Poll: Should the Augustan Reforms be removed?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I don't understand this. I am sure that back during the beta the Romani team had good enough reasons to eat up that many slots and implement the Augustan Reforms, even knowing that they would be so late that only a very small percentage of players would ever reach them. If the game ends on 14AD, then they should be represented because it is historical, that's it. Should the game end on an earlier date, keeping the reforms would be moot.

[Cbvani]

A firm NO to removing the Augustan reforms. However, I wouldn't necessarily object to merging the Augustan and Marian reforms, so you can train the Augustan Auxilaries and Archers and such.... If unit numbers are a problem, that is.

[The Celtic Viking]

one last thing. I think the Augustan Reforms should be in the game if the team still decides to have the start and end dates still 272BC-14AD, because for the simple reason that the reforms were used in this time period.

I think the Roman faction should be deleted and replaced by the Boii. After all, they existed in this time period. My point is that if by keeping the Augustan units means not including other units that were also used in this time period, this argument is moot.

The roman republic didn't last until 14AD. If the start and end dates change, then I can see a reasonably reason to exclude the imperial troops. I don't think the Camillian troops should be removed though, because that would seriously reduce the Romani's factional troop selection by too much. and if the imperial units were to be removed, which faction would get the unit slots?

Oh, I don't know... the new factions, perhaps? Those who have few as it is? It just doesn't seem very fair to me to give the slots to the faction that has the most, not when it's so extremely rare that anyone even gets the chance to train them anyway. Other factions could use them much better.

[Pontius Pilate]

I think the Roman faction should be deleted and replaced by the Boii. After all, they existed in this time period. My point is that if by keeping the Augustan units means not including other units that were also used in this time period, this argument is moot.

That's probably one of the stupidest counter arguments I ever heard. You're going a bit overboard with the "used in this time period" thing. Anyway, we're talking about the reforms here. I just think that if the game includes the major reforms of the Romani and goes to 14AD, skipping the Augustan reforms would be ahistorical, simple as that. And could you please be more specific when mentioning other units that are more important than the Augustan troops. I am not saying there aren't any, just could you name a few and say what faction they belong to and why they are important.

Oh, I don't know... the new factions, perhaps? Those who have few as it is? It just doesn't seem very fair to me to give the slots to the faction that has the most, not when it's so extremely rare that anyone even gets the chance to train them anyway. Other factions could use them much better.

Once again be a little more specific here, what factions? Also, so what if the majority of players don't make it to the Augustan reforms? Does that mean that since alot of people don't get to it, it is considered wrong and unimportant? Alot of people aren't crazy over Saba, but that doesn't make it not important (as I learned from previous posts) and yes I know that the Romans have the most out of any faction, but don't you think there is a reason why the EB team made it so??

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The fact that the Roman Empire ruled over most of the known world notwithstanding and had "Augustan" armies all over over the place is actually weaker than the case for other extra units? EB is already full of units, sometimes with blurry distinctions. Take for example Gaeilache and Gaeroas: they are virtually identical. Tindanotae and Gaesatae too. The fact that the Marian and Augustan Cohorts are seemingly indentical does not state that they are the only case neither that they should be removed, otherwise we could just cut down on Gaeilache and Tindanotae, and maybe even replace the whole rosters with identical "warband" generic units. Rome is already a very "generic" and standardised faction: removing the Augustans so that there can be five similar incarnations of Gaeroas does not help and the original EB already included pretty much everything of importance that could be seen for all factions without greater problems.

[bovi]

That's probably one of the stupidest counter arguments I ever heard.

Your statement is not one that is likely to convince anyone of anything.

Once again be a little more specific here, what factions?

It's pretty hard to be specific when only one of the new factions is revealed, wouldn't you say?

[The Celtic Viking]

That's probably one of the stupidest counter arguments I ever heard. You're going a bit overboard with the "used in this time period" thing.

No, I'm not. I'm using it exactly the same way you are, to show you how pointless it is.

Anyway, we're talking about the reforms here. I just think that if the game includes the major reforms of the Romani and goes to 14AD, skipping the Augustan reforms would be ahistorical, simple as that.

