View Full Version : Marian Reform
maskoolin
10-05-2006, 07:40
Hi everybody. Please tell me, i m playing as romans in 132 bc now and i ve read that the reform was in 133. so whats the matter with this ?
The reform occurs in 110BC (as it did historically). You just have to wait another 22 years (88 turns) before you get your proffesional Marian Army.
maskoolin
10-05-2006, 09:19
okeeee. thats a long time but thank you for the help :)
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
10-05-2006, 09:45
I thought the reforms were in 107BC.
I thought the reforms were in 107BC.
Actually yes they are, sorry.
So you actually have to wait another 25 years (100 turns) to get your proffesional army. :sorry:
Avicenna
10-06-2006, 14:09
At least it's a nice round figure. ~;)
Are there going to be constraints on the time you can get the Marian reforms in 0.80? Like in vanilla, where you have to meet criteria X and be at least at year Y or past it before it occurs. Or is it like RTR and just does it once you meet criteria X?
At least it's a nice round figure. ~;)
Are there going to be constraints on the time you can get the Marian reforms in 0.80? Like in vanilla, where you have to meet criteria X and be at least at year Y or past it before it occurs. Or is it like RTR and just does it once you meet criteria X?
You should read this:
We have dynamic conditions being worked on right now for all Roman reforms.
That is all I know, it will probably occur like vannila - it will happen after date Y if you have met criteria X.
Trithemius
10-07-2006, 07:07
You should read this:
That is all I know, it will probably occur like vannila - it will happen after date Y if you have met criteria X.
Or hopefully just criteria x?
Are there two stages to the Romani reforms? Camillan->Polybian, then Polybian->Marian?
Or hopefully just criteria x?
Are there two stages to the Romani reforms? Camillan->Polybian, then Polybian->Marian?
Thing is if it was to occur after criteria x then you could be having Marian reforms at an unrealistic date. For example the Marius reforms could occur in 199BC if you have completed the criteria.
I have never got this far in an Romani campaign, but I think there is a Marian->Imperial reform round about 14AD, although I am not sure.
CountArach
10-07-2006, 12:02
I thought the Imperial Reform was 30 BC with Augustus's ascension to Emperor?
Trithemius
10-07-2006, 14:43
Thing is if it was to occur after criteria x then you could be having Marian reforms at an unrealistic date. For example the Marius reforms could occur in 199BC if you have completed the criteria.
"Unrealistic"? If the team decides that the conditions of the historical reforms were x, y, and z and then defines these in the game then surely it is not unrealistic to allow the reforms to be enacted when these conditions are met, rather than also delaying any reforms to a minimum date? If the Republic expands twices as fast as it did historically then I don't see a problem in having reforms occur "early" - in fact this would be a major bonus to me! It would make the reforms more "realistic". Alternatively, if the Republic remained small then perhaps the neccessary conditions might never emerge, resulting in no reforms.
To me this truly dynamic model for reform triggering is superior to any kind of limitation on the basis of historical continuity.
The problem is that there are some things that cannot be simulated in game. The marian reforms were an answer to a number of things that didn't happen overnight, and some of these issues that plagued the roman army and social system cannot be measured in game, so there may be a need to delay them until after a certain point. However I'm not uptodate on the dynamic reforms code so I don't know what was finally decided.
Foot
I thought the Imperial Reform was 30 BC with Augustus's ascension to Emperor?
Mabye it is, like I said I haven't got that far in a Romani campaign.
"Unrealistic"? If the team decides that the conditions of the historical reforms were x, y, and z and then defines these in the game then surely it is not unrealistic to allow the reforms to be enacted when these conditions are met, rather than also delaying any reforms to a minimum date? If the Republic expands twices as fast as it did historically then I don't see a problem in having reforms occur "early" - in fact this would be a major bonus to me! It would make the reforms more "realistic". Alternatively, if the Republic remained small then perhaps the neccessary conditions might never emerge, resulting in no reforms.
