WotS The Will of the Senate - out of character thread [Archive] - Page 3

TinCow

06-13-2006, 01:14

I have updated the bios, the family tree, the legislation and the world map. I will hold off on the overview of the empire and specific details about the make-up of the Legions until DDW is done with everything.

We currently have two unassigned family members, Gaius Rutilius and Vibius Pleminius. econ21, could you pick players to be represented by these?

I need some help with what Legions are named what. I know the following:
Legion in the fort by Patavium is Legio II Sabina Quintia
Legion in the fort near Jenuensis is Legio I Italia Victrix
Legion in the field near Massilia is Legio III Sicilia Aemilia

I need names for:
Consul I Army in Caralis (surely we can give it a better name)
Legion in the fort near Tarentum
Legion in the field south of Rhegium

Glaucus

06-13-2006, 01:31

econ21

06-13-2006, 01:36

I've posted a call for expressions of interest in the two new generals, I'll assign by Wed. I want to give Upper House members a meaningful chance to step down into the Lower House.

I think the 2 legions without names don't have legio ancillaries, so we can wait until they do. The next Consul can name them, although Legio IV is pencilled in to be Gallica.

I am happy to stick with Consular I Army - we are only ever going to have another one max (one for each Consul). I'm thinking the First Consul should be given this ancillary at the moment - Quintus is getting on; we're not going to get another Consul in a hurry and it seems fitting. I'm even wondering if the old man should retire and become governor of Rome (IIRC that's a special trait with stiff prerequisites)? But I do like fighting battles!

econ21

06-13-2006, 01:44

Excuse me, but I have a quick point to show you all. The Roman leader mod gives the trait that says the number of years in service, we all no that. But it counts two turns as a year, IE a tribune who has served 5 years by his trait, has served 2 1/2 years really. I suspect we all age a bit too fast also. To sum it up: the computer still treats two turns as a year, even though our mod says 4 turns is a year.

Eyeballing them, the increases in experience look reasonable to me - FLYdude's avatar may be a good one to look at, as he's nearly always been in the field. But the ages themselves are jumping a bit (by 7 instead of 5 years in the last reign). I wonder if somehow people were forgetting to press the "show me how" button to enable the 4TPY script when they load a savegame? The age progressions 280=>275 look ok, but I did not pass the savegame around as much as DDW.

Seriously, it takes years off your life, doing PBMs. :laugh4:

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-13-2006, 02:20

Seriously, it takes years off your life, doing PBMs. :laugh4:

No kidding :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Ignoramus

06-13-2006, 02:40

Historically, after the Second Punic War, most of the Legios were recruited in Iberia, maybe we can that a rule.

TinCow

06-13-2006, 02:43

The Library update is now finished. I have included the current overview map, a list of famous battles fought by Rome, and shots of the composition of all significant armies and fleets.

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-13-2006, 03:03

TinCow,
I just read the whole library thread, and I would just like to say what an excellent job you are doing. Stay 'involved', please ! (obscure reference to 100 posts back or so). Hope you are slightly mollified by the 8555 dead Gauls :laugh4:
Econ21, I laughed when I read your countercomments as you are absolutely right. Usually, slingers outrange archers. The cretan archers do have the long range capability, so that's probably a tie. Slingers 'seem' to have a higher rate of fire, and do 'slightly less' damage against armoured opponents. These things I say from experience and may be wrong. Archers are pretty ineffective against armoured opponents as well.

I also wonder where the year count went wrong. I religiously clicked the show-me-how button, but with all the loading, zipping and unzipping and so on, a mistake is easily made. A problem for the future, but not a dramatic one.

Avicenna

06-13-2006, 08:13

Gah, why are we staying with these strange unnatural-sounding Legion names? :sad:

@Ignoramus: Those would have been only post-Marian, as the Iberians weren't granted citizenship en masse, so couldn't have formed a whole Legion. Besides, they didn't like the Romans, and even sold them yew cups (or was it bowls?), which poisoned all who drank them. Such hate is natural for the first subjugated generation, and so they wouldn't have willingly served Rome. It was only during Marius' time, when the land property requirements and citizenship requirements were abolished and the Iberians less hateful that the Legions were recruited in Iberia, the most famous being Caesar's legions.

Ignoramus

06-13-2006, 08:38

Ok, thanks for the correction. Actually I agree, these naming of the Legions is ahistorical. I thought it would be fun, be I think that maybe it is a bit too much. Even Caesar and Pompey didn't name their legions. It wasn't until Augustus that they were named.

econ21

06-13-2006, 08:57

I think what we decided on with the naming is that the First Consul in whose reign a legion was raised may name them, but that the Senate may vote on motions to change them.

Personally, I like the regional part to the names and I like naming Legio I after TinCow's victory. The First Consul naming I agree - I am a little more iffy about it.

What I suggest is that we hold on to these names until something more dramatic happens. We are only 10 years into the PBM and I am sure the Legions will do somethings worthy of honouring sooner or later. It should take time for a unit to earn a reputation anyway.

