Depiction of imperial reforms

[Geoffrey S]

Seeing topics on the lorica segmentata, and the fact that it is not included because it is out of EBs timeframe, makes me wonder: why are the imperial reforms included in EB? The reason I'm asking is because it represents only a small part of the timeframe depicted, right at the end, and many campaigns are over and done well before the conditions can be reached. To me it seems like it would be better to shorten the period shown in EB to an enddate before the emperors; at the least, this would open up room for a few other (regional) units elsewhere, away from the (in my opinion) overrepresented Romans.

Is this an approach the EB would ever consider, or has considered? I love the Imperial units but must wonder if the unitslots could be better used elsewhere, considering the mod goals of a more balanced representation of Europe in that time.

[Pharnakes]

I have to admit that I do agree with this point of view, there was a thread started a couple of months ago about people getting the imperials, and I think only about half a dozen people said they had. Cohors impretoria are fasinaiting units, but surely the slots could be better used.

[Foot]

Personally I'm of the same opinion. But we would have to fight tooth and claw with the Roman guys to get them to scrap it.

Foot

[Lovejoy]

Hm.. maybe you should make it easier to get the imperial reform at an earlier age? The Cohors Impretoria are REALLY cool, and I dont think I would like to see some boring archers or whatever replace them :P

Most people plays rome the most, many people only plays as rome. I've never even got the first reform myself, but I dont mind having the roman faction really indept. The roman camp is really epic, I like that.

[Intrepid Adventurer]

Thing is, in real history, Roman Army kicked the other factions around and was the only one (AFAIK) that was reformed as much as it did. Most other factions had disappeared by the time they could do a second reform (if they had even had a first one).

Having said that, I'm still in my first year of my History Major, so EB Historians: please feel free to correct me! (:

[Foot]

Thing is, in real history, Roman Army kicked the other factions around and was the only one (AFAIK) that was reformed as much as it did. Most other factions had disappeared by the time they could do a second reform (if they had even had a first one).

Having said that, I'm still in my first year of my History Major, so EB Historians: please feel free to correct me! (:

I'm not entirely sure what relevance that has here. The question is whether the imperial reforms are enough of a change from previous military practice to be worthy of using several models and several unit slots. There are many other areas of the map that are severely lacking in units, and though we are trying to fill them, we'll hit the hardcode before we are satisfied.

And Lovejoy, I would prefer to flesh out another region of the map a lot more than to have another heavy infantry unit for the Roman brigade. But then that is just my opinion. Of course we could get rid of the imperial reform for 1.0 and just have an add-on that included it for those who wanted to play the romans.

Foot

[Redmeth]

I'm not entirely sure what relevance that has here. The question is whether the imperial reforms are enough of a change from previous military practice to be worthy of using several models and several unit slots. There are many other areas of the map that are severely lacking in units, and though we are trying to fill them, we'll hit the hardcode before we are satisfied.

And Lovejoy, I would prefer to flesh out another region of the map a lot more than to have another heavy infantry unit for the Roman brigade. But then that is just my opinion. Of course we could get rid of the imperial reform for 1.0 and just have an add-on that included it for those who wanted to play the romans.

Foot

For what it's worth I absolutely agree, no matter how hard the campaign or the faction you play by 125 90% of campaigns started are either completed or abandoned. Even the second celtic reforms are a bit too far. But the edge they have on the romans are that the Augustan reforms are pushed (or is it pulled) to a very early date. EB is variety, the bad part is that great units already done would be scrapped, so to avoid that some sort of mini-mod for people wishing to play Romani would keep everyone happy (using the mod should replace some of the last reform units for the celtics maybe or for the Casse as the 120BC 2nd Celtic reform is also very rarely achieved). Too bad because the Rycalawre are my favorite units.

[Foot]

For what it's worth I absolutely agree, no matter how hard the campaign or the faction you play by 125 90% of campaigns started are either completed or abandoned. Even the second celtic reforms are a bit too far. But the edge they have on the romans are that the Augustan reforms are pushed (or is it pulled) to a very early date. EB is variety, the bad part is that great units already done would be scrapped, so to avoid that some sort of mini-mod for people wishing to play Romani would keep everyone happy (using the mod should replace some of the last reform units for the celtics maybe or for the Casse as the 120BC 2nd Celtic reform is also very rarely achieved). Too bad because the Rycalawre are my favorite units.

Eventually the celtic reforms will become dynamic like the roman reforms (hopefully - I'll bring it up with Anthony), so time will be less of an issue.

Foot

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Of course we could get rid of the imperial reform for 1.0 and just have an add-on that included it for those who wanted to play the romans.

Foot
NOOOOO!!! ~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry:


:clown:

[Zaknafien]

Foot, no offense brother, but I will engage you in fisticuffs :laugh4:

[keravnos]

While I understand the logic behind the reason to abandon reforms, I must also agree that Romani should remain EXACTLY as they are. Imperial reforms are the best way to complete what history has shown to be the "best" faction of the game. Besides, if you persevere that long, threre has to be some "silver lining" in the end of it all hasn't there?

No, Romani should stay as they are, and the only thing that should change is that they should have MORE scripting so that as many of the aspects of Romani imperium can be depicted. My ideal for them in EB, is that one should finish a Romani game, then sit up and either mutter to himself in Romani or hit the stores trying to find a book about an aspect of their life that most amazed him.

If there is one thing I dig the most about in EB is our historical depiction of the Romani.

-Besides... Post Imperial reforms Romani invasion of the Sind... You KNOW you want to... ! :2thumbsup:

[Thaatu]

Personally I would like more scripting to all factions, not just Romans. I wouldn't be missing the last reform, especially if those units would be replaced with more regionals.

[Ravenic]

Personally, if the earliest Reform's date is moved up to a reasonable time (Gameplay-wise), I think the reforms should be kept.

Otherwise however, it's wasted space because literally six people have ever even seen the Imperial Reforms happen without modifying the code to make them earlier.

If the EB term is adverse to changing Imperial Reform's (I personally advocate completely dynamic reforms for all reforms, independent of an arbitraily-decided date), then scrap them and flesh out other area's.

[Geoffrey S]

While I understand the logic behind the reason to abandon reforms, I must also agree that Romani should remain EXACTLY as they are. Imperial reforms are the best way to complete what history has shown to be the "best" faction of the game. Besides, if you persevere that long, threre has to be some "silver lining" in the end of it all hasn't there?

No, Romani should stay as they are, and the only thing that should change is that they should have MORE scripting so that as many of the aspects of Romani imperium can be depicted. My ideal for them in EB, is that one should finish a Romani game, then sit up and either mutter to himself in Romani or hit the stores trying to find a book about an aspect of their life that most amazed him.

If there is one thing I dig the most about in EB is our historical depiction of the Romani.

-Besides... Post Imperial reforms Romani invasion of the Sind... You KNOW you want to... ! :2thumbsup:
I can see where you're coming from, but much as I like the depiction of Rome (easily the most comprehensive of the mod) I think that in some ways the emphasis potentially detracts from other factions or areas of the map, and in particular the fact that Augustan troops are put in the mod when it's extremely rare for people actually to get that far. To me their inclusion seems a bit too much along the lines of because people think they're awesome (which they are) rather than because of how relevant they are to the overall mod goals.

That is why personally I think the enddate should be made earlier to miss out the Imperial troops, and their slots be used to flesh out some areas of the map which right now are somewhat underrepresented; certainly in EB2, where there are more factions needing a decent roster.

[The Errant]

I can see where you're coming from, but much as I like the depiction of Rome (easily the most comprehensive of the mod) I think that in some ways the emphasis potentially detracts from other factions or areas of the map, and in particular the fact that Augustan troops are put in the mod when it's extremely rare for people actually to get that far. To me their inclusion seems a bit too much along the lines of because people think they're awesome (which they are) rather than because of how relevant they are to the overall mod goals.

That is why personally I think the enddate should be made earlier to miss out the Imperial troops, and their slots be used to flesh out some areas of the map which right now are somewhat underrepresented; certainly in EB2, where there are more factions needing a decent roster.

Ehm. Does that mean M2TW has the same amount of units as RTW?
EB is already running the limits. How are you going to fit in more units for the new factions if you got to keep all the old ones in?