To me this truly dynamic model for reform triggering is superior to any kind of limitation on the basis of historical continuity.
Yes they could occur early, but not too early. Marius reforms occurring in 199BC would just be unrealistic while Marius reforms happening in 155BC would be reasonable. There should be a date restriction on the reforms to prevent what happened in vanilla - reforms in 250BC!
Trithemius
10-07-2006, 15:03
The problem is that there are some things that cannot be simulated in game. The marian reforms were an answer to a number of things that didn't happen overnight, and some of these issues that plagued the roman army and social system cannot be measured in game, so there may be a need to delay them until after a certain point. However I'm not uptodate on the dynamic reforms code so I don't know what was finally decided.
Well I sure hope that there are no arbitrary limitations. I might be being extremely materialist but I think that the game can model most of the factors to a tolerable degree.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1241329&postcount=11 not all of these circumstances can be fully represented and so we will probably have to make concessions somewhere (but again I don't know what the final plans are for the reforms).
Foot
Trithemius
10-07-2006, 15:28
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1241329&postcount=11 not all of these circumstances can be fully represented and so we will probably have to make concessions somewhere (but again I don't know what the final plans are for the reforms).
From the post cited:
"I could go on and on but the point is, is that without the historical circumstances that made a larger permanent army necessary..."
I would argue that these circumstances are, essentially, economic in nature and that they can be modelled reasonably.
The game can detect army size, number of provinces, and the amount in a treasury. All this should be enough to allow for some kind of modelling of the economic pressures that led to the empoverishment of small farmers, the rise of the great estates, and the ensuing political turmoil which - combined with more mundane military concerns - created the conditions in which the reform process occurred historically.
True, but these actions that the player may take that can be measured would in truth have taken time before their effects would've been felt upon the general populace and roman social system. But RTW cannot model that, the effects would be instantaneous rather than gradual. Hopefully the scripters can put a time-delay on the process so that once reaching the required number of provinces, armies, victories or whatever the change is not immediate but takes a certain number of turns before the marian reforms take place.
Foot
Trithemius
10-07-2006, 15:44
True, but these actions that the player may take that can be measured would in truth have taken time before their effects would've been felt upon the general populace and roman social system. But RTW cannot model that, the effects would be instantaneous rather than gradual. Hopefully the scripters can put a time-delay on the process so that once reaching the required number of provinces, armies, victories or whatever the change is not immediate but takes a certain number of turns before the marian reforms take place.
Indeed! Is there a random number generator function accessible? Combining predictable triggers with a randomly generated delay (doesn't RTW vanilla do this for their Marian Reform?) might be ideal. Other "events" might be included which pop up as the requirements are met - indicating some of the social changes and upheavals that took place before the reforms finally expressed themselves.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-08-2006, 01:26
We already have three reforms.
Polybian
Marian
AugustanThese represent the major changes in society as well as the military. the Camilian->Polybian and Marian->Augustan differences are not that great in terms of gameplay.
What what I can see we have dates in there, but there are also some pretty specific conditions as well.
I don't see how a completely dynamic reform would be unhistoric. Having a roman faction expand at triple speed and engulfing africa spain and parts of gual by 180 bc would make it unhistoric if they werent near the marian reforms. One of the main problems the marian reform solved was the reliance on levied army's. A levied army is just unrealistic to have if their away from home for 2 decades at a time. In game having that much land makes it unrealistic to be shiping back legions of levied troops to italia. I do recall playing on VH/VH as romani taking out carthage southern gual and starting on spain by 200 bc. The slug match that insued was quite historic, but after taking spain by 170 BC it just became insane to be having that much land and still have an unprofessional army.
It might seem unhistoric for reforms to happen early but if the criteria is historic then it makes the game very historic.
_______________
Speak softly and carry tactical nukes.
