Smaller independent factions ...

[Nowake]

Well, you who know me can guess easily why this interest for this kind of factions, the "smaller independent ones", as Michael de Plater stated in his last interview ...

There he gives two examples: Dacia and Sparta ...

Now, can anyone help me ... My first guess is that Dacia would be MTW's Hungary (as a role, not as geographical position), and Sparta would play the Aragonese role in front of the spanish for Athens ...

What worries me is the word "independent" ... This freaks me out, as when CA mentiones independent it refers ussually to rebels ...

So, if CA reads this or anyone can enlighten me, please do http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Nowake]

So ... I guess CA hasn't read this, and no one has the slightest ideea? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Spino]

'Independent' as in 'Minor factions' as in unplayble factions because they're only meant to be controlled by the AI (much like the Swiss, Burgundians and Golden Horde in MTW).

Relax http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

[Nowake]

I know what a minor faction is, but Michael de Plater didn't said that they were a minor faction, but a small independent one, so ... I hope that they are not some improved rebels, but a faction as hungary in MTW ...

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]I know what a minor faction is, but Michael de Plater didn't said that they were a minor faction, but a small independent one, so ... I hope that they are not some improved rebels, but a faction as hungary in MTW ...

I think you are getting worked up over nothing pr Fire. I'll wager a modest sum that these independent nations Michael mentioned are modeled along the same lines as the Minor Factions in MTW. Michael may have not used the words 'Minor Factions' but the implications are there. Having independent nations that behave like rebels who possess unique, buildable units makes absolutely no sense, especially when you consider RTW is going to sport a vastly improved diplomatic model. Rebel-like independent nations would imply CA is taking a step backward instead of forward and I sincerely doubt Michael and the gang at CA would support that sort of move.

[Stormer]

let me tell you Sparta better be in RTW i need them

[RisingSun]

Well, depending on how the system is used to possibly raise troops from captured cities, im hoping that the Spartan Hoplites will at least be buildable when you conquer Sparta. Otherwise, why would they put it up on the main page in the beginning if you can't make them?

[Hakonarson]

Spartan hoplites should disappear like a shot if yuo capture Sparta - their whole ethos for existing would collapse

However if you BOUGHT Sparta then that's another thing entirely http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

And they can be included as a unit for small independant faction of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Nowake]

SO ... ok, I'll relax http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[King James I]

I recently read that the 21 factions in Rome Total War will be divided into 6 unique cultures. These would be my pics, because they were either the most important factions in history or would be the most fun to play. There are more than 21 factions, but I can't decide which shouldn't be in the game. I'm open to debate so I'd be interested by what you guys have to say.

ROMAN factions I would like in the game.
Patricians two consuls (early Roman Republic)
Popular Party (Late Roman Republic)

Roman Personalities
Late Republican period
Sulla
Marius

Crassus
Pompey
Caesar
Quintus Sertorius

Anthony
Octavian
Lepidus
Sextus Pompius

Roman factions (In the game now)
Brutii
Scipio
Julii

Factions I would like in the game.
GREEK
Macedonia
Athens
Achaean League - Corinth et al.
Aetolian League
Sparta
Syracuse
Rhodes (Minor Faction)
Crete (Minor Faction)
Massilia

Egypt
Ptolemaic Empire (Egypt)
Numidia
Mauratania (Minor Faction)

EASTERN
Seleucid Empire
Parthia
Scythians
Pergamene Monarchy
Armenia
Cappadocia (Minor Faction)
Bythnia
Nabataens
Sarmatians
Lycian Federation
Baelaric Islanders (Minor Faction)
Judea
Epirus
Pontus

BARBARIANS
Dacia
Thrace
Illryia
Gaul
Cicillia
Lustinians
Slavs
Germanics
Iberians
Saguntum
Iberians
Celt-Iberians

PHEONICIANS
Carthage
Libya

LATINS (minor factions)

the Marsi
the Peligni
the Vestini
the Marrucini
the Picentines
the Frentani
the Hirpini
the Pompeiians
the Venusini
the Apulians
the Lucanians
the Samnites
the Capuans
the Tarentines
the Marmatines (Sicily)
the Ligurians

One thing I would like to see in Rome Total War is that culture would be as important as religion was in Medieval Total War since religion wasn't that important during Roman times as the Romans and other cultures just adopted or copied each others religions, although there were a few exceptions such as Judaism, Baal worship in Carthage, and Zaorastism (sp?) in Persia. Unless of course your religion made you more susceptible to rebellion (Judaism).