[Foot]

Ehm. Does that mean M2TW has the same amount of units as RTW?
EB is already running the limits. How are you going to fit in more units for the new factions if you got to keep all the old ones in?

Has the same number of units, but far more models. We've got 40 unit slots set aside for the new factions, a few of the new factions can share with other factions, but certainly we'll be cutting it fine.

Foot

[The Internet]

As anyone who knows me will tell you, i love my Romans, i always play them in my campaigns and always play them in MP, BUT i do believe that they are pretty well fleshed out right now and that the imperial reforms are so far along that maybe it would be a good idea to leave the imperial reforms and flesh out another faction that needs/deserves it more.


EB has become a mod that is more than just the Romans, they are probably the best faction to play but EB has also concentrated a lot on other factions that wouldn't get a look in on other mods and i think this is an aspect that should be expanded on with the reforms.


I know some will be gutted about the loss of the imperial reforms but as has already been said, a mini mod could be made to put them back and that not a lot of people ever get to the stage to aquire the imperial reforms so not a lot of people get the experience them.



:2cents:

[Imperator]

I am a Romani fan, and I for one would be deeply grieved to see my pretty legiones go. First of all, it doesn't make much sense to me to drop such pretty soldiers, which are among the most exact and perfect in terms of popularity and accuracy (thanks to the abundance of sources) in favor of some obscure MIC tribe-unit that people will take pot shots at EB for. (Ex- Do we really know they wore scarves over their left shoulder??? I want primary sources!")

The further into history we go, the more speculative the units become- with few exceptions. Therefore, we know that the units around 272-200 are bound to be the most accurate, while later on they are all 100% speculation. How can anyone know what kind of troops Carthage or Macedon would have fielded if they were around in 50 BC? If we knock off the legionaries, then by the 1st century AD, we're in TOTAL improvisation-land in terms of units. So lets keep the legionaries- the mod is about accuracy, so let's keep those units we know to be accurate (and cool) and speculate only when necessary.

[Pharnakes]

I don't think we (at least I'm not) are proprosing removing the imperials and giving the slots to reform units for other factions, just giving the slots to other factions, in some cases they're desperatley needed (Sab'yn, Pontos) prehaps being the most needful. We are not trying to interfeer with the historic acurracy of the mod, just improve the gameplay for the majority of players, who, afterall, will never reach the imperial reforms.

[Zaknafien]

there are actually a few accuracy problems in our current Roman skins, but these are being remedied as we speak.. again, top secret. :)

[keravnos]

I am a Romani fan, and I for one would be deeply grieved to see my pretty legiones go. First of all, it doesn't make much sense to me to drop such pretty soldiers, which are among the most exact and perfect in terms of popularity and accuracy (thanks to the abundance of sources) in favor of some obscure MIC tribe-unit that people will take pot shots at EB for. (Ex- Do we really know they wore scarves over their left shoulder??? I want primary sources!")

The further into history we go, the more speculative the units become- with few exceptions. Therefore, we know that the units around 272-200 are bound to be the most accurate, while later on they are all 100% speculation. How can anyone know what kind of troops Carthage or Macedon would have fielded if they were around in 50 BC? If we knock off the legionaries, then by the 1st century AD, we're in TOTAL improvisation-land in terms of units. So lets keep the legionaries- the mod is about accuracy, so let's keep those units we know to be accurate (and cool) and speculate only when necessary.

Exactly. Even by being there, the Imperial Romani (post reforms) add a whole new level of realism. Besides, I don't like to chop off historically correct units for whatever reason. :no:

[Reverend Joe]

I personally advocate completely dynamic reforms for all reforms, independent of an arbitraily-decided date
I like this idea a lot; being a cheatin' mother scratcher, my Romani (and other empires as well) used to expand at absurd rates (I don't play anymore, as I lack the necessary computer... and game.) However, I was eternally frustrated in my efforts because my support base could not keep up. Removing date limits would make it a lot easier for lazy players such as myself to keep the game interesting.

I know, cheating and generally lazy gameplay (like playing on M/E... don't hurt me...) is not exactly in the spirit of EB, but then, some people just want to have a little fun, and satiate their bloodlust and megalomaniacal in a slightly more meaningful fashion than with custom battles, without expending a lot of effort (I blame the pot.) After all, conquering the known world in 50 years has a certain... relaxing quality.

And no, Vanilla does not suffice. No way can flaming pigs, dudes with theatre masks and knives, and old screaming naked women with wrinkly tits make up for absolutely historically perfect legionaries and beautiful, golden Hypaspists. I demand beautiful, stark realism with which to satiate my megalomania! :smash:

[Veris]

The Imperial reforms are excellent and are part of what gives the Romans such a great depth.

The only problem is the ridiculously long time needed to reach B.C 125. As has been stated, very few games reach this date, partially since it's just 147 years at the very earliest, but also because as time goes on turns become much longer. The first years of Rome might be finished in minutes, but when you have your sprawling Mediterranean Empire turns will take far longer: 5-10 minutes being great and 30-60 if there are multiple battles. It's highly impractical and thus without modding the date most people don't get to see the Imperial cohorts in action.

Thus, the units seem to be a big waste in the current state, since so few people actually don't get to see them (sure you can mod the date, but that should not be an argument to leave them in their current state of almost-never-seen). Thus, a pretty simple solution would be to accelerate the reform times. Looking at the a.i faction progression thread, most people don't go too far past B.C 200 if they even get to there, making it reasonable to have the Marians before then and the Imperials sometime afterward or something of the sort.

[Pharnakes]

I'm not the eb team, but I think this is the one possibilty that is definatley not going to happen. Afterall, if one must have the reforms, ehich I personaly don't think one should, then at least make them historicaly acurate.

[QwertyMIDX]

Not speaking for the EB team or anything, but I'm pretty sure we won't ever sacrifice to historical accuracy of the reforms for the sake of gameplay. More likely to just remove them completely.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The reforms have already been made available early. For those of us who played v0.7x, the reforms were just something you had to wait for (107BC until the Marians).

The date requirements are there to represent things that are not as tangible. Things like technology advancement, understandings of current equiptment, enemies adapting to current equiptment, social changes, generations dying and being replaced, change in leadership, change in stability, etc.

[sgsandor]

Please please keep the imperial reforms....I love them so much!

[mAIOR]

But keeping the imperial reforms as they are seem to invalidate the statement of Lorica segmentata not being in the time frame... I mean it appeared more or less in time of the emperors (not widespread use of course) but still I find this argument incoherent with not implementing LS and then making the imperial happening so early. I do not agree they should be on the exact historical date. I much prefer the dynamic system.
But this is just something I'd like someone to explain...



Cheers...

[Imperator]

A few simple reasons why NOT to lose our precious legions:

1) Abundance of information about them means they are some of the only late-game units NOT based on speculation

2) Popularity of Romani and, specifically those nifty legionaries, mean that losing them could hurt EB's "sellability" to new fans. People just like Legionaries more than some random tribe unit only recruitable in some desolate Afghan or Bakrian province. Those legionary skins are just too cool to give up lightly.

3) The fact that few people make it past 125 BC is not a valid arguement. If EB only made units that people were likely to see, by 50 BC there would be such little unit diversity it would make vanilla look like an explosion of color and novelty. :laugh4: Besides, what if EB did other stuff like that? Most people play the Romani, and very few play far-off ones like Saba, Saka, etc, so should we just let them go in favor of more Roman-centric ones?*

4) There are already sooooooo many units in EB, would losing our legionaries, whose value are clear from points 1, 2, and 3, really be worth adding yet another barbarian tribe MIC, or yet another phalanx unit, or yet another random spear-unit or horse archer from the east?

5) The Romans deserve a little something for their hard work conquering the entire Mediteranean, don't they? Why include some irrelevant tribe-unit whose impact on history stretched a grand total of 5 square kilometers when you could include the legionaries who fought and dominated the known world? :smash:

I rest my case.

[Wardo]

Keep your dirty fingers away from my beautiful imperial units! :smash:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But keeping the imperial reforms as they are seem to invalidate the statement of Lorica segmentata not being in the time frame... I mean it appeared more or less in time of the emperors (not widespread use of course) but still I find this argument incoherent with not implementing LS and then making the imperial happening so early. I do not agree they should be on the exact historical date. I much prefer the dynamic system.
But this is just something I'd like someone to explain...