BigTex
Ridicolus
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"
~Texas proverb
cunctator
10-08-2006, 11:29
The reforms are also used to show changes in roman society and some technical progress, as better artillery, which can't be accelerated ad infinitum simply by conquering territories faster than in history. However they can happen much earlier in game than in RL.
Zaknafien
10-08-2006, 21:41
You could make the argument that accelerated conquests of regions outside of Italia would prompt accelerated technological advances but I am in favor of generally historical reforms, simply for the sake of continuity and balance--generally, that is. I could see a range of +/- 50 years or so as a good range. The true cause of the "reforms" were a lack of land-owning citizens able to be recruited into the Republic's army. This was a direct result of the Second Punic War.
Hannibal had destroyed many farms and those surviving faced competition from cheaper produce which was now available in the provinces. Many peasants did not have the skill or resources to switch to other forms of production, and whilst the level of competition was not sufficient in itself to make viable farms untenable, it did prevent the restoration of many of the
farms destroyed by Hannibal. Many veterans' farms had been bought out by the state and wealthy equites, developed into plantations. (latifunda).
This severely lessened the amount of land-owning citizens who would qualify for military service.
What if there was not an Invasion of Italy, and the citizen-farmer persisted into the 1st century BC?
-Praetor-
10-08-2006, 22:37
You could make the argument that accelerated conquests of regions outside of Italia would prompt accelerated technological advances but I am in favor of generally historical reforms, simply for the sake of continuity and balance--generally, that is. I could see a range of +/- 50 years or so as a good range. The true cause of the "reforms" were a lack of land-owning citizens able to be recruited into the Republic's army. This was a direct result of the Second Punic War.
I think that the perfect trigger for the reform, together with the condition of an X number of years, is the conquering of an X number of provinces. The pre-marian roman armies, comprised of citizens and allied contingents, were not suited for long campaigns into distant lands. So, if the Roman Army conquers provinces that are too far away from home, which will inevitable happen when conquering 20+ or 30+ provinces, then the citizen armies will be unsuited for the task, since they have to be only a reasonable amount of months/years in service, in order to return home to continue with their agriculture ocupations...
Why not making that the triggers for the reform are both a number of years / provinces conquered?
Relative to the topic about the causes of the marian reforms, IMO they were many, amongst them:
-The increasing number of the army (given the increasing necessity of defense because of the extensive borders), and lack of citizens to fill their ranks.
-Horrendous defeats in the hands of the Cimbrii, Teutons and Gauls (Garumna, etc.).
-Extension of the empire.
One cannot restrict the cause of the reforms to one or two. But nevertheless I agree with Zaknafien about the fact that the lack of citizens was one of the most important cause of that reform. But the cause of the lack of citizens is debatable. (IMHO :sweatdrop: )
Bye!!!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-08-2006, 23:19
Marius' reforms had nothing to do with actually creating a professional army. They were about increasing the Legion's mobility to allow them to better match Jugatha in Africa and opening recruitment up to compensate for manpower problems.
In point of fact there was nothing wrong with the way the old army operated. It might not have been hugely felxable, but that is really a minor issue. Alexander's Army was basically designed to do just one thing, but he is still considered one of the greates generals ever.
If anything eliminating the Triarii was a BAD thing.
Zaknafien
10-08-2006, 23:23
That being said though, the reforms were not merely manpower and technological-related. The reforms would require a man of great foresight and tactical ability as well to enact them, a general who, for instance, could possess "Great Tactician" or "Knoweldge of Tactics" traits, and with alot of influence. Marius enacted many changes aside from legal ones--Changes were made to fighting formations with all the infantry now being armed alike. His restructuring of the army into cohorts, although practised previously, was regularised to form the basic unit of the legion. He was also particularly astute in developing a ‘regimental’ loyalty amongst the legions by providing a legionary eagle to act as a figurehead and rallying point for the troops. This one act clearly demonstrates his skill at command and remained a feature of legionary armies throughout the empire, perhaps being best exemplified during Caesar’s attack on Britain then the eagle-bearer of the 10th legion rallied the troops and “began to bear the eagle against the enemy.” The training of Marius’s soldiers is also a key feature in his reforms, with the men now being drilled along gladiatorial lines. They became better equipped with standardised equipment (no doubt drawing on Marius’s personal copper-mines in Spain), and changes to the design of their hasta into pilum meant that the enemy could no longer re-use them. Expecting the soldiers to carry at least some of their own equipment also reduced the army’s dependency on its baggage train.
