Poll: Should the Augustan Reforms be removed?

[Remco]

Should the Augustan Reforms be removed?

[Zett]

i think they are more or less useless, cause the Marian Reforms give you everything, what you need for a great empire, the praetorian units are only recruitable in rome and at the time you get the Augustan Reforms your empire is so big that the transport of the praetorian units would take you several seasons till you get them to the outer regions of your empire. in my opinion these slots should used for some other units, pherhaps some new units for KH:yes:, like special hoplites for athenai or something like that:beam:

[CountArach]

No they should not be removed. If my Consul overthrows the Republic and becomes Emperor I want him to be able to push the Marian reforms through that necessary stage to further professionalise and Centralise the army. They are necessary in order for me to do that.

[Quilts]

Yes, they should be removed. Any decent Senator with a mind to the Republic would do his utmost to avoid that much power falling into the hands of one person.

The selfishly motivated civil war/s that led to such desperate measures being necessary may not have occured had 'good men done something' when it was needed ie- about the time they were forming the first triumvirate.....maybe.....

Cheers,

Quilts

[eddy_purpus]

i think they are more or less useless, cause the Marian Reforms give you everything, what you need for a great empire, the praetorian units are only recruitable in rome and at the time you get the Augustan Reforms your empire is so big that the transport of the praetorian units would take you several seasons till you get them to the outer regions of your empire. in my opinion these slots should used for some other units, pherhaps some new units for KH:yes:, like special hoplites for athenai or something like that:beam:

i agree with ur post put not all units should go to KH .
some to other new factions ...
lets wait for the new factions to come and then decide.:thumbsup:

[delra]

Out with them.

[Flying Pig]

At least, if no new units, make a governmental reform with the imperator trait, and amici imperatore, Caesares, Augusti and all thee other post-imerial jobs

[||Lz3||]

maybe if the time restriction is taken out it will be easier to atain them ... cause many of us have gotten perfect candidates for augustans but we are missing several -a lot - of years to get them and before it's time, our augustus is dead <.<

[QuintusSertorius]

Yes, when the only difference between Marian and Imperial legionaries are the skins used, it's a waste of slots.

Besides it's pretty rare anyone actually gets to them legitimately, without modding stuff to make it so.

IMO the game shouldn't run as late as 14AD anyway...

[Mediolanicus]

It would be a shame to see them go, but their unit slots will be used up by units that will have more uses than just "being in the game"...

It is fun to have them but really not worth using up limited space that can be put to better use.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

Well, in a perfect world, we could have unlimited unit slots, but, alas, you can't have it all!

So I think they could be sacrificed.

[Megas Methuselah]

The unit slots could be used for a much better purpose than to further promote a single faction which has already received more than enough attention. Besides, you don't necessarily need new skins for the Augustan Reforms.


At least, if no new units, make a governmental reform with the imperator trait, and amici imperatore, Caesares, Augusti and all thee other post-imerial jobs

[Remco]

It seems that most people want the Imperial Reforms removed in favor of other factions. Is there an official opinion from the EB Team or is it to early to tell?

[konny]

All Roman reforms are under inspection and will see this or that changes. A final decision on the Imperial Reforms has not been made so far but the topic is already on the table. It is obvious that the Marian-Imperial pool might be candidat to cut out units if free slots would be needed, but we are still to early in the process of creating units to say anything in that direction. Each unit had do be done new from scratch and making units for M2TW takes way longer than it does for RTW.

[Reno Melitensis]

No they should not be removed. They form part of EB's historical background, even if few people generally play long enough to trigger these reforms. In my current campaign, thats my main goal, but it is a long long way, its 184 BCE.

Cheers.

[Atraphoenix]

if EB team really claim that they are following historical accuracy no they should not be....
but the reforms may be easier to get for example holding 45 province may trigger Marian reforms while holding 80 or 90 provinces directly opens the way of augustan reforms.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Honestly, the game gets unhistorical by 200 B.C. so I figure the game should just be cut to 27 B.C. and the imperial reforms and units removed. Its dissapointing to hear that some units could not be added due to unit limit and here is the "imperial units" which were only historically used for the last 31 years of the game. So basically, make the end 27 B.C. get rid of the imperial units and i am sure everyone will enjoy the units that fill those spots, whatever faction they may be.

Also, for the imperiator trait, could that be part of the victory requirements? Like "have all these settlements, and a faction leader with imperiator"?

[General Appo]

No, some people don´t want an Imperator. Or at least, the choice not go get one exists right now, I don´t see why we should remove it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, some people don´t want an Imperator. Or at least, the choice not go get one exists right now, I don´t see why we should remove it.

Wait I am confused at what you are trying to say in your second sentence. I am just saying that because the majority seem to want the imperial reforms and units gone, we might as well make the imperator trait a victory condition or its basically pointless as there wont be any transition to empire in the first place.

[General Appo]

Well, the option to keep a republic should be left, I believe. But maybe you´d have to meet certain conditions to keep the republic as well, a certain amount of stability or something. I don´t know, sounds very difficult to accurately represent.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, the option to keep a republic should be left, I believe. But maybe you´d have to meet certain conditions to keep the republic as well, a certain amount of stability or something. I don´t know, sounds very difficult to accurately represent.

Well we could just make the E.B. timeline entirely during the Republic's time. If we are getting rid of the reforms and units, we should just get rid of the imperator trait as well and make the end time 27 B.C. so there is no transition to empire period. Theres not a difference between how you control Romani if its a republic or empire, so lets just cut out the entire empire part.

[General Appo]

Well, unless it´s a really big work with scripts and all I don´t see why. It´s not like the transition to Empire occupies any limited slots, so why not keep it as a nice little bonus for Romani players making it that far, now that we´re (possibly) removing the biggest bonus for making it there.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, unless it´s a really big work with scripts and all I don´t see why. It´s not like the transition to Empire occupies any limited slots, so why not keep it as a nice little bonus for Romani players making it that far, now that we´re (possibly) removing the biggest bonus for making it there.

But my point is why should we keep the empire transition if we are going to take out the units? Its kind of pointless to transition to the empire if there are no empire units.

[General Appo]

But it´s a nice feature that doesn´t really detract from anything. If it doesn´t get in the way for anything else, is considered historically accurate and is indeed optional, then why the hell wouldn´t we have it?

[Gaivs]

IMO the camillan ones should be removed also.

[QuintusSertorius]

IMO the camillan ones should be removed also.

Not so sure about that. It's arguable that they might have still been around at the start of the game, and getting the Polybian reforms is something to work towards. Balance-wise, that would make the Romani game even easier than it already is.

[DeathEmperor]

I share Quintus' feelings regarding the Camillan era units. Using them for a good 30 years before the Polybian reforms gives you a 'feel' for the Roman way of war, and it's all the more satisfying when you reach the Polybian reforms and see how your army has evolved.

As for the Imperial units, in my 2+ years playing EB I've never once reached them. Maybe that's a weakness on my part, but I just never felt the drive to play so long to get new units that I'd be able to use for a short period of time (compared to other reform units) and with how the ai progresses there'd probably only 3 or 4 factions I could use them against.

[CountArach]

IMO the camillan ones should be removed also.
Definitely not. Everything was vastly different before the Polybian reforms and it is utterly necessary to show this.