Cheers...

Lorica Segmentata comes in just 23 years before our end date and doesn't become anywhere near widespread until around 25AD. By contrast the Imperial Reforms happened around 30 BC when Augustus emerged as the sole Roman ruler. Added to which, we consider the reforms to be a logical step in Rome's developement as a power which had a demonstratable effect on her society.

By contrast Lorica Segementata had no demonstatable effect on the performance of the Legions.

[blacksnail]

The consistent justification for adding LS is "but it looks kewl" rather than any actual historical basis. That, I'm sure, reinforces its complete absence from the mod.

[mAIOR]

I'm not saying it's because it's cool and franqly, I don't care if it's in or not...
I only stated that as Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla said, the LS came 23 years afer the "imperial reforms" and the imperial reforms didn't strike until 30BC. So, if you can have them quite earlier, why the argument that LS wasn't introduced because the historical time-frame doesn't match doesn't that mean the Imperial reforms shoudn't happen as well (not in this time frame at least)?
THey were a tech development not as steep in it's changes in the legion as the reforms but it just buggs me.


Cheers...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How about because they would add nothing, barely feature in the time frame and the resulting unit woulf have lower armour than the current legionary?

[Geoffrey S]

The consistent justification for adding LS is "but it looks kewl" rather than any actual historical basis. That, I'm sure, reinforces its complete absence from the mod.
But to be honest, to me that exact same reasoning seems to be the basis of adding Imperial reforms to EB rather than cutting the game short by some fifty years to allow for a more accurate depiction of the first hundred years or so.

Most posts (not necessarily by team members, mind) argue that the units are now there, they look nice, they are a reward for the few Roman players who persist for that long, the most is known about them rather than "yet another barbarian tribe MIC, or yet another phalanx unit, or yet another random spear-unit or horse archer from the east"... but thus far, little in the way of justifying their inclusion on the basis of EBs design philosophy of a more equal depiction of all factions on the map, not just those about which the most is known.

The further into history we go, the more speculative the units become- with few exceptions. Therefore, we know that the units around 272-200 are bound to be the most accurate, while later on they are all 100% speculation. How can anyone know what kind of troops Carthage or Macedon would have fielded if they were around in 50 BC? If we knock off the legionaries, then by the 1st century AD, we're in TOTAL improvisation-land in terms of units. So lets keep the legionaries- the mod is about accuracy, so let's keep those units we know to be accurate (and cool) and speculate only when necessary.
Speculative, yes. But to a certain degree that is inevitable. No, there isn't as much evidence for equipment around the Baltic as for Imperial legionaires, but that in no way means the team shouldn't attempt to fill in the gaps in some way. Not depicting troops native to certain regions, certainly around the start date, is to me a greater crime than some speculation based on what little is actually known. Thus far I think a very good balance has been struck overall, this particular exception notwithstanding.

Note, I'm not proposing hypothetical units for factions who survive past their historical enddate as you implied, rather freeing up unit slots for areas which right now are less developed unitwise. Members of the team have mentioned previously that the tight limit is awkward, because it makes it difficult to represent all areas on the map as much as they would like: this implies that there is good evidence for other units, not pure speculation.

The fact that the EB team is reserving slots for factions for EB2 is promising, in my opinion.

[The_Mark]

Eventually the celtic reforms will become dynamic like the roman reforms (hopefully - I'll bring it up with Anthony), so time will be less of an issue.

Foot
Foot, see our reform scripting thread - they're all but done, no need to pester Anthony about them.

[Watchman]

...and the resulting unit woulf have lower armour than the current legionary?I've a kind of hard time accepting that claim, unless it is in the context of crappy metallurgy or somesuch (which would seem somewhat odd given that they were starting to make wide use of good solid iron helmets around that time...). Overlapping lames were what replaced mail and lamellar and such in quite a few corners of the world a while later, after all...

[Imperator]

How about because they would add nothing, barely feature in the time frame and the resulting unit woulf have lower armour than the current legionary?

I've a kind of hard time accepting that claim, unless it is in the context of crappy metallurgy or somesuch (which would seem somewhat odd given that they were starting to make wide use of good solid iron helmets around that time...). Overlapping lames were what replaced mail and lamellar and such in quite a few corners of the world a while later, after all...

Uh-oh...I smell an all-out, no-holes-barred, no-quarter-given "Segmentata vs Hamata" arguement stewing!
:smg: :hmg:

[Geoffrey S]

Which is not the idea. Discussions on which armour is better can go get a room. I'm genuinely interested in the views among the EB team on this matter, as I can imagine opinions would be somewhat split.

[mAIOR]

So am I. Altough I agree with watchman on this.
But, like Geoffrey said. It'd be better to cut the game short and better represent some other factions than to have imperials. I just asked because it seems inconsistent. Doesn't it seem logical that if the reforms happened 100 years earlier the bases for further development would be there earlier??


Cheers...

[keravnos]

As I said before, the thought of losing absolutely correct, historical and well documented units, WITHIN our timeline is dead wrong. I am totally against it, and this is my own, personal opinion.

If you want conquer the world with pedites extraordinarii, roarii and hastati Nobody stops you. Yet if you persevere you should be awarded with some of the best of the units ingame. Historically they also were too late. By the time they were introduced, most of the empire was already in place. That didn't stop them being introduced. Professional soldiers, standardized equipment and training, better weapons and armour, THE WORKS. How could we miss that? And this, especially for a mod that takes pride in the research done (and still continues) on its Romani, well, it would be a major fault.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've a kind of hard time accepting that claim, unless it is in the context of crappy metallurgy or somesuch (which would seem somewhat odd given that they were starting to make wide use of good solid iron helmets around that time...). Overlapping lames were what replaced mail and lamellar and such in quite a few corners of the world a while later, after all...

I'll deal with the second part of your point first. Iron helms were never in widespread use during the principate. The fact is that most iron helms are recovered from rubbish tips whilst most bronze ones were lost. Bronze was usually recycled, as evidenced by the satripping of bronze fittings, and silverering, from iron helms. In other words it's an archaeological mirrage.

As to the level of protection it basically has to do with the poor design of the armour. Reduced overall coverage in adition to lames that don't really overlap and outright gaps in places make the armour considerably less effective than you might think. It has also now been shown that you can get a dagger up between the plates and into the belly.

[Watchman]

I'll deal with the second part of your point first. Iron helms were never in widespread use during the principate. The fact is that most iron helms are recovered from rubbish tips whilst most bronze ones were lost. Bronze was usually recycled, as evidenced by the satripping of bronze fittings, and silverering, from iron helms. In other words it's an archaeological mirrage.Bronze was also AFAIK relatively valuable, and unlike iron doesn't suffer overmuch from the "march of time". Iron was and is conversely quite abundant and relatively cheap. Guess which would have had the priority for recycling ?

Anyway, that's beside the point. The point is that they had the technological savvy to make good single-piece iron helmets; that's certainly enough to make the lames in decent metallurgical quality (especially as the manufacture of the LS was tricky and demanding enough to have to be left to the "higher tech" manufacturing centers), unless of course some subcontractor was again trying to pull a fast one.


As to the level of protection it basically has to do with the poor design of the armour. Reduced overall coverage in adition to lames that don't really overlap and outright gaps in places make the armour considerably less effective than you might think.Unless I'm entirely mistaken the lames were leathered to each other in the virtually universal fashion of laminate armour (the sliding-rivet alternative isn't relevant here AFAIK), which would seem to require at least a slight overlap at the edges. Regardless, even a single layer of smooth worked iron plate is anything but easy to get through; and leaving aside the detail I'm somewhat sceptical of the extent of the gaps, actually aiming an attack so it could exploit them ought to have been difficult indeed in battle.

As for the extent of coverage, it's no worse than what you have with solid breastplates and most other cuirasses and corselets, and seems to have been regarded as largely sufficient in most instances (the practice of adding pendant defenses for the upper legs and hips having never been universal).


It has also now been shown that you can get a dagger up between the plates and into the belly.You can also bypass full plate by stabbing a dagger through the visor or the armpits, and indeed these were among the more common ways men so equipped were actually killed... after first being incapaciated by other means. Doing it while the other guys is still up and fighting back is rather a lot easier said than done however.