Ignoramus

06-13-2006, 09:12

TinCow

06-13-2006, 11:54

We ought to make it that the units in the Legions serve for 16 years with no addiditions or retraining, and then at the end of those 16 years, we disband the all the legionaries, and fill them with new recruits, but. This is historically accurate. Also, perhaps we ought to halt naming legions.

That would be historically accurate for a post-Marian legion but not for our current legions. Frankly, there's nothing remotely historical about our system for them simply because they are permanent armies. As such I don't see why it's any more of a stretch to name the Legions, since they're already ahistorical in their longevity.

As for 16 years with no additions or retraining. First, this would make many units useless since we can't rightly form a Legion out of a bunch of 10 man units. They would end up sitting in a city eating up money. Second, who exactly is going to be responsible for tracking of when every single unit was raised and exactly where it is located at all times?

Avicenna

06-13-2006, 14:05

Is it so wrong in everyone's eyes to use the names that I have proposed? They are entirely historically accurate.

By the way, during the first triumverate, the Legions were named, such as Caesar's famous Legio X Equestris.

Mount Suribachi

06-13-2006, 14:18

Is it so wrong in everyone's eyes to use the names that I have proposed? They are entirely historically accurate.

For the Legions in the real time-line, but for the Legions in our alternate time-line they are inapropriate.

Simon, your battle for Aleria reveals something I have noticed playing this game (as Bactria). Namely, that the AI really struggles defending unwalled cities, sending out units one at a time, and having them destroyed one at a time ~:(

econ21

06-13-2006, 14:33

Simon, your battle for Aleria reveals something I have noticed playing this game (as Bactria). Namely, that the AI really struggles defending unwalled cities, sending out units one at a time, and having them destroyed one at a time(

True, but AI defence of wooden walls was abysmal anyway (the running around like chickens and getting shot to death from outside). I suspect we could still clobber them by building enough rams etc. AI sorties from settlements normally don't do very well either.

The upside of fewer walls is not so much when the player is attacking (although it does speed up some boring conquests), but when the player has to defend. For example, with a wall, Carthage could not have grabbed Aleria from behind my back. I think DDW has put rather larger garrisons around our territory than he would normally because the lack of walls is unnerving (as is the ability of the AI to invade by sea).

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-13-2006, 14:42

I think we can summarize that to

the AI really struggles

:laugh4:

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-13-2006, 14:49

The unwalled cities in Italy are minimally garrisoned. The cities with a different culture are more heavily garrisoned, depending on population size, to supress unrest. Our borders towns are also more heavily garrisoned.
With lots of unwalled towns it is better to post a fortress with a legion (without spearmen and swordsmen aux) in every area. You can not stop invasions and so on, but you can make sure you can react immediately.

econ21

06-13-2006, 14:53

I think we can summarize that to
"the AI really struggles"

And you really want us to tear down all its troop building facilities? :inquisitive:

One thing I like so far is the way the AI factions are behaving against each other - it seems quite fluid and dynamic. I am used to them being more static. For example, I was sure Illyria was on the way out and now apparently, they are driving into Macedon.

There does not seem to be a single dominant superpower emerging, so I rather incline to shifty157's idea of mixing it up by trying to expand in multiple directions. This may make it challenging and exciting for us. The AI does struggle, but we are also quite constrained - particularly economically.

BTW, I've just updated the influence figures in the first sign-up table. Let me know if anyone spots an error. We have around 56 votes in total, so I feel less bad about taking up 6 of them and will vote this time round. I must say, I like the way the "gang of four" original generals have developed and matured. They are pretty substantial figures now, helped in no small part by the new Legate trait. It all adds a nice role-playing dimension. I'm almost getting eager to see Quintus killed off so I can start at level 1!

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-13-2006, 15:12

I'm almost getting eager to see Quintus killed off so I can start at level 1!

I hope for you that the upcoming first consul didn't hear that :2thumbsup:

Anyway, the Gauls are the weakest faction. They will be crushed by one of the AI faction quite soon. Gaul is useless to us, as we can not defend it properly. We won't be able to build roads in most of Cispine Gauls for 10 years or so.
So my reasoning is simply, to get what we can get before some other faction does it before us. Let them squabble over the remains.

shifty157

06-13-2006, 15:26

Gaul isnt dead yet. Granted its squeezed between Iberia and Thrace but Thrace is allied with Gaul and Iberia is still manageable. If nothing else look whats happening with Illyria. I would have guessed that theyd have been eliminated by now. I believe they were down to one settlement at one point. But now theyve resurrected themselves with the help of Thrace and are gaining back their territory.

Granted the Gaul lands arent the best lands out there but where else would you propose to expand? Thrace is too large us for us at the moment. Inavding Greece and defending our northern border would prove too much and stretch our economy and military to the point of snapping. We really dont have many options as to who we can attack.

