Depicting Imperium in-game

[Quilts]

Hi,

Had some thoughts about depicting the concept of 'Imperium' for the Romani.

'Generally', during the Republic, power was only invested in Consuls to wage wars, but more relevant to my ideas/thoughts, wars in foreign lands. This system began to break down towards the Mid-Late Rebublic for numerous reasons, which can also be taken into account, but I'll stick with the main question to start with. So-

Is it possible, through traiting, to give some feel for this uniquely Roman concept (Imperium) by limiting foreign wars to Consuls, so that if your not a Consul, and in a non-Romani controlled territory, you incur severe penalties to your personal traits/morale (or for EB2, all of the above plus lowered loyalty ).

This would encourage players to only use Consuls for foreign conquests and the AI could get one of those hidden traits that give them more command stars.....maybe?

So before I go any further, can someone with good traiting know-how please answer this question. Much appreciated!

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

Hi,

Had some thoughts about depicting the concept of 'Imperium' for the Romani.

'Generally', during the Republic, power was only invested in Consuls to wage wars, but more relevant to my ideas/thoughts, wars in foreign lands. This system began to break down towards the Mid-Late Rebublic for numerous reasons, which can also be taken into account, but I'll stick with the main question to start with. So-

Is it possible, through traiting, to give some feel for this uniquely Roman concept (Imperium) by limiting foreign wars to Consuls, so that if your not a Consul, and in a non-Romani controlled territory, you incur severe penalties to your personal traits/morale (or for EB2, all of the above plus lowered loyalty ).

This would encourage players to only use Consuls for foreign conquests and the AI could get one of those hidden traits that give them more command stars.....maybe?

So before I go any further, can someone with good traiting know-how please answer this question. Much appreciated!

Cheers,

Quilts

Yes that would be possible, but I can think of two objections. Firstly, it is really really restrictive on how a player plays the game, roleplaying would be far better. Secondly, the roman family tree does not represent all possible roman men, and it is often the case that a player won't have consuls for some number of years. Obviously that doesn't mean that there are no consuls, but essentially Rome would not be able to wage forum wars.

Foot

[Quilts]

Yes that would be possible, but I can think of two objections. Firstly, it is really really restrictive on how a player plays the game, roleplaying would be far better. Secondly, the roman family tree does not represent all possible roman men, and it is often the case that a player won't have consuls for some number of years. Obviously that doesn't mean that there are no consuls, but essentially Rome would not be able to wage forum wars.

Foot

I hear what your saying about the family tree and completely agree. I see a way around that.....but will keep it to myself for now.

Funny, just before posting I was thinking about typing a 'family tree caveat' as a P.S. and thought 'nah, I'll cover that if it comes up'. First reply.....who would have thought.....

Don't agree on the 'restrictive' aspect. If anything, I think it would encourage roleplaying. The replacement of Consuls whose Imperium was not extended (spoiler?????) was a HUGE aspect of 'The Republican Way' and should be encouraged, rather than ignored as inconvenient. But I'll get into the nitty gritty as I expand on my thoughts in later posts.

Thanks for the answer!

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

But you must remember that not everyone plays the same way that you do, and in giving this trait you are forcing them to. I see no reason why roleplaying this aspect of the imperium would not be suitable, as all this is doing is making the player want to use the consuls in foreign wars, which we do already, if that player is so inclined. As far as I can see this adds nothing, except alienates certain players who don't want to roleplay to the same extent as others.

Foot

[Quilts]

But you must remember that not everyone plays the same way that you do, and in giving this trait you are forcing them to. I see no reason why roleplaying this aspect of the imperium would not be suitable, as all this is doing is making the player want to use the consuls in foreign wars, which we do already, if that player is so inclined. As far as I can see this adds nothing, except alienates certain players who don't want to roleplay to the same extent as others.

Foot

I see where your coming from, but differ in my 'conclusion' in that I fail to see what a 'history mod' fails to gain from having the faction played 'somewhat' historically.

Your failure to see what this may add may be because all you've seen is the general shape, but not the detail.....which I will get into in time.

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

I see where your coming from, but differ in my 'conclusion' in that I fail to see what a 'history mod' fails to gain from having the faction played 'somewhat' historically.

