Ancient Empires: 222 BC



  • Ancient Empires: 222 BC is the working title of a grand strategy map set in the Roman/Hellenistic era around the Mediterranean. Especially focused on late 3rd and early 2nd century BC conflicts between Rome, the Macedonian Successor Kingdoms, Greek States/Leagues and Carthage. Other events like the rise of Parthia and north(east)ern tribal invasions will also be simulated to some degree. The game starts at the peak of the Cleomenian War between Macedon/Achaia and Sparta leading into various overlaping conficts all over the region. Meanwhile, to the west, the Second Punic war seems inevitable, while to the east the new Seleucid King, preparing to attack Ptolemaic possesions in Syria, has about half of his gigantic realm in revolt. Further east, the nomadic Parni have taken over the satrapy of Parthia and look westwards. TBC.

    Note: Some events might be pushed a few years earlier or later to make for a more interesting and balanced starting condition.

    PLAYERS
    There are several types of players. Major players (Macedon, Rome, Seleucids, Ptolemies, Carthage) are relatively balanced due to start date (territory ownership & diplomacy) and "ideal" for multiplayer. They also have a vassal mechanic, with fixed allies who train units but only defend themselves, and their units/territories are capturable by their overlord. Minor players are playable and fully functional but often have really unfavorable conditions. Finally there is a number of invadable neutrals and possibly a couple of invading hordes.

    The following players are implemented so far:

    • Macedon (Major)
    • Macedonian_Vassals (Unplayable)
    • Sparta (Minor)
    • Aetolia (Minor)
    • Achaia (Minor)
    • Pergamon (Minor)
    • Rhodos (Minor)
    • Dardanii (Minor)

    MAP
    Like everything else, the map is early WIP and subject to change. So far only the southern Balkans and eastern Anatolia are playable. Here's a screenshot of southern Greece at turn 1.

    • *You can see Sparta in red with a dilema to retreat to it's capital or try to hold both it and Argos, hoping Macedon is distracted in other fronts.
    • Macedon in purple, with it's client state government in Euboea, it's Vassals in yellow and troops at Corinth about to attack the Spartans.
    • Aetolia in pink, potentially soon on the Spartan side.
    • Achaia in blue, allied to Macedon. Might lose Corinth to them if I deside to go "full historical".
      Showcase1.png

    RESOURCE SYSTEM

    Resources are provided by territories and governments (factories). Each territory grants PUs, Manpower, Supplies and one type of strategic resource. Different government types provide different bonuses (and potentially maluses), and some of them are destroyed on capture.

    PUs: Monetary resource, used for a variety of purposes, essential for mercenary purchase and upkeep.
    Authority: Limited resource, mainly used for establishing garrisons and new governments.
    Manpower: Required for the purchase and upkeep of all non-Mercenary units.
    Supplies: Food and other supplies, mainly used as upkeep and fuel for unit movement.

    Strategic Resources
    More specialised, the following resources are used for the purchase and upkeep of non-Mercenary units.

    Horses: Required by cavalry.
    Iron: Required by infantry and some cavalry units.
    Wood: Required by skirmisher units and Fleets.
    Elephants: Required by War Elephant units.

    UNITS / COMBAT SYSTEM
    The general plan is to portrey each region, faction or troop type with authentic strengths and weaknesses. Players will be able field close to what numbers and types of troops their faction historically could, at least to our (or my πŸ˜› ) understanding, with each unit representing about 1000 soldiers. Most units have higher defense than attack, simulating increased will to fight for protection of their homeland, terrain knowledge, ease of supply etc. This is not true for mercenaries and fleets who have the same attack and defense values. Mercenary units are much more expensive to hire and maintain, but they cost only PUs and are available in most unit roles for any player. So if a player generally or temporarilly lacks a horses, mercenary cavalry are a good option if planning to invade an area with plains or similar terrain.

    Territory Effects
    Territories grant a variety of terrain bonuses to combat units. Skirmisher/Ranger type units are generally weaker, but favored in more terrain types. Some of the terrain types (most valid ones for the already playable region) follow:

    Plains: +1/+1 to Cavalry units. Might give bonus to some heavy infantry types in the future.
    Forest: +1/+1 to javelin-armed Skirmisher units. noBlitz.
    Hills: +1/+1 to all Skirmisher units and Garrisons. noBlitz.
    Mountains: +2/+2 to all Skirmisher units and Garrisons. noBlitz.