As to restarting at level 1. I think now is a bad time to try to start at level one. Our empire is so constrained by geography that isnt even room for all the troops and generals that we have. The majority of generals are just being carried around by the more experienced generals. Once we get out of Italy and into the larger Europe therell be more room for spreading out and really giving everyone some form of command but for now there are only so many legions you can fit in Italy.

Avicenna

06-13-2006, 15:38

We can take over Britain, and I doubt any other faction would give a toss.

(sorry to all Brits!)

Braden

06-13-2006, 15:44

No, that’s ok….we know we live in a phish hole.

:laugh4:

econ21

06-13-2006, 17:26

We can take over Britain...

Someone said there are enormous rebel armies in Britain in RTR, so it could be a fun thing to do at some stage.

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-13-2006, 17:56

Someone said there are enormous rebel armies in Britain in RTR, so it could be a fun thing to do at some stage.

Yeah, I did it once and it was great fun. Outnumbered 5 to 1 or worse attack after attack. I would not like to try that without two marian legions :)
I even had to get in two more legions as reinforcements to win.
Their chariots are also modified so that they fire rapid fire ballista :)

Craterus

06-13-2006, 18:27

Problems installing the mod still, so I'll just take an agent if possible. Thank you!

Avicenna

06-13-2006, 21:07

There are two spare characters, Craterus, including a True Roman! You should grab 'em now, since there probably won't be new members to the PBM for a little while.

TinCow

06-13-2006, 23:54

Someone said there are enormous rebel armies in Britain in RTR, so it could be a fun thing to do at some stage.

I was actually reading a thread about that today on RTR. It sounds like quite a challenge actually. Something I would definitely push for when the opportunity arose in this game.

http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/index.php?showtopic=20608

econ21

06-14-2006, 09:31

Problems installing the mod still, so I'll just take an agent if possible. Thank you!

OK, we have one assassin and AFAIK three unassigned spies - which would you like?

No one has made a special case for jumping the queue to get one of our new generals, so by seniority:

Gauis Rutilus => Swordsmaster
Vibius Pleminius => Zomby_woof

Ignoramus

06-14-2006, 10:17

I don't mind the naming of legion perse, but at the (270 B.C.) time they didn't name them.

Craterus

06-14-2006, 18:53

OK, we have one assassin and AFAIK three unassigned spies - which would you like?

I'll take the assassin. Where is he posted?

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-14-2006, 19:31

I'll take the assassin. Where is he posted?

Check the ffirst consul reports, last reply, Cassius something :)

Dutch_guy

06-14-2006, 20:02

I'm kind of surprised we're having new elections for a new consul.

Now I know I've been gone for a couple of days, but is DDW's reign over already?

If so, well then I haven't seen any - new - consular manifesto's - are candidates required to make a new one everytime they stand for the consul ship, or not ?

Would someone please enlighten me on those cases ?

:balloon2:

econ21

06-14-2006, 20:24

Hi Dutch_guy - I think DDWs reign lasted a couple of weeks. Candidates' manifestos should be available in the Senate Library. Or read back for a couple of pages in the Senate Deliberations thread.

IIRC, TinCow wants to raid Gaul; FLYdude wants to invade Africa; shifty157 wants to invade Gaul and Africa.

So there are clear policy differences, once again.

shifty157

06-14-2006, 21:02

Yeah im rather surprised how most everyone seems to be leaning toward an overly cautious strategy. I find the pace of expansion rather unnecessarily slow considering the size of our armies and what they are capable of.

I think its very reasonable in the next five years to conquer both Gaul and Carthage but I guess thats just me. Indeed if this were my game I would have already conquered Gaul and Carthage and invaded Greece and my economy would be doing a hell of alot better because of the number of territories id have and because I dont insist on guarding every square inch of land with a full legion.

Then again I would have had a much larger military industrial complex. People dont seem to want to build auxiliary buildings in new settlements either which is a huge mistake. Now theyre beginning to feel the squeeze because we're still stuck producing quality units from only three cities and a few auxilia worth only garrison duty in a couple more. People say that we could never defend Gaul and all that I cna think is that maybe if we took a few turns when we captured a settlement and built up its auxilia buildings the Gaulish territories could defend themselves. This trend needs to change fast otherwise we'll find ourselves still pulling troops out of Rome, Capua, and Ancona 20 years from now. Then the whosever Consul can have fun shipping those units to wherever the front line is. Although considering the pace of expansion we may have only reached Apollonia by then at which point we'll have to guard it with four legions.

Oh well.

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-14-2006, 23:06

You may very well be right shifty157. But you might forget that every faction in the game gets 10.000 denarii each turn in addition to their taxes. So every faction in the game has at least three times our current income each turn. You can recruit a vast army each turn with that kind of money.