Trithemius
10-09-2006, 06:41
The reforms are also used to show changes in roman society and some technical progress, as better artillery, which can't be accelerated ad infinitum simply by conquering territories faster than in history. However they can happen much earlier in game than in RL.
Since province accquistion is the principal form of economic expansion in the game, I would argue that they can be tied to expansion. Technical process does not happen without economic inputs and neither does expansion of the military capacity.
Trithemius
10-09-2006, 06:46
What if there was not an Invasion of Italy, and the citizen-farmer persisted into the 1st century BC?
I believed that the changes were caused by military successes and the economic dividends (and social class problems) these brought. I am interested in hearing other arguments however! :)
-Praetor-
10-09-2006, 07:30
What if there was not an Invasion of Italy, and the citizen-farmer persisted into the 1st century BC?
I believed that the changes were caused by military successes and the economic dividends (and social class problems) these brought. I am interested in hearing other arguments however! :)
The native agricultors couldn`t compete with the low price grain coming from Sicily and Egypt. Simple.
Is like what happened in my country with the shoes and textiles factories after the signing of the commerce treaties with China.
They also couldn`t compete against the latifundia, because of the increase of slave labor, which made possible the production of high quantitys of... everything, with extremely low costs.
So they ended up going into Rome and making part of the sloppy proletary class, and getting bread for free.
Avicenna
10-09-2006, 08:03
You should read this:
That is all I know, it will probably occur like vannila - it will happen after date Y if you have met criteria X.
Uhh.. thank you for repeating what I said?
k raso: wouldn't the latifundia be in Italy somewhere?
cunctator
10-09-2006, 09:19
Since province accquistion is the principal form of economic expansion in the game, I would argue that they can be tied to expansion. Technical process does not happen without economic inputs and neither does expansion of the military capacity.
We have a certain number of controlled provinces as well as a certain number of latifundia in Italia as conditions, besides a minimum year, a general with certain traits and some other things.
-Praetor-
10-09-2006, 18:52
k raso: wouldn't the latifundia be in Italy somewhere?
Yes, that`s why I put them 2 paragraphs below the egyptian grain (I`m ignorant, but not so much, thanks for asking :shame: ). But, thruith to be told, the latifundia could be found in Italy as well as in Sicily, and also in Hispania.
There were some latifundias even in Egypt, but they should be classified as hellenistic latifundia.
Those large estates could be found, in sum, in almost all the roman world, but they were most caracteristic of Italy (Specially Campania and Magna Graecia) and Sicily.
Trithemius
10-10-2006, 00:55
The native agricultors couldn`t compete with the low price grain coming from Sicily and Egypt. Simple.
Yes, and this is obviously an economic factor - and one that can be associated with the incorporation of these areas into Rome's sphere of influence.
They also couldn`t compete against the latifundia, because of the increase of slave labor, which made possible the production of high quantitys of... everything, with extremely low costs.
Another economic factor, again brought about by the expansion of the Roman sphere.
Am I to take it that you go along with a materialist view of history as well k raso?
Trithemius
10-10-2006, 00:59
We have a certain number of controlled provinces as well as a certain number of latifundia in Italia as conditions, besides a minimum year, a general with certain traits and some other things.
Well, I am not really enthusiastic about the general part (the trait system seems pretty complex and sometimes strange things happen - like murderous generals picking up Aesthete all of a sudden...) and I think that the minimum year is superfluous since the requirement of a certain number of latifundia (which need a certain level of settlement + the cash to spend on them + a desire to actually build them) and the conquest of provinces should be effective in restricting the occurrence of the reforms to the desired phase of the game.
