I am hoping that the Seleucids, Antigonids and Ptolomids and the other successor states get a good treatment from the game. The politics of the eastern Mediterranean would make a interesting game. The Ptolomids stayed independent until Actium.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'm sorry to disappoint you but the last Diadoch king died in 280, what you're referring to are their successors, the Epigonoi. That being said, I totally agree that it would be very nice if the Greek, Egypt and Seleucid Empires get a good deal of attention.
I'm with Sol Invictus; I cannot imagine them ignoring the Successor States.
After all, where is Hannibal supposed to run away to? :rofl:
After all, where is Hannibal supposed to run away to? :rofl:
Grumblefish said:
i think they'll be vastly overlooked while most attention will go to obscure Gallia and Britain tribes.
lucaluca said:
Since there is a lot more information to be found about the Diadochi then about Gallic/Celtic tribes I am pretty sure that you are incorrect.
But since all you so far seem to be doing is talking negative about the game, a game still under development and a development in which you don't participate, it is no surprise that you think that way.
Veldmaarschalk said:Since there is a lot more information to be found about the Diadochi then about Gallic/Celtic tribes I am pretty sure that you are incorrect.
But since all you so far seem to be doing is talking negative about the game, a game still under development and a development in which you don't participate, it is no surprise that you think that way.
i've been less than impressed by the map (i.e. province borders) and the first 2 develpment diaries. I may like what will be shown next though
Apart from the "missing" eastern Satrapies for the Seleucids, I'm confident the Diadochi will be rendered in detail. After all, along with Carthage and Rome, they're the major powers in the starting scenario in particular.
yeah i'm pretty sure it'll be that way too. hell, they're not even going to include all of persia in the game so the eastern states will most likely get gimped, with much more focus going to the barbarians on rome's northern frontierlucaluca said:
el_dude said:
Persia? IIRC Persia was out of play after Alexander and didn't come back until after the Roman empire.
Zagys said:
My bet is that they, like the Seleucids, will suffer from the lack of eastern provinces, but that they'll otherwise be well represented, since they're the only other "real" major power for a large part of EU:Rome's timeframe.
Draigh said:
Persia didn't "come back" until 226 ("the Sassanid edition", as it were). The Roman Empire was still very much around then, though. It is however outside the game's timeframe.
However Parthia will in all likelihood be in the game, so if you the Arsacids as a Iranian/Persian dynasty, Persia will be in the game.
Wow, Iudex, way to be pedantic. If you really want to be correct, though, the Diadochi of Alexander themselves were succeeded, so you could say that their heirs were diadochi as well. An ancient Greek wouldn't have made such a strong line between "offspring" and "successors."
The last successor kingdom, of course, fell with the rise of the Roman Empire, so they ought to get this right. The fall of the Hellenistic states to the Latin one is probably the biggest theme of the era.
The last successor kingdom, of course, fell with the rise of the Roman Empire, so they ought to get this right. The fall of the Hellenistic states to the Latin one is probably the biggest theme of the era.
I don't think we need to worry about the Seleucids' or Parthia's eastern reaches. The lion's share of Persia will be represented, and much of Scythia--yes!--will be accessible.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10840
I'm not surprised--this map is a lot better than the one from Rome: Total War. That game basically acted like Persia was geographically insignificant. Sure, you've got no land base, but um... here! Take these elephants!
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=10840
I'm not surprised--this map is a lot better than the one from Rome: Total War. That game basically acted like Persia was geographically insignificant. Sure, you've got no land base, but um... here! Take these elephants!
the Diadochi were the ones that fighted the little game "who's gonna get Alex's Empire". The offspring of these guys are the epigoni. Thats really all there is to it and what greeks did or did not think about it doesnt change that. I'm just stating fact, if thats being pedantic to you then thats your problem and not mine. Thats all I'm gonna say about it.
Surgünoglu said:
that screenshot is about Syria, not Persia
Parthian Persia was the main contender to the Seleucids in Asia (before becoming a main contender of Rome itself), so it's very important in the game timeframe. Sadly it will be a one province minor in the west edge of the map.
Also Egypt looks severely handicapped, the map doesn't seem to extend more south than Memphis :wacko:
And I appreciate that that might be what you learned in your classics education, Iudex. But all "Diadochos" means is "successor." It wasn't a title. Plato's students were referred to as his diadochi. And so, yes, you're right, Alexander's direct diadochi died a few decades after he did, and so they won't really be present for the bulk of the game.
But those successors were also succeeded--diadochi, epigoni, tomato, tomato. It's not a clear distinction. You're not arguing fact--you're arguing semantics.
You knew what the OP meant, and yet you corrected him on a point of vocabulary. In any case, you're nitpicking, because the kingdoms ofthe Diadochi are quite relevant to the game. We all agree on that.
And I think what the Greeks thought is very significant, when you're throwing around their vocabulary.
But those successors were also succeeded--diadochi, epigoni, tomato, tomato. It's not a clear distinction. You're not arguing fact--you're arguing semantics.
You knew what the OP meant, and yet you corrected him on a point of vocabulary. In any case, you're nitpicking, because the kingdoms ofthe Diadochi are quite relevant to the game. We all agree on that.
And I think what the Greeks thought is very significant, when you're throwing around their vocabulary.
Lucaluca, look at the world map in the lower right-hand corner. Also, haven't they said that western Persia will be accessible?
If that world map is at all representative, then, as I said, the lion's share of Persia will be in the game, as it should be.
If that world map is at all representative, then, as I said, the lion's share of Persia will be in the game, as it should be.
did we forget about parthia? crassus went after them and met a horrible end.Draigh said: