Background
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2012, 02:18:03 PM
 

Author Topic: The Wages of Success is - Succession!  (Read 14563 times)

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« on: October 12, 2001, 01:27:03 PM »
Okay; before I get any further with this, please realize that we are discussing how things should work, if the interactions of the characters work out as intended. We're dealing here with my predictions of the emergent behavior of the game system here - not anything that will be hardcoded.

Quote
Surely a few generations of continued imperial unity would be in order.

There is no such thing. Much will depend on how you secure the succession to your King/Prince; whether you have sufficiently strong candidates for the throne ready, and what the opposition is like. The larger and more multi-cultural your empire is, the stronger the position of your successor better be.

Quote
The Ptolemaic empire did not disintegrate on the death of the early Ptolemies,

An empire of limited extent, and with a very strong succession in the early years.

Quote
nor the Seleukid on the death of the early Seleukid rulers.

Again an empire with a strong line of succession (Antiochus I serving 13 years by his father's side). And if I'm not too wrong on this, there is evidence that he had to deal with revolts immediately upon his accession - IIRC, wasn't this one of the reasons why the Galations succeeded in establishing themselves in Asia Minor?

Quote
Not to mention long-lived dynasties in Pontos, Pergamon, Bosporos, Armenia, Bithynia, Kappadokia, Numidia etc etc.

There is a scale of difference between small nations ([font color=blue]There can only be one![/font]) and huge empires, in which there is space for 10s of independent kingdoms/empires to pop out of the woodwork (at least in Imperium).

In short, times of succession during this game will always be a good time for the player to get paranoid, and the player must select the successor to his dead regent with care, since the player's decision here will be followed closely:

- Each potential heir to the throne will be evaluating his chances of a grab at the throne (and of course the Seleucid and Ptolemaic historical characters are going to be "blessed" with a very unreasonable amount of ambition :D, based on their historical behavior).
- Each governor-general will be considering his chances of establishing his own dynasty.
- Each grouping of people in the empire will be considering its chances of regaining its independence.

Obviously, the larger the empire is, the greater the risks of such rebellion becomes - even more so if the Empire is engaged in wars which tie down its army against external threats (or other revolters). The other problem a large empires face (except the Romans), is that the player will have to draft armies from his subject peoples - which means that he will have to largely depend on his sparse citizen manpower and mercenaries to keep his empire subjugated.

If things work out as designed, the smart player is one who limits the extents of his territorial ambitions, keeps peace in the realm, and establishes a clear and strong line of succession in each generation.

Comments on this? An unreasonable goal?
« Last Edit: September 06, 2004, 10:50:14 PM by Strategy »

Demonic_Emperor

  • Equite
  • Aedile
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2001, 10:46:02 PM »
I think what you're trying to do is very reasonable. I'm weary of "historical" games where endless blitzkrieg seems to be the most effective strategy. Assuming it turns out as planned, Imperium would be the first game that models to what extent the monarch actually controls his country. Genghis Khan 2 sort of did this but was far too oversimplified.

Will the Seleucid King, while fighting a war in Asia Minor, have any control over what happens in Bactria (assuming it's still under Seleucid rule)? I think that playing a single individual and having to secure a line of succession adds roleplaying elements to the game, very nice. :D

I'm interested to know how a contested succession will be handled.

Example: Seleucid King dies and his eldest son claims the throne, but his younger son wants the throne too and claims it as well. But wait, the king's wife wants to rule and just declared herself Queen. Meanwhile, the king's brother is rumored to be raising an army in Babylonia to seize power for himself. If that wasn't enough, a charismatic yet previously unknown man claiming to be a direct descendent of Alexander the Great has gained widespread support and is currently marching on Antioch with a large army.

Will the player be asked to choose a side in such a situation?
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2001, 06:37:43 PM »
Won't go into too many details (might be useful to do this in a new update to the webpage), but in its basics, the player controlling a monarchy controls the Royal family (unlike the Republics, where one controls multiple families), and their immediate circle.

Basically, there is:
The King : Official head of state
The Queens : The consorts of the Kings
The Royal Heir : The currently selected heir to the throne
The Regent : The actual head of state (this is not necesarrily the King - though it can be very troublesome if it is not). The Regent is the player avatar (just like the faction leader is in the Republican systems).

In addition, the player has to fill several positions (Royal Chancellor, Treasurer, Administration) from the available nobles; and finally he may appoint a number of Royal Companions (0-3), who are controlled by the player and are also directly under his control.

Generally speaking, the Regent has complete control and governs the home province of his state, with the Royal Companions as his Legates (i.e., able to assist with governing the province). For every other province, the player must appoint a Strategos (Governor), and possible a Hyparch (Assistant) from among the available nobles. The player will not have any direct control over these governors, unless they belong to the Royal Family (i.e., it makes sense to appoint the Royal Heir to govern the second-most important province, as often happened historically).

If the Regent is campaigning in Asia Minor, he will thus have very little influence on Bactria, unless he has a family member as Strategos there, except by sending directives and orders to the Strategos (who will obey them at his own volition - though you could always say "Or Else...", and hope that he doesn't get so scared that he rebels :-)). Thus a small Kingdom (e.g. Macedon) will be completely player-controlled, whereas the larger it gets, the less it will be under the control of the player.

To get to your question on the contested succession:
The Seleucid King (and Regent) dies. The player now chooses:
- He can appoint the Royal Heir (elder son) King and Regent; this is what people will expect, and is thus likely to proceed most smoothly (though perhaps unfortunate if the heir is incompetent).
- He can appoint the ambitious younger son (perhaps also a better leader) King and Regent. This will almost certainly spark a difficult civil war, as the elder son's claim is better, and will cause a lot of nobles to side with the heir.
- He might appoint one of the son's King, and make the able and ambitious Queen his Regent. This would keep the populace and nobles happy, while leaving the power in the hands of someone able. This may cause problems later if the King is ambitious, but might be useful in the short run to let people know there is a strong hand at the reins. This may of course affront the Uncle who feels he should have been made regent.

Thus the player makes his choice when he selects whom to succeed his previous King-Regent. Note that sides will always be polarized into two camps in such internal civil wars, rather than fragmented. I think this is not much of a limitation, given that there will usually not be more than two or three characters with any clear claim to the throne.

Younger sons will not usually be much of a problem (unless the player is playing badly), though able and famous uncles will likely be.