Skipping units for other factions is exactly as ahistorical. Simple as that.

And could you please be more specific when mentioning other units that are more important than the Augustan troops. I am not saying there aren't any, just could you name a few and say what faction they belong to and why they are important.

I don't need to do this, because it should be obvious to any semi-honest person that there are non-Roman units from EBs time period that are not being represented. If you would stop being so romanocentric you would see this. The Augustan units are a waste of resources because only a negligable amount of people have even been able to get them.

Once again be a little more specific here, what factions? Also, so what if the majority of players don't make it to the Augustan reforms? Does that mean that since alot of people don't get to it, it is considered wrong and unimportant?

Not just a lot. In fact, those who do are so extremely few, its practically no one. A few months ago IIRC, a grand total of 5 people had reported that they had gotten those reforms. Comparing that to how many are playing as the Romani, I would say that's a piss poor turnout - and it's important because the resources aren't limitless. It's better to have units that makes a difference and are actually used than, well, units only 5 people ever get to use, and gives no real difference and comes in at a time when you've already won if you haven't deliberately kept yourself from doing so (and then not staying for long).

Also, see Bovi's post.

Alot of people aren't crazy over Saba, but that doesn't make it not important (as I learned from previous posts) and yes I know that the Romans have the most out of any faction, but don't you think there is a reason why the EB team made it so??

...

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Saba are available to anyone who wants to play with them from the start while people actively try to get the Augustans, but fail. Saba can be played as throughout the whole period, the Augustans can only be used for a short time in the end, if you ever hang out that long and actually manage to get them in the first place. The Saba aren't replacing another faction in the same area that is practically the same, the Augustan units are. The Saba fills out a part of the map that would otherwise be empty eleutheroiland, which IIRC also made the AI Seleucids/Ptolemaians go there instead of against eachother when Saba didn't exist. The Augustan units are not bringing in any unit types that would be lacking in the Roman roster without them, and without them the AI doesn't behave any worse. Do you really need me to go on?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Disuse, abuse and the likes shall never forbid the use. I do not complain at Gaeilache and Tidonanatae yet I never used them, Gaeilache especially. Inmost campaigns armies tend to reach a standardised degree that means many players make use of a small percentage of the overall units available. What use is there in training Myrcharn if Curepos are avaiable on the same place? What use is Gaeilache if you can just recruit Gaeroas?

The fact that a faction is not often played, or that units are rarely used, does not by any means preclude their historical existance in the game. As for the Augustans I'm very sure the historical arguments are overwhemingly convincing for their existence inside the EB timeframe, so regardless if few people ever bother to reach the Augustan Reforms that alone should get them into the game as much as the Galatian Naked Fanatics and Gaelaiche and the thousands of steppe HA's with little difference among themselves. That and many others.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is not directly responding to Basileos but throwing this out, with M2TW allowing ten new factions but still only 500 units, won't every faction have to accept some sacrifice in order for the new factions to be successfully represented? In my eyes it just seems that just because there is lots of evidence that the Augustan units were used during ~20 B.C. -14 A.D. doesn't really seem fair to the new factions. In fact as the faction with the most units, it should be taking on a higher sacrifice unit wise then the others, because this mod is supposed to represent all factions equally.

Just to make it known, I am a Romani fan, and 99% of all my campaigns have been Romani, but unlike Pontius, I am not that pro-Roman (I also enjoy Macedonia and Casse a lot as well) so I can recognize when there is something wrong when the Romans have a ton of units and people are worried how the new factions are gonna get any units.

Again, this is not directed to anyone, just putting this argument out there.

[Pontius Pilate]

Your statement is not one that is likely to convince anyone of anything.?

So this is better: I think the Roman faction should be deleted and replaced by the Boii. After all, they existed in this time period. I know it is just an analogy, but a poor one it is.

It's pretty hard to be specific when only one of the new factions is revealed, wouldn't you say?

Okay, forget the new factions for the moment, what about the old ones?