-Praetor-
10-10-2006, 01:23
Am I to take it that you go along with a materialist view of history as well k raso?
Emmm, it appears so :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop:
cunctator
10-10-2006, 19:30
I think that the minimum year is superfluous since the requirement of a certain number of latifundia (which need a certain level of settlement + the cash to spend on them + a desire to actually build them) and the conquest of provinces should be effective in restricting the occurrence of the reforms to the desired phase of the game.
The problem is that with the 4 turns per year script you can tech up to any realistic conditions much too quickly, so that the reforms could happen many years or even decades before 200 BC.
Trithemius
10-13-2006, 06:27
The problem is that with the 4 turns per year script you can tech up to any realistic conditions much too quickly, so that the reforms could happen many years or even decades before 200 BC.
You can't "tech up" to population levels though, or to possession of provinces. A combination of these factors should do nicely, in my opinion.
maskoolin
10-14-2006, 13:56
and now i ve got 102 bc and there is no reform yet. for sure i got highest building level, in rome for example. what the heck i need these troops because ptolmaio is making troubles again :help:
and now i ve got 102 bc and there is no reform yet. for sure i got highest building level, in rome for example. what the heck i need these troops because ptolmaio is making troubles again :help:
Thats strange. They always happen in 107BC for me. Perhaps reforms aren't working at all in your campaign. Could you please answer this question?
Can Trarii form phalanx in your campaign?
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
10-14-2006, 20:10
Or, have you played multiple turns with the script off?
Darkarbiter
10-15-2006, 07:50
Well i think all reforms should be because the player is losing for a certain reason. For with the marian reforms i think it should be if the player is running out of population in rome and on the italian penisuala or if they get 30 provinces then lose a few back to 25. This would mean that the necessity is there so the reform should be. Just like how you are able to get kataphraktoi after you lose to them as selecuds and bactrians.
maskoolin
10-15-2006, 09:13
HI everbody. Yes Triarii still can form phalanx and what do you mean with " have you played multiple turns with the script off? " best regards
HI everbody. Yes Triarii still can form phalanx and what do you mean with " have you played multiple turns with the script off? " best regards
Reforms are not working in your campaign. The Polybian reforms occur 209BC and they remove the phalanx ability for the Triarii. I suggest you ask in the EB Technical Support Forum (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=127), you either have not had the script on at all (the script is the advisor popping up at the start of you campaign and asking you to press "show me how") or you have a bad install.
Avicenna
10-15-2006, 12:34
Or he hasn't built new triarii.
Or he hasn't built new triarii.
Fair point.
maskoolin
10-16-2006, 07:59
ok ok :( , i didnt have the advisor on, just noisy, anyway it must be a bug or something. well thanx for the help, i gonna try a new faction :laugh4:
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
10-16-2006, 08:51
The advisor should pop up no matter the advisor level settings, immediately upon seeing the campaign map for the first time. At which point click show-me-how... scripts, reforms, four turns-per-year, AI super treasury, and accurately timed historical events: will all be inabled. (You must click on a settlement and then show-me-how every time you load a saved game.)
maskoolin
10-16-2006, 21:11
so i can do it now now or what is your conclusio? because i really dont understand what u mean :S
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
10-16-2006, 21:45
:inquisitive:
I would say start a new campaign... when you select a faction, then it loaded... when it loads you will see the campaign map, centered on your capital... at this time, or when clicking on your capital (nothing else), in the top left of the screen a picture of the advisor lady guy will slide in... no?
EDIT: Victoria is gone? My bad, I never pay attention.
:inquisitive:
I would say start a new campaign... when you select a faction, then it loaded... when it loads you will see the campaign map, centered on your capital... at this time, or when clicking on your capital (nothing else), in the top left of the screen a picture of the advisor lady will slide in... no?