The other kinds of revolts one can expect to see would be:
- A local strategos (governor) declares his province independent of the Kingdom (e.g., Bactria).
- A subject people (e.g., Commagenes, Judea, Egyptians) declare their independence.

In each of these cases, the goal of the revolters will be to achieve and get recognized their independence, rather than trying to destroy the monarchy, so the player has no choices to make in those cases.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

Philj

  • Aedile
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2001, 10:24:54 AM »
I also like intended approach you have outlined.  

It has always been worrying to me that strategy games let you lead a nation with little relationship between your leadership and the nation.  Taking the blurb and forum iscussions from EU as an example (I found out about this game from those forums), I get the impression that typically the gamer is cast as an omnipresent immortal nonaccountable adviser.  

I can't tell if within your game, you have addressed the omnipresence issue (I'm not sure that today's information rich gamer would appreciate the blinding lack and delay of information that was available in ancient times) but making decisions based on getting your family through 250 years 1 alive and 2 successful, lines up with how I see political systems work (I almost put in until recent times but current political dynasties may give the lie to that).  

As I see it to succeed at this game, you need your country (sic) to do well and you need your 'family' to do well.  In this regard, are the factions in Rome and Carthage better placed to survive periods out of control which a deposed monarch in the east will not be?  

I am overjoyed that you are taking total control away from the gamer.  The sheer difficulty of maintaining an empire should be 10 times the problem of getting it in the first place.  

As an aside, will the succession for Roman and Carthagian factions operate in the same way as for eastern monarchs?

Best of luck in keeping kicking goals.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2001, 03:14:02 PM »
Well, omnipresent the player definitely isn't, though I don't blind the player to the world (wouldn't be much fun).

As you say, to do well in the game you need both your family and your nation to do well. Given that there are five factions in Rome, and usually only 3 wil be in the ruling coalition at a time, a faction in Rome will tend to find itself "out-of-control" 2 out of every 5 voting periods. This does not mean that the player is without influence in the greater scheme of things.

A deposed monarch in the east will have a short period (approximately a generation) in which he can potentially return to his nation and raise a popular revolt against their occuppiers, though unless he has powerful allies, he is likely to see the lineage wither.

Quote

As an aside, will the succession for Roman and Carthagian factions operate in the same way as for eastern monarchs?


Completely different concepts (for one, selecting a new faction leader does not result in civil war), though here again choosing the right man to lead the faction is very important. Pick the wrong man, and watch those senators walk out... :)
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

Nikanarchon

  • Quaestor
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Let us get down to the Triarii
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2001, 01:02:21 PM »

Quote


- Each potential heir to the throne will be evaluating his chances of a grab at the throne (and of course the Seleucid and Ptolemaic historical characters are going to be "blessed" with a very unreasonable amount of ambition :D, based on their historical behavior).
- Each governor-general will be considering his chances of establishing his own dynasty.
- Each grouping of people in the empire will be considering its chances of regaining its independence.

Obviously, the larger the empire is, the greater the risks of such rebellion becomes - even more so if the Empire is engaged in wars which tie down its army against external threats (or other revolters). The other problem a large empires face (except the Romans), is that the player will have to draft armies from his subject peoples - which means that he will have to largely depend on his sparse citizen manpower and mercenaries to keep his empire subjugated.

If things work out as designed, the smart player is one who limits the extents of his territorial ambitions, keeps peace in the realm, and establishes a clear and strong line of succession in each generation.

Comments on this? An unreasonable goal?


Greetings Imperator,
Hope I've managed to correctly excerpt the portion of your post I want to reply to. Apologies if not.

I hope and presume there will ALSO be large numbers of relatives, governors and peoples who actually do not have ambitions for the throne and/or independence. Even at times of weak successors there was a surprising (to me) degree of loyalty to these alien dynasties.

The larger the empire, the greater risk of revolts. Hmm, surely no more or less than the Roman empire. The key is surely the contentment and/or integration of the component territories. Where there was most hellenization and city development, there was most loyalty. viz southern Asia Minor, Syria, Babylonia and for Ptolemies, Kypros, Kyrenaika (although all occasionally followed alternative members of the dynasty)

Smart player-unreasonable goal?
Hmm, am not certain about the restricting territorial ambitions. This for sure does not apply to the Romans, although they were usually more interested in looting and ruling only as a means to loot (in this period; later they learnt more civilized behaviour from the Greeks  :D).
I think a smart royal player should be one who has increased loyalty to his dynasty, by hellenizing and urbanizing his empire. As to restricting territorial ambitions and keeping peace in the realm, I am not sure that they should necessarily be the smart things to do. Should it not be smarter to increase the extent of the empire and wage war on its enemies if that helps build loyalty, and enables hellenization and urbanization? If your recco is followed, Antiochos III would have acquiesced in Achaios' succession, the Ptolemaic occupation of Seleukeia-in-Pieria and Koile-Syria, the Baktrian, Armenian and other eastern successions, and the Pergamene grabs and Balkanization of Asia Minor. His 'smartest' action would be keeping the peace in the rump empire of Syria and Babylonia.

Also have an issue with your statement elsewhere about Makedon and Karthage avoiding elimination by 'submitting'. In both case the Romans were steadily eroding those states by always supporting nibbling neighbours. They would surely have died from this eventually anyway. Revolt just meant they ended with a bang not a whimper.  :)

OK, enuff wittering on for now!
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »
Strategos Nikanarchon, quite unQuirite

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2001, 05:20:57 PM »
Quote
I hope and presume there will ALSO be large numbers of relatives, governors and peoples who actually do not have ambitions for the throne and/or independence.


Since the ambition attribute will be randomly generated for most characters, there will always be some you can trust. :)

Quote
The larger the empire, the greater risk of revolts. Hmm, surely no more or less than the Roman empire.


Popular revolts, yes. But the advantage (the only advantage in this respect) of the Republics (like Rome/Carthage) is that they never suffer from the succession syndrome (the Empire is a different kettle of Fish and not really treated in the game).

As you say, you can always try to hellenize/romanize various territories to stabilize the empire (in the game, this will take the form of planting colonies), however the native population may still rise in revolt if the opportunity arises.

Quote
Hmm, am not certain about the restricting territorial ambitions.


Discussion here applies to the Royal player's not the Romans and Carthaginians.

Quote
Should it not be smarter to increase the extent of the empire and wage war on its enemies if that helps build loyalty, and enables hellenization and urbanization?