And The Celtic Viking, alot more people play EB than those on the forums, so I think there may be more than 5 people who reached the reforms. Also, you once again fail to mention the new units you want in the game, that is the whole point of your argument isn't it: The Augustans use up alot of unit slots which could be better used for other factions. Is it really that hard to just name a few units that you want in the game, and say what faction they belong to? Also once again, it is obivious that the Romans have the most of any faction but I don't think the EB team made it so by accident. There is alot more evidence left behind by Roman civilization than most factions, this may be why the Romans have the most. Look I am not trying to glorify Rome here, I would actually be okay if the August reforms were not in the game, but I think the timeline should be changed if that is the case. But if the end date remains 14AD I see no reason why the reforms should not be included. I think that we all can agree that the reforms were happening during post 27BC, and there should be no questioning this.

Again, this is not directed to anyone, just putting this argument out there.

okay.

but unlike Pontius, I am not that pro-Roman so I can recognize when there is something wrong when the Romans have a ton of units and people are worried how the new factions are gonna get any units.

I thought you said...oh never mind.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I suggested two months ago in the first page to make the end date 27 B.C. Also, that last post of mine was not directed toward anyone, I was just using you as an example of someone who gets his undies in a bunch whenever anyone talks bad about his Romans.

[Pontius Pilate]

I suggested two months ago in the first page to make the end date 27 B.C. Also, that last post of mine was not directed toward anyone, I was just using you as an example of someone who gets his undies in a bunch whenever anyone talks bad about his Romans.

someone has to stick up for the Romans.

[Reno Melitensis]

Hey boys, calm down, you are going out of control and insulting each other and family members. Thats not a healthy and connstructive discussion so calm down.

The final decision with the Augustian reforms is in the hands of the EB team. Early on this topic I decided to vote against removing them. But if slots for other new factions are needed they should be sacrified, which I doubt because MTW II seems to accomodate much more unit slots than RTW.

Some said that the Romans had a choice of a large selection of regional troops. Thats true, but if you play slow and a bit historically as myself, those regional troops are hard to come by. Also when the Polybian and Marian Reforms are triggered, troop selection is limited. In the Polybian armies you finish up with three different units and some cavalry, and the Marian reforms are worst for troop selection as there is no distiction between the cohorts of a legion, and auxilliary troops avialable from regional barracks. I know that this is due to the RTW engine limitation, and is going to change when EB II is ready. Many of the other factions, specially the Hellenistic ones have a more diverse troop selection and type but no one mentioned to remove at least all the different skins available to the classic hoplite. as all faction seems to have different skins.

Cheers.

[MeinPanzer]

This seems to have gone off the rails, but here's a response nonetheless...

Disuse, abuse and the likes shall never forbid the use. I do not complain at Gaeilache and Tidonanatae yet I never used them, Gaeilache especially. Inmost campaigns armies tend to reach a standardised degree that means many players make use of a small percentage of the overall units available. What use is there in training Myrcharn if Curepos are avaiable on the same place? What use is Gaeilache if you can just recruit Gaeroas?

The fact that a faction is not often played, or that units are rarely used, does not by any means preclude their historical existance in the game. As for the Augustans I'm very sure the historical arguments are overwhemingly convincing for their existence inside the EB timeframe, so regardless if few people ever bother to reach the Augustan Reforms that alone should get them into the game as much as the Galatian Naked Fanatics and Gaelaiche and the thousands of steppe HA's with little difference among themselves. That and many others.

This is a silly argument, because you are ignoring a basic fact: EB is a simulator, and as it has limits, compromises must be reached on achieving historical accuracy. That means that when considering whether a unit should be included or not, historical accuracy is a basic requirement, but it must also be balanced with overall use. Yes, all the units included in EB have some historical basis for their inclusion, but there are only so many slots for units, and some discretion must be exercised when deciding which units get included and which don't. When it comes down to that, the question of utility becomes paramount, and striking the best balance between historicity and utility is important. So, if we have evidence for, say, an Anatolian peltast unit (which is a unit for which there is evidence that could easily be included in the EB roster) that was found throughout all three centuries of the EB timeframe and which is as much "historically accurate" as some Augustan units, the question comes down to what use each will bring to the game. In this case, the Anatolian peltast unit clearly strikes the better balance.