Winning battles when having equal numbers is one thing, and quite easy. But when faced with full sized armies every turn, the odds will slowly shift against us due to attrition, especially when we leave easily defended positions and move further away from our recruitement grounds.
Still, we will most likely win and conquer whatever we choose to do, I'll grant you that, but we will lose quite a large number of troops and it will be very expensive. Don't forget that corruption costs rise with the distance from Rome, so not all the Gaul towns will be very profitable and several will require large and expensive garrisons indefinately.

Finally, there is the real risk of rebels. Rebel armies are usually the size of a legion and can quickly take a lightly garrisoned, unwalled town. If our legions are moved from the provinces they are now guarding, we stand to lose towns as the rebels do attack towns (not often, but they do). The damage to the countryside and trade disruption will also be annoying.

We can already not afford to build ports and harbors and the like, only markets (4000 denarii) are still in the budget. I worry that soon all the easy-to-build buildings will have been build and we will have to save for two or more seasons to build anything at all.

Another thing, as econ21 also pointed out to me, is the risk of a plague in cities of Rome and Syracuse, where the squalor is very high. An aquaduct is very expensive. Some of our larger towns are also in need of expensive sewers.

Also, I try to play as 'Roman' as I can. So I am unlikely to favour war and expansion, except for strategic reasons. I could not bear the possiblity of losing a Roman-owned town to rebels or enemies and the recapture of Aleria by the Cartheginians really annoyed (and delighted) me :embarassed:. Consequently, as a senator I will have no choice but to speak out against a consul who would leave his homeland undefended :laugh4:. If I play against the computer I play the same (cautious, conservative, defensive, crushing offensives when I'm ready, legions stationed in strategic locations even if there is no real threat). I tend to play against the computer as if it was a human player. Don't confuse my 'Roman' attitude in the senate with the reality of the game. I understand we can easily crush the computer, but I 'act' as if that is not the case.

econ21

06-14-2006, 23:07

Yeah im rather surprised how most everyone seems to be leaning toward an overly cautious strategy.

People have different play styles - one of the fun things about a PBM is picking up someone else's savegame and then re-ordering things to be done your way. Conversely, I know people have picked up my savegames in other campaigns and said "what was he thinking...?".

With a historical wargame, there is a tension between doing things "optimally" from a gaming point of view and "characterfully" from a historical realism perspective. We all have probably have a different point at which we draw the line. I certainly would not be interested in a pure "win at all costs" style of play (hence the prohibitions on an army full of principes etc). My sense is that the cautious Senators are like that because they think it is characterful. I think they are effectively imposing additional constraints on the First Consul to act in a more historical and restrained manner - not unlike the intent of some of the houserules for this PBM. There's certainly no rush with this PBM. We have, what, 1120 odd-turns. Or put it another way, 56 First Consuls. With 8 Lower House members, we could in theory each get 7 bites at the cherry.

Personally, I like your idea of fighting on many fronts because I think it will be more fun to be overstretched. If we just beat down one faction at a time, it may be unchallenging. And as you said before, with about 8 Lower House members, there will be more chances for them to get some action if there are multiple fronts. But I understand that other players have different agendas and my reasons for pushing for expansion are not prima facie roleplaying ones ("Senators, let's overstretch our republic..." doesn't sound right).

Then the whosever Consul can have fun shipping those units to wherever the front line is.

Here I disagree - I think this actually would be fun. It goes along with the part about it being challenging to be overstretched. In my solo games, I tend to run trains of reinforcements from Rome and the heartlands - in part because they tend to have the best armour. But also because I prioritise good economic investments.

econ21

06-14-2006, 23:29

On another topic, when do people want the Marian reforms to happen? Apparently, the default is when a settlement in Italy other than Rome gets an Imperial Palace but we can mod that:

http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/index.php?showtopic=20497

We may have to mod the game to get the reforms at some stage (it seems strange to exclude Rome from the requirement of an Imperial Palace) but I'd be inclined not to worry about it until at least 220 BC or so (the earliest possible date for the reforms in the 1.2 patch). IIRC from EB, the Marian reforms actually came very late (107AD or something).

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-14-2006, 23:44

it seems strange to exclude Rome from the requirement of an Imperial Palace

As Rome has such a massive population advantage over any italian city it is to be expected an imperial palace is build there long before it will be build in any other city (Capua probably).

shifty157

06-14-2006, 23:44

Im perfectly fine with certain restrictions like one unit per ship and balanced legions. Indeed there really arent any restriction that have been set as game rules that i mind.

I am just a very efficient person and the way we are playing now is not very efficient. Indeed its more clumsy and inefficient.

I dont worry about rebels and sneak attacks from other factions because I prioritize auxilia buildings. That way every single settlement can defend itself and if such a dire need arises every single settlment can contribute to defense. I can do this because of the amount of settlements ive captured combined with the fact that i only keep those armies which are necessary. I know my own capabilities as a player and the capabilities of my troops and i squeeze all of the potential out of them both for fast and decisive expansion. I look at our armies now and I feel that we have easily two times more troops than we actually need to fight a war against both Gaul and Carthage. Then I look at our cities now and see that they are horridly incapable of even defending themselves let alone contribute to a war effort.

