IMHO the option to have an "Augustus" should be mantained (just like you can be a "High King" or similar with other factions) but i think the reform is quite useless, for the reasons other people have already explained
IMHO the option to have an "Augustus" should be mantained (just like you can be a "High King" or similar with other factions) but i think the reform is quite useless, for the reasons other people have already explained
I shouldn't have to live in a world where all the good points are horrible ones.
Is he hurt? Everybody asks that. Nobody ever says, 'What a mess! I hope the doctor is not emotionally harmed by having to deal with it.'
I voted neutral.
EB campaign depicts the years 272 BC to 10 AD. The Augustan reforms happened some 50 years before the EB ending date historically, for reasons that are also depicted in EB as the reform conditions. If they would be taken away, it would hurt the historical accuracy of the mod, at least IMHO. We cannot say for certain that the Augustan reforms were inevitable, but they are the only example that we have of what the romans did to cope with the demands of maintaining and defending a vast empire.
The other side to the problem is also valid. Not many players ever get to Augustan reforms (one reason could be that they at least used to be bugged so they couldn't be achieved). Also they use up precious unit slots.
So, I voted neutral.
I believe that if the team decides to remove the Augustan reforms and the units, a scenario that I highly doubt, they do it because they really really need those few unit slots at some much more important place. In other words, it will be a last resort not to be taking lightly.
Last edited by Puupertti Ruma; 08-25-2008 at 22:57.
Call me Ruma. Puupertti Ruma.
I can fill my units with auxilia as any faction, I don't have to play Romani to do that. Regional units is my favorite feature in EB after the new campaign map as well as the improved & expanded traits system. Auxilia adds simply a gargantuan amount of variety to any EB game, but I would still like to have some Roman units. Regionals can be levied by any faction whereas Principes can only be recruited by the Romani.
As for the slinger unit, I am well aware of that. They are Accensi and they are great - but they're only trainable during the Camillian military era. Which is perfectly historical because I am almost 100% positive that no Roman slingers were found in the legions after the reforms of Gaius Marius. The only slingers in the Roman army were auxiliries of non-Italian background. However, I am not sure sure about the Polybian Era... I would really like to know if native slingers were still employed by the Romani after the Polybian reforms. If not, then I'll just have to go back to using Iaosatae and Mercenary Balearics, which is perfectly historical.
Yea, but from what I know*admittedly not as much as most here probably* of the roman armies of this time, there weren't really any other unit that could be added for them. Other then the Hastati, Principes, Triarii, equites, and the various levies, the only other thing in their armies was allies. And you can train accensi during Polybian times too*and according to konny, you should*.
I certainly doubt that's the reason why, considering the team's goal is to raise historical knowledge/awareness of all factions equally.
I shouldn't have to live in a world where all the good points are horrible ones.
Is he hurt? Everybody asks that. Nobody ever says, 'What a mess! I hope the doctor is not emotionally harmed by having to deal with it.'
My personal opinion is that I wouldn't consider both Marian and Imperial units together. The topic about removing Imperial units is one, but thinking also of Marian units is another one and IMHO they shouldn't be removed (more easily and quickly to get than Imperial units, and they also cover a larger timeframe).
If slots are needed I would consider only the Imperial units to be cut out, and even after them I would consider rare minor units of any faction rather than Marian ones.
You're an island of tranquillity in a sea of chaos.
O! Plus! Perge! Aio! Hui! Hem!
No Konny meant, if I got it right, that conceptually, there exists overlap between Marian and Augustan reforms; in other words: that there are currently purely duplicate units present. Those duplicates may be removed.
Last edited by Tellos Athenaios; 08-26-2008 at 10:18.
- Tellos Athenaios
CUF tool - XIDX - PACK tool - SD tool - EVT tool - EB Install Guide - How to track down loading CTD's - EB 1.1 Maps thread
“ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὣσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει” – Kratinos in Dionysalexandros.
Uh, alright then, I though he meant "there is the Marian units pool and the Imperial units pool and they may be considered for etc.". ;)
You're an island of tranquillity in a sea of chaos.
O! Plus! Perge! Aio! Hui! Hem!
It has never been about how many roman fans there are. Even if no one played any faction but the romans we would still strive to represent all factions equally. We are hear to teach and inspire people about history.
Foot
EBII Mod Leader
Hayasdan Faction Co-ordinator
I honestly think theyre not needed.
"An army of Sheep led by a Lion will always defeat an army of Lions led by a Sheep"
-Arabic Military Maxim
"War doesn't decide who is right, only who is left."
"In order to test a man's strength of character, do not give him adversity, for any man can handle adversity, but instead give him POWER.
-Abraham Lincoln
"A man once asked me who my grandfather was. I told him I didn't know who he was, and didn't care. I cared more about who his grandson will be."
-Abraham Lincoln
Yes, that's the point. For example the Marian and early Imperial Cohortes are absolutly the same unit by look and stats, and colud be merged into one "Reformed" unit. There are also many, many reformed cavalry units for a faction that made not much use of cavalry. But all this would only become a topic if new unit slots were needed - and we are still far away from that point.
It would be nice to somehow implement the underlying political and social factors that allowed Octavian to become emperor, rather than the very superficial date and personal qualities of the man.
