RFC Classical World

[Sitalkas]

I ve noticed in every Seleucid game and at this Antigonids game , that the Ptolemys have many of their units and their UUs roaming around the Arabian Peninsula. Honestly if they had the galatian infantries defending their cities (or attacking mine) I would have been in deep trouble.

the goals seem ok, with moderate difficulty . Maybe adding something more to their 1st UHV eg: be the first to discover monarchy + X , just to make it harder.

also conquering Greece might also be a good goal to match the Seleucid+Ptolemys conquest

edit: i disagree with the antigonids UU being so important after military drill. a peltast with combat 2 promotion has 50% chance to win a heavy spearman ... maybe making the bonus counts against normal spearmen?

 

[CrossRFC]

I don't think having to reach Monarchy is a good goal for the reason that the Antigonids were the LEAST despotic of the successor empires/kingdoms. I think something like philosophy would perhaps be a better choice if you're going to go for that sort of UHV.

Also, the AI Ptolemy could use some of the Seleucid UU's at start, which would help protect against the Seleucids and Antigonids, and reflect that all of these empires come from Alexander, so they'd all have phalanxes. If you're against having another civ's UU, then some more Galatian infantry would be appreciated.

Loading up some games as Axum from 320 BC just to test the AI, and Rome seems to be doing a poor job of capturing Africa and the East. Parthia is also doing very poorly, often having cities sacked in its north, and being unable to capture Seleukia and Babylon from the independents of a collapsed Seleucid empire. Antigonids seem to do very well and securely hold on to all their starting cities, in addition to Byzantion, Aleppo, Damascus and Athens. They don't get Macedonia often though...They should probably be weaker and have a respawn in Macedonia once they are defeated in Anatolia by joint Ptolemaic and Seleucid forces.

 

[pompouslemur]

Just wondering, is the Roman UB supposed to lose the commerce bonus of a market or is that unintended?

 

[Sitalkas]

I dont think that the Antigonids were less despotic than the Ptolemys...

A military technology is ok for a UHV for the Antigonids, given that a more humanistic/science tech would be assigned to the Ptolemys, as all the great minds of that era were in Alexandria..

About Pella ..I agree about the sheep resource. But it should replace the pig one that exists at the moment. Traditionally the Greeks were sheep/goat shepherds !
The tile 1S of Pella should become a grassland-plain and not a hill, to represent the valley of Larisa. This valley is the greatest in Greece ,and always have been, as the farms there nearly feed all Greece!
So you can give this tile a wheat resource or a horse resource (see Thessalian cavalry)

edit: update, again the same problem.. the 2nd UHV condition turned to "goal failed"

 

[CrossRFC]

Additionally, there should be an independent Trapezous at the north-eastern edge of Turkey on the black sea, and there should probably be a fish ressources and maybe a production or commerce ressource on the grassland tile there. I either see no city there, or the very poor city of Nicomedia settled by Armenia.

Edit: Yes, the Antigonids were in fact less despotic than the Ptolemies and Seleucids:

1) The Ptolemaic dynasty elevated itself to the status of gods, much like the other Egyptian dynasties, and were addressed as such
2) The Seleucid dynasty adopted an eastern despotic monarchic system, much like the Persians
3) The Antigonids kept a traditional greek kingship system, in which the king could be addressed much more casually than the former kings, and which allowed assemblies (which had limited power but served a purpose nonetheless) and a council of nobles, which actually held power, and which made the Macedonian monarchy more of an oligarchy.

 

[Sitalkas]

I think you are a bit unfair to the Ptolemys !

Pharaoh=god was egyptian tradition, the Ptolemys just adopted it! and by saying despotic, dont we mean tyrant? thats what I understood !

 

[Proman]

Antigonids Ideas:

UP: The Power of Hellenism (Cities with a Hellenic Temple, have a +30% )

UB: Agora (Market), +35% bonus and +2 .

UHV's:

*Control Greece, Macedon, Thrace and Anatolia (Asia Minor) in 150BC.

*Never lose a city to Romans till 140BC.

*Build 6 Hellenic buildings in 140BC

My opinion.