And The Celtic Viking, alot more people play EB than those on the forums, so I think there may be more than 5 people who reached the reforms. Also, you once again fail to mention the new units you want in the game, that is the whole point of your argument isn't it: The Augustans use up alot of unit slots which could be better used for other factions. Is it really that hard to just name a few units that you want in the game, and say what faction they belong to? Also once again, it is obivious that the Romans have the most of any faction but I don't think the EB team made it so by accident. There is alot more evidence left behind by Roman civilization than most factions, this may be why the Romans have the most. Look I am not trying to glorify Rome here, I would actually be okay if the August reforms were not in the game, but I think the timeline should be changed if that is the case. But if the end date remains 14AD I see no reason why the reforms should not be included. I think that we all can agree that the reforms were happening during post 27BC, and there should be no questioning this.

Your line of reasoning can be used to argue for the inclusion of Lorica Segmentata as well, and we all know how the majority sides in those discussions.

[Celtic_Punk]

If the reforms have more than just units to them, then keep em, and drop the units. Those units hardly see any action and could be used in more useful spots. such as those 10 new factions!

[The Celtic Viking]

So this is better: I think the Roman faction should be deleted and replaced by the Boii. After all, they existed in this time period. I know it is just an analogy, but a poor one it is.

No, its not a poor analogy. Here's your argument:

P1: EB's goal is to portray its time period in a historically accurate way.
P2: The Augustan units existed during EB's time period.
C: The Augustan units should therefore be in EB

Here's my analogy:

P1: EB's goal is to portay its time period in a historically accurate way.
P2: The Boii existed during EB's time period.
C: The Boii should therefore be in EB

They're exactly the same, and if EB had an infinite amount of resources, they would be correct. However, the resources are limited, so including the Boii would mean excluding another faction that existed historically, and including the Augustan units means excluding other units that existed historically. The argument you gave is obviously incapable of separating those who should be included from those who shouldn't, as it can be used for exactly every unit that existed in this time period. It needs a third premise, like this:

P1: EB's goal is to portray its time period in a historically accurate way.
P2: The Augustan units existed during EB's time period.
P3: The Augustan units are more important to include than any other possible candidates.
C: The Augustan units should therefore be in EB

However, that begs the question: why are they more important than any other possible candidates? It has been shown that they're not, because they have no practical impact in the game.

Okay, forget the new factions for the moment, what about the old ones?

What about them?

And The Celtic Viking, alot more people play EB than those on the forums, so I think there may be more than 5 people who reached the reforms.

Argument from ignorance.

P1: We don't know how many (if anyone at all) have gained the imperial reforms without reporting it.
C: Therefore ???

See? The only conclusion we can make out of that is that we don't know.

Also, you once again fail to mention the new units you want in the game, that is the whole point of your argument isn't it: The Augustans use up alot of unit slots which could be better used for other factions. Is it really that hard to just name a few units that you want in the game, and say what faction they belong to?

As I have told you already, I don't need to. The number of factions has increased by 10, but the possible amount of units we can have has not. They need their own units as well, so we can't waste the resources we have on units that are practically not even used, that don't bring anything new to the game, is hard to get and only available for a short time when most people have either given up the save or already won and belongs to a faction that has by far been given more resources than any other faction even without them.

I will also restate that it should be obvious to everyone that EB isn't portraying every non-Roman unit that it could have been portraying had the resources been infinite. To claim otherwise would be preposterous. If any of those would end up being used by more than 5 people if they were included in the game, I would say they're more important than the Augustan units because they bring more to the game.

Also once again, it is obivious that the Romans have the most of any faction but I don't think the EB team made it so by accident. There is alot more evidence left behind by Roman civilization than most factions, this may be why the Romans have the most. Look I am not trying to glorify Rome here, I would actually be okay if the August reforms were not in the game, but I think the timeline should be changed if that is the case. But if the end date remains 14AD I see no reason why the reforms should not be included. I think that we all can agree that the reforms were happening during post 27BC, and there should be no questioning this.