Ultimately. Yes we are overstretched as it is because nobody listened to me a few weeks ago when i warned people that we should be building auxilia buildings. Now we can barely even support a war effort beyond our borders because our recruitment rate is abismal and reinforcements are few and far away. The only reason we can conquer both Gaul and Carthage now is because of our huge armies. Just like a bear can get through the winter on its excess fat so too can our armies get through Gaul and Carthage on their excess men. But after that we desperately need auxilia buildings to be built. Otherwise we wont at all be able to expand any more.

People are calling for a massive fleet to be built and I have no idea why. Its completely over the top and unnecessary. People want to strike Carthage directly which is more than foolish. If people actually listened to my plan and took two minutes to think about it they would realize that my plan doesnt even require a fleet as large as we currently have to successfully ferry a consular army to afrika. But for some reason people have just latched onto the idea of a massive and completely unnecessary fleet that will only further drain our treasury. The fleet can be added to the list of other military overexpenditures.

Youre right in being afraid of the 10000 denari per turn that the AI is getting. But thats all the more reason that we need to attack now and not sit around and play little games like building fleets and raiding little Gaulish villages. Sure itd be a tough fight but its better to let them have 10,000 denari for the finally 2 years of their existence than it is to let them have 10,000 denari for the next 10 years. At that point itll be even more difficult to take and hold Gaul because the cities will be bigger and theyll have access to better troops.

TinCow

06-14-2006, 23:48

Yeah im rather surprised how most everyone seems to be leaning toward an overly cautious strategy. I find the pace of expansion rather unnecessarily slow considering the size of our armies and what they are capable of.

I think its very reasonable in the next five years to conquer both Gaul and Carthage but I guess thats just me. Indeed if this were my game I would have already conquered Gaul and Carthage and invaded Greece and my economy would be doing a hell of alot better because of the number of territories id have and because I dont insist on guarding every square inch of land with a full legion.

I can't speak for others, but I full agree we could do both if we really wanted to. However, I vote against it for two reasons.

First, I'm trying to role-play my character given his traits, Roman history and events in our own game. We're already far larger than Rome was in 260 BC. For whatever reason, I think my character doesn't see Carthage as much of a legitimate threat and I play it as such. I can't justify saying conquest for conquest's sake, since the Romans at least had a reason for it each time. Perhaps if people got creative in 'engineering' a reason (like econ21 did) my character would be more receptive.

Second, I think we need to enjoy being small for a while. I always enjoy the early game in every campaign I play, no matter the mod. Once your empire becomes large it starts being a major pain to manage it and I know many people, like me, end up abandoning them before they actually finish the game. I love this PBM idea and I'd like to keep it interesting and managable for as long as possible.

On another topic, when do people want the Marian reforms to happen?

I say we'll know it when we need it. 220 sounds reasonable to me, but let's not set a difinitive date. I have a feeling we'll get to a point where it will either occur on its own (preferable) or we'll be getting tired of the pre-Marian units and be ready for a change. This is yet another reason why I'm loathe to expand too fast. I think it would feel wrong to control half the world with Hastati.

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-14-2006, 23:55

As econ21 said, shifty157, everyone has their own style of play. I like to play 'inefficiently' as it gives the AI advantages and makes the game harder and more 'realistic'. If you get elected I wish you lots of fun in playing it as you want it played.

TinCow

06-15-2006, 00:23

I'll take the assassin. Where is he posted?

He has a bio in the Library now.

econ21

06-15-2006, 00:43

It's a tight election so far - I make it 10 influence-adjusted votes for each of the three candidates! We don't have any contingencies for a tied vote - I'm inclined to let actual (none-influenced adjusted) votes be the tie breaker in such a case.

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 01:07

Hmm.. I'd like to join this as a player in the 'lower level' ?!

If I'm allowed in though, are all the rules and things needed to be in written in the second post? Thanks.

econ21

06-15-2006, 01:18

Hmm.. I'd like to join this as a player in the 'lower level' ?!

If I'm allowed in though, are all the rules and things needed to be in written in the second post? Thanks.

Welcome x-dANGEr! ~:wave:

Yes, the second post has pretty much everything. We're making some stuff up as we go along but the key points are in that post.

Being in the Lower House requires that you install the mod as detailed in the second post. I wonder if you could do that and then post back here, at which point, I'll assign you an avatar? I'll probably have to give you the one I just assigned to Zomby_woof, so before I disappoint him, I want to make sure you can get the mod working. Some others have had problems.

In the meantime, you can vote in the elections and on the 270 motions. The polls are only open for a day, then next First Consul will play for 20 turns.

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 07:04

Phew.. That was a long 6 hours DL festival.

At all costs, am getting my CDs this evening, so I can reply to you for sure tomorrow.

Though, I need some clarifications, like:

It says to install the naval mod, I need to install 1.3, then 1.5 and after that the Platinum mod, the it. Is 1.3 a necessity?