 

[ace99]

Additionally, there should be an independent Trapezous at the north-eastern edge of Turkey on the black sea, and there should probably be a fish ressources and maybe a production or commerce ressource on the grassland tile there. I either see no city there, or the very poor city of Nicomedia settled by Armenia.

Edit: Yes, the Antigonids were in fact less despotic than the Ptolemies and Seleucids:

1) The Ptolemaic dynasty elevated itself to the status of gods, much like the other Egyptian dynasties, and were addressed as such
2) The Seleucid dynasty adopted an eastern despotic monarchic system, much like the Persians
3) The Antigonids kept a traditional greek kingship system, in which the king could be addressed much more casually than the former kings, and which allowed assemblies (which had limited power but served a purpose nonetheless) and a council of nobles, which actually held power, and which made the Macedonian monarchy more of an oligarchy.

Yeah, no. This is a misunderstanding of history at best and borderline bigoted at worst.

Moderator Action: Please do not direct your comments at another member but instead discuss the ideas presented.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[CrossRFC]

Yeah, no. This is a misunderstanding of history at best and borderline bigoted at worst.

Have you ever considered toning down the disrespect a little? We were having a nice little discussion here. If you're going to act like a d!ck , kindly leave. I can understand why you could have issues with my broad, generalized statement about the successor states, but learn to interact with others like a decent human being!

Moderator Action: Please do not use symbols to avoid the autocensor. Report the post and let the mods handle it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[ace99]

Have you ever considered toning down the disrespect a little? We were having a nice little discussion here. If you're going to act like a d!ck , kindly leave. I can understand why you could have issues with my broad, generalized statement about the successor states, but learn to interact with others like a decent human being!

Moderator Action: Please do not quote things that are against the rules, like someone avoiding the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

You must be new to the internet. You should probably not take being told you're wrong so personally.

But when you make statements like "eastern despotic monarchic system" you really shouldn't be surprised when people have an issue with that. A holdover from Orientalist British Whig historians I suspect. Try to read some new works and avoid British authors writing before the the turn of the century. I'm told Dividing the Spoils: The War for Alexander the Great's Empire by Robin A.H. Waterfield is a decent introductory read for people who aren't familiar with the period.

 

[CrossRFC]

How original of a retort. Yes, I'm going to take it personally because you've come in here and disrupted a very pleasant and respectful thread. You could have tried to use actual argumentation to convey your point, which I may even agree with, as you have now tried to do, but you decided to act like a troll, so I have no respect for you or your opinion. Find a different place to be impertinent.
Moderator Action: There is no need to react like this to another member of this site. Please report posts and let the mods handle it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Now, on to more important matters:

Sitalkas: yeah, the pharaonic system is indeed from the native Egyptians; I'm just saying the Ptolemaic dynasty adopted it to legitimize their reign, and so became a monarchic system by divine right.

Also, I do agree that a cultural/scientific tech goal for the Antigonids is not appropriate, considering Alexandria was the center of hellenic "wisdom". However, a military tech goal is also not incredibly appropriate, since none of the successor states were particularly good at military innovation, which is more appropriate to Rome.

Perhaps, as Proman suggested, it should be changed to "not losing a city to the Romans", but I'd change it to around 100 to 200 AD, to gives the Romans a better chance at taking it.

Speaking of Romans threatening the near east, I've also noticed that since a few versions ago, before the Antigonids were even added, Rome's military seems to fail to take anything east of Athens, and when it does capture anything, it's more due to the opposing AI's blunders than anything else. A Roman (AI) buff is perhaps in order.

 

[Proman]

Perhaps, as Proman suggested, it should be changed to "not losing a city to the Romans", but I'd change it to around 100 to 200 AD, to gives the Romans a better chance at taking it.

80BC would be better, knowing that Romans have a fast expansion through the Mediterranean.(is more near the date that Athens was conquered)

 

[CrossRFC]

80BC would be better, knowing that Romans have a fast expansion through the Mediterranean.(is more near the date that Athens was conquered)

I would agree to this date if the Roman AI felt threatening, because no matter the date, Rome is currently not a threat, or anywhere near as large a threat as it should be in the games I've played lately as various civs.