But why should conquest build loyalty? Yes - it results in a well-trained and loyal army (though to its general, who is not necesarrily the King), but it certainly won't build the loyalty of the subjects of the empire. Quite on the contrary, they are likely to be footing the bill (war-making is expensive), and are unlikely to be very pleased about that.

Quote
If your recco is followed, Antiochos III would have acquiesced in Achaios' succession.......His 'smartest' action would be keeping the peace in the rump empire of Syria and Babylonia.


And who is to say that this wouldn't have been the smartest course of action, in terms of securing the longevity of the Seleucid line? :) Not that I would avocate it - it is basic human nature to want to hold on to what one has, and fight to expand.

Quote
Also have an issue with your statement elsewhere about Makedon and Karthage avoiding elimination by 'submitting'. In both case the Romans were steadily eroding those states by always supporting nibbling neighbours. They would surely have died from this eventually anyway.


I agree that they would have ended up being assimilated ("Resistance is futile!"), but would that have been a particularly terrible thing for Carthage? Macedon might eventually have ended up like Pergamon, Bithynia, or Egypt, but in "game terms", I'd class all of those states as being quite successful historically (except that Egypt was weakened horribly by internecine fighting and feeble rulers).

Again, note that I'm not talking of forcing the player into playing any particular way or from not being as aggressive as he wants. He'll just have to cope with the "realities" of the game: war is damnably expensive, people (particularly newly conquored ones) are prone to revolting, and succession problems are the downside of total power.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

Philj

  • Aedile
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2001, 10:37:27 AM »
Hello Nikanarchon

[I will one day work out how to quote, like the experts ;)]
RE: Revolts
I think I expressed my opinion on longevity of empires in another thread but I don't mind having another go (I work in economics so this is a lovely bit of relief).

I don't know that appealing to Rome's history helps with your argument about longevity. :)  What was the longest rule by a family (even allowing for adoptions) in the West -  my knowledge of East Roman history is pretty terrible?  If we take the traditional collapse date of 476, there are the Julio-Claudians, Flavians, 100 years from Nerva to Commodus (going through uncles or cousins) Severans ...
Compered with the 250 years of this game, the 'first' Roman empire was quite short-lived (with plenty of internal culling).

Having a big empire meant you had a bigger army to hold it and all sorts of upstarts called Generals who thought they could do a better job (or their legions thought so).

But this does raise an interesting point.  The republican Romans got a lot of browny points with the 'people' by pillaging their neighbours.  A sort of extension of teh patronage system where you look outside your borders to please your supporters.

Was their a similar dynamic working in the eastern monarchies?  The Macedonian people was the Macedonian army (in the sense that the first Alexandrian? succession was challenged by the unrepresented, i.e., the Macedonian army not in Babylon at the time).

Were these guys kept happy by expanding the borders?  Their predecessors certainly benefited from pillaging the Persian empire, but even they got sick of it.

How do you keep sub-ordinates happy except to let them try to take someone else's land and then make a killing from the governorship?  

On the issue of the eastern dynasts sitting pat, to survive in the game.  Is some degree of dynamism/adventurism required to stand a chance against the coming Roman (or Carthagian for that matter) tide?  That is, to stand up to Rome, does one of the dynasts have to be teh size of the Alexandrian empire or at least combine with one other?

I don't see this a problem in a strategic sense - Although hindsight tells me that Rome is coming, history should tell the Diodochi that someone (another Alexander) would knock them off their perch.

In a tactical sense, there is no need within the game for teh threat to come with the same timing/location.  

RE Roman Succession
So if I read you correctly, there is a degree of robustness about Roman (& Carthagian) succession.  As you said, pick teh wrong man and watch the Senators walk out.  Will this be equivalent to teh end of a dynasty or a big hiccup for your faction?

Enough for now.

Thanks again for taking time to respond.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

Nikanarchon

  • Quaestor
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Let us get down to the Triarii
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2001, 02:43:40 PM »
Aaarghh quote system didn't work so prefacing your quotes with the word 'quote'

NIK
Thanks for your reply Imperator. I mostly agree with you on most things, just see a slight risk that the disadvantages of the monarchies might get coded in too strongly!  :)

QUOTE
Since the ambition attribute will be randomly generated for most characters, there will always be some you can trust. :)

NIK
I would suggest that you should be able to trust most characters most of the time. It is anticipating and handling the exceptions which will make it interesting!

QUOTE
Popular revolts, yes. But the advantage (the only advantage in this respect) of the Republics (like Rome/Carthage) is that they never suffer from the succession syndrome (the Empire is a different kettle of Fish and not really treated in the game).

NIK
Agreed.

QUOTE
As you say, you can always try to hellenize/romanize various territories to stabilize the empire (in the game, this will take the form of planting colonies), however the native population may still rise in revolt if the opportunity arises.

NIK
A side query. Most so-called colonies were in fact settlements within existing cities. I knew this of the Greek colonies, but recently did some research in this area and was very surprised to find it was also true of the Romans. Is this how you handle them or will they be 'virgin soil'. More on-topic, will there be differences between the readiness to hellenize/Romanize of different areas? There are big differences between say Asia Minor, Syria, Africa once conquered on the one hand and Spain, Judaea, Persia on the other.

QUOTE
Discussion here applies to the Royal player's not the Romans and Carthaginians.
But why should conquest build loyalty? Yes - it results in a well-trained and loyal army (though to its general, who is not necesarrily the King), but it certainly won't build the loyalty of the subjects of the empire. Quite on the contrary, they are likely to be footing the bill (war-making is expensive), and are unlikely to be very pleased about that.

NIK
I'm not sure this is true. Surely the subjects of the successor empires were made more loyal by successful campaigns against neighbouring marauding barbarians and more civilized neighbours who could be plundered. And while warmaking was expensive to the subjects, it was rarely as expensive as being governed by the Romans  :). There is nothing to compare with the initial popularity of Mithridates VI's campaigns or the long Spanish resistance or Spartacus' revolt or the Pirates popularity in the Successor kingdom histories. Resistance to Rome would probably have been loyalty-building but for the fact they usually won militarily!  :)

QUOTE
And who is to say that this wouldn't have been the smartest course of action, in terms of securing the longevity of the Seleucid line? :) Not that I would avocate it - it is basic human nature to want to hold on to what one has, and fight to expand.

NIK
Yes, good points both.