[Aemilius Paulus]

If removing the Augustan reforms will give the Romans more new units, then I agree. The Romans may have tons of units, but I am in the opinion that During the Polybian and especially Marian eras there is simply not enough unit variety. I really hope EB II will give the Romans more units. During the Marian and Polybian era, the only missile unit are the Velites. Now I know the Romans did not think highly of missiles, but there is got to be a missile unit (slingers or archers) out there there that you could give to the Romans for a bit of game balance.

[Strategos Alexandros]

The Romans currently have more units than any other faction, and if you need archers/slingers there are always plenty of auxiliaries, so if the Imperial reforms were taken out (which IMHO they should be) the slots should be given to the ten new factions.

[Aper]

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

[Fondor_Yards]

If removing the Augustan reforms will give the Romans more new units, then I agree. The Romans may have tons of units, but I am in the opinion that During the Polybian and especially Marian eras there is simply not enough unit variety. I really hope EB II will give the Romans more units. During the Marian and Polybian era, the only missile unit are the Velites. Now I know the Romans did not think highly of missiles, but there is got to be a missile unit (slingers or archers) out there there that you could give to the Romans for a bit of game balance.


Eh? The romans probably if not do have the best ability to get local aor units. Even with just Italy you should have no trouble filling out your armies with auxilia. And the romans do have their own slinger unit already.

[Puupertti Ruma]

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Eh? The romans probably if not do have the best ability to get local aor units. Even with just Italy you should have no trouble filling out your armies with auxilia. And the romans do have their own slinger unit already.

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The Romans currently have more units than any other faction, and if you need archers/slingers there are always plenty of auxiliaries, so if the Imperial reforms were taken out (which IMHO they should be) the slots should be given to the ten new factions.

The Romans are also the most popular faction. Are they not? That's probably why they were given so many units (along with the fact that there is more material about the Romans than any other nation of that time.

[satalexton]

not really, My fav faction's the Maks and I'm sure there's a whole bunch of fellow philhellens around, and we got lots of HA lovers and celts too

[Fondor_Yards]

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*.



The Romans are also the most popular faction. Are they not? That's probably why they were given so many units (along with the fact that there is more material about the Romans than any other nation of that time.

I certainly doubt that's the reason why, considering the team's goal is to raise historical knowledge/awareness of all factions equally.

[Connacht]

It is obvious that the Marian-Imperial pool might be candidat to cut out units if free slots would be needed

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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[Connacht]

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.". ;)

[Aemilius Paulus]

not really, My fav faction's the Maks and I'm sure there's a whole bunch of fellow philhellens around, and we got lots of HA lovers and celts too

True, but from all the polls I have looked at, there are still more Roman lovers than of any other factions. Maybe they should have one of those polls again...

[Foot]

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

[Majd il-Romani]

I honestly think theyre not needed.

[konny]

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.

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.

[lobf]

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.

[||Lz3||]

yeh...but people are already complaining that getting augustus is way to hard as it is <.<

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

Killing off anyone who might have been a rival or equal had a lot to do with that accession.

[lobf]

Killing off anyone who might have been a rival or equal had a lot to do with that accession.

I guess I don't understand what this has to do with what I'm saying.

[||Lz3||]

he's commenting that Octavianus killed those who opposed him... <.< and THAT helped him in his accenssion... <.<

[lobf]

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 http://cache.hyves-static.net/images/smilies/default/smiley_smoking.gif

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Cartaphilus]

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.

[cybermage83]

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?

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Foot]

so how exactrly are they planing on doing this?

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.

Foot

[Zenith Darksea]

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.

[The General]

If removing the Augustan reforms will give the Romans more new units, then I agree. The Romans may have tons of units, but I am in the opinion that During the Polybian and especially Marian eras there is simply not enough unit variety. I really hope EB II will give the Romans more units. During the Marian and Polybian era, the only missile unit are the Velites. Now I know the Romans did not think highly of missiles, but there is got to be a missile unit (slingers or archers) out there there that you could give to the Romans for a bit of game balance.

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

That's right, I am THAT greedy:laugh4:. 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~:mecry:!

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:angry:. 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?

[Aemilius Paulus]

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?

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.

[satalexton]

polybian units have a higher leathality with the gladius. But marian legions are nothing more than lots of hastati, thats y i loath the marian reform D=

[Foot]

No, the marian legionnaires are actually a load of polybian principes. They certainly aren't hastati.

If it has the same unit name then it is the same unit, regardless of what shield design it has. Each unit is assigned a model and each model as 22 different texture paths (each faction, slave and merc).

Foot

[||Lz3||]

I think I remember reading that statwise the marian legionaries are the same as polybian hastatii , and that they are inferior to polybian princeps one vs one... but they overcome this problem by being more of them in a same unit (160 princeps/ 200 legionaries)

[satalexton]

yea thats wt i meant ^^; and also the reason y i hated the marian reforms... I never field more than 3 armies as Romani no matter what, so they tend to be really experianced too (i only merge, yes it takes a lot of battles...) therefore, it simply drives me nuts that i have train these buggers from ground up, n they're much harder to toughen up cuz stat-wise they're equal to the polybian hastati...

[Foot]

Have you guys checked the stats? I mean seriously, do just mouth off without checking the facts. Principes have 2 higher armour, buts all they are better in. mental_stat they are worse. Formation they are worse. And the legionnaires are better than hastati in at least three different areas. mental_stat, armour and formation. So wtf?! Reformata are Principes minus 2 points of armour, plus better morale.




;238
type roman infantry hastati
dictionary roman_infantry_hastati ; Hastati
category infantry
class light
voice_type General_1
soldier roman_infantry_hastati_principes, 40, 0, 1.15
officer ebofficer_roman_early_centurion
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 4, 4, pilum, 35, 2, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 11, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 9, 4, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -1, -3
stat_mental 13, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1066, 267, 50, 70, 1066
ownership seleucid, slave

;241
type roman infantry legionary cohort i
dictionary roman_infantry_legionary_cohort_i ; Cohortes Reformata
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type General_1
soldier roman_infantry_cohorsreformata, 50, 0, 1.18
officer ebofficer_roman_centurion
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, square, testudo
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 4, 4, pilum, 35, 2, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 11, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 10, 8, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -2
stat_mental 14, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1790, 448, 100, 160, 1790
ownership seleucid, slave

;247
type roman infantry principes
dictionary roman_infantry_principes ; Principes
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type General_1
soldier roman_infantry_hastati_principes, 40, 0, 1.18
officer ebofficer_roman_early_centurion
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, mercenary_unit, hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 4, 4, pilum, 35, 2, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 11, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 12, 8, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 5
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -3
stat_mental 13, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1185, 296, 50, 80, 1185
ownership seleucid, slave


Foot

[satalexton]

but they die like flies when compared to my polybian troops by the time the reform pops in...it usually takes more than 30 years for me to fully 'upgrade' my legions with marian troops...it's a sad sight to see my silver 2 chev principes being phased out... =[ I dun retrain, so it takes a bloody long time for my legions to gain experience...

[Aemilius Paulus]

What the...? Why do Camillian Hastati and Principes have the same morale?!? That cannot be accurate! Hastati were the younger, poorer (although richer than the Accensi, Leves, or Rorari), and less experienced recruits, compared to the older, wealthier, and veteran Principes.

[satalexton]

not really, during that period, what you fight as really just depends on what you can afford =/

[Foot]

Firstly, its polybian hastati and principes, secondly they don't have the same morale. Principes are highly_trained and Hastati are simply trained. Why do people jump to conclusions? If you don't understand the ins and outs of the stating system its really difficult to comprehend what is going on and how that effects the units in the game.

