more clever than the Spartans were, OR, we are missing part of the equation.

I think this had to do with Sparta's lack of siege equiptment. Sparta was used to the standard Greek warfare that they were so good at. They march to the city, start destroying the countryside, and your opponent will leave his city to fight you. Sparta would then defeat the opponent and take the city.

Pericles, however, had a different idea. The army would stay in Athens behind the wall, and use their navy to bring them food.

BTW, doesn't flood plains have to be desert next to a river?

I would just make Athens difficult to capture because of their walls (you should put it on a hill too), and large size (which will shrink from plague, and more after Sparta can build a naval blockade). The food they get from their Harbor should be more important than any land food (which would be covered by Spartan troops, if the Spartan player uses the Spartan tactic).

This is a little complicated, but its a bit more accurate.

 

[Xen]

one could surrong both cities with a circuler river, which would further make the citeis harder to take by storm...

 

[Amenhotep7]

Nah! Just nderneath it...And if there's a way to modify how often a terrain tile creates disease, ya might wanna make it more.

 

[Xen]

I dunno...I'm against doing such a thing as modifying the terrain defence value...after all, doing liek Krytens ays takes out all the fun! I was planning on leading Athens to victory by capturing Sparta itself!

 

[Amenhotep7]

Hmmm....Alteration of history, eh? Well, I'll allow what you want for terrain defense values...Sorry Kryten, but Xen and I like historical accuracy, (I assume u like historical accuracy too...Correct me if I'm wrong, Xen), but nonetheless, Xen and I like that history-altering feel to civ3! Please continue to contribute, Kryten!

 

[Xen]

I'm a firm supporter of the Athenian cause in that war

 

[Amenhotep7]

Bah! Me I support the Spartan cause! (The Athenians were gettin a lil' too big for their own good! I like altering history, though...) How's Anatolia comin' along, Xen? I'll try findin' maps of that region if it helps...

Here's one...

 

[Xen]

thanks

as for Athens vr. Sparta- I happen to like democracy, and free choice rather then big burlly, bi-sexual men (not that I have a problem with them, but I just favor Athens in the matter- i woul dby far prefer an Athenian empire to a spartan one...)

 

[Amenhotep7]

Me? Pro-Democratic, too, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I heard that if you turned down an "invitation" to their Empire, they'd come after you! Well, the release time is ridin on you and Kryten...I'll just sit and twiddle my thumbs...

P.S. How are Carthaginian and Etruscan territory comin' along??

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'd just chime in and say I find it hard to to like either the Spartan or the Athenian political model, not to speak of their respective foreign policies, or treatment of their allies.

However, I do have this irrational sympathy for Sparta (and Achaemenid Persia), acquired from obnoxiously Athens-glorifying ol' history books I read as a kid. When this scenario comes playbable, I try and reduce Athens in rather less than 27 years ...

 

[Amenhotep7]

U'll have 324 turns...Good luck...

 

[Xen]

-I havent been able to work on it AT ALL the last few days- I'm bogged down by test, and report at the moment

-personally, I hold a fond thought of Athens- after going into the subject, its very clear WHY Sparta is so often neglected in history books- a overlly milatraist, olgiarchic, rather selfish (even more then the Athenians!),slave-thinking conservative, communist (as oppoesd to nice old socialist ) state, who would resort to war to both get rid of doubtful allies (Soartan tactics dicated that they, the Spartaites, hold the strong right flank, while the dubious allies were put on the weak left flank- it also made it so that the spartans only went up against an enymies weakest troops, and then, when the Spartans had to fight another core of crack troops positioned on the left flank to counter them, the Spartans fell apart)-and used such force to further imperialistic gleams of glory at the expense of exorting the other cities in greece on a scale not nearlly seen before with Athens

I feel that if Greece had been unified in that war, it was ONLY Athens who could have done it, and ONLY Athens which could have been a proper head of government for it

 

[Amenhotep7]

All right, fair enough...Athens wasn't bad either...(And their government was a much more desirable to live under...And as civvers, we specialize in altering history...Where else but in civ can the Romans defeat the Iroquois in 426 AD???

