2 roman factions?

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I want to make just constructive criticism.
Although I think the best EB mod for RTW, I am sorry we can not do it in the Roman civil war.
Also in custom I can't fight as romani vs other romani.

The solution?
maybe have 2 Roman factions.

Perhaps this topic has already been discussed and closed, but I do like to hear what you think.

In theory it would be easy to make another Roman faction (same skin, same story, same building). Sorry my insistence great modders, you are the best.

[antisocialmunky]

Sorry, but no. This like LS has been discussed ad nauseum. For MP, it would be nice though though Iberians units end up being quite similar.

[oudysseos]

Officially: No. One Rome. The loyalty feature in M2TW will at least give you the possibility of rebelling FMs, who you then have to suppress.

[Phalanx300]

Or we should have a rebel faction to which all rebelling units and familly members of all factions go to. Though not practical, using all slots for real factions is probably better.

[BozosLiveHere]

We have that. That's what happens when disloyal characters defect: they join the Eleutheroi (the rebel faction).

[Phalanx300]

We have that. That's what happens when disloyal characters defect: they join the Eleutheroi (the rebel faction).

Yes I know that, I was more thinking of a real faction which would try to expand and survive but that wouldn't work .

[Ludens]

Yes I know that, I was more thinking of a real faction which would try to expand and survive but that wouldn't work .

That was not possible in R:TW-BI without causing crash bugs, so I am not sure if it will work in M2:TW. Anyway, how is this "rebel" faction going to differ from the eleutheroi?

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

For MP, it would be nice though though Iberians units end up being quite similar.

For campaign i have resolved problem of civil war(Pompeo e Tito Labieno) and social war(Spartaco)with script.

But if we make roman units available for slave factions and make slave faction playable in custom, we can play in MP romani vs romani(slave), cannot we?

Also with this system we can recreate great historical battle like Farsalo, Munda ecc

Why this solution isn't take yet?

[oudysseos]

Aulus, in 272 BC there was no hint of a Roman Civil War, nor was it inevitable: why should we script a civil war for a faction that might be defeated by Epeiros, Carthage or the Averni before it gets to that point? I have played a Carthage campaign where the first faction I eliminated was Rome. Many kingdoms and nations experienced internal strife in this time period: we are not going to single out the Romans for special treatment.

[Bucefalo]

We don´t really know how the EB is going to implement the rebellion of generals and armies, if it is going to be different from vanilla or similar to other released mods like DLV. Regardless this i am sure they will think of a good way to represent it just using the rebel faction. An example, could be: the more territories you have the more chance to have rebellious generals. Something like that would be good

[antisocialmunky]

Then there's the ever present "If Rome gets civil wars so must the Seleucids."

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Aulus, in 272 BC there was no hint of a Roman Civil War, nor was it inevitable: why should we script a civil war for a faction that might be defeated by Epeiros, Carthage or the Averni before it gets to that point? I have played a Carthage campaign where the first faction I eliminated was Rome. Many kingdoms and nations experienced internal strife in this time period: we are not going to single out the Romans for special treatment.

Oudysseos, perhaps you have not understood what I wrote.
I wrote that I(only me) made 2 simple scripts because they form in a given year in a given place of the armies.
I could also appear Hannibal in South Italy in right historical period.

I do not understand what do you refer when you talk about favoritism, maybe you have not understood well what I wanted to explain.

Do not clearly show the Army of Spartacus in 272 BC but many years later.
This is a script of 10 lines.
The revolt of slaves and the civil war between Caesar and Pompey were both in the very over the years.

also

Make the roman units available to the slave faction side is not my invention nor armed to appear suddenly. I have seen done in the SPQR mod.

For the purpose of custom battles, I do not think of being the only one who wanted the Romans vs Romans.
Favoritism?
It is foolish to deny that historically in the first century BC the Roman side had the same weight of the others factions(for example britons who historically haven't any european expansion).