Foot

[Aemilius Paulus]

I do understand that "highly_trained" means that they will lose morale slower and regain it faster than "trained", but shouldn't the Principes also start out with higher morale?

[||Lz3||]

I stated that 1vs1 a polybian principii would beat a legionaire... and moral doesn't matter in that case, does it?

still legionaires are better overall as a unit than princeps...

but casualty wise I think you would loose more legionaires than princeps given the fact that they have lower armor. (all of this before routing, legionaires are harder to rout...)

[Foot]

You also said that "statwise the marian legionaries are the same as polybian hastatii", which is blatantly false if one actually takes the time to check facts. But its so much easier to go with the rest of the crowd and complain about the stats for roman units.

As for armour, we work off a very strict table. If the reformata lose a bit of equipment that would offer them an armour bonus compare to the principes then that will show up. If the reformata are equipped with armour that is of a lower quality or quantity then its not something that can be blamed on us, blame the historical marian reforms.

Foot

[konny]

I do understand that "highly_trained" means that they will lose morale slower and regain it faster than "trained", but shouldn't the Principes also start out with higher morale?

No. Green troops are often more eager to fight than blooded ones, in particular when talking of not professional soldiers.

[||Lz3||]

well I did say "if I remember"... I appologize still, I didn't had the stats at hand at that moment.

and at no moment I complained , I'm sorry if it seems as if I had , I understand the reasons of that decision, and in no way I blame the EB team...

:shame:

[The General]

That's right, I am THAT greedy:laugh4:.
That's right, you-


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.
Wait, what?

Blergh, at whom shall I shout now, then?

[Aper]

It would be a shame to see them go, but their unit slots will be used up by units that will have more uses than just "being in the game"...

It is fun to have them but really not worth using up limited space that can be put to better use.

I agree with this guy.

EDIT : doh!, I forgot I have already voted!!!!!:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

Foot

Seriously Foot, is this poll even making an impact on the decision of the EB team? Because if they feel that removing the Augustian Reforms would be unhistorical, then I see little reason why they would remove it, even if the fans are 54% to 36% in favor of removing the reforms for more troop variety in the ten new factions.

[Atilius]

... is this poll even making an impact on the decision of the EB team?It's useful for us to know what EB players think, but often a decision on an issue depends on considerations that only the development team is aware of. That means these discussions often completely miss the point.

[Cybvep]

Actually, the differences between the units in the Roman Army are rather small. Generally, EB unit stat system is good, although completely not designed to work properly with experience bonuses, but in this case there are some things which just don't seem right.

Let's just analyze two essential units in Polybian army - hastati and principes. Principes have 3 armor points more (+), tire quickier (heat 5 vs 3) and are worse in forests (-2 vs -1 penalty... It hardly means anything, but anyway...). They are also "highly_trained", while hastati are "trained", which means that princeps have a little better formation. However, there are no changes to discipline (both are "disciplined") or morale (both have 13). There are no changes to attack or lethality (11 and 0.13), either. Also, cost is almost the same (1185 vs 1066). Some of those things are strange. Principes are supposed to be experienced soldiers, while hastati should be young and unexperienced. It's not very evident in their stats.

Cohortes Reformata are more or less fine, mostly because they have more men in the unit (200 vs 160). It's quite a difference, which makes lack of significant changes in other stats (attack, lethality) and worse armor (12 vs 10) "not that hard" to swallow. There is also a small morale bonus (+1), which is always nice. However, they cost much more (1790 vs 1185) and you could argue that principes are more cost efficient.

Hopefully, the situation will improve in EB2.

[Victor1234]

Not to restart the previous discussion of the current unit stats, but to get back to the original point, has the EB team decided one way or another about whether they will remove the Augustan reforms?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I totally forgot about this thread, and now I am immensely interested if the EB team has made a decision or not after 2 months.

[Atilius]

We have a great deal of work to do and there is no pressing reason for us to consider the issue yet. Aside from a very brief and inconclusive discussion among the Romani team members, we really haven't thought about it. We could conceivably release a beta before there is any need to make a decision on this subject.

[Megas Methuselah]

We have a great deal of work to do and there is no pressing reason for us to consider the issue yet. Aside a very brief and inconclusive discussion among the Romani team members, we really haven't thought about it. We could conceivably release a beta before there is any need to make a decision on this subject.

That's right, Atilius. Don't let those guys bother you, or influence any decisions the EB Team may make. Do whatever you deem fit.

[antisocialmunky]

I always felt that it was too hard to get and when you did it, it was too abupt. Perhaps you should model some sort of instability in the Republic via a series of event triggers(Pop-up a couple of 'This man is becoming too powerful' warnings each time becoming more urgent sounding) that would logically lead up to the 'council of nobles'/Senate giving you a mission to assassinate the offender or risk the whole empire falling apart. When this happens, give him a trait that basically makes him easier to assassinate(or tack on this 'bonus' to the 'seize power' trait or whatever it is.

This would give you the following options:
- Preserving the Republic by killing him. This lets you keep the game as is.

- Send him to Rome. This represents the Caesar/Sulla route. I'm curious as to whether or not you could make everything in Italy go rebel and spawn a few large stacks when the guy crosses the Rubicon or whatever. If not, you could just set the recruitment pool in Italy to zero and spawn a few large stacks. This would pretty much do the same thing and I know this is doable since Stainless Steel messes with pools and you guys made that Boli script. Plus it would depict him being welcomed by the people but not those in power.

- Do nothing and let the mission expire. This represents a full scale and protracted civil war. This causes happiness to slowly drop in Romanized Provinces where there are members of other Roman families. You might want to set the movement of these guys if they are in cities to zero as well as set the recruitment pool to zero in those places. Still trigger the Italian armies when the guy enters Italy. Terminate script when he gets to Rome.

Not sure how historical that is but it would be pretty sweet to see.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

You can't assassinate your own generals in M2tw.

[antisocialmunky]

That's too bad, it is a little gamey if you have to suicide him against some pikes.

[Megas Methuselah]

I don't play M2TW too often, so I'm not too aquainted with its triggers, but how's this: He goes to Rome no matter what, and you somehow get the option to support him or resist him (by gathering an army in the provinces, ala Brutus & Cassius). :egypt:

However, I completely oppose any new units that would come from this reform. Rome takes enough unit slots as it is.

[theoldbelgian]

mmh i agree on one premise, other factions would have to have this too, for example a character with low loyalty and high influence and a king with low authority and influence, you can then choose to support them

[Megas Methuselah]

Nice.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Let this thread die for another couple months before bringing it back.

[Pontius Pilate]

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. 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?

[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. :smash:

[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... :no:

[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.

[desert]

Existing units would probably make up the majority of their rosters, with a couple of faction-specific units each. Like Pergamene hoplites and Pergamene bodyguards or whatever.

[MeinPanzer]

Existing units would probably make up the majority of their rosters, with a couple of faction-specific units each. Like Pergamene hoplites and Pergamene bodyguards or whatever.

Why would Pergamene hoplites be added for EBII?

[Celtic_Punk]

maybe because they are one of the new factions....


i dont think 10 new factions should be added tho... theres still the same amount of units. So unless we can get 10 factions that share most of the already existing units, and get rid of the augustan troops so some of those factions can have thier own factionals, there just wont be enough unit space.

