Playing Rome

[Suraknar]

Hello,

This thread for discussion stems from a discussion that touk place in the General forum for Mods with Kull, who is also the author of the original thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=45612

In the Original thread a Modification is being suggested for commentary, that is based on the "ahistorical" aspect of the gameplay implementation in which Rome is portrayed separated in three Dynastic Famillies.

However, it is being argued that this is not the case. Suffice it to say, that the discussion continued over PM's at which point we both acknowledge that it is indeed a question of perception.

Kull informed me that this perception may not be something that is shared in large and it may constitute a mechanics aspect of the game that merits to be posted.

And hence this post, to share and then ask about this perception.


Personally I think that this game is meant to be played in two ways.

A - Playing as part of Rome

B- Playing any other Faction not part of Rome

Lets start with B.

It is basically the traditional way in which we may all have played all or some of the Total War Games, from STW to MTW and expansions etc.

Which basically mean that we assume the control of a Faction, Kingdom or Empire, or simply put a Civilisation (And since the concept of Nation came to be much later in History for any of the Timelines of the Series). And we then apply a series of Strategical and Tactical decisions and Actions in our own Master Plan to Conquer and Dominate the known world within the goals as established by the design.

This applies to RTW, but only for the other Factions and not for Rome.

Which brings us to A.

Rome in RTW, in this perception, is not represented by the player's Faction. Rome is, well, Rome itself, controlled by the Senate.

And therefore, the player assumes control of one of it's Military Branches, as part of something bigger, and not as an independent Dynastic Faction.

Rome is therefore the Sum of all it's four sections in the Game: Senate/Julii/Scipii/Brutii, and not simply 4 Allied Kingdoms.

And once seen from that point, it makes all the difference, and calls therefore for a different gameplay style, which is not the same as playing another faction in which the player is it's Absolute Ruler.

Playing any of the three Factions of Rome puts the player in the helm of what is in reality a Sub-Faction of the Roman Faction.

I think Kull expressed it best during our PM discussion, by saying:

...and hadn't considered that this might just be a way to portray Rome as a Republic (i.e. the player effectively controls only 1/3 of Rome, which restrains the kinds of activities one might otherwise undertake).

The First time I played the Campaign myself, I did play it in the Traditional manner, yet at one point, no matter what I did, I kept losing the Senate's Aprouval.

Then, upon starting to realise the above, the second Campaign was played from this perspective, and let me say that it was quite a different experience, and very enjoyable at that too.

I am thinking now, and after reading certain threads, that the inherent technical difficulties (in Modding RTW) attached to eliminating the senate and/or other Roman Factions, are actually not a "fluck", but by design.

And asside from the personal experience of Gameplay, and the evidence from the Modding Difficulties, there is no other Direct evidence to support this.

It can be speculated that it was intentional by the Devs for such information to not be present in the game's manual, or at least be verry subtle. Or on the other hand it simply was a Marketing decision to limit the costs of the Manual.

In any case, this gameplay seems to be the case, and therefore the present post to seek feedback on this from your experiences with the design, after playing part of the Roman Faction.

Thoughts?

[Suraknar]

So I take it none has any thoughts about this? ~;)

Has anyone even played the game assuming that they are but a part of the Roman faction?

I restarted a Campaign from this perspective recently with teh Scipii.

I am only Taking Cities that are either the target of a Senate Mission, or are Rebell.

I refuse alliances in general, and I do not forge alliances if the Civilisation in question is not also allied with the Senate or another Roman Sub-Faction.

I reluctantly completed missions against the Greek Cities, and only complete 1 in 2 Blockade missions.

At one point the senate asked for the taking of Sparta, upon completion of the Mission, the Greek Cities sent a diplomat to negotiate a cease fire, I made a counter proposal asking them to become a Protectorate, they made a counter proposal accepting the status if Sparta would be turned over to them, and I accepted, which made the Greek Cities a 5 province protectorate, emediatelly after which the senate the Julii and Brutii seased all hostilities with the Greek Cities and were declared its allies.

Which only supports the perception here, that Rome is indeed designed as one in four parts. And not four separate entities that are simply allied to one another.

But it is subtle to say the least, as aesthetically speaking, everything point the other way, yet it is not.

I am starting to think, that the apparent "complaint" of the implementation from many players is solelly based to the fact that the design is subtle and not explicitly explained or made apparent graphically.

A question of perception it is.

[Dutch_guy]

I've never really played like that before, meaning r=that i've never really done exactley what the senate wanted me to do and so on..
However if you like the idea of a more unified Rome, try playing Rome Total Realism
you would probably like that

:bow:

[Marcus Maxentius]

How do the senate missions work in that? Or did they get rid of them? I see the standard game as being a unified rome with three armies under different leaders adding to the strength of Rome. That's how I roleplay it. There's a power struggle and each one secretly tries to stunt the progress of the other. One army quashes his rivals and marches into Rome to take power. The way they did it may be inaccurate, but more accurate to me than what I've heard of RTR.