The most important battles of this century were fought by the Romans against Romans.
Otherwise we end up in EB 120 a.c. so we could carry the importance that Rome has taken the following period.
So this is a historical mod or not?

[Rilder]

The Thing is, Civil wars weren't exclusive to Rome, if they added a special Rebellion feature then they'd have to give EVERY faction the possibility of rebellion.

[oudysseos]

Yeah, Aulus, the point is that EB starts in the early 3rd century BC. Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Pompey, Spartacus: they do not appear in the game at all. If things had gone differently they might never have lived or been important. EB is not concerned with repeating history. The Romans were not the most powerful nation in the world at this time: the point of EB is to let history develop along alternative paths, only one of which is the Roman Empire.

You are welcome, of course, to make your own mini-mod.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Yeah, Aulus, the point is that EB starts in the early 3rd century BC. Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Pompey, Spartacus: they do not appear in the game at all. If things had gone differently they might never have lived or been important. EB is not concerned with repeating history. The Romans were not the most powerful nation in the world at this time: the point of EB is to let history develop along alternative paths, only one of which is the Roman Empire.

You are welcome, of course, to make your own mini-mod.

Ok now it's clear.
EB is right that follow this logic, and now I also agree with this mentality.
I am happy to find on this forum many people, like you Oudysseos, who speak clear and complete argumentation.
These people give me information (sometimes even historical) very interesting.
it is a pleasure to discuss with you.

[Connacht]

However, the possibility to fight with Romans vs Romans in custom battles and historical battles is truly rightful.
We have 32487483297987 hellenistic factions for instance, which can be deployed each one against another one, and so we can fight a thousand times with them in multiplayer - and also fight 324798798 battles with Ptolemaioi vs AS because we support an impartial distribution of factions.
The possibility to have a multiplayer edu in which the eleutheroi have a lot of other units, so that civil wars (and not only Roman ones!) can be simulated, is clearly fair imho.

[Bucefalo]

The possibility to have a multiplayer edu in which the eleutheroi have a lot of other units, so that civil wars (and not only Roman ones!) can be simulated, is clearly fair imho.

IIRC the M2TW engine allows the use of the eras system (early,high,late) in custom battles and the EB team said that they were going to use it. That means you could have a "era" completely dedicated to multiplayer, for example.

[Marcus Agrippa]

I'm sure it's very interesting to have the possiblilty of rome being destroyed before the famous republic became an empire but then didn't history show that rome had a huge advantage in army organisation and that carthage was the only sizable threat to Rome ever.
Because after than despite defeats the roman were simply too rich and powerful to be challenged by anyone else so the only real threat was internal. If you negate that possiblity then you might as well call them the roman empire with full emperor from the start.

[Cute Wolf]

Solution: Don't play EB, play Vanilla... and u have 4 roman faction bashing each other... if u one of them, but becomes one and annoying if u are the others...

Giving ALL units available to Eleutheroi is the best option we can bet...
(and made them playable in custom)

[athanaric]

Yes I know that, I was more thinking of a real faction which would try to expand and survive but that wouldn't work .

That would have to be an international faction, which could, in all likelihood, be only ideology based. And Communism didn't exist back then...

[Watchman]

I know that whenever I play Arverni in EB1 I tend to end up fighting the Romans over the Po valley within thirty years. And usually raze Rome to the ground within the next ten, 'cause it's about the only way to get the stubborn sods off my back...

And whenever I play Carthage the buggers just *have* to invade Corsica sooner or later. And then I end up with garrisons all the way up to the Po, again because it's about the only way to get the damn AI to stop invading every five turns.
*shrug*
Moral of the story: if the player controls a faction in the immediate vicinity, the AI's tunnel-visioned aggression already tends to result in the question of late 2nd-1st century BC Roman domestic troubles becoming a *very* moot point sooner or later... "how do i smashed rome?"