[Ludens]

i dont think 10 new factions should be added tho... theres still the same amount of units. So unless we can get 10 factions that share most of the already existing units, and get rid of the augustan troops so some of those factions can have thier own factionals, there just wont be enough unit space.

I suspect most of these new factions will mostly require new elites, and can draw most of their standard units from existing factions or regional units. For example, if the Boii are included, they will get the current Alpine regionals and Celtic units. All they really need is a bodyguard and one or two high-end units.

[MeinPanzer]

maybe because they are one of the new factions....

Yes, but what evidence is there that there should be a special Pergamene Hoplite unit separate from regular hoplites?

[Megas Methuselah]

Yes, but what evidence is there that there should be a special Pergamene Hoplite unit separate from regular hoplites?

:laugh4: You have the same effect as dumping a bucket of cold water on a drunken man! Anyways, they probably didn't mean it seriously, but were simply throwing the suggestion out there as an example or something. But I support your point completely, MP.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Just to add some thoughts, but the Romans already have a quite unified and bland roster for their campaigns. Most if not all of their infantry is made of a single or two infantry units, no matter the reforms and I found out that other factions have a far more diverse roster and compel me to use them. If they had to cut any part of the Augustan roster they could do it with the Ala Imperatoria (keeping the old roman regionals), the Equites Praetoriani or make the Romani use the greek siege weapon slots, but cutting down too severely will already impact a very restricted roster in practical terms. That's why we see mods such as the konny's allied legions being applied: there is simply a lack of diversity in any Roman army. Whether or not this is historical is a different matter, but fact is that the "lots and lots of units" argument simply doesn't convince me.

And Methuselah know that without that "shabby" city on the Tiber you would probably have no modern legal system, no Republican government, no well developed plumbing systems, no modern civilization, no Christianity, no political and natural sciences (spread by them) and many other things you praise and depend upon. Like it or not, Rome came to dominate the Classical world and no amount of cultural relativism will erase their contributions to society and culture as a whole until our days.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, most or if not all of those existed on their own or rediscovered time and time again. I would argue that it would have taken more time to spread and in the end by less uniform rather than being totally non-existant. To say so would be to underestimate human ingenuity and over simplify the numerous cultural exchanges and additions that make up the modern culture of the west. Again, granted, the Romans with their systematic Romanization of western Europe did indeed help in giving modern Europe a homogeneous base to work off of which is in it self important.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Yes.

I agree that Europe could still develop on her own without the Romans, following a different path. Still this is mostly conjecture, and it is granted that our present society as it developed and is now owes a lot to Rome in Classical Antiquity and their "civilizing" factor that allowed the spread of knowledge and forms well within the rest of Europe.

[antisocialmunky]

It owes its current make up to a lot of things. Though I do think you are right that now-a-days Rome is probably the most important one. However, I think the Rome's greatest contribution is inspiration to those who came after with the shadow of its greatness.

In a word Romanticism. :-p

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes.

I agree that Europe could still develop on her own without the Romans, following a different path. Still this is mostly conjecture, and it is granted that our present society as it developed and is now owes a lot to Rome in Classical Antiquity and their "civilizing" factor that allowed the spread of knowledge and forms well within the rest of Europe.

How much though do we know that the Romans proliferated across Europe that were truly "Roman" inventions and were not just picked up from conquered, assimilated cultures. As an example, I have read many times, that the Romans picked up chain mail from the Gauls, even if the Romans were the ones who adapted the chain mail and brought it with them to other regions where other cultures adapted it and used it for centuries even after the Romans disappeared, should the glory go to the Romans for spreading the armor to those regions or to the Gauls for creating the armor in the first place.

I guess the thought I am trying to convey is that should we be admiring and praising those who make the inventions or those who promote/proliferate/establish/make well known such technology? I wish I could think this thought out more, but nevertheless reading what Basileos and antisocialmonkey posted made me want to type this out.

-ACIN (This might just be my first serious post! :laugh4:)

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

You could research for yourself.

Even though the Greeks and Celts have been using moderately sophisticate plumbing systems before, the Romans perfected it. I've once that the water consumption in Roman Cologne back then was equal to that in our times!

Most Democratic Governments today, including the US, are based on Roman models of governance.

Most legal systems around the world are based on the Jus Romanum, the Roman law originating in the Twelve Tables.

Most languages spoken on Western Europe descend from Romance, which descends from Latin, and which has a vast influence on English.

Romans invented our calendary, which with some changes is still in use today (you owe "July" and "August" to two well known figures).

Romans used the writing I'm using now, practically in the same way

Romans had probably the best road building technology of the Ancient Age and made numerous contributions to the field

Romans also invented concrete, which is used until our days for... your house and pretty much everything you see on the street

blah blah blah see for youself: http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/ancient_roman_inventions.htm.

It's actually very obvious, glaring and even overwhelming. Many things were also originally Roman, and do not fall into the general misconception you expressed here. Romans not only perfected many and many previous inventions but also had a fair share of their own, and what you could expect from a large Empire.

Moreover I think their biggest contribution was political thorough and thoroughly. Without Rome, the Papacy would probably never exist, and Christianity would never prosper inside the relative safety of Imperial borders, furthermore they played a part in the migrations of the late Empire that more or less composed the entire ethnic makeup of modern Europe; Romans also introduced new species of plants and animals into Europe during and before the Empire and were the first ones to make a systematic industrialized approach towards agriculture and mining that set them apart in efficiency, and which are more or less adopted in our industrial economies.

Etc.... etc... etc...

Edit: See also this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology).

[antisocialmunky]

Many devices and materials were also discovered independently in other places though at other times. However, the distinct traits of Western thinking and culture in general was greatly influenced by Rome.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ahhh, thanks for the replies and links. I never doubted the massive contributions that the Romans have made, but with all the extreme Roman fans in the EB forums (as seen in this very thread) I was worried that at some point someone would state (or think) that everything the Romans had built was solely due to Roman engineering at its finest. I am a huge Roman fan myself (I almost solely play Roman campaigns) but I have somewhat become one of those people that does not like to see the contributions other cultures have made diminished. But anyway, thanks again for the quick reply!

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Anyway, on the matter of non-original inventions: the Roman contribution is in no way diminished by the fact they weren't the original inventors. For example: one cannot deny that the US, Japan and countries around the world gave a very large contribution to the automobile industry in no way makes it smaller just for the fact that they did not invent the original Daimler Benz engine in the XIX century (in Germany). A great part of the Roman greatness comes from spreading Classical Greek culture and original ideas they adopted to very large proportions, such as the spatha designs (which influenced pretty much a lot of medieval swords, and was based on a previous Celtic one), chain mail (idem), aqueducts, their writing (which was based on the Etruscan one, that was based on Greek, which in turn came from the Phoenician alphabet) and etc...

So, regardless of fanboyism, Roman contributions were also great in their own way ;).

[mikil100]

Heres a thought. Remove the units and the new reform, and at the reform date add an ability to upgrade armor further, Idk if it can upgrade shields ect.. Obviously you won't be able to get Praetorians, or anything like that but you will be able to have new legionaries... small but a little change.

[Megas Methuselah]

They'll still have the same unit description, though. Just drop the Augustan units.

[Ludens]

Heres a thought. Remove the units and the new reform, and at the reform date add an ability to upgrade armor further, Idk if it can upgrade shields ect.. Obviously you won't be able to get Praetorians, or anything like that but you will be able to have new legionaries... small but a little change.