Anyway back to my point, I believe it would be interesting if just like in MTW where you could cause the percentage of you're religion to rise in other provinces and then there were factors that were either beneficial or detrimental to you. Say for instance in Medieval if you were a Muslim and you held a province with a high percentage of Christians that province was more likely to rebel against you. In RTW instead of the percentage of religion in each region or city I reckon there should be a percentage of culture. For instance in Gaul after the Roman conquest there might be 80% Celtic and 20% Roman which would be more rebellious than say if you built a Roman military conlony there and the population became say 60% Celtic and 40% Roman. In short I would like to be able to shift the cultural population by various ways unique to the culture. For example Greek and Carthagian colonies, giving Roman veterens land after a set amount of years, barbarian migrations e.t.c. instead of "converting" a population to your religion using you're "Special units"

I also hope that some factions will emerge if the circumstances are right, for example if the Seleuciads were weakened by war with Rome the successor kingdoms would be able to emerge (Bythinia, Parthia, Pergamene Monarchy) it would not make sense if the Seleuciads had defeated the Ptolemies and Rome and were at their height of wealth and power, because they knew they would be crushed in an instant although in game terms I guess it would prevent the game from being too easy. I think an event should be triggered when your empire was reduced to a certain amount of troops and a certain amount of gold then your empire would become fractured.

The same goes for Roman player I can't imagine Roman history without the byplay between Sulla and Marius or Anthony and Octavian. It just wouldn't be the same. It would be cool if there were emerging personalities not just emerging factions. Maybe if the personalities would emerge on a certain date?

I beleive it would also be interesting if the ruling class of your cities could be different to the subject people. For example if you're a Roman and you have conquered Spain you naturally would appoint a Roman as governor while the people who are Celtic and Iberian would resent him. He might even be more liable to extort the foreign people rather than Latin or Romans which would cause them to resent him more.

I also wonder how citizenship would be dealt with in the game, because in history the Social Wars started because the Italians rebelled against Rome, but when the Romans granted the Italians full citizenship the rebellion ran out of steam. So if you give full citizenship or even part to people they would be less rebellious. Eventually all of the Empire was granted citizenship because Emporer Diocletian realized if he gave citizenship to all peoples he would get more much needed money, because only citizens paid taxes.

I also hope there are lots of neutral cities or tribes in the game, because it would be cool to be able to make them become part of your empire whether through bribery, threats, prestige, or outright conquest or if they ask for help like the Marmatines asked Rome for help against Carthage. They should be given the same diplomatic functions as the major factions, but without the distinct architecture, factions colours, or whatever else the major factions are distinguished by. They could be handled the same way as the rebel provinces were treated like in MTW except they could as I say have the same diplomatic options as the major ones. The reason I want them to have diplomatic functions as the main ones is, because some of those minor factions held pivotal roles in history, for example the Marmatines as I have said called Rome to help them against Carthage, Hannibal's attack on Saguntum led to the 2nd Punic War, and Tarantum called Pyrrhus to help them fight Rome.

I also hope that the defeat of a factions army won't be the end of that faction, like if you defeat an enemy he might run away to an ally who could be given a choice whether to betray your enemy to you or to help your enemy gather forces to retake his kingdom. A historical example would be when Mithradates of Pontus was defeated by Pompey he went to his son-in-law Tigranes king of Armenia who helped him raise troops to take back his Empire

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ May 13 2003,16:18)]Spartan hoplites should disappear like a shot if yuo capture Sparta - their whole ethos for existing would collapse

However if you BOUGHT Sparta then that's another thing entirely http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

And they can be included as a unit for small independant faction of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Harkonen how do you mean buy Sparta? Do you mean recruit them as mercenaries? That would be about right, because they were used as mercenary troops quite regularily I believe in 305 B.C the mercenary general Cleonymus went to Italy to champion the cause of the Greek city of Tarantum with 5,000 men against the Italians.

[Nowake]

King James, i see confusion in your post

Marius was one with the popular party, Sulla with the patricians, Jully as you call them: Popular party (Caesar was the leader of this party, no?&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, and so on. Anthony ... that wasn't a party ... You have to divide them by eras, else all is nonsense

[Sir Robin]

Whoops...

I thought it was implied in interviews and previews that regions would have cultural instead of religious indicators.

However after looking thru them I cannot find anything mentioned specifically.

Though I would agree that using culture as a way of adding or reducing the risk of revolt is beneficial to increasing player challenge.

If I recall digging thru MTW files one day I came across the following.

"One of your generals has chosen to rise against you. A new faction is attempting to emerge." Or something like it.

So apparently at some point CA was going to include that arrival of new factions within major factions. If this can be successfully implented in RTW I am all for it.

"Smaller independent nations" probably means the same as minor factions in MTW. Though if the game is moddable I am sure members of the community will soon change that.