Your failure to see what this may add may be because all you've seen is the general shape, but not the detail.....which I will get into in time.

Cheers,

Quilts

I don't think you've really met my objection. If someone wants to play so that the consul can only be used in foreign wars then that mechanism is already there; we give certain generals the consul traits and the player chooses that general to lead the army into foreign wars.

What you are suggesting, and unless your further detail changes this substantially, is to restrict all players so that they must essentially only use the consul to conduct foreign wars, even if those players don't want. That has never once been our project goal. Our game is a sandbox, we give the initial start positions, and try to put some interesting mid-game stuff in as well (eg reforms), but we have never wanted to restrict how a player plays the game.

However, I am ready to listen, so please do go into this in more detail. I'm sure the roman guys will be very interested.

Foot

[kalkwerk]

Wouldnt it be nice to have consul as an ancilliary so you can choose who is consul?

[Quilts]

I don't think you've really met my objection. If someone wants to play so that the consul can only be used in foreign wars then that mechanism is already there; we give certain generals the consul traits and the player chooses that general to lead the army into foreign wars.

What you are suggesting, and unless your further detail changes this substantially, is to restrict all players so that they must essentially only use the consul to conduct foreign wars, even if those players don't want. That has never once been our project goal. Our game is a sandbox, we give the initial start positions, and try to put some interesting mid-game stuff in as well (eg reforms), but we have never wanted to restrict how a player plays the game.

However, I am ready to listen, so please do go into this in more detail. I'm sure the roman guys will be very interested.

Foot

That may be because I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. I'm merely suggesting that 'when in Rome, do as the Romans did'. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of EB members there are many other factions with which to play if one finds their historical political/military system too restrictive.

The current in-game Consuls arrive so rarely that if anything they inhibit roleplaying in the manner you describe. Using that system your armies will very very rarely be lead by characters, because they very rarely get the Consul trait with which to roleplay.

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

That may be because I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. I'm merely suggesting that 'when in Rome, do as the Romans did'. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of EB members there are many other factions with which to play if one finds their historical political/military system too restrictive.

The current in-game Consuls arrive so rarely that if anything they inhibit roleplaying in the manner you describe. Using that system your armies will very very rarely be lead by characters, because they very rarely get the Consul trait with which to roleplay.

Cheers,

Quilts

I have no objection to the idea at all, as long as it is a choice of the player to use it. If we were to include it in an official EB release, some players would feel unduly restricted if they could only lead armies with a consul character - some people just don't want to play like that.

If your idea is to increase consul avaliability then we would gladly like to hear your plan, but I certainly would not want a moral penalty to armies if I lead them with a non-consul character. Thats all I'm saying.

Foot

[Quilts]

I have no objection to the idea at all, as long as it is a choice of the player to use it. If we were to include it in an official EB release, some players would feel unduly restricted if they could only lead armies with a consul character - some people just don't want to play like that.

If your idea is to increase consul avaliability then we would gladly like to hear your plan, but I certainly would not want a moral penalty to armies if I lead them with a non-consul character. Thats all I'm saying.

Foot

Fair enough. Forgive me, but I don't think I'll ever get used to the concept of anyone wanting to play the Romani any other way than historically, and by that I don't mean historical expansion or anything along those lines. The symbiosis between their political and military systems is.....well, fascinating.

Yes, I would be hoping to substancially increase Consular availability. One a year would be desireable , with Praetors becoming available as their territory increases.

Regarding the morale penalty. In the system I'm envisioning, it would only occur when the army was outside Roman territory. Anybody could lead an army in Roman territory, to prevent undue advantage to the player when Consuls are far away, but I suspect your objection was far more general.....yes?

Also, to simulate the occasional 'Scipio Africanus/Pompey etc' there should also be a rare trait that gives some characters the ability to lead armies outside Roman Territories without penalty.

As an aside, the morale penalty only 'surfaced' when I was looking at how a system like this could be implemented on the RTW engine, as opposed to the MTW2 engine, where a loyalty penalty would be far more appropriate.

My next Question
Is there a limit to the number of characters (male, female and children) that can exist in a family tree at the start of the game?

Cheers,

Quilts

[fluffyunbound]

Hi,

Had some thoughts about depicting the concept of 'Imperium' for the Romani.