Moreover the claim that the LS was a poor piece of armour runs into a bit of a logical problem. Armour design is a field where evolution is rather literally cutthroat, and ideas that don't work get weeded out damn fast in practice. It seems very difficult to believe a culture as pragmatic as the Romans would have expended so much resources and effort equipping as many of its soldiers as manufacturing capacity allowed with these complicated, expensive and logistically troublesome high-tech corselets if there had not been a valid reason to. They were later abandoned as too costly and too troublesome for the needs of troubled times, certainly; but that is a developement of the strategic and logistical spheres that does not as such have any connection to the actual battlefield performance of the item.

[Ludens]

Gentlemen, although I always enjoy reading your discussions on military equipment, would you please create another thread for discussing the effectiveness of LS? Let's keep this one on-topic.

[Watchman]

:sorry2:
Yes officer.

[blacksnail]

The consistent justification for adding LS is "but it looks kewl" rather than any actual historical basis. That, I'm sure, reinforces its complete absence from the mod.


But to be honest, to me that exact same reasoning seems to be the basis of adding Imperial reforms to EB rather than cutting the game short by some fifty years to allow for a more accurate depiction of the first hundred years or so.
The Imperial reforms have no actual historical basis? I'm very confused.

[Imperator]

The Imperial reforms have no actual historical basis? I'm very confused.

No, the Lorica Segmentata (ie that stuff you see on hollywood legionaries) doesn't become widespread until after 14 AD, so it's out of EB's timeframe. The Imperial Reforms are 100% accurate, but some people think it's silly to include units that late in the game when they could chop them out and add more content to the early game. I say, why not move the end date back to about 50 BC if we're going to give such low priority to late-game units? :smash:

[Geoffrey S]

The Imperial reforms have no actual historical basis? I'm very confused.
I was referring more to the "looks kewl" than the historical basis section of your post; although what I'm trying to argue is that, considering the goals of EB, the Imperial reforms have just as little place in the mod in my opinion. They are historically accurate due to the large amount of evidence, yes, but are they historically relevant to the period EB represents? That I doubt, and like Imperator I wonder if the mod goals would be better served by ending the game before such reforms and focusing on earlier units elsewhere in their place.

What I do find an interesting and more agreeable reasoning is that they do represent the standardisation of a whole army for the first time. But again, I believe its too far out from the centre of attention of EB and beyond what most players ever reach to be included over more relevant content nearer to the starting date, certainly since it means areas of the map and other factions may remain underdeveloped as a consequence.

[keravnos]

The Imperial reforms have no actual historical basis? I'm very confused.

The imperial reforms were done after the empire was actually done, and for the explicit purpose of creating a "professional" force with standard armament that could fight any/all of Roma's enemies, with the aid of local auxilliaries (which were sometimes as many or even double the size of Romani professional trooops). The auxilliaries were mainly skirmishers/archers and deffinitely cavalry.

I said it before I will say it again, however many times I will have to. Imperial reforms and the soldiers that these will bring you are actually the MOST ACCURATE units that EB has, for the exact reason that they are the most documented. "Golden eras" tend to have a lot of people talking/writing about them, and Octavianus Augustus and Perikles had that thing in common. Too many things are known of their time, in contrast to previous or later ones.

I do believe they were "upped" up historically, as much as they could have been without distorting history. Any higher up, and you might as well give the Romani tanks and rockets, because Imperial units at the beginning of EB timeline, might have had guns and ammo. YES, they were that good! YES, they could fight any/all enemies of Roma at the time. And if you know them of one defeat at Teutoburg forest, then you forget 100 victories which aren't as well documented as their one defeat.

In fact, I must say that it isn't EB you should be worried about, (we really DON'T NEED the unit space that IMPERIAL REFORMS take), it is the fact that most people can't persevere long enough to have them. While I understand the "urge" to move on to another faction, put it plainly, if they can't wait for the Imperial reforms for the Romani, well people may very well not need them, BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN, WERE UBERCOOL, AND IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE TIME TO HAVE THEM, THEN YOU PROBABLY NEEDN'T HAVE JOINED THE ROMANI.

Yes, I am mad, and I am one of those people who have spent a lot of time double/triple checking some trivial facts for many units, some of them you will not see. I understand firsthand the actual pain the Romani crew went to verify if the Pugio was 8.7 or 8.6 cm's long at the beginning of the Imperial time.

Some of you may consider me a UBER ROMANI FAN. I don't think so. In fact when I was younger I hated them with a passion, having seen first hand the amount of devastation that Epiros suffered in 167 BCE (In 3 different archaeological sites in Epeiros). 10 nuclear bombs would have left more survivors in Epiros then the Romani did. But that doesn't change the fact that they were the best army of their time. (And that was prior to Imperial reforms). Post them, they were basically invincible.

This is what the Imperial reforms are all about. Historically "cheating". Having some troops so good that you can basically throw them at anyone/anything and not worry. Is that bad? No, you persevered through Roarri and hastati for a long tome. Is it ahistorical? Hell no, this is JUST how it happened. Should it happen earlier? Well if it does, I think we at EB can give the Romani assault rifles and Cevlar because those two will have less of an influence on the Romani devellopment than Imperial legionnaires at 272 BCE.

Thanks for reading thus far.

[Foot]

That has never been the argument here, neither that the imperial reforms make the romans too hard nor that they are unhistorical. The question is neither whether the units have had a lot of work put into them, nor whether the reforms a "ubercool". The question is entirely, given the limitations of RTW with regards to resources, and given the imperial reforms use of a few of those resources are the arguments for the inclusion of the imperial reforms strong enough to overcome the need to better represent many areas at the start of our timeframe?

There is no question that the height of the Roman Empire is one of the best documented periods of our historical timeperiod, but this fact does, in my opinion, does not strengthen the argument, to any degree, for the inclusion of the imperial reforms. If we were to take this argument to its absurd conclusion, namely that those factions and areas of the mod with the most historical evidence get the most resources, then factions such as the Sweboz, Hayasadan, Saba and the like would be left with very few troops indeed. In fact, counting from the direct evidence, both archaelogical and textual I would only be happy with a light cavalry unit, a heavy, armoured cavalry unit and one unit of spearmen. Whether or not the imperial age of the Roman empire is well documented or not is neither here nor there when it comes to the question at hand, namely "given the limitations of RTW with regards to resources, and given the imperial reforms use of a few of those resources are the arguments for the inclusion of the imperial reforms strong enough to overcome the need to better represent many areas at the start of our timeframe?"

Perhaps listing the arguments for and against the inclusion of the imperial reforms would be a good way to go. Oh, and we are short on unit slots so to free up some more, especially given that Romans are not even close to being under-represented, is a legitimate enquiry. So far all I have seen for the "pro Imperial Reform" posters have been fanboy posts, with a slight hint that to denounce the Imperial Reforms is some sort of blasphemy.

Foot

[keravnos]

I completely understand that "blasphemy" you speak of but the answer here is "Please CA, give us more unit slots" rather than "chop off what we have so that we may plan for tomorrow".

Besides, it isn't set in stone that M2TW should absolutely/positively have 500 units top, or is there?

This way, both the factions that feel left out, will be completed and the Romani will keep their magnificent war machine.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Hmmm, here my brief opinion:

I'm not a fanboy, and I say, keep the reforms.

Since I watched Gladiator, I was a big fan of the Romans. But with reading Tom Holland's Rubicon. The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic, this opinion changed, and it changed even more with playing EB. I'm just not that fan anymore, seeing what great civilizations, kingdoms, dynasties were annihilated by the glory-seeking juggernaut from the Tiber river.

So I'm even a bit anti-Roman, but I say let's keep the reforms in place. Why? Because of the same reason that Lorica segmentata won't be included: It wouldn't be historical to let the IRs out. The IRs are the logical consequence of the evolution of the Roman state from an italic power to a global superpower, with all it's internal struggles and the final change from a republic to despotism. The Roman res publica just couldn't function anymore, because the glory and power (basically all a republican Roman ever seeked) that could be achieved by a single person was so gigantic that the res publica was inevitably to collapse.