 

[Xen]

an interesting idea...

well, first off, lemme say that i have worked on the map just a touch, and I can belive how fun this thing is going to be to play the best equivilent I can think of for how cool this will be is the sengoku conquest in the next civ3 x-pack- its the only one thta bears a close resmblence to it in terms of civ numbers...

now for that idea- to ensure that "elite" units, like the Theban sacred band, the Spartan equals (Spartiates), and the as of now looking for a new name Athenian marines are trully in rather short supply, and making a failure on campaign truelly devestating, i think we should make them each cost a population point when built- this also means that when a campaign is done, you can add these troops into the local population, or bring 'em back home for some R&R, and to revamp the economy...

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Hmmm....Alteration of history, eh? Well, I'll allow what you want for terrain defense values...Sorry Kryten, but Xen and I like historical accuracy, (I assume u like historical accuracy too...Correct me if I'm wrong, Xen), but nonetheless, Xen and I like that history-altering feel to civ3! Please continue to contribute, Kryten!

Oh, I like altering history as well.....
....but, as I have said in other threads, "a game or scenario that is capable of simulating thousands of 'what-if' situations, but is NOT capable of simulating the true 'historical' situation, has got to be fundamentaly flawed".

After all, you wouldn't give the Spartans Knights, Legionaries or Elephants would you, because they never had them.
Likewise, you wouldn't have them invading Egypt or Spain, because they never did.
So when all the history books say that neither they or the Athenians directly stormed each others capital city.....

Let's be honest.....they knew a lot more about the situation and their own military capablities in the 5th century BC then we will ever know.....and if they DIDN'T or COULDN'T directly assult each other, then there must have been good reasons, even if we today can't tell what they were.

To answer Louis XXIV, yes, the Spartans were not very good a sieges. But in the scenario, we want them to
be able to capture cities.
That is the paradox.
The Spartans during this 27 year war captured many cities, as did the Athenians, but neither of them made a direct assult on each others capital.
Why not?....beacuse a direct assult was not possible, or they would have done it!

Giving each of them a half dozen "Garrison Hoplites" (which cannot be upgrade, cannot be built, cannot move, and costing no maintenance) would simulate this difficulty, which was fundmental to this war, and gives it it's unique charactor.
(This is probably better than my first suggestion of 'massive defensive bonuses on Flood Plains', as the possibly of a direct assult is still an option, although so difficult that it was never tried in reality)

If you are going to make an HISTORICAL scenario. then you have got to get the history right!

 

[The Last Conformist]

I think I rather prefer the "massive defense bonus" option. Giving a fixed number of "garrison" units just begs for attrition tactics, where the player suicides a number of units to get rid of one Garrion Hoplite. Repeat a few times, and a traditional assault on the city is suddenly doable. The "massive defense bonus" would allow the attacked party to rebuild capital defenses after a failed attack, and I'm sure a balance can be found at which the difficulty in capturing a capital is just right.

 

[Xen]

of course there is also the thaught that capturing the enimies city wouldnt prove one way "correct' over the other- it would only surpress it, but the fundemental idea (as shown by the end of the 30 tyrants) would always still be there- by forceing a city to surrender, it was an admission to everyone that they had been wrong, and shoudl thus do thire opponents way- and considerign the importance of honor in the society, I dont think what i just said is all that difficult to comprehend- hell, when we look at the fact, each army seemed to go out of it way to avoid taking each others city- the spartans could have just as easilly made a hug assualt with all of there allieas at the height of the war, as Athens could have used all those forces assembled to take syracuse to attack sparta...but they didnt - though other factors contributed to the stratages used, I cant help but think that one fo the goals for each side was to get the other to admit that they were right without having to force them to through conquest

 

[The Last Conformist]

Given the Spartans' distate for siege warfare, and Athens formidable defenses, a direct assault on the city would no doubt have been extremely risky and bloody. (I suspect that the Spartan leaderships was only too aware that any victory bought at the cost of a alot of Spartans was a threat to Lacedaemon's social stability.)

Sparta is an inland city. Any attempt to attack it would be met by the assambled land forces of the Peloponnesian League, with Spartans fighting for their homeland at the front. When Athenians invaded the Peloponnese, they where defeated at Mantineia.

So, I think there were good strictly military reasons for the reluctance to directly attack the respective capitals.

 

[Xen]

yet the Athenians gained a grand victory in the battle of Sphacteria against the Spartans, and that to was in the peoloponnese

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'll just point out that Sphacteria isn't technically in the Peloponnese - it's just offshore!

And, of course, it wasn't exactly a normal land battle.