spartans

[carnesy]

Hey hegemonia team, was just wondering if the spartans on the battle map will be as l33t as they were in real life i.e NO!!!!! routing from the battle field wat so ever, higher attack and defence than most units, able to intimidate other enemy etc etc...

And will this affect the campaign mode for recruiting the spartans seeming as how IF they are so good will u have to wait 2 or more turns to recruit?..(or maybe u guys cant give out these details at all )...just wondering, plus though this would make interesting discussion thread..

KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!!!

[spirit_of_rob]

The first part will all be worked out exactly when we come to do proper balancing. I doubt we will make them completly unbreakable as i doubt the AI will be able to cope with it but this will need testing.

The second part we are not goign to share the details yet if you know everything in advance then you wont have any fun finding all the little things in the mod .

[Tzif]

Hmm... more mysteries on my mind while waiting till R-Day.

(Release Day)

Tzif

[malibu.stacey]

dont know if this belongs to the "mystery"-category,
but which standard(non-general bodyguard) hoplite unit will be the best ingame?

my favourites:

1. spartan hippeis
2. argive epilektoi (at a very close second place )
3. elite (sacred?) band of Thebes

will any of those have 2 or more health points?

[Snevets]

Well the whole problem with the best argives is that while they don't have the hype of the spartans we are given accounts by various historians that they were comparable soldiers to the best of the Spartans. I think the real question you should be asking is how the balancing will go on with the bulk of their armies- Homoioi vs Argive Hoplites. Probably the argive elite will be almost as good as the Spartan Hippeis but the homoioi will be decidely better than the Argive Hoplites (not ridiculously better of course but noticably enough).

As for the Sacred Band they didn't get really good until later- but by the time you can recruit them it will BE later- so yeah they'll probably be a pretty close second or third once recruitable.

[carnesy]

well hopefully u guys wont make the recruitment time 30 TURNS!!!!!!!!!!! like some OTHER MODS!!!! that i know of

causing me some extreme frustration

but they did slaughter everthing that came their way, ill give them that...BUT 30 TURNS!!!!!! COME ON!!!!!!!!!!

so just praying that wont happen

(for the spartan units that is)

[spirit_of_rob]

well hopefully u guys wont make the recruitment time 30 TURNS!!!!!!!!!!! like some OTHER MODS!!!! that i know of

causing me some extreme frustration

but they did slaughter everthing that came their way, ill give them that...BUT 30 TURNS!!!!!! COME ON!!!!!!!!!!

so just praying that wont happen

(for the spartan units that is)

30? that sounds a wee bit excessive... its probably meant to stop the cpu mass producing them but still sounds a bit over the top to me...

[Gelgoog]

Well the whole problem with the best argives is that while they don't have the hype of the spartans we are given accounts by various historians that they were comparable soldiers to the best of the Spartans. I think the real question you should be asking is how the balancing will go on with the bulk of their armies- Homoioi vs Argive Hoplites. Probably the argive elite will be almost as good as the Spartan Hippeis but the homoioi will be decidely better than the Argive Hoplites (not ridiculously better of course but noticably enough).

As for the Sacred Band they didn't get really good until later- but by the time you can recruit them it will BE later- so yeah they'll probably be a pretty close second or third once recruitable.

yes ive heard this as well, it seems ( to me at least) that the only real benefit that the spartans had over everyone else was extreme discipline and word of mouth fear. so they had such a built up reputation that alot of battles werent decided by actual combat. in all actuality until thermopyle, the spartans were pretty much an untested garrison force keeping their slaves from revolting. their population never grew to any decent size (im talking about lakedomians here) and their had little or no economy ( no monitery system) so their benefits of discipline is over-weighed by the fact that they would not be able to replace significant loses, nor did they have the economy to hire mercenaries. also as snevets said they were good troops but their fighting ability ( not talking about discipline) wasnt that much better then some of the better hoplites around. so when you take into account everything going against the spartans, i wouldnt consider them to be that "l33t"

i mean if you really wanted to portray them accurately ingame, they would a population that was always on the brink of revolting. their soldiers would take forever to train and be extremely expensive. their economy would be in the dumpster, and their actually population growth of people that could be recuited would be something like .000001 percent. sure they could win a few battles, but they have already lost the war in the long run. thats just how my image of the spartans has been swayed over the years.