And, I can make some use of the Roman Armies rules clarification.. Like, what do you mean with allied troops (Auxiliaries)?

Thanks.

Mount Suribachi

06-15-2006, 07:11

Shifty, all the things you say about what we could do are true. But then, blitzing the map would mean the game would be over after 4 or 5 consuls. As we are atm, this PBEM has got more people involved and kept more people involved than any other, and I've been doing these from the beginning.

I, like Tincow & DDW am trying to RP as a Roman, fearful of expansion and foreign adventures. As for the 10,000 denarii giving the AI an advantage, well they need all the help they can get, right? My most fun playing TW games has been when its got really difficult, when the game stretches me & I'm hanging on.

But everyone is different, and like others have said, if and when you get elected Consul, you'll be able to play it your style ~:)

As for the Marian reforms, I find they always come wayyyyyy to early, like 100+ years. I wouldn't be sorry to not see them till the 2nd century BC.

Finally, I will be going away Friday morning, not coming back till Monday evening, so can who-ever is Consul make sure I'm nice and safe in some behind-the-lines fort, thanks.

econ21

06-15-2006, 08:57

Is 1.3 a necessity?

Yes, I believe it is.

And, I can make some use of the Roman Armies rules clarification.. Like, what do you mean with allied troops (Auxiliaries)?

One of the nice things about RTR is that each faction has so called AOR (area of recruitment?) troops that it can recruit - they are local troops that are available to recruit before a captured settlement is fully assimilated[1]. At the moment, we only have Italian AOR troops available- decent spearmen, swordsmen, skirmishers and cavalry. Now we have some Gaulish settlements, we will eventually be able to recruit Gaulish troops, including ultimately some Gaulish auxiliaries proper. In Sicily, we may eventually get some Libyan spearmen. IIRC, there are some regions where you can't recruit any allied troops.

Mercenaries would also count as allied troops, although some of these are very expensive.

If you look in the Senate library you will see some examples of armies that broadly follow our house rules.

[1]Assimilation is modelled by building auxilia buildings: IIRC it goes

Auxilia 1 (no troops)
=> Auxilia 2 (basic AOR troops)
=> Auxilia 3 (all AOR troops)
=> Provincial governorship (all AOR troops + basic core troops)
=> Roman citizenship (all troops)

The whole process takes time and in practice means that you can't immediately recruit in conquered areas, slowing down player expansion.

Braden

06-15-2006, 09:41

Marian Reforms – we should try to mod it so it doesn’t appear too early. They normally do and mean the Romans start fielding uber units before the other factions get a look in…..however, those are in normal games and not the slow paced PBM we’re constructing here…

….on that note, like others I’m purely RP’ing my character. I don’t have “traits” though so I’m having to just think of they mind-set of the Spy.

Quite easy as I LRP a Drow throughout the year in a fest system….so I’m quite used to the evil/sneaky/underhand characterisation.

Just to say that my character has been pressing for expansion in certain key areas since the start – Cisalpine Gaul for example from the start and more recently Carthage – he has his own reasons for this and I’ve actually considered a long-term agenda which is not apparent to the other players as yet (assuming he survives Africa!).

In Character he’s appalled at the cautious stand of the Senate, in particular this session (have a post pending about that), but OOC I understand that we may be deliberately hamstringing ourselves in order to make a more interesting game in the long run.

I’m very happy with the way the players are RP’ing the campaign via the Senate and I’m pretty certain that we wouldn’t play our own campaigns in this manner – myself included. We’d certainly be much more like Shifty suggests and expand on multiple fronts early on…but not in this game.

We’ve got to justify any expansion with in-game terms, and I for one think that’s just fantastic!

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-15-2006, 09:56

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 10:36

Welcome x-dANGEr,

I can confirm 1.3 is a necessary step in the patching process. 1.2 is not required, but HIGHLY recommended.

As to the Marian reforms, I am not inclined one way or the other and will go with the majority.
It is a point to note that the marian reforms also cause changes for most of the non-roman factions. Many of them will be able to recruit legion-like units as well and that can get nasty. One of my campaigns I was very overextended, reforms happened and several turns later my hastati were getting slaughtered by Pontus legionaire-clones. Took me 25 turns to get my first legionaires to the front. My pre-reform armies had been decimated by the computer in the meantime :laugh4:

Technical note : the next version of the M&N mod might not be savegame compatible as it will include the cognomen mod. Anyone who thinks about joining the lower house eventually may want to download the M&N mod soon. The good news is that RTR PE 1.6 will most likely be a 200 MB download instead of a 450 MB download. RTR PE 1.4 wasn't compressed.
So you're saying I need to DL more things. Links, please?

I've DL-ed:

RTR Platinum 1.4
RTR patch to 1.5
Naval Mod
Map fix
Patch 1.3
Patch 1.5

All ready to install on RTW as soon as I get it. Do I need anything else?