Bearing that in mind, we see that the collapse of the res publica is the consequence of the player reaching near the victory conditions. The victory conditions for the Romans are well known, they can be summarized "conquer the known world". So the Imperial reforms are not only logical, but also a reward for the player who achieved such and spent such a great amount of time.

So please keep the Imperial reforms.~:)

[Foot]

I completely understand that "blasphemy" you speak of but the answer here is "Please CA, give us more unit slots" rather than "chop off what we have so that we may plan for tomorrow".

Besides, it isn't set in stone that M2TW should absolutely/positively have 500 units top, or is there?

This way, both the factions that feel left out, will be completed and the Romani will keep their magnificent war machine.

That is not an answer, that is evading the question. Let me give an example:

A hospital in a poor nation at war does not have enough medical supplies for the wounded in its care. What is the best way, given that there is a limited number of supplies, to ration them out to the wounded. Your answer, it would seem to me, is to pray to God for some more medical supplies. Well let us work on the premise that no miracles will be occurring to solve our problem. Do we hand them out on a first come first served basis? Do we hand them out on the basis of who needs the most care? Do we hand them out on the basis of a utilitarian principle, so that we use the supplies to help the most number of people?

Your answer is about as much use to us in this situation as some doctor in that hospital praying to God for more medical supplies. Lets do the best we can with what we have.

Also this discussion is about EB1 not EB2. We can be relatively certain that RTW won't be having any of its hardcodes lifted or increased, but we still need to make a decision, not for the franchise, but for this particular version of the mod that is made for RTW and RTW's hardcoded restrictions.

Finally, in the highly unlikely event that MTW2 does get more than 500 units slots, then we can open up the question of how to spend them, but lets first answer the question with the materials and supplies we have at hand. There are 500 unit slots in total and 255 model slots, are the inclusion of the imperial reforms really the best way of utilising these meagre resources for the betterment of EB as a whole. I say no, and I have still to see any strong arguments from the "yes" side.

Foot

[Foot]

So I'm even a bit anti-Roman, but I say let's keep the reforms in place. Why? Because of the same reason that Lorica segmentata won't be included: It wouldn't be historical to let the IRs out. The IRs are the logical consequence of the evolution of the Roman state from an italic power to a global superpower, with all it's internal struggles and the final change from a republic to despotism. The Roman res publica just couldn't function anymore, because the glory and power (basically all a republican Roman ever seeked) that could be achieved by a single person was so gigantic that the res publica was inevitably to collapse.

Your argument is that it would be unhistorical for the Imperial Reforms to be left out. But then we could apply that argument to many other things that have been left out from EB due to hardcoded restraitants; provinces and cities, units, ships, factions, buildings, etc. The list is endless of what we chose not to include, we would have loved to but we had to make hard decisions and leave some areas out. If you apply that argumnent to the Imperial Reforms, then you must allow me to apply it to other areas as well - and so we meet an impasse. If you respond, that the difference is that the Imperial Reforms are already in the game, then I have to say that that is not response at all. We have made changes to things in game far more radical than this because our priorities changed, or situations changed. That the Imperial Reforms are already in game has no weight in the argument of whether it is justifiable for them to be included or not. On the matter of whether we can be bothered to put in the effort ... well that is another matter entirely.

Furthermore, I would certainly not suggest that the player could not make one of his Family Members into an emperor, you are right that this is an important point in roman history, but does it follow that they would require a number of new units to follow. Could not the units that were made avaliable from the Marian Reforms be used just as well in place of an almost completely new line-up of roman infantry and cavalry. And if not, then I would still question the necessity of the Imperial Reforms. If the requirement for making a roman senator "emperor" was that we need to keep the Imperial Units then I would have to say scrap the Imperial Reforms altogether and use those unit and model slots for the benefit of some neglected region or faction. The Romans have more units and models than many other factions put together, most of which they don't share amongst their fellows, I say that this no more should be spent on them and that the Imperial Reforms are a step to far, whose resources are better spent elsewhere.

Foot

[gran_guitarra]

Bub, if you want to go with total historical accuracy for the Romans you have a ****load of work to do.

1) Remove the Polybian Reforms. They were a gradual process taking well over 30 years during which all of Italy was given Roman citizenship and the equipment of the Legions was standardized. For historical accuracy make it several reforms (one for each unit change and one for the added citizens).

2) Remove Antestignai (Light Infantry) from the Marian Period. Legionnaires were never Light infantry, only auxiliaries functioned as such. During the early Augustan Period several Legions had cohorts which were trained to function as light infantry, to counter-raid germanic and parthian territories. For historical accuracy remove them.

3) Add First Cohorts, which were basically Cohors Evocata with double the size of regular cohorts.

4) Give Triarii the phalanx formation.

5) Either downgrade Velites to 42 (same as hastati, Principes, Triarii) or raise those to 50, since their numbers were even in Legions.

6) In the Marian Period, make it so auxiliaries are the same as Cohos Reformata, as historically they were trained and equipped to the same standards, leave the spear auxiliaries as well, since they existed.

So, if you are going to use historical accuracy as the argument to remove the Augustan Reforms I can use it to say do all that stuff, even though it serves no real purpose and adds nothing to the game.

Just leave the Imperial Reforms, since they remove nothing from the game.

Oh, as an aside, the elite Light Legionnaires were an Augustan (not Marian) trend, as in the Marian Period only Auxiliaries functioned as such. If you could add one for the Augustan Period I would really like it (make the Marian one an Auxiliary), and add an Auxiliary which is a Legionnaire with slightly lesser stats. (say one more than spear auxiliary in each?)

[Geoffrey S]

I must echo the views contained in Foot's posts, which is a much better attempt at representing the same view as mine. I like the idea of a pros/cons list.

1) Remove the Polybian Reforms. They were a gradual process taking well over 30 years during which all of Italy was given Roman citizenship and the equipment of the Legions was standardized. For historical accuracy make it several reforms (one for each unit change and one for the added citizens).

2) Remove Antestignai (Light Infantry) from the Marian Period. Legionnaires were never Light infantry, only auxiliaries functioned as such. During the early Augustan Period several Legions had cohorts which were trained to function as light infantry, to counter-raid germanic and parthian territories. For historical accuracy remove them.

3) Add First Cohorts, which were basically Cohors Evocata with double the size of regular cohorts.

4) Give Triarii the phalanx formation.

5) Either downgrade Velites to 42 (same as hastati, Principes, Triarii) or raise those to 50, since their numbers were even in Legions.

6) In the Marian Period, make it so auxiliaries are the same as Cohos Reformata, as historically they were trained and equipped to the same standards, leave the spear auxiliaries as well, since they existed.
I don't know about 1, 2, 4, and 6, but points 3 and 4 have been adressed before: First Cohorts are available at least in Cunctator's mini-mod and in future EB versions, and the phalanx formation as applied in RTW is simply not correct for hoplite styled units. Further discussion on these matters I'd rather see in its own topic, since it is not particularly relevant to this subject.

So, if you are going to use historical accuracy as the argument to remove the Augustan Reforms I can use it to say do all that stuff, even though it serves no real purpose and adds nothing to the game.

Just leave the Imperial Reforms, since they remove nothing from the game.
I'm sorry, but where are people using historical accuracy as an argument to remove the Augustan Reforms? No-one denies they are as historically accurate as possible. What is being debated is whether the resources they use are disproportionate or not, and if the changes were significant enough in history and in the context of the mod to warrant a seperate reform over the Marian units. In my opinion they do remove something from the mod, namely the fullest oppurtunity to more accurately represent the period the mod focuses on.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I don't see the point in this argument. If the Imperial Reforms were actually removed, I could see many members of the team quitting and the mod being torn apart.

Though to be honest, some factions are quite shortchanged. Armenia has what, 6 units?

[Redmeth]

Why not pursue a mini-mod approach, for the player who wants to play the Romani there should be a .bat file that replaces the relevant files and puts the Romans with Imperial reforms in place removing some units from the other end of the world, some regionals, some units that wouldn't imbalance the game too much.
The units and script for the Imperial reform are in place and it's not like the AI ever gets the Imperial reforms.
That way everyone stays happy
What do you think?.
I don't want to sound pathetic, but please don't let this argument lead to members leaving or something it would truly be a shame.