As Mein Panzer points out, this exact same argument can (and has been) used for the implementation of the Lorica Segmentata. However, the LS aren't in the game, either. Will you try to get that changed as well? Since you seem to believe that this is enough to include the Augustans, maybe you should.

[Cbvani]

I would not object to Augustan Legionaires being removed, because their stats are the EXACT SAME as Marian, if the space was needed. (And for goodness sake, can you fix their heads? They are a huge box, not a human head!) I hope that Augustan Auxilliaries are kept in. Maybe once triggering the Augustan reforms the auxilliaries become recruitable. Ultimately, only remove the units if the space is absolutely needed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It really wouldn't make sense to have Augustan auxiliaries but no Augustan cohorts...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

This is a silly argument, because you are ignoring a basic fact: EB is a simulator, and as it has limits, compromises must be reached on achieving historical accuracy. That means that when considering whether a unit should be included or not, historical accuracy is a basic requirement, but it must also be balanced with overall use. Yes, all the units included in EB have some historical basis for their inclusion, but there are only so many slots for units, and some discretion must be exercised when deciding which units get included and which don't. When it comes down to that, the question of utility becomes paramount, and striking the best balance between historicity and utility is important. So, if we have evidence for, say, an Anatolian peltast unit (which is a unit for which there is evidence that could easily be included in the EB roster) that was found throughout all three centuries of the EB timeframe and which is as much "historically accurate" as some Augustan units, the question comes down to what use each will bring to the game. In this case, the Anatolian peltast unit clearly strikes the better balance.

I disagree, there are many units that exist only through reforms and historically came much later than the 3rd century BC. Does that make them irrelevant? If there is merely a question of practicality, you say, then the inclusion of Augustans is actually better than the inclusion of several similar units of spearmen, HA's, riders or some obscure unit with limited AOR's. Being a newcomer to the EB scenario does not by any means translate into a lesser degree of importance or priority into game inclusion, and it is actually better than making another unit of peltasts which will more likely be identical to their Greek or Eastern counterparts. You take away an identical unit with the Marian Cohort, to create another one that will have a limited AOR and most probably only marginal use by players. Many of the Augustan units are still unique on their own right and that is more than enough to warrant their entrance into EB.

As proof to my saying, you must know that even EB is fast paced when compared to real history and you will most likely dominate great areas of land and make reforms much earlier than they were ever done or expected to be achieved in a historical timeline. Just because there was no Marian legion in 170 BC does not mean we should get rid of it to create another unit; the Augustans definetely meet the 14AD deadline, and their historical importance for an expansionist Rome cannot simply be neglected and left away.

[Principe Alessandro]

depend about the time frame, if the mod arrive to the Roman Empire is needed to represent the Imperial Roman Army

[MeinPanzer]

I disagree, there are many units that exist only through reforms and historically came much later than the 3rd century BC. Does that make them irrelevant?

No, and you're missing my point, which is that a balance needs to be struck between practicality and historical necessity. An obscure unit added in the late 2nd century BC, say, would still probably have more use in the last third of the EB timeframe than a group of Augustan units added in the last tenth.

If there is merely a question of practicality, you say, then the inclusion of Augustans is actually better than the inclusion of several similar units of spearmen, HA's, riders or some obscure unit with limited AOR's.

I am saying that it is not merely a question of practicality, but a question of balancing practicality and historical accuracy. What I mean by this is that, taking things practically, very few people will ever reach the Augustan reforms, while a unit introduced in the 2nd c. BC might still have plenty of use.

Being a newcomer to the EB scenario does not by any means translate into a lesser degree of importance or priority into game inclusion, and it is actually better than making another unit of peltasts which will more likely be identical to their Greek or Eastern counterparts.

The unit I used as an example would be no more identical to other Peltast units than Augustan legionaries would be identical to Marian legionaries. But that is beside the point, as there are plenty of units which would be fairly unique which could be included in place of Augustan units.

You take away an identical unit with the Marian Cohort, to create another one that will have a limited AOR and most probably only marginal use by players. Many of the Augustan units are still unique on their own right and that is more than enough to warrant their entrance into EB.