Since Augustean legionaries are equipped identically to Marian ones, I don't see how one could justify the upgrade. And no, they won't get Lorica Segmentata. Read the FAQ and use the search function if you want to know why.

[AymericNikator]

As for as I am concerned, I'd like to still see the imperial reforms, but a few unit could remain the same, like the legionnari. And what about an amour upgrade, could'nt it keep a unit for someone else -and I'm not talking about segmentata, but rather a new helmet, a more "gallic one" instead of the old montefortino-?
Nevertheless, it's up to the EB team to decide and I will respect their descision.

[Boyar Son]

have any EBk member commented on this ?

[Atilius]

have any EBk member commented on this ?Yes - repeatedly. To summarize:


The opinions and impressions of EB players are valuable.
We will think this over when the time comes, but that time is not now, and probably not soon.
Most decisions concerning game mechanics affect a number of things that players rarely consider.

[Boyar Son]

Yes - repeatedly. To summarize:


The opinions and impressions of EB players are valuable.
We will think this over when the time comes, but that time is not now, and probably not soon.
Most decisions concerning game mechanics affect a number of things that players rarely consider.


oh pishhaaa, please take #1 out :laugh4:


#2 answer the question thx.

[mikil100]

Since Augustean legionaries are equipped identically to Marian ones, I don't see how one could justify the upgrade. And no, they won't get Lorica Segmentata. Read the FAQ and use the search function if you want to know why.

I mentioned no thing about Lorica Segmentata, read my post better.

I suppose it would be rather silly due to descriptions and such, would be great if they allowed that to be modded.. oh well then I think going without Augustan units is best, maybe someone could make a mini-mod for later Roman eras.

[Olaf Blackeyes]

IMHO they should because all they really serve right now is an end-game gimmick to give the player lolz, IF they reach the 27BC timeframe. The only real way that these reforms can become useful is if the EB team does two things tothe game.
1. Make the timeframe longer. ie from 14AD to 100AD ect.
2. Make the map bigger and have more factions (India)

And since we know that niether of these will happen i say cut them and make it a trait.

[MerlinusCDXX]

I have an idea that I don't think has been mentioned yet, except by Olaf Blackeyes (as a series of traits). Keep the reform, but not with any new units. Possibly some recruitment discount traits would be in order (if the team thinks that standardization would warrant that), possibly expanded AoR for more existing units, possibly tied to a new building line (like some type of "Granted Roman citizenship" thing that will give AoR for Leg. Cohorts and native Roman type cavalry). And adding any other traits that the team thinks would go with an Imperial reform.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As long as there is no redundant Augustan units, I am cool with it.

[Lucio Domicio Aureliano]

It´s a good idea to remove the Augustan Reforms or leave the reforms as long as there is no redundant Augustan units. The first option will give a good number of units slots when the second option will be a nice solution for whoever likes the augustan reforms.

[Banzai!]

Since EBII will most likely be the only "true" Classical-era mod for M2TW (with M2TW-quality units), the Augustan Reforms must be kept and they must wear lorica segmentata! For the sake of the community!

[Mister V]

Out of the question. They should stay. Roma victor! etc.

Seriously, though, I'd love to see them. However, if for some reason they take up valuable space (unit slots and other stuff) that could be used to serve a better purpose (not just portraying some other sucky meatshield merc unit), then yes, they should. But that's a very big IF.

[Fluvius Camillus]

Keep it! I like the shift from republic to Principate. Also not only the praetorians are new, what about the new auxiliarries, archers and imperial cavalry wings.

[mikil100]

I think they should DEFINITLY be removed, no doubt. Just think, if there are going to be many new factions, we will NEED these spots, especially if we don't want to get rid of units that are used from the beginning of the game, that form the core of armies.

[Shadowwalker]

Although I like playing SPQR very much I'd like to see the last reform removed.
EB is not about Romans alone and I rather have ten new factions presented adequate in terms of units then having a reform I never reach without cheating.

Would recommend to have a reform event if that pleases someone, also it would be okay in my opinion to stick one or two of the aux. cavalry units to the reform. The archers and the spear infantry auxilia (forgot the name since I never had them due to not reaching the reform) I would like to have but not at the cost of losing a highly necessary unit for one of the new factions.

*votes for removal*

EDIT:


posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Honestly, the game gets unhistorical by 200 B.C. so I figure the game should just be cut to 27 B.C. and the imperial reforms and units removed. Its dissapointing to hear that some units could not be added due to unit limit and here is the "imperial units" which were only historically used for the last 31 years of the game. So basically, make the end 27 B.C. get rid of the imperial units and i am sure everyone will enjoy the units that fill those spots, whatever faction they may be.


Totally agree, to say it the sarcastic way:
Where's the difference between LS and Augustan Units?
:creep:

[Havok.]

Remove them, as others said, the game becomes (due to our dumb, stupid friend...mister AI) ahistorical, though i like the concept of Augustan reforms, i particulary find them uberly useless when there is just three or four factions that controls the map, its just too RAMBO for me.

And furthermore, if they are to be removed, i think the additional units available should be given mostly to Koinon Hellenon, Saba, and the other new factions, aiming for unique units.

This would certainly be awesome, but, is nothing more than a idea yet.

Thanks.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In a couple days this thread will be 6 months old, I'm glad this has stuck around so long. This is actually one of the more interesting and important (to me at least) threads in the EB2 forums. I hope in another six months this will still be here and maybe we can get some insight on what the EB team decides to do.

[Remco]

In a couple days this thread will be 6 months old, I'm glad this has stuck around so long. This is actually one of the more interesting and important (to me at least) threads in the EB2 forums. I hope in another six months this will still be here and maybe we can get some insight on what the EB team decides to do.

That's why I started it. It's good to see how the EB-players feel about removing the last Roman reforms. The fact that they are divided hints that the team could be divided as well.

Given that the reforms took place at the end of the timeframe, more then 200 years from the start, they could be removed on the ground that it was not inevitible. Only time time will tell what the team decides.

[mikil100]

For everyone whos saying the game goes extremely ahistorical, just remember your forging your own history, not re-enacting it. I think a completely inoffensive name's points are very valid, though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well it has been over 8 months since this thread was started and over two months since the last post has been made. Normally I would have waited another 2-4 months to post in here again, but the previews and work in progress shown over the last two month toward unit models and overall completion including the awesome February Preview has made me bring up the thread for another quick pop in to ask if further discussion on the subject had been made. Not asking if an absolute decision has been made, just if at this stage you have a rough outline of what the future of the Augustan units will be. Either way, I assume once this thread has been brought back to the front page, we will have another round of great discussion with the added bonus of what knowledge we have picked up from the EB team along the last two months for greater and more intelligent arguments.

-ACIN

[Atilius]

EB members haven't devoted a word of discussion to Augustan reforms since this thread was started. I would not expect that to change before we've released a beta, and I wouldn't be utterly surprised if we went ahead and did new Augustan units without the subject ever coming up. There is no reason at all for us to even think about this for quite some time yet.

[satalexton]

don't you guys have a tighter unit slot allocation with those new factions popping up?

[Atilius]

don't you guys have a tighter unit slot allocation with those new factions popping up?We have the same number of unit slots and more factions. But there are a lot of ways to deal with that. We have already removed some units, and we currently have open slots. In addition, a number existing EB1 units (including regionals) will be used by the new factions.