Rome wasn't unified in the sense, that it thought and acted as one mind. Individual Senators used the bureacracy for their own agendas and the Senate itself tried to control the elected officers actions and the plebs. The plebs wanted to take control away from the senate and some Senators would often side with the plebs, though only to gain power over rival senators. Even a foreign king llike Jugartha, tried to bribe senators into passing laws that would keep him in power.

Then you have the generals...As the republic fell apart , the two consuls and indeed the other elected officers, often disagreed and would backstab(literal for Caesar) each other to get they're way. Examples being Cato Vs the Scipios, Gracchus vs.The Senate, Marius vs Sulla. Everything that happened in Rome, did not originate from the Senate. Marius and Gracchus were both plebs by birth and initiated the Marian Reforms. One was a consul and the other a Tribune.

The most famous being the triumverate(like the three roman factions)of Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus. Each had large amounts of provinces under their control. Each wanted to destroy the other, but came together, if only to buy time to take the other out. Caesar of course came out on top. Most famously, was Caesar being diplomatic and telling him he could attack the Parthians and win.

Now the armies. It makes sense to have armies separate from the senate's army. The senate army is there to protect the people of rome(those born in the city were considered true roman citizens during the age of the kings and republic). They're there also to keep out the Roman Army who was never allowed inside the gates to prevent a consul from becoming a king.(edit. This was only after Sulla. Bad idea to write about history when too emotional) Hence, in the game you see the senate's armies patrolling the capital and never doing much conqurering. The downside of not having an army inside is that it gets taken over easily. But if the AI were made more awake, taking rome would be more of a challenge.

Sorry for the rant, but I've had these ideas for awhile. For the time being, I'm not willing to fix some inaccuracies, while including new inaccuracies.

[Suraknar]

Well Marcus,

This is exactly as it should be seen in also my opinion, so your reply is far from being a rant :) Informative as well.

As for RTR, I have not installed or downloaded it for that matter, because, I think that it assumes to "Fix" something that is not broken to begin with.

And it is also the main point of this Discussion. I think personally that the Game Got Judged Harshly based on the perception and then the impression that it was not designed Historically accurate, when in reality it is, because Rome was never a Unified entity, and the implementation of the Senate/Julii/Brutii/Scipii is there to represent Rome being a republic on top of the Socio-Cultural realities of Rome that Marcus Maxentius explains so well. :)

So I believe this a rush towards misunderstanding of the design by many of us, and during the initial Hype that its release caused.

In other words we Saw we judged and then we all collectivelly Cryed Wolf! Without seeking to understand it more deeply and from exactly this roleplaying aproach, which is nothing else than Historical.

[SoxSexSax]

Well Marcus,

This is exactly as it should be seen in also my opinion, so your reply is far from being a rant :) Informative as well.

As for RTR, I have not installed or downloaded it for that matter, because, I think that it assumes to "Fix" something that is not broken to begin with.



Every single change made in RTR was for realism purposes. Go to the forum and you will find links to numerous sources that back up the changes they have made. "Fix" is the wrong word for RTR, "improved" is better.

[Suraknar]

Please do not take me wrong, I certently do not mean to slander the hard work that has gone in to it, or the people that have put the time and effort to make it.

I do understand big projects like that are not an easy feat.

I read its description and I have been following its devellopment since the begining. Yet I do want to explore the "stock" game to its full potential before installing any mods, appreciate its design for what it was meant to be, and understand more in depth the sceptisism that went in to it.

Only then, I think personally, can one trully appreciate any "improvements".

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, I played the Julii as a very nice servant of the SPQR, completing every single senate mission I was given - most of them in one or two turns - except some missions which were cancelled (and thus not failed even though I didn't complete them) until I got strong enough with both most of Spain, Britannia, Germania and Gaul and 3 carthaginian provinces (Carthage, Thapsus and Caralis). Then I started moving troops back to my border next to Rome because I sensed the SPQR were getting envious at my success on foreing battlefields, and after a few turns I had an army ready to sack Rome, which I did when one of my advisors said the people liked me much so I could defy the evil senate in their attempts to limit my successes. And then I saved Rome from their opressors...

[Suraknar]

Very Interesting :)

So, what do you think was it worth it to play it like that? Do you think it was designed to be played like that?

[Rodion Romanovich]

It was certainly more fun to do all the senate missions - much more challenging than just expanding in one direction safely with no threats whatsoever. And it was also nice to get cash and extra units as rewards. I think the romans are meant to be played like that, yes. An extra flavor was added to the campaign because I choose to wage war with Germania at the same time I went for Gaul (many nice river battles against the former with sarmatian mercs, some infantry and my faction leader's bodyguard hehe...).