[carnesy]

uhhh yeh ok mate wateva u say bout their country and economy i dont really care bout that, and yeh i think i will still consider the SPARTAN SOLDIERS l33t seeming as how they only lost one battle in their entire military history and the soldiers from sparta have shown more dicipline than any known military force that has ever lived, and they showed bravery and skill that let them completely dominate their foes

[malibu.stacey]

[...]that the only real benefit that the spartans had over everyone else was extreme discipline and word of mouth fear[...]

I think the homoioi have to be the best standart hoplites in the game, primarily because they were the only professional (or standing) army in greece and thus be able to devote all of their time to exercising and training. Hoplites from other poleis were regular (or "free") citizens (with occupations like trader, craftsman or even poet and artist) and certainly did not have the time to train warfare like the spartans (besides their activities in the gymnásion), so the bulk of an spartan army has to be considerably better than that of any other polis.

On top of that they not only had superior discipline, but were provided with some of the best equipment greece blacksmiths could produce.

Spartans were the best trained and equipped soldiers, had a strong social cohesion and their bravery was undisputed, so "l33t" is a appropriate term to describe them, i think

The only disadvantage they had were their relatively small numbers (at the peak there were 9000 homoioi, i think) and therefore ,as scheuch said, the inability to compensate significant losses.

their economy would be in the dumpster, and their actually population growth of people that could be recuited would be something like .000001 percent.

well, i dont think the city of Sparta itself was a economic powerhouse (not with iron bars as currency ), but they had the perioikoi to do things like trading and manufacturing goods and the helots to cultivate fields. And the perioikoi ( and later the helots, too) fought alongside with them in battles.


sorry for my bad english, i hope i could make my point of view clear in spite of that

btw here is my favourite spartan quote:

With key Greek city-states in submission, Phillip II of Macedon turned his attention to Sparta and sent a message:
"You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Their reply was "If."

[Gelgoog]

The only disadvantage they had were their relatively small numbers (at the peak there were 9000 homoioi, i think) and therefore ,as scheuch said, the inability to compensate significant losses.
Their reply was "If."

and in military terms this is a significant disadvantage for several reasons. any significant defeat could severely reduce their fighting capability, creating capabile soldiers takes a significant amount of time that is not condusive to a waring nation, and their fighting strength while high, was offset by the costs to which is had to be attained. ( ei, the whole culture and sacrifices that were needed to create these "super soldiers" came at such a cost and the benefit isnt that great over other civilizations that are able to muster high quality soldiers at a much cheaper and quicker rate). plus the fact that they arent able to expand their territory that much because they dont have the amount of troops able to guard these areas and prevent revolts. having an empire requires the need for extensive "peace keeping" troops.

[swell]

carnesy,

You should be more careful when you write about other mods. The mod is XGM, and I quote DimeBagHo :
"This is the Spartan Royal Guard. You get one unit at the start of the campaign. Training new units takes 30 turns. Historically the Royal Guard was limited to just 300 men, so ideally you should not have more than one unit."
The other Spartan : "These are Spartan Phalangites. Training requires 2 turns with an Army Barracks."

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=67859

And it's very easy to let your frustation go, it takes 30 seconds. Backup your EDU file, find the Royal Guard, change cost to 1 or whatever, there, full stacks of Spartan Royal Guards. But you don't need them.

But carnesy I agree, this is a great mod coming, keep the faith guys !

[Snevets]

I don't see the point to 30 turns- people figure they trained them their whole lives so you need it that way but I dunno- there was also a constant influx from that agoge so on turn one you have dudes fresh out of the agoge ready to be organized as though they were citizens of any other city ready to be organized- just machines instead.

[Mythos]

The unbreakable, fight-to-the-death Spartans were a myth after Thermopylae. Even as early as 421BC(?) in Sphacteria they surrended to the Athenians.