If we run out of unit slots the Augustan reforms may come under scrutiny. That won't happen any time soon.

[Mulceber]

What about a partial reform? There's no real point in replacing the cohors reformata with cohors imperatoria because they're extremely similar. Ditto to the Ala Imperatoria - they're basically just like the regional light cavalry of the Marian era.

But what about changing the reforms so that when the player reaches the Augustan era, they get 1 type of cohors validium auxiliarium, the cohors sagitariorum levantinorum and the cohors praetoriana? That way the Augustan reforms could still be represented (and as someone who HAS reached the Augustan reforms, I can tell you they are worth it), but some unit slots could be freed up for other factions. By my calculations, if we do what I suggested, we would save five slots - by getting rid of the cohors imperatoria, prima cohors imperatoria, equites praetoriani, the ala imperatoria and one of the two cohors validium auxiliarium.

I know a lot of people think the Praetorians are useless, since by the time you get them you control about half the known world, but they're very nice from a roll-playing perspective, allowing you to create the Emperor's personal bodyguard. -M

[Megas Methuselah]

We have the same number of unit slots and more factions. But there are a lot of ways to deal with that. We have already removed some units, and we currently have open slots. In addition, a number existing EB1 units (including regionals) will be used by the new factions.

If we run out of unit slots the Augustan reforms may come under scrutiny. That won't happen any time soon.

Oh, I hope the Celto-Hellenic Hoplites are still in-game as factional units. They were the best. :embarassed:

[a completely inoffensive name]

We have the same number of unit slots and more factions. But there are a lot of ways to deal with that. We have already removed some units, and we currently have open slots. In addition, a number existing EB1 units (including regionals) will be used by the new factions.

If we run out of unit slots the Augustan reforms may come under scrutiny. That won't happen any time soon.

Alright I guess this might as well be retired for at least another 6 months, or until a beta comes out although I am not sure if that will be a year or two away.

[Megas Methuselah]

Alright I guess this might as well be retired for at least another 6 months, or until a beta comes out although I am not sure if that will be a year or two away.

Well, we have ETW to mildly amuse us until EB2 comes out and brings down teh house.

[Alsatia]

Well, we have ETW to mildly amuse us until EB2 comes out and brings down teh house.

ETW may blow up my computer... So I only got a pack of cards(:laugh4:) to entertain me until a get a new comuter for EB2.

[keravnos]

We have the same number of unit slots and more factions. But there are a lot of ways to deal with that. We have already removed some units, and we currently have open slots. In addition, a number existing EB1 units (including regionals) will be used by the new factions.

If we run out of unit slots the Augustan reforms may come under scrutiny. That won't happen any time soon.

To my mind there is NO WAY we could have an EB II without the Imperial reforms. There. I said it.
The only thing I would like, is to see them take place earlier than they are now. Because Post Marius reforms (which too should be pushed back even earlier), I think that anyone could be Octavius with the right set of circumstances. The transition from Republic->Imperium was historically one of the major points of history at that time. In fact, it was the ONLY point of history which happened around Med. at that time. While it is true that any empire forged past 272 BCE is ahistorical, that doesn't mean we don't need an "anchor point" if you will, to show how things evolved THAT WE KNOW OF, THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AS TOLD.

Simple as that, really.

[Megas Methuselah]

To my mind there is NO WAY we could have an EB II without the Imperial reforms. There. I said it.
The only thing I would like, is to see them take place earlier than they are now. Because Post Marius reforms (which too should be pushed back even earlier), I think that anyone could be Octavius with the right set of circumstances. The transition from Republic->Imperium was historically one of the major points of history at that time. In fact, it was the ONLY point of history which happened around Med. at that time. While it is true that any empire forged past 272 BCE is ahistorical, that doesn't mean we don't need an "anchor point" if you will, to show how things evolved THAT WE KNOW OF, THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AS TOLD.

Simple as that, really.

Eurgh!!!

*reaches around to feel an invisible knife in his back*

Et tu, Brute?

[bobbin]

We have already removed some units

I'm guessing that means the Dosidataskeli, Ordmalica and Dubosaverlacica are finally gone, shame~:mecry:

[Megas Methuselah]

I'm guessing that means the Dosidataskeli, Ordmalica and Dubosaverlacica are finally gone, shame~:mecry:

And finally, I am of the opinion that the Celto-Hellenic Hoplites ought to be preserved.

[geala]

In my opinion they should definitely get rid of the Augustan reforms, as far as new units are concerned. It's too late and too short. It should however be possible to become princeps. So a kind of political reform should be kept. The military reforms would be very nice to have but in a fair balance I would give the slots to the new factions before I would cancel even one unit of another faction.

A growing problem is also the notorious "lorica segmentata". I find it a bit problematic to have an Augustan military reform for just a few years and not the new armour for the reformed troops. The finds for "lorica segmentata" at Kalkriese-Niewedde show that the armour was used by the Augustan legionaries with a certain degree. It is reasonable not to implement an armour that was only used in the last years of the EB timeframe. But then why have a military reform for only the last years of the timeframe?

Edit: some typos

[lenin96]

Maybe the requirements should be lessened.

[Alsatia]

In my opinion they should definitely get rid of the Augustean reforms, as far as new units are concerned. It's too late and too short. It should however be possible to become princeps. So a kind of political reform should be kept. The military reforms would be very nice to have but in a fair balance I would give the slots to the new factions before I would cancel even one unit of another faction.

A growing problem is also the notorious "lorica segmentata". I find it a bit problematic to have an Augustean military reform for just a few years and not the new armour for the reformed troops. The finds for "lorica segmentata" at Kalkriese-Niewedder show that the armour was used by the Augustean legionaries with a certain degree. It is reasonable not to implement an armour that was only used in the last years of the EB timeframe. But then why have a military reform for only the last years of the timeframe?

They could be removed but as said above, what is the point of a reform when you cannot enjoy it?
Btw, I never had an Augustan Reform before so I really am neutral to the issue.

[Mulceber]

In my opinion they should definitely get rid of the Augustean reforms, as far as new units are concerned. It's too late and too short. It should however be possible to become princeps. So a kind of political reform should be kept. The military reforms would be very nice to have but in a fair balance I would give the slots to the new factions before I would cancel even one unit of another faction.

A growing problem is also the notorious "lorica segmentata". I find it a bit problematic to have an Augustean military reform for just a few years and not the new armour for the reformed troops. The finds for "lorica segmentata" at Kalkriese-Niewedder show that the armour was used by the Augustean legionaries with a certain degree. It is reasonable not to implement an armour that was only used in the last years of the EB timeframe. But then why have a military reform for only the last years of the timeframe?

LS was used by SOME of the Augustan legionaries. That implies somewhere around maybe a quarter? If that's the case, do you think that it's really worth representing in EB1 where all the members of a unit have the same armor? I don't. In EB2, now that they have the features of the M2 system, I'd say sure, have one of the armor types be LS, so I don't really see what you're complaining about.

I agree that perhaps the Augustan reforms should be made a little earlier, but I still think they should continue to exist. It was very fun to create the new units and Role-Play the changes undergoing the state as it converted to an Empire. The new troops were a visible manifestation of those changes, and to that end they were imho, extremely worthwhile. You're saying that they should be removed to make room for new troops, but according to the modders, they probably won't need the room as they've got enough as it is.