QUOTE
I agree that they would have ended up being assimilated ("Resistance is futile!"), but would that have been a particularly terrible thing for Carthage? Macedon might eventually have ended up like Pergamon, Bithynia, or Egypt, but in "game terms", I'd class all of those states as being quite successful historically (except that Egypt was weakened horribly by internecine fighting and feeble rulers).

NIK
I think you again underestimate the degree to which Roman republican rule outside Italy was usually just legalized looting. So it was a particularly terrible thing. This was particularly for the lower and middle classes, but increasingly so for every native. And the Romans frequently enslaved all their captives or totally depopulated areas. Liguria, Epeiros, Karthage, Korinth etc etc

QUOTE
Again, note that I'm not talking of forcing the player into playing any particular way or from not being as aggressive as he wants. He'll just have to cope with the "realities" of the game: war is damnably expensive, people (particularly newly conquored ones) are prone to revolting, and succession problems are the downside of total power.
[/quote]

NIK
YES!  8), this is what I am hoping for and expecting! So stop reading this and get back to work on it!  :)
Strategos Nikanarchon, quite unQuirite

Nikanarchon

  • Quaestor
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Let us get down to the Triarii
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2001, 04:06:35 PM »
N
Lets try again with these quotes.
Failed in preview mode, Imperator, please can you point me to instructions on this.

P
I don't know that appealing to Rome's history helps with your argument about longevity. :)  What was the longest rule by a family (even allowing for adoptions) in the West -  my knowledge of East Roman history is pretty terrible?  If we take the traditional collapse date of 476, there are the Julio-Claudians, Flavians, 100 years from Nerva to Commodus (going through uncles or cousins) Severans ...
Compered with the 250 years of this game, the 'first' Roman empire was quite short-lived (with plenty of internal culling).

N
OK how about the Arsakids or Sassanians?

P
But this does raise an interesting point.  The republican Romans got a lot of browny points with the 'people' by pillaging their neighbours.  A sort of extension of teh patronage system where you look outside your borders to please your supporters.

Was their a similar dynamic working in the eastern monarchies?  The Macedonian people was the Macedonian army (in the sense that the first Alexandrian? succession was challenged by the unrepresented, i.e., the Macedonian army not in Babylon at the time).

Were these guys kept happy by expanding the borders?  Their predecessors certainly benefited from pillaging the Persian empire, but even they got sick of it.

How do you keep sub-ordinates happy except to let them try to take someone else's land and then make a killing from the governorship?  

N
Well the Seleukid and Ptolemaic kingdoms had a system of klerouchies, land grants to soldiers.
And they paid them rather more than the Romans did. Hence Imperator's point about war being expensive for them.
Incidentally, Imperator, do you cover these differential(at least in the first part of the period) wages. These armies were much more professional standing armies compared to the Roman citizen levy system.

P
On the issue of the eastern dynasts sitting pat, to survive in the game.  Is some degree of dynamism/adventurism required to stand a chance against the coming Roman (or Carthagian for that matter) tide?  That is, to stand up to Rome, does one of the dynasts have to be teh size of the Alexandrian empire or at least combine with one other?

N
This should depend on the fortune of battle, as I think you intend. However, historically, one defeat and these guys were beaten. In this respect the Kelts of the Po Valley, the Ligurians, the Pontic kingdom, the Spanish tribes were all much more resilient. Although it could be argued Philip V, Antiochos III and even perhaps Perseus could have continued the wars but deemed it more realistic not to.
Strategos Nikanarchon, quite unQuirite

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Re: Quotes
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2001, 06:17:18 PM »
Quotes: Well, just use the "Insert Quote" button in the post-reply to generate the [ quote ] [ \quote ] boxes (white spaces deliberately inserted, and copy and paste the text you wish to quote in a little gray box in-between. Otherwise, the help button on the bar at the very top should take you to some pages with various instructions. :)
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Reply to Philj
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2001, 07:40:01 PM »
Quote
How do you keep sub-ordinates happy except to let them try to take someone else's land and then make a killing from the governorship?


The way it (should) works in the Hellenistic Monarchies of Imperium is to:
1. Appoint them to various important posts (governors, legates, chancellor, etc.) There are a number of these.
2. Give them gifts and land grants. Gifts = money; not worth too much. Land grants on the other hand is an extremely valuable gift (= permanent wealth to the recipient), but is a very limited resource as well. One way of gaining more crown lands would be to conquor some more land...
3. Generally maintain a strong Empire.

Quote
On the issue of the eastern dynasts sitting pat, to survive in the game.  Is some degree of dynamism/adventurism required...


I absolutely don't know. :D Keep in mind that the AI and huge parts of the game is not yet complete and it is very difficult to predict how the system will interact.

One note: There will be no such thing as a Carthaginian tide, (unless a player somehow ends up in sole control of Carthage). The Carthaginian Senate will not be expansionist.

I expect to implement a "block" on the Romans that prevents them from accepting a peace treaty unless the situation is extremely dire. This will make the best way to handle Rome be that one completely avoids confrontation. THe only other way would be to make a very strong coalition to face them (which will not be very easy).

Quote
In a tactical sense, there is no need within the game for teh threat to come with the same timing/location.


It most certainly won't.

Quote
So if I read you correctly, there is a degree of robustness about Roman (& Carthagian) succession.  As you said, pick teh wrong man and watch the Senators walk out.  Will this be equivalent to teh end of a dynasty or a big hiccup for your faction?


No, your faction will always survive, unless you get everyone in it killed. Furthermore, the smaller your faction is, the easier it will be to attract new blood to the Faction (ambitious Senators will often prefer to be the sole star of your faction, rather than having to share the spoils in a larger faction).

Btw - thanks for pointing me to Lucius Fabius; I probably have such a list myself, but I actually never thought of checking their fathers.  8)

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Reply to Nik
« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2001, 08:19:36 PM »
Quote
I would suggest that you should be able to trust most characters most of the time. It is anticipating and handling the exceptions which will make it interesting!


Well, I would hope that the characters will be smart in their betrayal; i.e., (just like in real life), they will betray the player if they see an advantage to it - it should be mentioned that the Integrity attribute has some influence here. Integrity determines how likely they are to betray you; most characters will be of average integrity meaning they will take the chance if it looks good. Ambition determines how much of an advantage they deem necesarry.

In general, one could simply avoid characters with low integrity and high ambition. On the other hand, one might have to make use of them due to political pressure, or simply because their abilities are too good to waste.

Quote
A side query. Most so-called colonies were in fact settlements within existing cities. I knew this of the Greek colonies, but recently did some research in this area and was very surprised to find it was also true of the Romans.