[Foot]

I don't see the point in this argument. If the Imperial Reforms were actually removed, I could see many members of the team quitting and the mod being torn apart.

Though to be honest, some factions are quite shortchanged. Armenia has what, 6 units?

Because 1/4 of their faction's reform periods are lost. If it was decided that it was for the good of the mod's representation of the period then I don't think anyone could complain - they might disagree, of course. We do discuss these kinds of things and we do vote on them.

Using Armenian names, Hayasdan has 8 factional units in total + 1 Georgian unit. All of these share models, and many of them are recruitable by other factions. The Romans are necessarily far more wasteful and share far less, yet they still feel the need for, in my opinion, superfluous reform that doesn't really add much, comes very late (both in game and in history), is hardly ever seen by the player (and don't attack those players who finish before the imperial reforms, they have every right to stop the romani game when they get bored of it!).

I have already suggested a mini-mod approach, which seems perfectly reasonable. The main game would focus its attention from things happening very late in the game and improve things happening much earlier for other factions and for other regions. A mini-mod could be installed for players who wanted to play the romani to their conclusion as a state ruling the world and ruled by an emperor.

Foot

[Geoffrey S]

I don't see the point in this argument. If the Imperial Reforms were actually removed, I could see many members of the team quitting and the mod being torn apart.
There's no need to be quite so dramatic. Personally I'm genuinely interested in the reasons behind the inclusion of this reform over adding more units to less well-represented factions. At the very least clarifying posts might enlighten people such as myself about why what the reforms represent are so important. I can understand the inclusion if the Roman campaign was the flagship campaign of the mod, which is the way it looks right now: Rome is easily the most fully developed faction in the campaign. But if it is to the detriment of other factions doesn't that fly against the stated goals of EB?

Foot's suggestion of some kind of Roman mod sounds appealing, which would allow those interested in a complete Roman campaign with the Imperial reforms as grand conclusion to have their fill, and would allow other factions to be fleshed out that little bit more. Perhaps even as a seperate install option akin to the Gaesatae patch? Although that comes close to RTRs 'counter faction' feature using batch files, which I think EB said they wouldn't want to use.

[d'Arthez]

Foot's suggestion of some kind of Roman mod sounds appealing, which would allow those interested in a complete Roman campaign with the Imperial reforms as grand conclusion to have their fill, and would allow other factions to be fleshed out that little bit more. Perhaps even as a seperate install option akin to the Gaesatae patch? Although that comes close to RTRs 'counter faction' feature using batch files, which I think EB said they wouldn't want to use.

Not being a programmer myself, but would it not be possible to give a standard 450 units + 100 or so which have been developed? That way, a player can choose which of those 100 units to include and exclude from his game. The user just needs to compile / run a compilation program, to include the last units.

I am happy with the Imperial Reforms. Even moreso when I am playing the Romans. But if I were playing Epeiros, intent on the destruction of Rome, I doubt whether the Romans even would get past the Polybian Reforms. Then the Reform units take up quite a few slots.

By the time the Imperial reforms hit, you'd expect at least some factions to be wiped out. Is it not possible to use the slots that have become available (unique units of wiped out factions) for other factions then?

[keravnos]

First of all, all the positions of those denying the Imperial reforms are highly valued, and thus perfectly legitimate. Yet I respectfully disagree with all of them and anyone asking for their abandonment.

@Foot, you speak of a hospital and "care for the needy", yet I have never perceived EB as a hospital. To me it has always been a place of learing, a "stealth learning tool" :2thumbsup: which will award those who persevere by rewarding them with the gift of knowledge of those ancient times. (not to mention better units at the end-especially so the Romani- who basically kicked the crap out of anyone else, conquering both Epiros, and Hayasdan.):surrender2:

This thread is getting rather grim, and has to lighten up a bit. :help:

So,please excuse the following "funny story"
The following is a gangsta-type account of Romani history...

Born by "peculiar" parents in a VERY tough neighbourhood. Faced with all sort of emenies (including 2 gangs "the greeks" and "the celts") and the neighborhoods' greedy merchant (qarthadastim), not to mention early struggles with the kid next door (Samniti) he managed to take over all of the neighboorhood, which in turn seemed to like him (sometimes by kiling those who opposed him, taking their women, and selling anyone else into slavery - but then again, it WAS a tough neighboorhood), take after him, and even speak and look like him. Then he turned his neighbourhood into the most rich in the city, so a long, long time after he was gone, they were still speaking about him. :laugh4:

Now back to serious arguements, and since we are talking in metaphores I feel I must speak for the Romani. The letters we are writing in are theirs (actually it is the Cumae western greek alphabet, but Cumae is gone and they are the rightfull heirs and also present owners.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae_alphabet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_alphabets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet

--The ideas we consider "human achievement" are theirs... Liber-ty (from Liber=free), Equal-ity (from Eqvus=Horse, and horseman, a class of men of equal standing amongst themselves, Equites), Progress, Future-(Futurum) and so many other words, that baffle the mind. In fact, English, while a Gemanic language, has many more words from Latin than from any other language, including Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_grammar

for some amazing similarities to English, which aren't all superficial.

For me EB has always been about honouring those who came before us, making sure that they are represented as vividly and as thorougly as we can. To present history as best we could without making it sound as the ones teaching it do...boring (most of them, at least). To boldly go... oh, no...:oops: I think I need say no further on Romani's . No need.

So, why Imperial reforms? Who was that emperor? Do we truly need him and his reforms around?

Well, had it not been for Octavianus Augustus, or someone else like him who would destroy the republic for a system that could work and did work, then the Roman Republic would either be destroyed by civil war (as happened in Hellenistic states) or by its consequences (foreign invasion, again as happened in Hellenistic states. Unfortunately this fate was the one that did happen to Roma, but much later than it would have, had not Julius Caesar, or his nephew and rightful heir, Octavianus Augustus, been able to stop it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavianus


He ended a century of civil wars and gave Rome an era of peace, prosperity, and imperial greatness, known as the Pax Romana, or Roman peace, which lasted for over 200 years.


Augustus was deified soon after his death, and both his borrowed surname, Caesar, and his title Augustus became the permanent titles of the rulers of Roman Empire for fourteen centuries after his death, in use both at Old Rome and New Rome. In many languages, caesar became the word for emperor, as in German (Kaiser) and in Russian (Tsar). The cult of Divus Augustus continued until the state religion of the Empire was changed to Christianity in the 4th century following the Edict of Milan. Consequently, there are many excellent statues and busts of the first, and in some ways the greatest, of the emperors. Augustus' mausoleum also originally contained bronze pillars inscribed with a record of his life, the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, which had also been disseminated throughout the empire upon his death.

Many consider Augustus to be Rome's greatest emperor; his policies certainly extended the empire's life span and initiated the celebrated Pax Romana or Pax Augusta. He was intelligent, decisive, and a shrewd politician, but he was not perhaps as charismatic as Julius Caesar, and was influenced on occasion by his third wife, Livia (sometimes for the worse). Nevertheless, his legacy proved more enduring.




As Tacitus wrote, the younger generations alive in AD 14 had never known any form of government other than the Principate

The only thing left to say is that today, after 2 thousand years, US has a Senate, and European Union is struggling to become a small part (both legally and politically) that the Empire was in the time of Octavianus Augustus Caesar. Slowly but certainly the world is becoming more "unified", speaking the same language, working toward the same goals, and living "the same way". If there is one empire that the WHOLE of the modern world can look up to as common ground, its original birthplace and place of origin, it would be the Roman Empire, and mostly its first emperor, Augustus, for truly few other emperors could compare to him, Trajan or maybe Constantinus.

To not have the imperial reforms to me is an atrocity commited to the historicity of EB. We will lose so much, compared to whatever it is we stand to gain. So far as EB1 for RTW is concerned, Hellenistic factions currently use 44 slots of the 60 or so they should, so it isn't like there are other factions, other than Hayasdan who don't get their share. But glory has never been about numbers has it? I said it before, I started up hating the Romani, but then as I was growing up, seeing the advances they helped bring into the world, (from cement to aqueducts to Collosal construction building), in governing an empire, in the way they conducted themselves, or formed/reformed their army, has earned nothing but the greatest respect for them. There are no simple truths in history, but the Western World as is now, owes too much to them, for us to NOT having them WHOLE. Not amputated, due to models being needed elsewhere.