[Marcus Ulpius]

Why 2 Roman factions? Why not 2 AS factions, 2 Ptolemaic factions, 2 Bactrian factions. Internal struggle was everywhere and in Rome of 270bc there was less internal struggle than in most other factions. The danger of civil war started to grow only with the rise of generals, commanding professional armies that were loyal to them first and then to the Republic. It happened much later than 270bc. As for Carthage being the only worthy rival of Rome for many centuries, yes, it's true. But there were some reasons for that, some conditions that not necessarily would be fulfilled in each campaign. In some campaigns Rome would probably have more than one strong rival, also not always it will be Carthage.

[Fluvius Camillus]

Something equilavent like the Barons Alliance from Britannia campaign.

~Fluvius

[Urg]

Aulus, in 272 BC there was no hint of a Roman Civil War, nor was it inevitable: why should we script a civil war for a faction that might be defeated by Epeiros, Carthage or the Averni before it gets to that point? I have played a Carthage campaign where the first faction I eliminated was Rome. Many kingdoms and nations experienced internal strife in this time period: we are not going to single out the Romans for special treatment.

I agree. EB is about historical accuracy. In 272 BC Rome was a nation with very few internal divisions, and had nothing approaching a civil war.

The only realistic historical way to represent the Roman story would be to have the "empire" split apart some time during the 1st century BC, and that would make gameplay very awkward. I'm sure it would also be a code/script nightmare.

Think of things this way - after Caesar became dictator, and even later when Augustus became Imperator, the territory of Rome was still the territory of Rome. Does that make sense?

[Alsatia]

I agree. EB is about historical accuracy. In 272 BC Rome was a nation with very few internal divisions, and had nothing approaching a civil war.

The only realistic historical way to represent the Roman story would be to have the "empire" split apart some time during the 1st century BC, and that would make gameplay very awkward. I'm sure it would also be a code/script nightmare.

Think of things this way - after Caesar became dictator, and even later when Augustus became Imperator, the territory of Rome was still the territory of Rome. Does that make sense?

Can I also add that all of the empire was ruled by Rome and the Senate (albeit as puppets) until Constantine moved the Capital to Byzantium in 306AD, further worsened by the permanent division in 395AD which we all know far is out of the EB time frame.

People always have a stereotypical view of things. As said before, Rome was in no danger of falling apart at 272BC.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

This is right and i totally agree with you.

But I only want that we ll able to do a custom battle romani vs romani.

This way is possible if we make roman units playable with other factions (also rebels if you want).
The discussion about campaign was close many weeks ago.
I talking only about custom battle.
Because in EB 1 we can play barbarians vs barbarians, hellenic vs hellenic, nomads vs nomads, but we can t play romans vs romans.
This is only thing that I would see in EB 2... nothing else.

[oudysseos]

But I only want that we'll able to do a custom battle romani vs romani..

This might be possible.

Not promisinganything, mind you.

[Watchman]

You can do it in EB1 already by appropriately modifying texture allocations and MP unit accessibility, you know. Though I would assume the alterations must be harmonized between the participants for MP.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

So I m going to open new topic, but not here...
I open it in EB 1 forum: this is about the possibility that we make an uniform, new data folder for EB named EB 1.21.
In this we can change a bit of text files for have double romani in mp for all...
So everyone should have the same data files...
But this is possible only with helping of great EB team, because 1.21 release should be equal for anyone.

I can make roman playable with Ptolemaioi, coincident with historical war between Augustus and Marcus Aurelius, only with post marian units of course.

Without EB team approval i do nothing, because this would not be an unofficial project.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You can do it in EB1 already by appropriately modifying texture allocations and MP unit accessibility, you know. Though I would assume the alterations must be harmonized between the participants for MP.

And it is not nearly half as complicated at setting up recruitment with proper AOR's, most of it boils down to adding copying Romani code and change the name of the faction... (plus of course adding ownership to the EDU).