    Unit Examples:

    Phalanx
    100 Manpower 80 Iron
    Type: Land Att | Def | Mov: 3 | 4 | 1
    Produces Resources each Turn: -1xSupplies -1xManpower -1xIron
    Fuel Cost per Movement: 1xSupplies
    Transporting Cost: 1
    Placement Requirements: Government_Center or Military_Settlement

    Merc_Phalanx
    180 PUs
    Type: Land Att | Def | Mov: 3 | 3 | 1
    Produces Resources each Turn: -1xSupplies -18xPUs
    Fuel Cost per Movement: 1xSupplies
    Transporting Cost: 1

    Local_Authonomy
    1 Authority
    Type: Land Att | Def | Mov: 0 | 0 | 0
    Can Produce Units: 1
    Produces Resources each Turn: 1xManpower 1xSupplies
    Can be Captured (Actually Destroyed when Captured from non-vassals)
    Can be Placed Without Factory

    Holy_Site
    60 PUs 40 Authority (Actually not buildable, only preset at places like Delphi and Olympia)
    Type: Land Att | Def | Mov: 0 | 0 | 0
    Can Produce Units: 6
    Produces Resources each Turn: 4xPUs 4xAuthority
    Can be Captured
    Can be Placed Without Factory

    Garrison
    30 PUs 3 Authority
    Type: Land Att | Def | Mov: 0 | 3 | 1 (Actually can't move, just a temporary hack to let AI buy them)
    Produces Resources each Turn: -1xSupplies
    Max allied Units Placed per Territory: 4

    Fleet
    100 Manpower 100 Wood
    Type: Sea
    Att | Def | Mov: 3 | 3 | 3
    Produces Resources each Turn: -1xSupplies -1xManpower -1xWood
    Fuel Cost per Movement: 1xSupplies
    Blockade Loss: 5
    Is a Combat Transport
    Transporting Capacity: 3

    Pirate_Fleet
    100 PUs
    Type: Sea
    Att | Def | Mov: 1 | 1 | 4
    Produces Resources each Turn: -1xSupplies -10xPUs
    Fuel Cost per Movement: 1xSupplies
    Blockade Loss: 10
    Is a Combat Transport
    Transporting Capacity: 2

    To be updated for quite a while.



  • How do I use spoilers? I'd like to add more detail but it's already messy.


  • Admin

    @Name I don't believe currently that there is a way. I think there are some plugins we could add to the forum. @RoiEX Any thoughts?


  • Moderators

    @Name Title looks good. Or it could be "Known World War 2".πŸ˜›

    Since this map is Punic War 2, instead of Punic War 1, I assume Rome has the edge over Carthage, both productively and militarily (though I know Rome almost lost that war, due to Hannibal mad skills)? Or do you intend to balance Rome vs Carthage, so that either Republic will have about 50% chance to prevail?

    I'm very curious how far the world of this map is going to go, for example with respect to the 270BC map (like, does it get to Iran in the east and Spain in the west?). I think it is very challenging to decide where the map should stop going east, but probably not into India.

    I always found next to impossible to adopt the "mercenary" concept within TripleA. My issue is that if you have something like mercenaries, that has a higher upkeep than your regulars, then you would almost always take mercenaries as casualties first, which would be very far from realism, as it wasn't like all mercenaries would die before any non mercenary would get a scratch (also since mercenaries are, rather, the most careful not to die on the job, and are usually your auxiliary troops, rather than the ones that hold the main line). On the other hand, making mercenaries into infrastructures (just adding power, but unable to take hits), would be too extreme.

    Do you have any plans on how to deal with the fact that TripleA lacks a desertion dynamic in case of insufficient resources? I mean, when having a upkeep system, you could manage it so to build up resources for a while, then doing a massive purchase of units, beyond what you can actually maintain, then just having this huge amount of troops, since, even if they push you down to 0 for some resource, and consume more than you get of it, that is not a problem itself, as whatever you cannot pay for is free to keep. I'm guessing in this map that strategy would be offset by fuel costs (everyone getting immobilized).

    Do you mean there is not a default terrain? I much suggest having a default terrain; it helps toning down complexity and avoid having a useless default for the battlecalculator. Maybe you can have a default (absent) terrain as a "Mixed" terrain, meaning all those regions that, for example, have none of the terrains covering at least 50% of the territory.

    Are you sure you can have all units representing 1,000 soldiers (I would call them "warriors" or "fighters" or "miles", as "soldiers" is a late medieval definition)? I don't know about ancient times, but in medieval times a mounted sergeant would cost about 4 times one on foot, and, if we move to knights (talking about the low knights, that eventually disappeared in favour of men at arms, not the more expensive high knights), the cost is usually about 8 times a foot sergeant. For Napoleonic times, the ratios between infantry and cavalry costs per men were about the same. So, if matters were similar for Ancient Times, as well, and you keep the same manpower for both infantry and cavalry, I guess you'll have to price the cavalry units something like 4 times the infantry units, that would mean you would have to give them some enormous superiority in stats or abilities, to justify the cost (think in the regular WWII games if an infantry would cost 3 PUs and an armour 12 or more PUs, instead of the usual 5 or 6).