Romani should stay exactly as they are now. Some small aesthetic changes, aside, they are the most historical of our factions, mainly because we know so much about them. This is much more evident to me, being a Co-Faction Coordinator for the Sakae, where the word "needle in a heystack" becomes a favorite word, or for Indo-Greeks, whose fate is well, buried under 6 meters of river sediments in present day Pakistan. (check sig)

One shouldn't need a batch program or mini-mod to play the greatest troops of the greatest empire of EB' timeframes' history. It is plain a-historical and feels dead wrong.

[Obelics]

well said

and me too even if i never will arrive to play as the imperial reform in a campaign as Roma, im agree it must be as it is.

(PS. im not agree on the Augustian Era<=>UE, to me the actual EU sadly resemble much more to the holy roman empire~D )

[Thaatu]

At the moment EB respects and honours Augustus only if the player plays as Romans for almost a thousand turns and then Augustus himself won't be there to be honoured. Even the reformed troops won't have too many enemies left to conquer (well, depends on the player). Personally I'd rather have Athenian, Corinthian, etc. hoplites return, but it's not my choice. The best way to solve this would infact be via a mini-mod, but I don't know if there's anyone crazy enough to start one.

@Keravnos: To not have the imperial reforms isn't an atrocity committed to the historicity of EB, it would be an atrocity committed to the drama of EB.

[geala]

My feeling for EB was from the beginning that it was a mod of the very colourful last period of the true classical world. If one centers on the Romans (one should not) the end of the republic and the disappearance of the last structured classical enemies (Parthia was not that classical) would be a very good ending point. The imperial period is different, it belongs to another time. Just a feeling however, based on a very rough holistic perspective.

Based on this preconception the most valid argument for me is that space is needed for units. So I concur with Foot et al. that the late Roman troops should be sacrified in favour of other units.

Btw why do we know for sure that the Roman army of the principate was generally so much better than its predecessors? Not so many equivalent enemies left.

[Obelics]

Personally I'd rather have Athenian, Corinthian, etc. hoplites return, but it's not my choice.
drama of EB.

Corintian Hoplites were already present in 0.72 and 0.74, they were eliminated in 0.8x, now we got the Spartans, why not to delete the spartans, and have back the Corinthian hoplites? Id like it much better as it was before.
After have played for a while ive arrived to the conclusion (but it's just my opinion) that the spartans have ruined the atmosphere of playing the KH as it was in 0.74 (But it's just an opinion and dont want to start a debate on that).

@Geela I think EB is centered on every faction, it is not Romano-Centric. And it is not centered on the "classic" era in a strict sense. Parthian have not big affairs with Rome in the 272 for sure, but so Baktria, the Shythians etc... and if it was a sort of Rome TW, it should have been a smaller map, and less faction... but it's not named Rome TW (ok it could be called Eurasia TW :laugh4: )
But it is focused on accuracy (as it is possible) so it illustrate the further evolution of the army of a faction in its timeframe (that is historically documented as in this case of the Romans)

[Foot]

@Geela I think EB is centered on every faction, it is not Romano-Centric. And it is not centered on the "classic" era in a strict sense. Parthian have not big affairs with Rome in the 272 for sure, but so Baktria, the Shythians etc... and if it was a sort of Rome TW, it should have been a smaller map, and less faction... but it's not named Rome TW (ok it could be called Eurasia TW :laugh4: )
But it is focused on accuracy (as it is possible) so it illustrate the further evolution of the army of a faction in its timeframe (that is historically documented as in this case of the Romans)

I really don't think that this is the best argument. There are lots of areas of the mod that are under represented, the Roman army is not one of them. Other factions, including Hayasdan, have to scrimp and save every resource we've been given. Areas of the mod from the first 150-200 years should weigh far more heavily on the mods resources than events that many players will never see. We have to be practical with what we have and not spend it on areas of the mod that are already taking so much. That is why I propose that the Imperial Reforms be scrapped from EB.

Foot

[Obelics]

I really don't think that this is the best argument. There are lots of areas of the mod that are under represented, the Roman army is not one of them. Other factions, including Hayasdan, have to scrimp and save every resource we've been given. Areas of the mod from the first 150-200 years should weigh far more heavily on the mods resources than events that many players will never see. We have to be practical with what we have and not spend it on areas of the mod that are already taking so much. That is why I propose that the Imperial Reforms be scrapped from EB.

Foot

well, it was not my apology of the roman reform, so it was not for sure the best argument...
it was a consideration on that idea of a sort of "imperial Age" out of the domain of the EB mod whose setted on a "classic Age"
you cant speak in those terms, for EB whose setted on a map that go from africa to a piece of india, so we cant speak of classic/imperial age related to romans parameters.
So i dont see EB as setted in a particular Age, but covering the armies real or potential of the period it covers (till the 11 after.C. if i well remember)
that's is.

If "the romans are not under-rapresented" and "we have to keep what we already have" why to cut it?
than EB should end in the 31 b.C, the battle of Azio and the end of Civil war, so no imperial reform.

anyway, if there is an urgent need for new important units for other faction that is a EB modders domain, so i cant say too much here, but im not agree if it is a sort of historical (timeframe etc.) / ideological (imperial/classical age etc) / gameplay (people dont play the game more than 120 B.C. etc.) debate.

[Ludens]

Corintian Hoplites were already present in 0.72 and 0.74, they were eliminated in 0.8x, now we got the Spartans, why not to delete the spartans, and have back the Corinthian hoplites? Id like it much better as it was before.
The Corinthian hoplites haven't been eliminated, they've been replaced with the standard hoplites, which are pretty much the same (apart from the phalanx ability, but that has been removed from all classical-hoplite types). Similarly, Athenian hoplites would be identical to Iphikratean ones. Although I am not so sure about the Imperial reforms either, I don't see the point of removing the Imperial units to add a bunch of Greek units that are almost identical to already-existing ones. It's not as if the Hellenes are underrepresented either, is it?

[Pharnakes]

yeah, its Saba, Haysdan, Saka that need the units, and, of course:





PONTUS!!:laugh4:

[Thaatu]

The Corinthian hoplites haven't been eliminated, they've been replaced with the standard hoplites, which are pretty much the same (apart from the phalanx ability, but that has been removed from all classical-hoplite types). Similarly, Athenian hoplites would be identical to Iphikratean ones. Although I am not so sure about the Imperial reforms either, I don't see the point of removing the Imperial units to add a bunch of Greek units that are almost identical to already-existing ones. It's not as if the Hellenes are underrepresented either, is it?
From what I recall Athenian hoplites looked nothing like Iphikratean hoplites skin&model wise. Not sure weather Corinthians looked like the present hoplites, but it did add a lot of depth to the faction, which is supposed to be uniquely divided. With no way to distinguish between different hoplites, it's a hard thing to roleplay any division, especially if you don't play every day (meaning you sometimes forget which army belongs to what city). Plus, removing Imperial units would add more than a few slots, and most regions need units on the highest regional MIC level. I don't know a single unit which is only available on regional level 5, (though I have to admit, I haven't looked very hard).

[Imperator]

If you don't mind my asking- what units do you suggest we add instead of Imperials? And what are your standards for deciding which unit deserves a slot?
I think EB should examine 1) Accuracy of the unit 2) Overall Historical Impact of the unit 3) Game Balance 4) Coolness. In general, any unit that excels in all four catagories HAS to be put in. Sadly, I cannot honestly say my beloved Legionaries fill all four- only three. :no:

Still, I want to know what unit would be replacing these Legionaries. I am adamant in my refusal to allow Imperial Legionaries be knocked off so we can another useless MIC unit, trained in 3 dirt-poor Armenian mountain-towns or
some Scythian infantry. Why? Because the only thing those units have going for them is game balance. There's not a chance that they'll be that accurate compared to our legionaries, the only unit who can compete with the legionaries in terms of overall world impact is the phalanx (and those too are abundantly represented) and, quite frankly, it is next to impossible to find a cooler unit that our Imperial Legions. :2thumbsup:

Again, I feel that this discussion so far has been like a debate where the negative (ie Anti-Legions) has yet to offer a counter-plan. This isn't good form in a debate, for the simple reason that it degenerates into simple stone-walling, with one side attacking the status quo, and the others stone-walling in its defense. It's not enough to say "We need unit slots! The Legions must go!". What units are so accurate, invaluable to both history and gameplay, and downright bad-a** that they are worth losing our legionaries? If no one knows, then maybe there isn't such a unit, and there's no reason to drop said Imperials...