Indeed? Could you point me to some sources on this; it as it seems from my reading that most of the Roman colonies were "new" foundations. The details of the colonization order hasn't been worked in yet, but it would be simple to make both types possible.

Quote
More on-topic, will there be differences between the readiness to hellenize/Romanize of different areas? There are big differences between say Asia Minor, Syria, Africa once conquered on the one hand and Spain, Judaea, Persia on the other.


No. In general, Hellenization/Romanization is a very long-term investment; such differences as you are considering here (e.g., Asia Minor/Syria) will be reflected in the game through the process already having been at work for a few 100s of years. As I understood it, Africa was more Punicisized (or whatever one calls it), rather than Romanized until a long time into the Empire.

Quote
I'm not sure this is true. Surely the subjects of the successor empires were made more loyal by successful campaigns against neighbouring marauding barbarians and more civilized neighbours who could be plundered.


I think we need to distinguish in this discussion (as in the game), between the various particular elements here. We have the:
Nobles (Characters) : Conquest provides new Crown lands, which can be given out as gifts to important nobles. Some benefits here.
Empire's Ruling People (i.e., the Greeks/Macedonians) : Winning wars and expanding increases the glory of the King and the Empire (besides, soldiers go abroad and gain plenty of plunder); yes - these will become more happy.
Empire's many subject peoples : These are the guys who bear the brunt of the taxes, and furthermore do not gain any part in ruling the empire. These guys couldn't really care less...

Quote
And while warmaking was expensive to the subjects, it was rarely as expensive as being governed by the Romans.


Heh - but then I didn't say that the Romans were likely to be popular... The Roman AI is going to be rapacious, so Mithridates should find himself quite popular.

Quote
I think you again underestimate the degree to which Roman republican rule outside Italy was usually just legalized looting. So it was a particularly terrible thing.


Depending on the Governor, of course. And I don't really know if they were really that much worse; I seem to recall several Seleucids getting killed while plundering temples within their own Kingdoms...  ;D

Quote
And the Romans frequently enslaved all their captives or totally depopulated areas. Liguria, Epeiros, Karthage, Korinth etc etc


But in war, not in peace. But Egypt did quite well, until assimilated. Karthage is a more difficult case, but one speculates whether they wouldn't have survived prosperously if they had kept on taking the unfair treatment heaped on them for just a little longer. Massinissa was soon to die (and his Kingdom to be split up), thus removing the primary agent of their destruction. The Seleucids self-destructed, but I'm pretty sure that Macedon could have survived (diminished, of course), if it had followed Pergamon's example.

Quote
Incidentally, Imperator, do you cover these differential(at least in the first part of the period) wages. These armies were much more professional standing armies compared to the Roman citizen levy system.


Yes.

Quote
Although it could be argued Philip V, Antiochos III and even perhaps Perseus could have continued the wars but deemed it more realistic not to.


And the hope is that (for once, in a game) in the context of the game system, this sort of behavior should make sense.

Quote
YES!  , this is what I am hoping for and expecting! So stop reading this and get back to work on it!


I'm working, I'm working. ;)
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

Philj

  • Aedile
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2001, 04:56:23 AM »
Quote

Quote:A side query. Most so-called colonies were in fact settlements within existing cities. I knew this of the Greek colonies, but recently did some research in this area and was very surprised to find it was also true of the Romans.

Indeed? Could you point me to some sources on this; it as it seems from my reading that most of the Roman colonies were "new" foundations. The details of the colonization order hasn't been worked in yet, but it would be simple to make both types possible.



My memory of Roman colonisation of north Italy was that they were new.  Perhaps it is related to how urban (and depopulated going to Nikanarchon's point about Roman practices) the area was in the first place.  [The context I was reading about related to how effective Roman colonies were in terms of providing a bulwark against invaders.  As I recall that answer was "not".]  

I definitely agree about Macedonian colonies; as I remember my Bar Kovcha, the Macedonians would occupy a citadel with the locals around them.  This may suggest that Macedonian colonies were less likely to get overrun but perhaps also less reliant on the "central administration" to look out for them.

Foundations may be different, though Antigonus did do at least one? "new" city by moving the building materials from an existing city.

I can see, I'm going to have to go back to the books and document this a lot better.

« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

Nikanarchon

  • Quaestor
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Let us get down to the Triarii
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2001, 02:42:04 PM »
Colonies
OK I'll try to get some details for you, but probably cannot do so for a few days yet. Guests in town!
The Oxford Classical Dictionary is a good one stop source on this as if you look up a colony by name the short entry usually mentions pre-Roman occupation.

From memory(am at work) those with pre-Roman occupation include (at the least) Venusia, Beneventum, Kroton, Ariminum, Aesernia, Bononia and several of those closer ones which were formerly owned by the Aequi, Volsci, Hernici and those early enemies of Rome.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »
Strategos Nikanarchon, quite unQuirite

Philj

  • Aedile
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2001, 07:19:09 AM »
Thanks Nik (may I call you Nik :))

Colonies
OK I'll try to get some details for you, but probably cannot do so for a few days yet. Guests in town!
The Oxford Classical Dictionary is a good one stop source on this as if you look up a colony by name the short entry usually mentions pre-Roman occupation. ...



Quite correct about the Roman colonies.  Certainly they made use of existing ex-Etruscan towns and Gallic oppida(sp?)  

On my other point, I guess I have a problem thinking about a Roman colony performing the same way as a Macedonian. Isaac Benjamin's "Limits of Empire" did a quick review of the use and usefulness of Roman colonies (his book was looking at late Roman east policy, but surveyed the earlier colonisation process).  My thinking came from his analysis that early Roman colonies were readily overrun by the locals.  The impression I have, is that the main effect of the colony was to highlight the locals loss and provide a nice target for retribution.  As a result, the colony could have a Romanising effect as long as a Roman military presence was handy.  He had a very low opinion of the military strength of colonies, even veteran ones.  Hopefully I haven't conflated too broad a survey.

In contrast, the Macedonian military colonies had a recruitment function (?)  