From what has been said there will be only three roman factions. I have no idea of which families should be included though.

Only the bigger kingdoms of the time will probably be available as major factions. The rest will either be rebels, minor factions, or not included at all.

[Spino]

Quote[/b] ]I also hope that some factions will emerge if the circumstances are right, for example if the Seleuciads were weakened by war with Rome the successor kingdoms would be able to emerge (Bythinia, Parthia, Pergamene Monarchy) it would not make sense if the Seleuciads had defeated the Ptolemies and Rome and were at their height of wealth and power, because they knew they would be crushed in an instant...

The Seleucids and Parthians will definitely be in the game. RTW will begin sometime around 300 BC (36 years or 72 turns earlier than originally planned) so the Seleucids will have a considerable amount of time to prepare for the appearance of the Parthian faction in the regions bordering their northeastern provinces.

It has also been established that the three Roman factions will be the three major families that ruled and/or greatly influenced Rome's politics; the Brutii, the Julii and the Scipii. In the latest trailer you can see the standards for each of these three factions carried by the leading horsemen in that procession that marches under the arch (when the lead horsemen yells, "For Rome").

As to which standard represents which Roman family I am certain the Scipii will be represented by the SPQR standard with the Brutii represented by the crossed lightning bolts/arrows and the Julii by the laurel wreath (to demonstrate that family's significance as the first of Rome's emperors). Since the exploits of the Scipii were staples of the Roman Republic then I imagine the Julii and Brutii won't emerge until after the Third and final Punic War.

CORRECTION

It looks like I am only partially right regarding Rome's three factions...

There is a thread in the official forums based on the video preview of RTW that is featured on the Gamestar dvd. A member named Baron Guthwulf gives the skinny on the three Roman factions...


Quote[/b] ]Second to the factions that were namend in the movie:
House of Julii(Julier, a family Julius Caesar himself is counted to, cause Caesar surely was not his family name. *g*) Now following are some excepts from the same text that i've seen in the movie:
The house of Julii starts in northern italy. They are the front guard of rome and have been given the task of conquering central europe.
The house of Brutii resides in central italy. They are the guardians of rome.
The house of Scipii is based in southern italy. They are responsible to defending italy from the african continent.

Taken from this thread...

http://pub133.ezboard.com/fshogun....2.topic (http://pub133.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=712.topic)

[Nowake]

Ok, I cannot see the origin of this Brutii house ... who was its leader? Will it represent the party of the optimates and cling on the remains of the republic?

I'm quite familiar with the politics in Rome at that time, but this Brutii doesn't ring a bell. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

[Longshanks]

My guess is that the "Bruti" faction in RTW is the Optimates.(Brutus, Cassius, Pompey ect.)

[Nowake]

But Pompei, excepting the last period, was never a true "optimates supporter" (he played the popular role for quite a while). Brutus was a patrician, but officially he was in Caesars party.

Those are not an option for this party.

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (pr Fire @ June 09 2003,09:28)]King James, i see confusion in your post

Marius was one with the popular party, Sulla with the patricians, Jully as you call them: Popular party (Caesar was the leader of this party, no?&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, and so on. Anthony ... that wasn't a party ... You have to divide them by eras, else all is nonsense
I have edited my earlier post to better reflect my wishes.

To debate you're point that Caesar was head of the Popular Party my source says that although Caesar had marital
connections with the Popular Party and his clan Julii was a important in the patrician party, it says that he was distrustful of both. So I guess he was a man of himself.

I don't really like the idea of Italy being divided between three Roman factions, even though the devs have given good reason why this is so. The main reason is because it would be cool to directly influence the Senate whether by bribing members, gaining the mobs favour, or by marching on Rome in order to become a Consul. Not to mention the fact that this was how it was done in history.

I would also like to be able to become a legati, own a piece of Romes overseas territories, and be able to make an alliance or contend with other legati like Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar did and might have.

Another reason is because I like I said in my previous post
I would like to see the important personalites of the era instead of being confined to the set memebers of the factions. For example the Scipios and the Brutii weren't that influential in the later Roman era first it was Marius, Sulla, and then later the Popular Party, after that it was Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, and in the late era it was Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus who formed the Triumverate.

[Catiline]

Technically if they're using Bruti and Scipiones hten the Julian faction should be called Caesarii (or similar but better latin...) Caesar, Scipio and Brutus are all cognomens. Romans basically had two names, and a nickname. The form is praenomen, nomen, and cognomen.

ie

Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio
Marcus Junius Brutus (Brutus = stupid)
Gaius Julius Caesar (Caesar= hairy)
Lucius Sergius Catilina http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

hopefully these factions are sometyhing that will develop rahter htan be in place early in the game. If anyone is defending the Northern reaches of Italy it should be the Fabii anyhow.