'Generally', during the Republic, power was only invested in Consuls to wage wars, but more relevant to my ideas/thoughts, wars in foreign lands. This system began to break down towards the Mid-Late Rebublic for numerous reasons, which can also be taken into account, but I'll stick with the main question to start with. So-

Is it possible, through traiting, to give some feel for this uniquely Roman concept (Imperium) by limiting foreign wars to Consuls, so that if your not a Consul, and in a non-Romani controlled territory, you incur severe penalties to your personal traits/morale (or for EB2, all of the above plus lowered loyalty ).

This would encourage players to only use Consuls for foreign conquests and the AI could get one of those hidden traits that give them more command stars.....maybe?

So before I go any further, can someone with good traiting know-how please answer this question. Much appreciated!

Cheers,

Quilts

The Republican-era consuls when at war all had access to large numbers of military tribunes and legates.

The non-consul characters can be said to reflect senatorial class figures of those other ranks.

Provincial governors also led armies in the field, and had little problem contriving excuses to engage in foreign wars. These men were former consuls, true, but they didn't have the rank of consul at the moment they were in the field.

[Foot]

Regarding the morale penalty. In the system I'm envisioning, it would only occur when the army was outside Roman territory. Anybody could lead an army in Roman territory, to prevent undue advantage to the player when Consuls are far away, but I suspect your objection was far more general.....yes?

No it is entirely this restriction, outside Roman territory. I have no problem with people playing this way, but in turn I have no problem with people not playing this way. The morale penalty really puts roman players in a bind if they want to play by the latter.

Also, to simulate the occasional 'Scipio Africanus/Pompey etc' there should also be a rare trait that gives some characters the ability to lead armies outside Roman Territories without penalty.

And here is a second objection, if the roman player does want to play how you do, with only consuls leading foreign invasions, but then finds that he wants to break this role, for roleplaying reasons, for a particular general, then this system again confines him. Basically this system confines people to a certain way of playing, yet does not boast any improvement, except for people who already play that way anyway.

My next Question
Is there a limit to the number of characters (male, female and children) that can exist in a family tree at the start of the game?

Cheers,

Quilts

Only by the number of names avaliable to faction (cannot duplicate names in descr_strat) as far as I am aware. The slave faction, for example, as loads!

Foot

[Quilts]

The Republican-era consuls when at war all had access to large numbers of military tribunes and legates.

The non-consul characters can be said to reflect senatorial class figures of those other ranks.

Provincial governors also led armies in the field, and had little problem contriving excuses to engage in foreign wars. These men were former consuls, true, but they didn't have the rank of consul at the moment they were in the field.

Absolutely. Consul is merely the first hurdle I'm trying to tackle in my 'quest' to represent Imperium.....which Provincial Governors had

Trust me when I say it's very much a work in progress, especially as the original concept was more MTW2 mechanics based, but I'm hoping that with a little bit of work it could transfer pretty well to the RTW mechanics as well.

Cheers,

Quilts

[Quilts]

No it is entirely this restriction, outside Roman territory. I have no problem with people playing this way, but in turn I have no problem with people not playing this way. The morale penalty really puts roman players in a bind if they want to play by the latter.

True. As I thought. I wholeheartedly acknkowledge your objection.....but, personally, would say 'play another faction'

I'm sure there's a compromise, but I need to clarify my own whirling thoughts before I can get into that. It's getting late so will 'dream' about possibilities.

And here is a second objection, if the roman player does want to play how you do, with only consuls leading foreign invasions, but then finds that he wants to break this role, for roleplaying reasons, for a particular general, then this system again confines him. Basically this system confines people to a certain way of playing, yet does not boast any improvement, except for people who already play that way anyway.

That's a very good objection and one that Kalkwerk's suggestion could solve. A 'Scipio Africanus' (other name needed of course) ancilliary which could be given to a character to allow those abnormalities. Food for thought!

Only by the number of names avaliable to faction (cannot duplicate names in descr_strat) as far as I am aware. The slave faction, for example, as loads!

Great!