Nikanarchon

  • Quaestor
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Let us get down to the Triarii
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2001, 09:28:02 PM »
Hi Phil,

Yes plain'Nik' or whatever spelling variant you wish is fine!  :) On cities, you are probably right about differences between Mak and Roman colonies. However, one needs to be careful to distinguish between garrisons and klerouchies. Tarn's work on 'The Greeks in Bactria and India' has some useful stuff on distinguishing polis foundations from purely military colonies. The latter may have more resembled Roman colonies. Also worth reading AHM Jones 'Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces'. Although the focus of this is the imperial period, he also covers the earlier history of the cities under the Maks.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »
Strategos Nikanarchon, quite unQuirite

Hamilcar

  • Quirite
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • I love YaBB 1 Gold!
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2001, 09:17:14 PM »
btw I'm new here but the game looks like it could be fantastic, congrats on so many great ideas.

There are a few points that need to be made about Carthage:

Quote
There will be no such thing as a Carthaginian tide, (unless a player somehow ends up in sole control of Carthage). The Carthaginian Senate will not be expansionist.


This is all very well for the early period and for a Carthage under the control of the more oligarchic factions but surely there should be some mechanism for the Barcid dynamic? It would be strange if there were no Hamilcar urging for every inch of Sicilian territory to be defended then for the creation of a new powerbase in Spain, no Hannibal urging a frontal assault on Rome.

It might be interesting if the Barcids had the opportunity to create a dynastic form of government in Spain and secede from the control of the council of one hundred. This is after all what they effectively did.

Quote
Africa was more Punicisized (or whatever one calls it), rather than Romanized until a long time into the Empire.


This is a matter of some controversy, Numidia remained punic in culture but africa proper was pretty much depopulated by Scipio Aemilianus then populated with Gracchan & Caesarian colonies. Even in St. Augustine's time there were still Punic speakers among the people of Hippo.

The question of Numidia's relations with Carthage will be absolutely vital, surely this should be treated as a subject nation with its own succesion problems in which Carthage must play an active, managerial role. It would not make historical or strategic sense to treat it either as a province or an independent territory (until after the second punic war at any rate)

How will the game simulate events such as the Mercenary war or (for Rome) the great social war? These seem to fit better into the system designed for the dynasties than the more stable one for the republics.

Another point is that Carthage (like the late Soviet Union) succesfully maintained control over diverse peoples by using Numidians to oppress Spaniards, Spaniards to oppress Numidians etc. will there be some system to make it worth a country's while to transfer troops in this way?
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2001, 10:15:15 PM »
The issue of Barcid ambition was also discussed on theold forum. Goldsworthy also touches briefly upon this issue in his discussion of Hannibal's motivations in 218 B.C.

My conclusion at the moment is that there never was the threat of a "Barcid Kingdom" in Spain, and there is very clearly no indication that Carthage would have expanded (except to take back Sicily) even if they had won the Punic wars. Trade, commerce, and colonization will remain the most powerful incentives of the Carthaginian player - prospective world conquorers should play with Rome.

Quote
Numidia remained punic in culture but africa proper was pretty much depopulated by Scipio Aemilianus then populated with Gracchan & Caesarian colonies


This is incorrect; more or less only Carthage was depopulated, there remained substantial settlements of Poeni (Carthaginians) at Utica, etc.

Numidia will most likely be vassal kingdoms of Carthage.

The Social War will most likely be a scripted event, though it can be prevented by passing the appropriate laws. The mercenary war - well, this is one of the hazards that one must face if one uses mercenaries extensively and the nation goes bankrupt.

It will make very good sense to maintain mercenary (and levy troop garrisons) in different nations than their home: mercenary units will never fight rebelling armies of their own people.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

Hamilcar

  • Quirite
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • I love YaBB 1 Gold!
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2001, 01:12:41 PM »
I'm afraid I find it difficult to see how the game will be able to simulate with historical accuracy the clash between Rome & Carthage if Carthage is billed as a totally passive power.

Quote
My conclusion at the moment is that there never was the threat of a "Barcid Kingdom" in Spain, and there is very clearly no indication that Carthage would have expanded (except to take back Sicily) even if they had won the Punic wars. Trade, commerce, and colonization will remain the most powerful incentives of the Carthaginian player - prospective world conquorers should play with Rome.


Carthage did significantly expand its territory, both in Africa, immediately following the Mercenary war and in Spain under the Barcids. (See Serge Lancel 'Carthage, A History')

It seems very surprising to totally reject the idea of a Barcid Kingdom in Spain. The territory remained tributary to Carthage but retained most of its vast wealth for the purposes of expansion and the building of a powerful army.

The army with which Hannibal besieged Saguntum was largely a Spanish army formed by, and loyal to Hannibal and his family. Remember also that the Barcids had an unbroken rule through three succesive leaders in Spain, built their own capital at New Carthage and engaged in marriage alliances with prominent local cheiftains.

Furthermore the Second Punic War was initiated by Hannibal and his Barcid army without the permission of the Carthaginian senate. Carthage sent few serious reinforcements of any kind until very late in the war and it is highly doubtful whether the senate ever approved the expedition to Italy.

I'm sorry to go on about this but I find the Rome-Barcid-Carthage clash one of the most fascinating of the period and it would be a shame if Hannibal's genius were not allowed its chance to shake Rome to its foundations because of the limitations of what I wold certainly agree was a mercantile, largely pacifist republic.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by 1024524000 »

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Re: The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2001, 03:09:46 PM »
I'll have to go the road of the Master of Orion 3 developers and remind you that regardless of how much information I provide you on the website and forum, please realize that you are only seeing a part of the whole; simply put, there is no way that you can get to "see the elephant". Though the many individual components of the game are quite simple, it is how the game will interact when put together that will make it work (or not).

So the safest thing to do when discussing the game is - don't make assumptions. Even I am wary of making strong assumptions on many points, because very much in the gameplay will depend on the emergent behavior of the many component AIs in the game.

Case in point: There is no such thing as a passive power. Carthage is a Republican-governed, trade-oriented naval empire and this is what its in-game behavior will tend to reflect. What this means is that the Senate will tend to encourage acts that lead to the opening of new markets and acquisition of production rich territories (such as Sicily and the mines of Spain). What it will not encourage is pointless crusades against Hellenistic or Roman civilizations, who make up the primary importers of Phoenician goods. As a result, the player who wants to pursue a world conquest does better to play with Rome or one of the Successor states.