Lady advisor! EB killed Victoria off! It's a male advisor now and the advisor that you have now varies between factions! Anyway when the advisor turns up click "show me how" to activate the script so that you can have the multiple reforms and the full EB experience.
Lady advisor! EB killed Victoria off!
Yeh, well that annoying bitch wanted a pay rise, but we couldn't afford it, she left in a huff and we couldn't run the risk of her letting a few of our secrets out so we had her killed. :grin:
Motto: You should never ask for a pay-rise higher than it costs to have you killed by a professional. :laugh4:
Foot
maskoolin
10-18-2006, 08:29
ok now i ve understand what you mean. allthough its too late, thank you very much ~:)
oudysseos
10-18-2006, 11:22
It seems that Maskoolin's problems have been solved, but I still wanted to chip my two cents' worth in.
Just wanted to point out that most of the previous discussion in this thread seems to have centred on the positive dynamic conditions necessary for the various reform events- i.e. a certain number of provinces, population levels, various technical achievements (latifundia), etc. However I think that many of the "reforms" that we are speaking about were responses to negative conditions. The suspension of the property requirement for enlistment came about because of a lack of qualified men in general and a specific political need of Marius' in particular. But if Quintus Caecilius Metellus had quickly and decisively defeated the Numidians, Marius would have had no pretext for stealing the command from him. What price then the "Marian Reforms"?
The point that I want to make is that if the real Romans had been uninterruptedly successful and had easily defeated their enemies (as is usually the case when you play them as a faction) then there would have been little pressure on them to reform anything.
You don't fix what aint broke.
It is because of the great difficulties that the Romans faced during the early part of their expansion that they had to change, adapt, and reform. They never had a big navy before the first Punic war, for example, and if for some reason they had not expanded into North Africa they might never have developed one.
I, for one, am happy with an EB system that makes these reforms possible but not inevitable. But I'm going crazy waiting for the next build.
Just in case anyone's interested, a lot of my analysis is informed by the works of John Keegan and Jared Diamond. Holistic, not materialistic.
Trithemius
10-20-2006, 05:00
It seems that Maskoolin's problems have been solved, but I still wanted to chip my two cents' worth in.
Just wanted to point out that most of the previous discussion in this thread seems to have centred on the positive dynamic conditions necessary for the various reform events- i.e. a certain number of provinces, population levels, various technical achievements (latifundia), etc. However I think that many of the "reforms" that we are speaking about were responses to negative conditions. The suspension of the property requirement for enlistment came about because of a lack of qualified men in general and a specific political need of Marius' in particular. But if Quintus Caecilius Metellus had quickly and decisively defeated the Numidians, Marius would have had no pretext for stealing the command from him. What price then the "Marian Reforms"?
The point that I want to make is that if the real Romans had been uninterruptedly successful and had easily defeated their enemies (as is usually the case when you play them as a faction) then there would have been little pressure on them to reform anything.
You don't fix what aint broke.
It is because of the great difficulties that the Romans faced during the early part of their expansion that they had to change, adapt, and reform. They never had a big navy before the first Punic war, for example, and if for some reason they had not expanded into North Africa they might never have developed one.
Yes, but these social (and largel unmodelled aspects) can be reasonably attributed changes which can be modelled. The social climate of Rome would not have developed in the way that it did without the decline of the small farmer, the increase in urban poor, etc; and all of this was a result of expansion and ad hoc infrastructural developments.
I, for one, am happy with an EB system that makes these reforms possible but not inevitable. But I'm going crazy waiting for the next build.
Well, technically they are all possible, rather than inevitable, correct? I agree with you, that if the conditions are not met then reforms should not happen - but wasn't this true in vanilla RTW (albeit with far simpler conditions)?.
Just in case anyone's interested, a lot of my analysis is informed by the works of John Keegan and Jared Diamond. Holistic, not materialistic.
What's the rationale behind "holistic vs materialistic"? Diamond struck me as intensely materialistic, to be honest.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.