[Argyri]

The unbreakable, fight-to-the-death Spartans were a myth after Thermopylae. Even as early as 421BC(?) in Sphacteria they surrended to the Athenians.

Well, as far as I see it the result of the Battle of Sphacteria (425 BC) is not a self-explanatory example for Spartans beeing "breakable".

The Spartan hoplites (about 400) and their helotes (around 500) were isolated on a small island and originally the Athenians were planning to starve them out cause they indeed had (only) the hegemony about the maritime area around it and the haven.

This - in some viewer´s eyes cowardly - plan was just jeopardized by two factors:

1. Sparta kept supplying its hoplites by divers (!). Before it had given the remain of its fleet (about 60 ships) to Athens in order to establish a ceasefire after the defeat of the prior seabattle. The Athenians took the ships but claimed enbearable more from the Spartans to let them provide supplies by an peaceful arrangement.

2. Kleon, an aggressive Athenian politician, was eager to defeat the Spartans on the battlefield and claimed to be able to do so in 20 days.

So what happened next?

Athens send him with an army of at least 7000 men (800 hoplites, 800 archers, 800 peltast and 5-7.000 oarsmen to Sphacteria. When he landed on the island the Spartans neglected (!) the capitulation and the fighting began.

Due to the Athenian advantage of beeing able to fight from the distance (long-range combat) and the fact that a prior fire on the island had burned down the afforastation on the island (coincidence?) - it possibly could have protected to some degree the Spartan Hoplites - the Spartans losing men without fighting (consider they even lost their leader Epidatas that way!) backtracked to a more favourable position and in order to a avoid the threatening encirclement by the Athenians.

But it was too late. A Messanian officer had led some peltasts into the back of the Spartans and they were now in a situation of cross fire which is comparable with the one of Leonidas at the Battle of Thermopylae several years before.

Kleon needed 72 days (a little bit more than 20) to make sure his victory. He had lost just a few men while the Spartans had only left 292 hoplites when they surrendered.

Somebody once said : "The glory of ones victory depends on the honour he gets from the one he is defeating." Now how glorious was this victory for Kleon?

Thucidides says: "In the whole war the Spartans surrendering and delivering the weapons was the biggest surprise". In this case hard to imagine for me...

[Shqiponja_Hayabusa]

I dont think about the argives being that close to the strength and military skill of the spartans as the thebans maybe were.The thebans dedicated their youth to the training,body exercises were a must in their culture,and their fury was almost unstopable in a charge.
The spartans though should be the best of the best period.

[oudysseos]

uhhh yeh ok mate wateva u say bout their country and economy i dont really care bout that, and yeh i think i will still consider the SPARTAN SOLDIERS l33t seeming as how they only lost one battle in their entire military history and the soldiers from sparta have shown more dicipline than any known military force that has ever lived, and they showed bravery and skill that let them completely dominate their foes

I'm sorry but that just cannot pass. Carnesy, on what do you base your opinion? Have you studied any history? I'm not trying to be mean or put you down, but your statement is wrong in every factual instance. Let me parse.

1. "They only lost one battle in their entire military history"

This is just ignorant. Let's have a look at the record, shall we?

560 BCE The Tegeans defeat the Spartans at the Battle of the Fetters and force the Spartans to wear their own slave chains.

480 Lost Battle of Thermopylae- A bit unfair maybe, but losing is losing, no matter why.
426 Lost Battle of Olpae
425 Lost Battles of Pylos and Sphacteria - they surrendered in the latter case.
395 Lost Battle of Haliartus- a rout, if memory serves, beaten, not for the last time, by Thebes.
391 Lost Battle of Lechaeum- Iphicrates routed a force of Spartans using only peltasts.
375 Lost Battle of Tegyra- To Thebes again, even though the Spartans outnumbered them.
371 Lost Battle of Leuctra- Everyone knows this one.
362 Lost Battle of Mantinea- Lost to the Thebans AGAIN. Killed Epaminondas, though.
222 Lost Battle of Sellasia- Spartans massacred by the Macedonians
207 Lost Battle of Mantinea- This time to the Achaean League.