Quote
Carthage did significantly expand its territory, both in Africa, immediately following the Mercenary war and in Spain under the Barcids. (See Serge Lancel 'Carthage, A History')


Lancel is an important source for the game, but IIRC there is little evidence for any significant expansion in either Africa or Spain, since we have next to no evidence for the Punic domains prior to the Punic wars. Certainly there is some evidence that Carthage had a significant spanish province which were lost during the punic wars, to the extent that Barca's expedition may be viewed as a recovery operation, rather than a conquest. Regarding Africa, again the evidence (IMO) points as much toward a more efficient exploitation of the available resources (perfectly understandable for a merchant state just defeated in war) rather than any specific conquerer ambitions on the part of Carthage.

Quote
It seems very surprising to totally reject the idea of a Barcid Kingdom in Spain. The territory remained tributary to Carthage but...


And this is the key to an understanding of the Spanish situation, IMO. Note that the vast majority of the Iberian tribes were "independent" vassals, rather than under the control of the Barcids. Warrior tribes such as the Iberians bound themselves to individual people - in effect, their treaties were signed with Hamilcar, not the Carthaginian senate. This allowed a smooth, and relatively problem-free transferral of power between the Barcids in Spain.

This resulted the family linkage (Hasdrubal and later Hannibal), since any other new "governor" of the Spanish province would have had to prove himself all over again. The Romans learnt this the hard way (as shown by the immediate revolt when Scipio left the country) - and their lack of understanding of this culture probably helped aggravate the 150 years of ensuing condlict . The Carthaginians, on the other hand, realized the problems that a break in continuity would have caused, and as a result kept the same family in command - not because they had to, but because this constituted a sound foreign policy in respect to the Spanish tribes.

If one considers this socio-cultural aspect of "the Barcid tenure" then the idea of a semi-independent Barcid kingdom becomes quite unnecesarry. In short, I find little of the Barcid behavior in Spain that can not be very adequately explained as normal, intelligent behavior based on their situation with regards to the Spanish tribes. And no behavior at all to suggest that they were either more independent than other governors (e.g., compare their powers to that of a Roman governor - not much difference) or had dreams of independence from Carthage.

Quote
Furthermore the Second Punic War was initiated by Hannibal and his Barcid army without the permission of the Carthaginian senate. Carthage sent few serious reinforcements of any kind until very late in the war and it is highly doubtful whether the senate ever approved the expedition to Italy.


Alarm! Alarm!!  Don't get me started on this, as I am liable to go ballistic.  ;)

IMO: There is no evidence (except for the words that Livy spuriously puts into Hannibal's mouth), that the Carthaginian Senate were not 100% behind Hannibal and lots of evidence to the contrary.

I'm sorry, but I do no have the time to discuss this issue - again. :) If you want to know some of the arguements behind this, go to the totalwar.org forum and search on Strategy. Maybe later I will have more time.  8)

Certainly you need not have to fear on your final count: Hannibal will almost certainly have his chance to march on Rome.

Wisdom

  • Aedile
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • Hannibal
    • My World of Warcraft guild....
Re:The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2003, 10:32:40 AM »
I found what i have begined to like Carthage's history......

-----

"Carthage (a.k.a. Kirjath-Hadeschath) began as a colony founded by the Phoenicians of Tyre in North Africa (near modern Tunis) in the 9th century
BC. It quickly became one of the principal trading centers in the western Mediterranean due to its excellent port. After the Babylonians captured
Tyre in the 6th century BC, Carthage became the center of the Phoenician (a.k.a. Punic) trading empire.

The Early Carthaginian DBA list begins in 550 BC, when the Phoenicians came into conflict with the Greeks, both prosperous and expanding cultures, over colonies in western Sicily. In 540 BC, the Carthaginians prevented a Greek attempt to land in Corsica. However, a Carthaginian campaign to conquer all of Sicily was blocked by the Greek tyrants Gelon and Theron at Himera in 480 BC. The scale of the defeat was so vast that the Carthaginian monarch was overthrown and a republic formed. During this period, the Rome was initially allied with Carthage against the Greeks, who were also colonizing Southern Italy. Treaties of cooperation were signed in 508 BC and 450 BC between Rome and Carthage. Gradually, however, Carthaginian successes prompted increasing Roman anxiety that eventually lead to confict.

In 410 BC, the Sicilian city of Segesta asked for Carthaginian aid against the Greek city of Selinius. In 408 BC, the general Hannibal (not the famous
Hannibal) launched a Carthaginian blitzkreig that resulted in the destruction of the Greek cities of Selinius, Agrigento, and Himera, although the Carthaginians failed to reduce the principle Greek city of Syracuse, who employed several novel weapons of war designed by Archimedes including the catapult in their defense. A treaty was negotiated, but Dionysius of Syracusa broke it shortly thereafter by sacking the Punic city of Moyta, prompting another hundred years of large and small scale skirmishes between the Greeks and the Punics on Sicily and in southern Italy. The balance was tipped temporarily when the Greek King Pyrrhus of Epirus arrived at Taraunto (a.k.a. Tarentum) circa 300 BC to help rescue the Greeks of southern Italy and then Sicily from Rome and Carthage expansion. Again, Carthage and Rome allied in treaty against the Greeks, and despite (or
perhaps because of) his costly "Pyhrric" victories, Pyrrhus was eventually forced to abandon the Greek city states in Italy and Sicily to their own devices around 272 BC.

The Later Carthaginian list begins in 275 BC. The first major milestone, however, occurred in 264 AD, when Heiro II of Syracuse sent an army to drive the Mamertines out of Messana. Out-of-work mercenaries, the Mamertines were notorious brigands who had seized that Sicilian city. The Mamertines appealed to both Rome and Carthage for aid, and both sent armies, who promptly squared off with each other. This prompted a 24 year conflict known as the first Punic War (264-241 AD).

Rome beseiged many of the Carthaginian cities on Sicily and using a wrecked Carthaginian galley as a model (possibly one abandoned by Pyrrhus),
built a navy that was able to successfully destroy the Carthaginian relief fleet. A Roman army of invasion landed in North Africa and was defeated by
superior Carthaginian cavalry, however, and Hamilcar Barca continued to raid Roman allies in Sicily and southern Italy from his mountain stronghold
at Erice in north-west Sicily. Then, another catastrophe naval defeat in 241 BC coupled with the heavy cost of pursuing the war with their largely mercenary armies prompted the Carthagians to sue for peace. In 241 BC, Rome and Carthage signed a peace treaty in which Carthage relinquished claims to Sicily and granted Rome a heavy war indemnity. Shortly thereafter, large contingents of mercenaries in the Carthaginian army rebelled in the so-called "Truce-less War." Rome took advantage of the Carthaginians' distraction to seize Corsica in 238 BC and Sardinia as buffers."