  • @Cernel said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

    @Name Title looks good. Or it could be "Known World War 2".πŸ˜›

    An idea similar to that, but no specific words was playing in my head πŸ˜›

    Since this map is Punic War 2, instead of Punic War 1, I assume Rome has the edge over Carthage, both productively and militarily (though I know Rome almost lost that war, due to Hannibal mad skills)? Or do you intend to balance Rome vs Carthage, so that either Republic will have about 50% chance to prevail?

    I generally balance the map researching (or in lack of info/due to balance concerns making up in a reasonable way) what would each territory provide in terms of valid resources. For example Sparta currently gives 55 PUs, 11 manpower, 14 supplies and 8 iron.

    That in theory means that this territory alone, after a long while and careful/lucky conservation of troops, could field 11 units, of which 8 heavy infantry, though it would be a rare case to reach that. Similarly it could support 2-5 mercenary units, depending on type, and 14 supplies means 7 effective foot units (7 for upkeep, 7 for movement).

    It's a special case though. Sparta in 222 BC (battle of Sellasia) fielded about 6 native heavy foot (in game terms) after major reforms (soon before that would be less than 1, only 700 hoplite class spartans were left) and a total of 20 units, most of them mercenaries, mostly due to Ptolemaic funding (the Cleomenian War, besides an attempt at Spartan restoration, was Ptolemy's proxy war against Macedon). So Sparta starts with 19 units and PUs for an extra merc. Sparta also holds Argos, but the most reasonable play (AI does the same, Cleomenes did the same) is to retreat to Sparta and hope Macedon doesn't fully commit against you, since Macedon can do a naval landing there if it chooses so. Sparta + Argos (two rather good territories) allow for an army almost that size.

    Similarly Carthage and Rome will be balanced around territory potential and armies fielded at that time. This will give army and navy advantage to Rome, and PU/merc advantage to Carthage. Overall, with equal skill Rome should win most of the time 1v1. But Macedon, while the weaker of the major players, will have to fight only minors at start. So if the minors, or a majority of them are AI, Macedon could attack Rome as well and shift the balance. As it historicly, rather unsuccefully did, since those minors cooparated with Rome and confined Macedon to the Greek/Illyrian front until Carthage was defeated.

    I'm very curious how far the world of this map is going to go, for example with respect to the 270BC map (like, does it get to Iran in the east and Spain in the west?). I think it is very challenging to decide where the map should stop going east, but probably not into India.

    It was challenging. After initially having it a bit larger, I've cut the map to cover from Iberia to Parthia and from northern Gaul to southern Egypt. So a little further to the north, east and south compared to 270BC. Not all regions will have the same density of territories you see in the pic, since most of them will have less players.

    The East will be rather interesting imo. No Bactrians or Mauryans, but those didn't move west or got any lasting occupation from the west during the timeframe. Molon (Minor - Seleucid Revolt) will be holding Media & Persia, with Parthia (Minor) to his north, Achaios (Minor - Seleucid Revolt) holding much of Anatolia and "true" Seleucids (Antiochos III) holding Syria and Mesopotamia. So no Seleucid superpower able to blitz the West or Egypt at will. There will also be Pontus and Armenia as Minors, maybe a couple more.

    I always found next to impossible to adopt the "mercenary" concept within TripleA. My issue is that if you have something like mercenaries, that has a higher upkeep than your regulars, then you would almost always take mercenaries as casualties first, which would be very far from realism, as it wasn't like all mercenaries would die before any non mercenary would get a scratch (also since mercenaries are, rather, the most careful not to die on the job, and are usually your auxiliary troops, rather than the ones that hold the main line). On the other hand, making mercenaries into infrastructures (just adding power, but unable to take hits), would be too extreme.

    This is an issue indeed and on the other hand it seems the autoselection of casualties prefers normal units of similar strength over mercs. For now I've just looked the other way. Maybe I could scale down PU income and mercenary costs but that could lead to mostly mercenary armies. Or maybe increasing merc purchase costs and reducing upkeep would be better.

    Do you have any plans on how to deal with the fact that TripleA lacks a desertion dynamic in case of insufficient resources? I mean, when having a upkeep system, you could manage it so to build up resources for a while, then doing a massive purchase of units, beyond what you can actually maintain, then just having this huge amount of troops, since, even if they push you down to 0 for some resource, and consume more than you get of it, that is not a problem itself, as whatever you cannot pay for is free to keep. I'm guessing in this map that strategy would be offset by fuel costs (everyone getting immobilized).

    I was wondering if some trigger could check if you have 0 resource and still going nevative, and remove units or something. But to my tests so far, it's generally a bad idea to hold resources. It will be a long while till you can field too many at once, since PUs and especially Manpower are usually on shortage and 1 or 2 more units can often make a difference. Fuel is not working 100% as intended yet, since you can slowly stack it during times you aren't at full unit potential or don't move a lot.