It seems that Rome goes on a conquest spree right after its spawn, and then stays somewhat inactive for the next 4 centuries. Roman "free units" should probably be better paced, but in much greater numbers.

My reason for choosing 100-200 AD was because the Roman empire reached its zenith during that century, and so I wanted the player to have to face wave after wave of Roman might until it could be argued that the Romans would have lost their edge.

Edit: also, because if the UHV date is 100-200 AD, the player gets to play a longer game before winning the UHV, which I personally think is fun. But then again, if one wants to play a longer game, one could just ignore the UHV.

 

[Proman]

I would agree to this date if the Roman AI felt threatening, because no matter the date, Rome is currently not a threat, or anywhere near as large a threat as it should be in the games I've played lately as various civs.

It seems that Rome goes on a conquest spree right after its spawn, and then stays somewhat inactive for the next 4 centuries. Roman "free units" should probably be better paced, but in much greater numbers.

My reason for choosing 100-200 AD was because the Roman empire reached its zenith during that century, and so I wanted the player to have to face wave after wave of Roman might until it could be argued that the Romans would have lost their edge.

Edit: also, because if the UHV date is 100-200 AD, the player gets to play a longer game before winning the UHV, which I personally think is fun. But then again, if one wants to play a longer game, one could just ignore the UHV.

Strange. In the games i've played Rome dominated the Mediterranean very fast, taking Athens, before entering in war with carthage, in 130BC.

 

[CrossRFC]

Not sure if you can delete posts, I've never had to myself, but worst case, just hit "edit" and delete the contents of the post to reduce the effects of the triple post.

Below are the images of 4 games I've loaded up as Axumites (15 AD) from the 320 BC start:

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

As you can see, Rome is doing okay, but not great (at best). In the fourth game Rome was confined to Southern Italy only! (Rome+Tarentum)

 

[Proman]

Rome should be more agressive ,so, they will declare war easily!

 

[CrossRFC]

I'll see if srpt has any ideas as to what may be causing this. As the human player, Rome often declares war once, a few turns after meeting them, but I push them back and they play nice from then on usually. As for AI on AI Roman aggressiveness, I really can't say.

Edit: playing as Mauryans, something very strange happened: the Sakas (aka Scythians) spawned their death-stacks at my doorsteps, in Sindh, Gandhara, and even next to Dwarka! Even if this is intended...it is quite strange. The Scythians would have occupied the region of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and so forth. While they did make it to Taxila eventually, they would have had to pass through the Parthians and Bactrians first, and the odd thing is that the Saka stacks only spawned next to my cities...

 

[srpt]

I will look into making the Romans more of a threat. I think did something in DoC involving the AI in the DLL, WARPLAN_TOTAL or something like that. I can also make changes in the leaderhead personality.

all the successor states were preoccupied to some extent by legitimizing their positions, the Monarchy goal went to the Antigonids mainly because neither of the others had it. I think it would make sense for any of them, but pairing it with the Seleucids conquest goal would be impossible and the Ptolemies have other tech goals. in general I don't want to stress too much about realism among the 3. that goes for units too. obviously they all similar armies, but this is civ and UUs are UUs, thats how the game works.

any thoughts on the Antigonids UP?

I will make those changes to Pella and Carthago Nova, thanks for the local geographical knowledge.

the non-svn has been updated to include the Antigonids.

 

[CrossRFC]

Gah, I can't seem to think up a UP! Maybe that mountain promotion, seeing as Macedonia, Thrace and Anatolia are quite hilly. Is that already an UP?

As an aside, I do believe the north of Anatolia was not Antigonid at the outbreak of the succession crisis. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Diadochi_satraps_babylon.png

Also, on the presence of gold and silver in Macedonia: "Philip's control over the mines of northern Greece gave him access to unprecedented (for his part of the world) wealth in gold and silver [...]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_army#Other_Infantry)

 

[Sitalkas]

You know I was thinking of saying that too!

A hill tile around Macedonia or Thrace really needs a gold resource. The silver is already present north west of Athens if I am not mistaken