--------

interesting here.......  ::)

--------

I know a thing......Spain was a silver/gold country, many mines. Found Spain of The Carthaginians, was in 237 BC

I copy from a known history......->

--------

"With Rome having blocked their eastward expansion, Carthage looked north and west to Spain for new possessions and manpower. An army under Hamilcar Barca and his son-in-law, Hasdrubal landed in 237 BC to extend Carthaginian influence in the Iberian peninsula. Hamilcar took his young
son, Hannibal Barca (born 247 BC) with him to learn the art of war. The Carthaginians quickly expanded their control over Spain through an
effective combination of military force and diplomacy. Hamilcar died in 229 BC, leaving command to Hasdrubal, who focused on diplomatic initiatives including arranging for the marriage of young Hannibal to a local Spanish princess. Then Hasdrubal was murdered in 221 BC, and the army elected Hannibal as their commander."

You know Hannibal's history.

---------------------------

You said you will start :
As mentioned, the Grand Campaign runs from 270-20 BCE, and features Rome, Carthage, and the three Successor states...After i know, is email he send to me of the period "270-20 BCE" as he wrote.

----

If 270 BC start, so Pyrrhus no long in Italy..... He left to Greece to fight and death in 272 BC...... It is more beginner to become "the first Punic War (264-241 BC)". And Rome now dominated all of Southern and Central Italy after 271 BC victory against Pyhrrics.....

"The Later Carthaginian list begins in 275 BC. The first major milestone, however, occurred in 264 AD, when Heiro II of Syracuse sent an army to drive the Mamertines out of Messana. Out-of-work mercenaries, the Mamertines were notorious brigands who had seized that Sicilian city. The Mamertines appealed to both Rome and Carthage for aid, and both sent armies, who promptly squared off with each other. This prompted a 24 year conflict known as the first Punic War (264-241 AD)."

------

If i start as Carthage in the Grand Campaign, so i will build a strong naval and give a strong defence in the Sicilian island.  Rome have a last boardlimit, against the sicilian island, thus they will take the role how power between 3...Rome? Syracuse? or Carthage? of the Sicilian island. I let neutral with Syracuse Empire, will also Rome hold neutral. Rome was not foolish.... They like to role how a other empire or land to ally or non-aggro-agreement.....To get a safe Rome and other lands.

Send expansion in Spain... hurry so possible, to be a rich economy, can add more armys and navals. Make a allianse with Ptolemaic Egypt, Numidia and Macedonia. Ptolemaic Egypt was known of trades, make a trade-agreement with them. Numidia was known of cavalry. So Rome will never hunt on Carthage so long they have both strong richness, naval and the allianse.... But army? Well. Carthage can add more as mercenary army - But Rome have a good morale of roman armys....

Well, it is tense how from 270 BC to 20 BC. But you made "Historical Timeline of the Hellenistic and Roman World" From 300 BCE to 1 BCE?

So just question, why right 270 than 300 BC? Maybe you have answared of other topics I may not readed yet........

-----

I found 2 good sites , may it could help your game to be right way.......

http://www.wikipedia.org

( They have a history from kings to sons to become kings.......)

and

http://www.hannibalbarca.org/HANNIBALPAGE2.html
« Last Edit: July 22, 2003, 01:10:50 PM by Wisdom »
General Hannibal Barca (247 - 182 bc)
A hero of the Carthaginian general.

Wisdom

  • Aedile
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • Hannibal
    • My World of Warcraft guild....
Re:The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2003, 10:44:10 AM »
And i send a attempted murder again the Roman statesman Cato the
Elder before 157 BC.....He talked to destory the Carthage country in Senete of Rome.

----

"Almost his last public act was to urge his countrymen to the Third Punic War and the destruction of Carthage. In 157 he was one of the deputies sent to Carthage to arbitrate between the Carthaginians and Massinissa, king of Numidia. The mission was unsuccessful and the commissioners returned home. But Cato was so struck by the evidences of Carthaginian prosperity that he was convinced that the security of Rome depended on the annihilation of Carthage. From this time, in season and out of season, he kept repeating the cry: "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam."(Moreover, I advise that Carthago should be destroyed)"

----

And he died in 149 BE, but Rome acknowledge a war when Cato's death... , because from 149-146 BE begin to war against Carthago, and destoryed in 146 BE.


----

Hehe

 ;D
« Last Edit: July 22, 2003, 01:03:34 PM by Wisdom »
General Hannibal Barca (247 - 182 bc)
A hero of the Carthaginian general.

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Re:The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2003, 05:23:39 PM »
Yes - Carthaginian history is fascinating, although fairly fragmentory. The best book on the subject (one of the few) at the moment, is Serge Lancel's "Carthage: A history".

301 BCE represents a turning point in Mediterranean history with the defeat of Antinonos Monophthalmos and through it the last realistic chance for unification of Alexander's empire. It is thus convenient to consider that the "post-Alexandrian Hellenistic age" starts in 300 BCE if you wish to write a historical timeline.

270 BCE is the start date for the game because it is after the period in which Rome has successfully completed the conquest of Italy (271 BCE), and it is also one of the very few years in which none of the Major powers in the game appear to have been in open conflict with each other, thus making the starting situation as open as possible. I had originally considered 265, but that year is right in the middle of the Chreminodean war.

Yes, if Carthage remains neutral in Sicily, then the possibility exists that Rome will not declare war on Carthage. However, the tinderbox which started the war - the Mamertines - still exist, and are likely to drag Rome and Syracuse into conflict, thereby creating a Roman presence there.

Due to the large distances involved and the fact that the Successor kingdoms will be having their own troubles closer to home, I think it is doubtful that Carthage will be seeing much help from having far-flung alliances. But Carthage starts in a strong position, with a large fleet, rich, and if played by a human - the advantage of hindsight.

The trick with Carthage - as with all the major powers - will be to avoid getting dragged into a do-or-die showdown with the Romans, unless the final victory is certain. Because the Roman AI is going to be programmed with a long memory for grudges...

Of course, how to ensure final victory against the Romans is another problem entirely.

MicaByte

  • Designer/Developer
  • Imperator
  • Praetor
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
    • micabyte.com
Re:The Wages of Success is - Succession!
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2004, 07:10:30 PM »
Moved off-topic post by Wisdom to the General Discussions Forum. Answer there as well.  ;)
« Last Edit: April 19, 2004, 08:14:31 PM by Strategy »