Thus, I think not only should the Augustan era troops stay, but we should try to find new ways of representing the transition from Republic to Empire as well - not new troops, but some scripted things to represent the changes. I noticed in my game that the number of Family Members greatly increased after the Augustan reforms, so I could see that as a manifestation of Augustus' marriage legislation, but it would be nice to get more things scripted in to help people Role-Play the transformation. -M

[Belisarius II]

Nullus!I say they should stay in the game. It's kinda like a goal for me. Trying to make Rome into an empire is a nice achievement. Seeing that not many have gotten that far, getting the reforms makes you feel even better. You'll be happy! Hurray! https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/gc/gc-clown.gif

[Megas Methuselah]

You too, my son?

[geala]

LS was used by SOME of the Augustan legionaries. That implies somewhere around maybe a quarter? If that's the case, do you think that it's really worth representing in EB1 where all the members of a unit have the same armor? I don't. In EB2, now that they have the features of the M2 system, I'd say sure, have one of the armor types be LS, so I don't really see what you're complaining about.

... -M

I concur with what you said later, so I shortened the quote.

How do you know that only a quarter of the legionaries used "LS"? Is it an estimation that stems from the percentage of findings compared to LH and LSq? I don't think so but I would like to hear about it.

What we can say about "LS" with some reliability is that it was a new form of armour which was given to the legions during the Augustan period. At least I don't know about findings from an earlier time. It is tempting to connect it with the military reforms that the princeps made to get rid of the civil war armies and form a reliable long lasting professional force. So even if "LS" was not widely used in the beginning it was "the" Augustan new armour. If I would create an Augustan military reform in a game with partly an emphasis on the appearance of soldiers I would also feel obliged to create the "new" armour feature for this soldiers.

In EB II you could also have only a part of a unit wearing "LS". You said it. You see the problem? It's perfect for "LS". I'm not talking about EB, I'm talking about EB II. So I would remove the Augustan military reform from the game. Than you don't have the slots occupied and don't have any reason to implement "LS". :2thumbsup:

I have to admit that I'm a bit biased. I never played the Romans in EB and don't plan to play them in EB II. I want their slots for my favorite factions. :laugh4:

[Mulceber]

How do you know that only a quarter of the legionaries used "LS"? Is it an estimation that stems from the percentage of findings compared to LH and LSq? I don't think so but I would like to hear about it.

I don't know at all. You said that there was some LS in use during the Augustan period, so I was just surmising what we could estimate. If I gave the impression that that was a statistic, I'm sorry - I was just trying to convey the fact that even if LS was in use during that era, it was far from the norm.

As for me, I'm a die-hard Romani player. I play other factions as well (currently working on Qarthadastim and KH) and I'd like to try some of the hellenistic factions (AS looks enticing) when I have the time, but Romani are still my favorites. -M

[seienchin]

I am glad, the EB Team doenst plan to take them out. The Augustan Reforms made my Rome Game incredibly fun. It is unnecessary to get new legionairies with the same stats as the old ones...

[bobbin]

From the twitter page:

New faction's Elite cavalry unit skinned for the 3 evolution stages. Integrating now. - JMRC
Now this is all just a lot of speculating on my part but the fact that JMRC is making 3 sets of skins for one factional unit's "evolutionary stages" suggests to me that they might be using the armour upgrade feature in M2TW to represet equipment changes, it seems unlikley they would make three different versions of the same unit, which means they might do the same for the imperial cohorts, ie Marians would get an armour upgrade when the Imperial refoms happen changing them into Imperial Cohorts, no need to create a new unit.

I remember it was suggested ages ago somewhere in the forums but there was problems with armour upgrades apparantly give hardcoded stat value increases so they might have found a way around this.

[seienchin]

From the twitter page:

Now this is all just a lot of speculating on my part but the fact that JMRC is making 3 sets of skins for one factional unit's "evolutionary stages" suggests to me that they might be using the armour upgrade feature in M2TW to represet equipment changes, it seems unlikley they would make three different versions of the same unit, which means they might do the same for the imperial cohorts, ie Marians would get an armour upgrade when the Imperial refoms happen changing them into Imperial Cohorts, no need to create a new unit.

I remember it was suggested ages ago somewhere in the forums but there was problems with armour upgrades apparantly give hardcoded stat value increases so they might have found a way around this.

That would be toatally awesome. Thanks too Medievial 2 :egypt:

[MeinPanzer]

I don't know at all. You said that there was some LS in use during the Augustan period, so I was just surmising what we could estimate. If I gave the impression that that was a statistic, I'm sorry - I was just trying to convey the fact that even if LS was in use during that era, it was far from the norm.

As for me, I'm a die-hard Romani player. I play other factions as well (currently working on Qarthadastim and KH) and I'd like to try some of the hellenistic factions (AS looks enticing) when I have the time, but Romani are still my favorites. -M

And yet even in EBI armour types were represented for which we have even less evidence than we do for LS, as in, for instance, the lamellar armour of the Rhodian slingers. In my opinion it is totally inconsistent to argue both for the inclusion of the Augustan reforms because they were "inevitable" and for such armour types and yet not for LS.

[PraetorFigus]

From the twitter page:

Now this is all just a lot of speculating on my part but the fact that JMRC is making 3 sets of skins for one factional unit's "evolutionary stages" suggests to me that they might be using the armour upgrade feature in M2TW to represet equipment changes, it seems unlikley they would make three different versions of the same unit, which means they might do the same for the imperial cohorts, ie Marians would get an armour upgrade when the Imperial refoms happen changing them into Imperial Cohorts, no need to create a new unit.

I remember it was suggested ages ago somewhere in the forums but there was problems with armour upgrades apparantly give hardcoded stat value increases so they might have found a way around this.


That would be toatally awesome. Thanks too Medievial 2 :egypt:

I second the coolness of this idea, if there are reforms it should be for the availability of armor upgrade, Praetorians and aor if different from Marian Reforms.

Cheers:2thumbsup:

[Mulceber]

And yet even in EBI armour types were represented for which we have even less evidence than we do for LS, as in, for instance, the lamellar armour of the Rhodian slingers. In my opinion it is totally inconsistent to argue both for the inclusion of the Augustan reforms because they were "inevitable" and for such armour types and yet not for LS.

But you see, that's the distinction. We don't have evidence either for or against lamellar armour. Up until now, we had evidence AGAINST LS. That's why the EB team has always been dead set against it - in Vanilla, almost all the legionaries have LS from the beginning of the Marian reforms, and that ain't right. Perhaps the EB team has taken it to a bit of an extreme, saying there should be NO segmentata, especially since it seems clear that during the Augustan era there was some. On the whole though, I think for EB I, their decision to exclude LS was the right one, since it seems that even if there was some during the Augustan era, it was in the minority and it would be thus improper to put whole units in the field equipped with it. As I said before though, EB II is a different story as it's possible to have a variety of armor types in one unit.