Thanks again :) (And sorry for being very-newbie-ish - My first try with RTR ~:) )

EDIT:

Why don't we make a Usergroup for The Will of the Senate PBM? Anyone who joins the PBM will join the group, and that's just about it. Better yet, each PMB campaign makes it's own group, and we turn the Throne Room to a gallery, where you see information bout groups, and by that decide to join them or not. Each group can only has one thread where it described how the group is working, how active is it and how fun is it. Any thoughts?

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-15-2006, 11:14

RTW 1.2 patch download :

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/rometotalwar/patch/222.html

As I said before, this is probably not necessary, but I HIGHLY recommend patching to 1.2 before patching to 1.3. I've looked and looked, but nowhere could I find a definitive answer that it was not required and the 1.3 patch is officially the 1.2->1.3 patch.

For the rest, see the install instructions in :

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1143829&postcount=2

I HIGHLY recommend making a backup of RTW 1.5 once you've patched up to there. This will save you much grief if the install process goes wrong later on.

You can try out if it works by downloading the latest savegame from :

http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/pbm/

savegame : 270-2-start.zip

Upload location :

http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Uploaders/pbmupload.php

Kindly not forget to zip files before uploading.

On another note :
I recommend the next first consul to remind the other players every time he asks them to play that the have to activate the 4tpy mod BEFORE saving as otherwise the dates will get messed up more than they are already.

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 11:28

I will keep a vanilla RTW 1.5 anyway to play MP. You know, am more of a MP player than a SP one.

TinCow

06-15-2006, 12:15

Looking at Motion 5.5, this raises an interesting point... we require 2/3 approval to pass a rule change. Does that mean 2/3 of voters or 2/3 of weighted votes? Not that I think it will get 2/3 either way, but I'm curious.

Also, if I am elected but Motion 5.5 does not pass; would it be possible for me to propose a 24 hour referendum on the matter? It is a somewhat fundamental Motion for my platform and would put me in an awkward position if I were elected but the Motion did not pass. It would be like electing FLYdude while passing a Motion forbidding a landing in Africa. Perhaps some opinions would change once the results of the election are final.

econ21

06-15-2006, 12:32

Voting is weighted, so 2/3 of the weighted votes. (I only referred to unweighted votes as the most democratic tie breaker.)

On motion 5.5, wouldn't enslavement of Gauls be almost as good for your project as extermination? It still adds to our coffers, looks like raiding and also adds to our existing settlements (you might want to make sure we have generals in the settlements you particularly want to benefit from the influx of slaves - personally, I'd recommend Capua and Ancona, as well as Roma, of course). Enslavement might be better than extermination if the intention is to let Gaul to survive and/or to repeat the exercise later. IIRC, we don't have a houserule against demolishing structures, so you are already free to do that.

But if FLYdude or shifty157 were elected with a motion not to invade Carthage, they would have to follow the motion or face the wrath of the Senate. In the latter contingency, I'd certainly vote for them to be removed from office in the mid-term (2/3 majority required). Of course, we don't have such a motion tabled, so that case is purely hypothetical (voting against a motion mandating an invasion of Carthage is not the same as voting for a motion not to inavde Carthage).

We don't really have a contingency for an emergency referendum at the moment, but there is always the mid-term session if you absolutely have to exterminate.

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-15-2006, 12:49

you might want to make sure we have generals in the settlements you particularly want to benefit from the influx of slaves - personally, I'd recommend Capua and Ancona, as well as Roma, of course

Don't forget the settlements in Cispine Gaul. We really need roads there, especially in Jenuensis.

econ21

06-15-2006, 12:52

Don't forget the settlements in Cispine Gaul. We really need roads there, especially in Jenuensis.

Good point - you might even pull governors out of all settlements but one (Jenuensis or wherever) if really want that settlement to grow.

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 13:14

I'm wondering, what does a: mean?

Praetorian Army
First Consul Army
Legion

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-15-2006, 13:27

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1143829&postcount=2

I also like to advise to read the senate library.

Mount Suribachi

06-15-2006, 14:07

Simon, I wouldn't get too hung-up on voting issues just yet. Anyway, I like the ambiguity, it allows more than one side to claim not only victory, but also the moral high ground. Think GWBs first election and the Florida result. Makes for great politics ~;)

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-15-2006, 19:57

I have another proposal for you econ21. As these questions creep up again and again I think it would be wise to move the information in post #1 of the in character thread and post #2 of the out of character thread to a more visible place.
Suggestions :
a) move it to the senate library (rather full already)
b) move it to a stickied thread - the W of the S - members and motions
c) move it to a stickied thread - the W of the S - rules and faqs
d) a combination of all three options or something else entirely
What do you think ?

Also it might be wise to notify the senators that a new senate session has started. Many upper house members don't visit very often and have the bad luck to miss the entire debate. What do you think ?

econ21

06-15-2006, 20:48

As these questions creep up again and again I think it would be wise to move the information in post #1 of the in character thread and post #2 of the out of character thread to a more visible place.