    Do you mean there is not a default terrain? I much suggest having a default terrain; it helps toning down complexity and avoid having a useless default for the battlecalculator. Maybe you can have a default (absent) terrain as a "Mixed" terrain, meaning all those regions that, for example, have none of the terrains covering at least 50% of the territory.

    Does it have to be named default?

    Are you sure you can have all units representing 1,000 soldiers (I would call them "warriors" or "fighters" or "miles", as "soldiers" is a late medieval definition)? I don't know about ancient times, but in medieval times a mounted sergeant would cost about 4 times one on foot, and, if we move to knights (talking about the low knights, that eventually disappeared in favour of men at arms, not the more expensive high knights), the cost is usually about 8 times a foot sergeant. For Napoleonic times, the ratios between infantry and cavalry costs per men were about the same. So, if matters were similar for Ancient Times, as well, and you keep the same manpower for both infantry and cavalry, I guess you'll have to price the cavalry units something like 4 times the infantry units, that would mean you would have to give them some enormous superiority in stats or abilities, to justify the cost (think in the regular WWII games if an infantry would cost 3 PUs and an armour 12 or more PUs, instead of the usual 5 or 6).

    Cavalry will be slightly more expensive than heavy infantry, since it's not stronger, only faster/canBlitz. But I see no big deal. Horses will be generally more rare than iron, and most armies were levies providing their own equipment, so going by that a horseman would be a levied upper class person able to maintain his horse(s) at no additional cost to the state. Since 1000 cavalry would in most cases beat 1000 infantry, we could imagine some of the cavalry manpower are servants, animal handlers etc. Same for War Elephant units.


  • Moderators

    @Name No, what I meant is whether or not you are planning to have any territories without effects, since it looks like you have all the main terrain types I can think of. Only for flavour, it is also possible naming a territory effect, but leaving it with no modifiers, instead of having the default as none.



  • @Cernel I'm not sure yet, nor I completely understood you.

    none is the default. Could I give it modifiers and/or rename it, while it still is the default on battle calculator?


  • Moderators

    @Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

    none is the default. Could I give it modifiers and/or rename it, while it still is the default on battle calculator?

    No.


  • Admin

    @redrum
    Well there seems to be a "feature" like this for github (see), but unfortunately doesn't work here in the forum 😞



  • I'm working on the notification screens, but some images refuse to load, while another in that place, same size and format, could.
    092454a4-31ca-4518-a06b-1e53f135543f-Ρικόνα.png


  • Moderators

    @Name How is the image called? When I collaborated on the WAW update, I discovered that images will fail to load if you have full stops in them (like "B.Transport").



  • @Cernel I've tried SocialWar.png and Social_War.png and neither worked.


  • Moderators

    @Name That makes really no sense, or at least the problem is surely not in the name. No idea.



  • @Cernel Found the issue.

    SocialWar, Social_War not valid.
    social_war, socialwar, Social_war valid.

    So it seems it only accepts one capital letter, I guess as the first one.


  • Admin

    @Name I would recommend avoiding capital letters in image and file names. The reason is different operating systems handle them differently and it can cause issues with your map if you say develop on Windows and someone on a Mac tries to download and play it.



  • @redrum What about folder names?


  • Admin

    @Name I would follow this structure: https://github.com/triplea-maps/the_pact_of_steel/tree/master/map

    Personally, I don't like capital letters in the folder names either but that is the way it already is. Generally, spaces and capital letters can cause issues in folder/file names so ideally are avoided where possible.


  • Moderators

    @redrum said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

    @Name I would recommend avoiding capital letters in image and file names. The reason is different operating systems handle them differently and it can cause issues with your map if you say develop on Windows and someone on a Mac tries to download and play it.

    How about the territory names, like "Heraclea_Pontica.png" in 270BC. And that one already swaps a space for an underscore, since it is "Heraclea Pontica", in the game. Also it is even a standard way to name units, in TripleA, putting a capital letter in the middle of the name, since you cannot have spaces, and underscores look really not good. Like, in the TripleA assets themselves you have "aaGun.png".


  • Moderators

    @Name said in Ancient Empires: 222 BC:

    @Cernel Found the issue.

    SocialWar, Social_War not valid.
    social_war, socialwar, Social_war valid.

    So it seems it only accepts one capital letter, I guess as the first one.

    Just out of curiosity, can you try a single capital letter, but not in first position. I wonder if the issue is having more than a capital letter or having it not in first position.

    I guess you are not on Windows, as I've never met something like that.



  • @Cernel tried socialWar, didn't work. Could in be specific to docs/images? I'm on windows 7.


Log in to reply
 

38021
1811
2124
Who's Online
Visitors Today