So I guess I don't really understand what your point is. The Augustan reforms were likely inevitable, as the Romans were unwilling or unable to make the changes necessary to stabilize the Republic. Lamellar armor may well have been on Rhodian slingers, we don't know what they wore. We do know however that LS was somewhere between uncommon and nonexistent during the Augustan era and didn't become prominent until the mid-first century. They're trying to make things as accurate as possible. I see no inconsistency. -M

[geala]

I think it was sometimes rather difficult to prove that "LS" (whatever the Romans called it) was used already in the Augustan period. But now we have at least the findings in the Kalkriese-Niewedder dip which are strongly associated with the Clades Variana in 9 AD. There are at least 3 armour plates and several metal fittings from "lorica segmentata" armours, as well as several metal rings and hooks from lorica hamata. One hook has the inscription "cohors I", so the lorica hamata was not only used by the auxilia but also the legionaries. Involved were the veteran 17th, 18th and 19th legions. So we have very good evidence that "LS" was used -together with lorica hamata- prior to 9 AD. I think nobody can say anything about the percentage with which both forms of armour were used. But once again, it was the new Roman armour, the only genuine Roman armour, so if I had a special military reform from this time, "LS" cannot be rejected so easily.

[Mulceber]

True, but I think you will agree that as the new armor, it was likely in the minority, no? -M

[Megas Methuselah]

...the only genuine Roman armour-

...? What makes you imagine that?

[geala]

Ok, you can debate it. In the east lamellar armour was already used long before. But in this distinctive form it is genuine and typical for the Romans. Pectoral, mail and scale armour isn't. That's the reason why the mighty "LS" discussion started and will last forever, I presume. :beam:

[Alsatia]

Ok, you can debate it. In the east lamellar armour was already used long before. But in this distinctive form it is genuine and typical for the Romans. Pectoral, mail and scale armour isn't. That's the reason why the mighty "LS" discussion started and will last forever, I presume. :beam:


Agreed. The Lorica Segmentata is the stereotypical piece of Roman armour which, to my knowlege (correct me if i'm wrong), used toward the mid - Late Empire until Constantine's Reforms.

This debate seems to go on forever indeed.......

[paullus]

the rhodian armor, by the way, isn't lamellar. its meant to be quilting, and i don't know that its very likely our EBII rhodian slingers will have it, though that's a unit that's probably well over a year from production. (we've made enough hellenistic units that we need to work on some other factions)

[MeinPanzer]

the rhodian armor, by the way, isn't lamellar. its meant to be quilting, and i don't know that its very likely our EBII rhodian slingers will have it, though that's a unit that's probably well over a year from production. (we've made enough hellenistic units that we need to work on some other factions)

I probably should have read the description! Their armour is so grey and shiny that I always took it for iron.


But you see, that's the distinction. We don't have evidence either for or against lamellar armour. Up until now, we had evidence AGAINST LS. That's why the EB team has always been dead set against it - in Vanilla, almost all the legionaries have LS from the beginning of the Marian reforms, and that ain't right. Perhaps the EB team has taken it to a bit of an extreme, saying there should be NO segmentata, especially since it seems clear that during the Augustan era there was some. On the whole though, I think for EB I, their decision to exclude LS was the right one, since it seems that even if there was some during the Augustan era, it was in the minority and it would be thus improper to put whole units in the field equipped with it. As I said before though, EB II is a different story as it's possible to have a variety of armor types in one unit.

So I guess I don't really understand what your point is. The Augustan reforms were likely inevitable, as the Romans were unwilling or unable to make the changes necessary to stabilize the Republic. Lamellar armor may well have been on Rhodian slingers, we don't know what they wore. We do know however that LS was somewhere between uncommon and nonexistent during the Augustan era and didn't become prominent until the mid-first century. They're trying to make things as accurate as possible. I see no inconsistency. -M

My point is that there seems to be a major inconsistency in the reasoning behind including or excluding certain features in EB:

1. Augustan reforms: These would have been inevitable, and the Roman army would have been equipped and armed along these lines regardless of most historical divergence. They should be included despite the fact that they only emerged in the last few decades of the last century BC.

2. Lorica segmentata: We have some evidence for their use in Augustan times, but that evidence is limited. This type of armour most likely would have been a part of the Augustan reforms, but evidence suggests it would have been in use in limited numbers. Lorical segmentata should not be depicted in the Augustan units.

And rather than the Rhodian slingers, I will use another example.

3. Thureophoroi armour: We have some depictions of thureophoroi wearing cuirasses and no depictions of them wearing greaves. The proportion of representations of thureophoroi wearing cuirasses compared to those without any sort of body armour at all is small. Despite this, thureophoroi all wear cuirasses and greaves.

Now, leaving out number one for now, I see a glaring inconsistency between numbers two and three. In both cases we have evidence for limited use of armour, and yet in number two this evidence is omitted altogether in the reconstruction of units, while in number three it is extrapolated to all members in a unit (and this is going by the EBII preview that showed the thureophoroi renders). It seems that for whatever reason, the same standards are not being used to judge armour used among thureophoroi as among Augustan units.

In the case of number one, I see a similar inconsistency. The Romans are given historical reforms on the basis that these would have been inevitable, but this logic doesn't seem to have been extended to other factions, for which one could easily make a case of unit reforms that were likewise "inevitable" and which occurred right towards the end of the EB timeframe.

[chairman]

The issue with using thureophoroi [as an example of your argument] is that this is not just about 1 unit, it is about 3 units that represent the continuum of armor worn by hellen(ist)ic soldiers that were equiped with a thureos shield and javelins/spear. No single unit of this type would have have each soldier wearing the same amount of armor, as the wealthier would have more and the poorer less. So to reconcile the RTW engine with reality, EB has chose to represent thureos-bearing soldiers as 3 units, those with lots of high quality armor called "Thorakitai", those with almost no body armor (helmet excluded) called Euzonoi, and those in the middle with some, variable quality and quantity of armor called Thureophoroi.

The problem with portraying any unit of Roman soldiers wearing LS in the EB timeperiod, is that by the time that LS appeared at all (eg first prototype off the line for the emperor's inspection), it would have been provided by the state (not the individual) to whole units, so that having a single skin within a unit as wearing LS with the rest as not is innaccurate and does not represent the standardization of Roman forces under the Augustine reforms well.

And I do think that the EB team has been consistant. When it was realized that certain units were limited in number or too late for the era (Vascai elites, Irish hammer warriors, Ethiopian Agema, etc), they were removed, same as LS.

Chairman

[geala]

Then why have new units in the veryyy late Augustan military reform? Hehe, we are moving in circles and I will keep my mouth shut (probably ~;)) in the future.

[/Bean\]

Agh! We need more people to vote yes. We need more people to be disappointed when the EB team say No is the final answer.

[Mulceber]

You do realize the irony of you campaigning for the elimination of the Augustan reforms when your signature features a cohors imperatoria, don't you? -M

[/Bean\]

I didn't make the banner :beam:

[Mulceber]

But you still added it to your profile.

Honestly though, I'm not sure why people are so hot to remove the Augustan reforms - the EB team has already said it has all the space it needs for the other factions' units, so it's not like getting rid of the Augustan troops would clear up space for anyone else. -M

[Rilder]

Well if they can free up a couple a few units by using the Armor upgrades to represent reforms then all the better.

[geala]

But you still added it to your profile.

Honestly though, I'm not sure why people are so hot to remove the Augustan reforms - the EB team has already said it has all the space it needs for the other factions' units, so it's not like getting rid of the Augustan troops would clear up space for anyone else. -M

And already by now I break my promise to shut up. :laugh4:

The whole thread, as I've seen it, runs under the condition that units of other factions had to be removed for units of the new factions. In this case I would definitely prefer to remove the late Roman units instead. If it is not necessary to maraud poor non-Roman factions than the new Augustan units shall remain forever and for my part several other new Roman units could even be added.