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (Catiline @ June 13 2003,07:26)]Technically if they're using Bruti and Scipiones hten the Julian faction should be called Caesarii (or similar but better latin...) Caesar, Scipio and Brutus are all cognomens. Romans basically had two names, and a nickname. The form is praenomen, nomen, and cognomen.

ie

Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio
Marcus Junius Brutus (Brutus = stupid)
Gaius Julius Caesar (Caesar= hairy)
Lucius Sergius Catilina http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

hopefully these factions are sometyhing that will develop rahter htan be in place early in the game. If anyone is defending the Northern reaches of Italy it should be the Fabii anyhow.
I didn't know that Catiline, so does that mean that the multiple people bearing the name Brutus and Scipio weren't related?

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (King James I @ June 14 2003,08:38)]
Quote[/b] (Catiline @ June 13 2003,07:26)]Technically if they're using Bruti and Scipiones hten the Julian faction should be called Caesarii (or similar but better latin...) Caesar, Scipio and Brutus are all cognomens. Romans basically had two names, and a nickname. The form is praenomen, nomen, and cognomen.

ie

Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio
Marcus Junius Brutus (Brutus = stupid)
Gaius Julius Caesar (Caesar= hairy)
Lucius Sergius Catilina http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

hopefully these factions are sometyhing that will develop rahter htan be in place early in the game. If anyone is defending the Northern reaches of Italy it should be the Fabii anyhow.
I didn't know that Catiline, so does that mean that the multiple people bearing the name Brutus and Scipio weren't related?
Not all of them, of course http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Catiline]

THe question of relations gets VERY complicated. Brutus and Scipio were basically applied only to those families. The nickname was picked up sometime in the past and applied to the rest of the family. To distinguish they often picked up an extra 4th name

eg
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus

Numidicus was applied after Metellus defeated the Numidians and celebrated a triumph against them. Felix was a nickname Sulla applied to himself, to demontsrate how proud he was of his famed good fortune.

That said some prominent families kept only 2 names, Marcus Antonius is a good example. His grandfather gained the name Creticus for a rather exaggerated victory over pirates.

As to Relations the greast clans of Rome often ran short of heirs. This is partly due to the lack of a concept of primageniture, ie in medieval Europe the eldest son inherited, the others got nothing
In rome property was shared out equally, so great estates were swiftly diminished if there were many heirs. However, high mortality rates meant having only one heir was a risky business. if he died you were in trouble. in consequence thosde families with lots of sons adopted them out to those with none. it was advantageous for both families, the adopters gained an adult or near adult son, who changed his name to perpetuate the family, and the adoptees had a son how gained the property of another family and didn't have to worry about providing an inheritance for their sons.

So you shouldn't have to worry about running out of heirs playing as Rome in RTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (Catiline @ June 14 2003,05:32)]THe question of relations gets VERY complicated. Brutus and Scipio were basically applied only to those families. The nickname was picked up sometime in the past and applied to the rest of the family. To distinguish they often picked up an extra 4th name

eg
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus

Numidicus was applied after Metellus defeated the Numidians and celebrated a triumph against them. Felix was a nickname Sulla applied to himself, to demontsrate how proud he was of his famed good fortune.

That said some prominent families kept only 2 names, Marcus Antonius is a good example. His grandfather gained the name Creticus for a rather exaggerated victory over pirates.

As to Relations the greast clans of Rome often ran short of heirs. This is partly due to the lack of a concept of primageniture, ie in medieval Europe the eldest son inherited, the others got nothing
In rome property was shared out equally, so great estates were swiftly diminished if there were many heirs. However, high mortality rates meant having only one heir was a risky business. if he died you were in trouble. in consequence thosde families with lots of sons adopted them out to those with none. it was advantageous for both families, the adopters gained an adult or near adult son, who changed his name to perpetuate the family, and the adoptees had a son how gained the property of another family and didn't have to worry about providing an inheritance for their sons.

So you shouldn't have to worry about running out of heirs playing as Rome in RTW http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Ah, I see. Cheers for clearing that up Catiline. Yes I am aware of the tradition of adopting a son, the example that comes up would be Julius Caesar adopting Octavian, right?

[lonewolf371]

Dacia would be more accurately northern Bulgaria and... Romania.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ June 15 2003,22:24)]Dacia would be more accurately northern Bulgaria and... Romania.
Look on the map ... dacians covered a much wider area, and much of Pannonia was, sometimes, under their control. In the east they expanded all the way to Bug river. They controled northern Bulgaria too, but they were pushed back by the romans.