There are more. Of course the Spartans won many battles as well, and much more importantly won a few wars. But they were not in any time period invincible. They lost to Athenians as easily as to Macedonians. Beat them too, sometimes, that's how things go.

2. "The soldiers from sparta have shown more dicipline (sic) than any known military force that has ever lived, and they showed bravery and skill that let them completely dominate their foes"

This is really one point, I think- that the Spartans were 'better' soldiers than anyone else. Except when they lost.

This is not an issue that can be easily resolved by a simple browse through Google, Wikipedia, or (dare I say it) an actual book.
First of all it is impossible for us to know whether the Spartans were more disciplined than any other Greek City-State's hoplites or not, unless you have a time machine handy.
They may have spent more time training for war than others; after all, in the classical period at least Spartan men did not have to work for a living as they were supported by the brutal suppression of slaves. Like the Nazis, in a way.

And, of course, after the glorious Greek defeat of the evil Persian barbarian empire (in which Sparta played a very reluctant and tardy role), the Spartans were only too happy to be financially supported by the Persians. According to some contemporaries, Spartans were notorious for their corruptability.

That's another point: whose account do you trust? There is nobody among the actual primary sources who didn't have some kind of axe to grind. To put it another way, when the enemies of Sparta (Thucydides, for instance) write about what fearsome warriors the Spartans were, and how all they did the whole live long day was practice spear thrusts, and how they never broke or routed, they (Sparta's enemies) are trying to make their own defeat of the Spartans look nothing short of miraculous. And sell a few book-readings.

So maybe, just maybe, you should take some of this 'historical' information with a grain of salt and look at the record: many Spartan victories, and also many defeats. Just like everyone else.

Don't get me wrong- I think that Spartan units in a RTW game are really really cool. But if I had to choose, I'd rather go to Athens, where I might have a chance to be treated like a person, rather than to Sparta, where all they would have let me done is work myself to death (after branding my face and maybe cutting off my thumbs).

The Spartans may or may not have been more disciplined than their peers (although I doubt it) but they were very definitely not kinder.
Sometimes that counts too.

[Gelgoog]

Don't get me wrong- I think that Spartan units in a RTW game are really really cool. But if I had to choose, I'd rather go to Athens, where I might have a chance to be treated like a person, rather than to Sparta, where all they would have let me done is work myself to death (after branding my face and maybe cutting off my thumbs).

The Spartans may or may not have been more disciplined than their peers (although I doubt it) but they were very definitely not kinder.
Sometimes that counts too.

from all accounts ive read, the spartans are probably one of the cruelist slave holders there were ( as a general populous). being that their numbers were never very high , they were always paranoid about their helots revolting, so instead to keep them in line they instilled fear upon them by having their young spartans form terror parties to go out in the middle of the night and kill random helots. then again being a spartan yourself was almost just as bad, from the grueling training at young age, to not being able to go home to your wife during the sunlight hours, and even living your whole life with virtually no possession and nurished by very foul tasting soup ( as noted by many outsiders of the time) a spartans life was well as the term goes "spartan" there existence to the state was nothing but another shield and spear, they were also treated accordingly. so while i love the myths about spartan courage and their exploits, i dont put much faith into this trend of making them seem noble and rare amongst other cultures, as theirs was cruel and bordering on the line of unhumanlike. i cant think of anyone who would choose to live and grow up under the spartan system, knowing what it was really like as far as we can tell.

[Snevets]

Easily explains the corruptability too. Think of Pausanius- the luxuries he and his soldiers found in attacking Persia were unknown to them, and even their slight indulgence had him recalled.

[Racer X]

Don't forget the 300 Argives versus 300 Spartans... you could say it was more a draw than an Argos victory, but it was by no means a Spartan victory. However, in the period of Hegemonia, the Spartans were more 'invincible' than they were in later years, in which population and mercenary hire became issues.

I think that the Hippeis should have the best morale in the game, but the Homoioi should be overall stronger.