That's not to say that any schmuck should become Augustus. I'm only saying that there were probably a huge number of men all throughout history with the intellect and ability of Augustus. There were just deeper reasons for his ascension.
yeh...but people are already complaining that getting augustus is way to hard as it is <.<
Mini-mod pack for EB 1.2 for Alexander and RTWSpoken languages:
(just download it and apply to get tons of changes!) last update: 18/12/08 here
ALEXANDER EB promoter
It began on seven hills - an EB 1.1 Romani AAR with historical house-rules (now ceased)
Heirs to Lysimachos - an EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR with semi-historical houserules (now ceased)
Philetairos' Gift - a second EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR
he's commenting that Octavianus killed those who opposed him... <.< and THAT helped him in his accenssion... <.<
Last edited by ||Lz3||; 08-30-2008 at 23:56.
Mini-mod pack for EB 1.2 for Alexander and RTWSpoken languages:
(just download it and apply to get tons of changes!) last update: 18/12/08 here
ALEXANDER EB promoter
Right, but I'm talking about maybe adding some more complex strategy map requirements and/or toning down the FM requirements. Does that make sense? I just
I still think that if you are going to take out the units just take out the reforms entirely. We have 10 new factions, same number of unit slots. Make the game end at 27 B.C., get rid of the Augustus trait, units and reform. No one even gets to the Augustus reforms unless they purposely try to, and even then its a real pain, with the sheer number of turns to get to it, the 66 B.C. CTD, etc.
One vote for removing the reform.
I have only achieved the augustan reform cheating the game.
And if you don't make the game last longer without cheating the reform is almost useless.
"Iustitia procurat pacem et iniuria bellum, humilia verba sunt nuntii pacis et superba, belli." (Ramon Llull)
If i recall, units after reform get stronger than before. So if we are to remove this reform all together, does this mean we get reformed units rightaway or do we just stuck with units before the reform and not get the new ones. Resoning behind this is: If we get reformed units right away that might give an advantage to Roman AI if i were to play some neighboor nation. so how exactrly are they planing on doing this?
The question about if the Augustan reforms being removed is not on the opinion that the reform itself is not needed, but if the Augustan units should be kept, especially with 10 new factions filling up unit spots. The point is we can either keep it all or remove it all, theres no point to remove just the units, or just the reform, or just the traits.
I want to make this absolutely clear. This thread is entirely speculation from fans and there is no official position from the team on this. Do not confuse lots of posts with what will occur in EBII.Originally Posted by cybermage83
Foot
Last edited by Foot; 09-02-2008 at 07:09.
EBII Mod Leader
Hayasdan Faction Co-ordinator
I agree with what other people have said about the units being put to better use among other factions. It's true that very few people ever get to the Augustan era in EB anyway, and the only significant changes are aesthetic.
Moreover however, I think that I should point out that very few people even get near 100 BC, let alone 14 AD. Most people (from what I can tell from reading TWC and the Org), including myself, achieve their victory conditions by about 150 BC at the latest, unless they are deliberately playing slowly. And if the player doesn't achieve victory by then, one of the AI factions frequently gets near it. Consequently, my advice to the EB team would be that you should concentrate your attention on the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, and forget about reforms that might occur in the 1st century BC or AD. You should try your hardest to immerse us in this mid-Hellenistic world; by the time that the player arrives in the Augustan era anyway history will have changed so much that pre-determined reforms may well be quite inappropriate.
In summary, put your resources into depicting the 3rd/2nd cent. BC.
Yeah.
Wait, what?
You want MORE units for Rome?
Goddamn, some people sure are greedy. Down with 'em fanboys.
I'm for removing the reforms. Few people get there, and by the time one reaches them their effect on the gameplay is minimal at best, one would speculate (in any real, meaningful way).
Also, the removal of the reforms would allow more unit slots to be spent on the other factions and I believe this would be more in line with EB's general aim to represent the non-Roman factions better. One would think two reforms and a pretty damn good unit pool/variety Rome possesses even without the Augustan reforms would be quite enough for one faction, especially comparing it to some of the other factions.
I has two balloons!
That's right, I am THAT greedy. Actually, I have changed my opinion by now and I do agree that the Augustan reforms should be removed, regardless of whether it'll benefit the Romani or not. However, is there any way the Praetorians could be given to the Romani without the Augustan Reforms? I would sure hate to see those backstabbing, emperor-killing elites go!
Mike H couldn't have stated it better. The faction limit or M2TW has been increased, but the number of unit slots has remained the same. Even though being a huge Romani fan, I still realize that I must sacrifice the Augustan Reforms so that those new factions can get more units. The Romani have the largest amount of unique units in EB, and that cannot remain the same.
P.S. Most units in EB have slightly different skins (such as Ptolemaic and Seleukid and Makedonian peltasts all look different) however, all of these variations still fill up only one unit slot, right?
Last edited by Aemilius Paulus; 09-07-2008 at 20:04.
Huh? I was under the impression that the Camillian units are the best. By now in my Romani campaign, I only 5 territories away from the victory conditions (and I have many more territories that aren't required for a victory) and I am still playing wit Camillian units. Roman units simply don't get much better than the early Triarii (Antesignani are better, but also fewer and more expensive), Pedites Extraordinarii or Accensi! Also, aren't the Marian and Imperial legionary cohort stats pretty much the same? 11 attack, 22 defence vs 11 attack and 22 defence.
Bookmarks