Thanks again. Have to hit the sack, but will mull over what I've learnt for future 'submissions'

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

True. As I thought. I wholeheartedly acknkowledge your objection.....but, personally, would say 'play another faction'

Whilst I realise this is a joke, I really think that it is still unfair to expect others to either play your way or not play at all. Of course as a mini-mod for EB this would undoubtedly be well received. Perhaps as part of cunctator's mini-mod.

Foot

[Zaknafien]

Don't worry. The Roman political system is being overhauled and improved upon as we speak. I won't say more than that now, except that in the future you can expect to see Consulars as well as Consuls, provincial Praetors, and perhaps a Magister Peditum if we can get it to work correctly.



THe problem with your system is that as Consul the player only has 4 turns to prosecute his foreign war. In the RTW system it is often impossible to even transport your army to the field in 4 turns. The limitations of the game engine and all.

The problem we have with ancilliaries is that they can be moved around at will, and a player must actively not only understand their limitations but know how the cursus honorum works in order to properly award them. EB is meant to be educational, not require an education in the subject already.

[Geoffrey S]

A possibility would be to increase movement points of consul and pro-consul characters.

[kalkwerk]

Thats an excellent idea!

[Zaknafien]

I disagree, why would someone be able to move a much greater distance just because he holds an office and has a few lictors walking around behind him? There are much larger game balance issues here at the root but we are looking at ways around them for EB II.

[Spoofa]

I have a question about movement, shouldn't an army be able to move much farther then they do in game? I am not sure how fast Caesar moved from the alps to Rome but I am not sure it took 4 months or else I'm sure Pompey would have already had his legions ready to attack him, but in RTW you can only move from the alps to maybe as far as Segesta.

[fluffyunbound]

I've wondered about the travel distances myself, beginning with vanilla and proceeding through every mod I've played.

If I ever developed some mod skills, movement points would be the first thing I would change.

I think the problem is that giving units a lot of movement points [particularly fleets] would end up making too much of the map too open to quick strikes by the human player. If the AI could be trusted to fortify choke points, properly defend cities, etc. it would be less of an issue.

Ultimately what is really needed is very high movement point allowances combined with much larger zones of control for fleets [to allow "patrol" fleets to protect long stretches of coast] and with a greater range of terrain difficulty to force the player to use his greater movement points to move along lines of advance that are historical. I think the supply system in EB points you in the right direction [you should have relative freedom of movement in areas that could support forage, but devastating supply penalties if you move out of those areas] but I don't know how to make that happen.

[Foot]

The thing with movement is that the games turns represent 3 months, and within that time most of the immediate world is open to you. In 3 months you could march across gaul quite easily, but this doesn't allow for the fact that the enemy, in those 3 months, could have mobilised defences. Basically, in RTW, the enemy is at your gates before you could reasonably respond.

Foot

[kalkwerk]

Has anyone tried this out? Itd be interesting to see how itd influence the AI.

The human player could still be forced to fortify better and given higher penalties for forced marching.

What Id like at any rate is much more movement for ships.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

A couple comments...
I love playing the Romans. I've tried making Consul lead armies and such, but I couldn't do it. First of all, I don't know who is my Consuls, if I don't remember who was elected the previous spring. (One time, I spent about 10 minutes looking for a Consul, gave up and gave the army to the closes S/C/V guy.) Also, as stated, movements speed. Usually, the guy who gets elected Consul is far from my war. Once I had a guy become Consul in Rome, so I took him north to fight in Gaul and he lost his office before he even got into enemy territory. For me, it usually happens backwards: I make a good general, then he becomes Consul.

There is a restriction on the number of children a guy can have in the starting family tree.

Movement speed is a balance between gameplay and realism.

[Geoffrey S]

I disagree, why would someone be able to move a much greater distance just because he holds an office and has a few lictors walking around behind him? There are much larger game balance issues here at the root but we are looking at ways around them for EB II.

In a sense I agree, for I don't really see a need for this particular representation of imperium. However, in the context of an eventual mini-mod, an explanation could be that consuls and pro-consuls would have greater pull when it comes to logistics and skilled personnel and would thus be able to march further or more efficiently.

Still, I don't see the need for this. Don't traits indicating a talent for logistics or skilled subordinates already increase the movement points?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Another thing to consider with movement points is the AI's cash bonuses. They can field new armies every few turns. Giving them improved movement points could cause you to face 5 or 6 stacks in a round instead of 2.