This is what I meant by balancing practicality with historical accuracy. A unit which existed for, say, a third of the EB timeframe but which had a more limited regional presence versus a unit which existed for a tenth of the timeframe and was more prominent. A balance must be struck, and based on the EB team's attitude toward Lorica Segmentata (it appeared in only the last few decades of the timeframe, so it's not worthy of inclusion), I would think that they would place more emphasis on the unit with a larger chronological range of use.

As proof to my saying, you must know that even EB is fast paced when compared to real history and you will most likely dominate great areas of land and make reforms much earlier than they were ever done or expected to be achieved in a historical timeline. Just because there was no Marian legion in 170 BC does not mean we should get rid of it to create another unit; the Augustans definetely meet the 14AD deadline, and their historical importance for an expansionist Rome cannot simply be neglected and left away.

Then one can argue for inclusion of any number of other units which appeared only in the very late first century BC for other factions. Part of the unhappiness over this development is that the Romans seem to be the only faction to receive this very specific luxury in the timeframe.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, and you're missing my point, which is that a balance needs to be struck between practicality and historical necessity. An obscure unit added in the late 2nd century BC, say, would still probably have more use in the last third of the EB timeframe than a group of Augustan units added in the last tenth.

To be honest, I always thought the 500 unit limit would make it impossible to really, accurately depict the militaries of the many EB factions across a span of 300 years. I am kind of thinking the end date should be bumped up to 27 B.C.

[desert]

Imagine what things would be like if there was no limit. *drools*

[a completely inoffensive name]

That would actually be the exact opposite extreme, if every unit ever conceived was able to be put into the game, I can only imagine how long it would take for a 5 year old, minimum requirement computer to load and run EB.

[desert]

1000 then...

I guess the saying "you never miss the water till the well goes dry" really is true.

[Cambyses]

I voted yes mainly on the basis of the practicality arguments other people have already raised. ie if there is only a limited number of unit slots and EB wants to accurately represent 10 new factions then the team will need to prioritise.

Also, I would introduce another argument - and I seem to be the only one to consider it...

The game for me is not just about historical accuracy, otherwise we would play it every time with the Romans and Parthians winning. We chose to play other factions from time to time in order to play a game of "what if". So maybe in this alternative history another faction takes over the Mediterannean world and (as an aside) the Roman culture is extinct by 170 BC?

How did this faction manage to control their empire and deal with the social and military pressures that success would have had on their homelands? Almost certainly they would have had some "Marian" reforms of their own. To me EB cannot be about recreating history exactly and entirely, it is simply putting you into a specific position at a particular point in time and letting you create a new alternative history. As such I would personally prefer to see more attention given to other factions' reforms (even if based on speculation) before lavishing further attention on the Romans at a point when for all practical purposes they have already won the game.

[Phalanx300]

I voted yes.

It would be better to spend those unit slots on the new factions.

[Megas Methuselah]

The game for me is not just about historical accuracy, otherwise we would play it every time with the Romans and Parthians winning. We chose to play other factions from time to time in order to play a game of "what if". So maybe in this alternative history another faction takes over the Mediterannean world and (as an aside) the Roman culture is extinct by 170 BC?

And that's exactly what gets under my skin. It's good you spoke about this out loud, friend. I hope it serves to enlighten those Roman-centric kids who, for whatever odd reason, feel that the small, shabby village of Rome has a manifest destiny to rule the world...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

It is true that if a different faction had succeeded they probably would have changed their military in some way, but EB does not / will not include fantasy or "what-if" units. Since the Romans lasted long enough to reform in reality, they get reforms in game.

The Augustan Reforms will almost certainly remain, but the Roman unit roster may have some cuts for EBII...

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Augustan Reforms will almost certainly remain, but the Roman unit roster may have some cuts for EBII...

I will wait for an official statement before I believe that, no offense. How can you have enough units for ten new factions with a limit of only 500 and not cut out units like the Augustan units? Unless you have opened up way more unit slots somehow then I would think possible, I just don't see how you can't make the cut.