To be honest, I think we would have to answer questions again and again wherever we put the information. When people are starting out, they often can't absorb everything laid out in a reference style. I think the two posts are fairly visible and in logical places. As you say, the library is pretty full up. A FAQ thread might be best but I feel we are reaching out limit in terms of threads devoted to this PBM and can't really justify another sticky for it.

Also it might be wise to notify the senators that a new senate session has started.

Good idea - I'll do that.

x-dANGEr

06-15-2006, 23:13

This is driving me crazy. I installed the game, and then tried to patch it to 1.3. Though, when I lunch the installation, it keeps giving me this error:

https://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3804/error8sz.jpg

I tried everything.. Shut off every program, stopped Nortun Anti Virus, shut off the internet, cleared the temp files and restarted the PC; with NO use. Suggestions?

TinCow

06-15-2006, 23:36

Ok, I'll suck it up and live without extermination. While knocking down everything in sight would certainly be profitable and would definitely be in-line with my policy, I'm worried about the game effects of totally nerfing the Gauls. Ignoring the RP side of it, does anyone have any opinion on this? I'm sure it will be at least a while before I'm actually confronted with that issue, so there's time to discuss. It will take a bit to get organized before I start the expedition.

Death the destroyer of worlds

06-15-2006, 23:49

Perhaps it is the download.
Do you have enough hard disk space available ? Install programs tend to use vast amount of temporary HD space.

Otherwise :
Well, forget about updating to 1.2. first
Get the patches again from FilePlanet instead
http://www.fileplanet.com/102103/0/section/Rome:-Total-War-Series
Do a new vanilla install - test if it actually works.
Try again. Leave the CD in the drive just in case.
Test after every step if the program still works.

Otherwise :
I do suspect there is some nasty program still up and running on your machine. If the above doesn't work, it may be time to do some serious cleaning. Other possibilities are CD writer software. These are just guesses, I'm no expert on RTW security. Otherwise it might be best to check the RTW offical tech forum. http://www.totalwar.com/ -> rome -> forum

EDIT :
On the issue of tearing down buildings, the AI can build superfast on VH. I recommend tearing down the military buildings as well or you will be swimming in Gauls all the time. They're not a war with anyone else so they should be safe enough.

Glaucus

06-16-2006, 00:01

did you delete the map.rwm or whatever that file you have to delete is called?

anyways, go here and delete the files listed.
http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/index.php?showtopic=19871

econ21

06-16-2006, 00:05

TinCow: On the issue of knocking down Gaulish buildings, my personal inclination would be not to. The auxiliary line of buildings take ages to build, so you would be leaving them defenceless, unable to recruit troops. Presumably, the Spanish and Germans would just walk in after you left. From a historical point of view, while I can see raiding their territory would weaken them, I don't think it would totally stop them raising troops after you've gone.

If you leave the buildings, you will still get money from enslavement. As you vacate settlements, they will either rebel or revert to Gaul. They may train troops to challenge you, but they are still limited to one per turn per settlement, so it should take a while before troops recruited from them are a serious menace. And quite franky, the ravages of a marauding army should encourage the natives to take up arms.

Also, I'm not convinced we desperately need the money. I think the mod is designed so that you can't buy everything you want, at least initially, and that's refreshing after so many games when you have so much cash lying unspent, it corrupts your generals. But we do have enough money to support large armies and can construct priority buildings. In RTR generally, there is less need to build - you can recruit all the best troops anyway, so money does not play a role in getting you up the tech tree.

shifty157

06-16-2006, 06:08

Firstly I just saw the new maps in the library and they are amazing. Good job. It looks alot better now.

Secondly Im pretty sure that the mod uses a script to give Ai factions free army stacks if they run low.

X-danger:
I remember a while ago I got the same error. I dont remember how to fix it but I know there is a way and I think it was rather simple.

Ok. After some searching I foudn this as the solution to your problem:

If the error message says something about deleting your temp folder and such, then it's an Installshield error. In that case do the following:

go to "C:\Program Files\Common Files\InstallShield\Professional\Runtime" and delete a folder named "0701". See if this solves the problem.

Braden

06-16-2006, 09:10

@ TinCow,

As for not Exterminating – that’s good, Econ21 has suggested that your only income from this foray into Gaul might be Slave Trading which is a bit harsh I feel.

I think, that you should be able to demolish certain buildings whilst keeping Gauls ability to train troops – just select non-troop related buildings.

Temples/Shrines (certainly good Role play value in this one – “kill the barbarian Gods!”)

Any Sanitation building?

Other Ancillery buildings?

I’m not familiar with what buildings the barbarians can build but there should be 2-3 which can be taken down in each settlement. Sure it may effect upgrades (Armouries for example) but won’t prevent troop production.

To be honest Enslavement will effect troop production anyway as you’ll be taking a good proportion of the population away anyway.