Diadochoi

[Fornadan]

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.

Parthia proper seems to be on the very edge of the game, so it would be very strange to not include them. However I don't have too high hopes of AI Parthia conquering the Seleucids very often without heavy use of events as IMHO Paradox haven't been too successfull in modeling crumbling states in previous games.

 

[Zagys]

However I don't have too high hopes of AI Parthia conquering the Seleucids very often without heavy use of events as IMHO Paradox haven't been too successfull in modeling crumbling states in previous games.

Oh no, it's the Manchu/Ming problem all over again.

 

[motiv-8]

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.

Being arrogant is uncalled for, especially when you use a false historical approach. It is more proper to consider what the Greeks did think about it than what you think about it, speaking over two millenia after the fact. Common academia shows that while individuals may be epigonoi ("descendants") as a technical fact, their realms were nevertheless the diadochi "successors" of Alexander.

Epigoni has uses outside of this subject, within Greek mythology in particular. Whereas diadochi has a specific use in the Hellenistic period of the Near East after Alexander's conquests.

 

[Iudex]

their realms were nevertheless the diadochi "successors" of Alexander.

We were talking about people/dynasties, see original post. Diadochi and Epigoni both have other uses. To most its just all Diadochi, but I've been confronted with the term epigoni (and with the greek thing I just meant that however the greeks called them, we still call them diadochi and epigoni). All I did was pointing out the difference and I'm really having enough of this, if you feel the need to go deeper into this I suggest you guys come to Belgium and give this whole tirade to my professor, he might have to rewrite his whole course ...

edit: I hope that in the future you keep the compliments to yourself, well it was nice to be "nitpicking" and "arrogant" with you guys

 

[unmerged(7537)]

We were talking about people/dynasties, see original post. Diadochi and Epigoni both have other uses. To most its just all Diadochi, but I've been confronted with the term epigoni (and with the greek thing I just meant that however the greeks called them, we still call them diadochi and epigoni). All I did was pointing out the difference and I'm really having enough of this, if you feel the need to go deeper into this I suggest you guys come to Belgium and give this whole tirade to my professor, he might have to rewrite his whole course ...

edit: I hope that in the future you keep the compliments to yourself, well it was nice to be "nitpicking" and "arrogant" with you guys

Actually, I believe the two terms are synonyms in classic Greek, both meaning simply "successor".

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Oh no, it's the Manchu/Ming problem all over again.

That depends on how harsh the governor feature will be. It's possible that a Seleucid player will have a hard time finding even half-way decent (or loyal) sartraps for all of his provinces, and thus be severely harmstringed in the face of smaller, but more efficiently managed empires.

I also hope that Paradox will somehow adress the really, really important issue of succession at some point: One of the primary problems the Successor states faced was the lack of ordered succession, with the death of a monarch often resulting in the revolt of several family members, provincial governors, and vassals.

The omnipresent threat of civil war was one of the major problems the Seleucids faced until their demise. (That, and the Parthians)

 

[Fornadan]

That depends on how harsh the governor feature will be. It's possible that a Seleucid player will have a hard time finding even half-way decent (or loyal) sartraps for all of his provinces, and thus be severely harmstringed in the face of smaller, but more efficiently managed empires.

Something l'd personaly would like to see implemented is for distance to actually matter. The farther away from your ruler/captial the less direct control do you have. It would also be neat if there was a very gradual scale from fully subservient governor via distant mostly autonomous local monarch to full-fledged rebel and king.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Something l'd personaly would like to see implemented is for distance to actually matter. The farther away from your ruler/captial the less direct control do you have. It would also be neat if there was a very gradual scale from fully subservient governor via distant mostly autonomous local monarch to full-fledged rebel and king.

Maybe a reliability/loyalty rating for characters that would decrease the further they are away from the capital (or the monarch)?

 

[Sard]

Also, it would make a decentralization/centralization slider much more meaningful. Decentralization would make administation more efficent (As the local powerholders would be able to decide here and now what to do), but revolts more severe (As there would be less central control with the governors, and thus they would have an easier time preparing revolts). And vice versa.