Facing 2 Selucid stacks at once as Makedonia is enough, I can tell you.

[Quilts]

Whilst I realise this is a joke, I really think that it is still unfair to expect others to either play your way or not play at all. Of course as a mini-mod for EB this would undoubtedly be well received. Perhaps as part of cunctator's mini-mod.

Yes, definately a joke on this occasion. However I'm not asking them to play my way, nor your way, but the Roman way.

It's got potential to be a wonderful educational way to inform those who don't know about the ins-and-outs of the Republican system. There has been so much work put into EB to reflect historical occurences (auto wars for invading certain provinces etc) that I think it would be a real missed opportunity to not use this 'peculiarity' of the Republic (and Early Principate) to it's full advantage. But, c'est la vie! We'll agree to disagree.

Cheers,

Quilts

[Quilts]

Don't worry. The Roman political system is being overhauled and improved upon as we speak. I won't say more than that now, except that in the future you can expect to see Consulars as well as Consuls, provincial Praetors, and perhaps a Magister Peditum if we can get it to work correctly.

Great news. Unless there's any stringent objections I'll try and keep the ideas flowing. You never know, something I or someone else suggests may help with one of the 'hurdles' you may be facing in implementing the new system.

THe problem with your system is that as Consul the player only has 4 turns to prosecute his foreign war. In the RTW system it is often impossible to even transport your army to the field in 4 turns. The limitations of the game engine and all.

Absolutely. My thoughts for that were something like giving characters a years advance notice. Something like 'Consul/Praetor expecting'. There was always that expectation of 'it's my/your time' in many nominations and subsequent elections to Consul etc.

The problem we have with ancilliaries is that they can be moved around at will, and a player must actively not only understand their limitations but know how the cursus honorum works in order to properly award them. EB is meant to be educational, not require an education in the subject already.

Once again, absolutely. Using ancilliaries, for that Scipio Africanus effect, only came to me last night by way of compromise with Foot. My prefered method would be a trait along the lines of the Augustan thing (never played that far sorry), where the character is deemed worthy in the right circumstances (not sure how specific one can be with the circumstances though) to hold imperium without the the appropriate office. The consequences of this would be to ruin their further political aspirations, as seemed to happen to those who were placed in those circumstances.

Anyways, I'll keep nutting away at this and see if something comes in useful.

Cheers,

Quilts

[Quilts]

A couple comments...
I love playing the Romans. I've tried making Consul lead armies and such, but I couldn't do it. First of all, I don't know who is my Consuls, if I don't remember who was elected the previous spring. (One time, I spent about 10 minutes looking for a Consul, gave up and gave the army to the closes S/C/V guy.) Also, as stated, movements speed. Usually, the guy who gets elected Consul is far from my war. Once I had a guy become Consul in Rome, so I took him north to fight in Gaul and he lost his office before he even got into enemy territory. For me, it usually happens backwards: I make a good general, then he becomes Consul.

I've had this problem myself, as in finding my Consul.....when I actually had one that is. I would hope to solve this problem by them being virtually the only guys with Command stars . Don't shoot me yet!!!!!

In line with my compromise to Foot's objections, what I'm now thinking is that rather than disadvantaging them, rather they don't get the added bonus that the Consul gets. Sort of works really, representing the idea of the Consul moving behind the battle line encourgaing the troops and giving them the belief their actions are being watched and will be rewarded appropriately after the battle.

One of my favourite aspects of EB is the virtual doing away with Command stars, and added morale bonuses. Much more representative, but there's definately something in the Consul (when any good anyway, some may not be due to negative traits) providing a morale/attack boost to the troops he is nearby/encouraging/exhorting to greater bravery. Yes, very Roman according to some historians, particularly Goldsworthy.

There is a restriction on the number of children a guy can have in the starting family tree.

Good to know. Do you know what the actual limit is?

Cheers,

Quilts

[Quilts]

Another thing to consider with movement points is the AI's cash bonuses. They can field new armies every few turns. Giving them improved movement points could cause you to face 5 or 6 stacks in a round instead of 2.

Good God!!!!! Sounds horrifying. Let nobody tamper with movement points, please!