[Watchman]

The "coolness" argument is an empty one, being a matter of taste. I for example find the postmarian legionaries tad boring, partly because they're so well rounded and known. Sort of like how steady "workhorse" vehicles like the Jeep or Hummer tend to be a bit on the uninteresting side.

Conversely I'm rather fascinated by the multitudous little-known soldiery from obscure parts of the world, as even if their in-game representation by necessity involves a hefty dose of pure conjecture and guesswork they nonetheless offer interesting tidbits of information on how things were done "out of the limelight" - and not solely in regards to warfare. After all the info texts on many an unit contain data on social structures, political systems, economy, geography and how humans dealt with these matters.

[Ludens]

From what I recall Athenian hoplites looked nothing like Iphikratean hoplites skin&model wise. Not sure weather Corinthians looked like the present hoplites, but it did add a lot of depth to the faction, which is supposed to be uniquely divided. With no way to distinguish between different hoplites, it's a hard thing to roleplay any division, especially if you don't play every day (meaning you sometimes forget which army belongs to what city). Plus, removing Imperial units would add more than a few slots, and most regions need units on the highest regional MIC level. I don't know a single unit which is only available on regional level 5, (though I have to admit, I haven't looked very hard).
EB never included an Athenian hoplite as far as I know. The Corinthians looked rather like the current classical hoplite, except that they had longer spears and used the phalanx formations. This also made them redundant next to the Iphikratean hoplite, although that was also caused by near identical stats. I got this picture from the old KH preview.

https://img179.imageshack.us/img179/149/korinthioihoplitaiscreen18dd.th.jpg (https://img179.imageshack.us/my.php?image=korinthioihoplitaiscreen18dd.jpg)

However, I don't agree with your points because they would apply equally to the Celts, the Iberians, the Sarmatians, etc. The Greeks were hardly the only ones who had a fierce loyalty to their origin. Also, to properly simulate this you would need an unique hoplite unit for each Greek city, and that's a lot of slots spent on units whose function and stats are going to be near identical.

[Geoffrey S]

Still, I want to know what unit would be replacing these Legionaries. I am adamant in my refusal to allow Imperial Legionaries be knocked off so we can another useless MIC unit, trained in 3 dirt-poor Armenian mountain-towns or
some Scythian infantry. Why? Because the only thing those units have going for them is game balance. There's not a chance that they'll be that accurate compared to our legionaries, the only unit who can compete with the legionaries in terms of overall world impact is the phalanx (and those too are abundantly represented) and, quite frankly, it is next to impossible to find a cooler unit that our Imperial Legions. :2thumbsup:
I thought it was exactly this lack of knowledge about other cultures that EB aims to reduce? :no:

Again, I feel that this discussion so far has been like a debate where the negative (ie Anti-Legions) has yet to offer a counter-plan. This isn't good form in a debate, for the simple reason that it degenerates into simple stone-walling, with one side attacking the status quo, and the others stone-walling in its defense. It's not enough to say "We need unit slots! The Legions must go!". What units are so accurate, invaluable to both history and gameplay, and downright bad-a** that they are worth losing our legionaries? If no one knows, then maybe there isn't such a unit, and there's no reason to drop said Imperials...
I don't knowwhat should replace them. All I know is that I have seen team members say there's a lack of unit slots and that there are other units they'd like to see added; not necessarily even for particular factions, although as Foot points out a faction like Armenia clearly could use more slots, but various Eleutheroi settlements that only get generic units right now. That prompted me to throw my opinion into the ring.

[Thaatu]

EB never included an Athenian hoplite as far as I know. The Corinthians looked rather like the current classical hoplite, except that they had longer spears and used the phalanx formations.
My bad, I must be mixing pre-0.8 EB with RTR. :boxedin:

However, I don't agree with your points because they would apply equally to the Celts, the Iberians, the Sarmatians, etc. The Greeks were hardly the only ones who had a fierce loyalty to their origin. Also, to properly simulate this you would need an unique hoplite unit for each Greek city, and that's a lot of slots spent on units whose function and stats are going to be near identical.
What I'm saying is that KH is the only faction which is not infact united. It represents a fragile alliance between Sparta, Athens and Rhodes, and the faction doesn't even have a real capital. Blah, I don't what I'm saying. I agree it would be stupid to represent every city state, and creating more regionals would be better. Damn you Ludens, you won this round! :duel:

I'd still like to know if there are any units which require level 5 regional MIC.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One thing to say about the Imperial Reforms is they aren't finished. Although the military aspect is virtually complete, sans First Cohorts, the social and trait aspects are barely started.

By 1.0 the difference between Marian and Imperial will be much more marked and it will be something the player can choose. Republic or Principate. That's really important for the faction.

[Pharnakes]

So there will be advantages to maintaining the rebublic?


@Thaatu I think Lavotaxurii require mic 5.

[Imperator]

@ Geoffrey
In a way, this can almost be clasified as an economical debate. Economics can be defined as "The allocation of scarce resources." The scarce resource in question is the unit slots. Allocation here just means "Who gets the a slot, and who gets dropped?". Hell, if I was a magic uber-modder and somehow could find a way around that unit limit I would add so many obscure, local troops it would be a crime in some states. Sadly, I don't even come close :no:

I hope I didn't come off as a Romano-centric fanboy, suffering from a lack of interest or knowledge of cultures besides Rome. But I sincerely believe that there is no unit that can compete with the Imperial Legionaries in terms of accuracy, historical importance and relevancy, and "coolness"*.

*(Just to clarify- this is always, to a degree, subjective, but then it is also true that some units have more appeal and are simply more exciting than others, for a multitude of reasons. Spartan hoplites, Roman legionaries, gaesatae are all "cool" units even if they're not everyone's favorite.)


And just to lighten the mood- here's a Funny Forum Fact:
Did you know the spelling suggestion for the word "Gaesatae" is in fact "Caesar"?
I see some irony in that :laugh4: don't believe me? check for yourself!

[Zaknafien]

Exactly as Phillipivs says, there is so much more planned for the Roman faction, that when you all say 'its the most complete', I cant wait until you see what else we have in store. The social and role-play aspects of character development, traits, ancilliaries, etc, will expand in the future certainly and the Republic and Imperial eras will have marked differences.

[gran_guitarra]

What I meant by historical accuracy was that people were saying having them in game was on the border of inaccuracy, since they occured in 30 BC.


btw, If you can give suggestions for units to replace the Legionnaires which are historically accurate, balanced, and add to the game go for it, but saying "Legionnaires stink cause they come in to late and take unit slots" is not enough.

btw, there were many diferences between the Imperial and Marian Military Periods.

During the Imperial Periods the Legions were standardized to 28, and they became a professional force which was maintained by the state (meaning their cost should be taken directly from the treasury, not from the cities income), with training, equipment and numbers to take down any and all of Rome's enemies (it has often been speculated that the conquest of Parthia and Germania would have been possible had it not been for the political system of Rome in that time).

Marian Legionnaires were equipped almost exactly like Augustan Legionnaires, the only diferences being their helmets and shields. It has been speculated that the Legions of the early principate were equipped with two or more pila, compared to the single pilum of the Marian legions.
Legions of the Principate had at least one (sometimes two) Cohorts which were trained to function as light infantry to fight effectively against Germanic tribes and tribes in Thracia (I think). These Legionnaires were equipped similarly to Hastati of the Polybian Period, but had far superior training, discipline, and ability. Their equipment consisted of several light javelins (similar to Plumbatarii later), swords (long swords of the late Roman Army), shields like those of standard Legionnaires (slightly smaller), and heart breast-plates (like Polybian Hastati). During the Marian Period only auxiliaries provided light infantry units.
Augustan Auxiliaries provided all the Roman Cavalry during the Augustan Period. They also served as heavy spear infantry and heavy skirmishers (equipped with chain mail, heavy shields and swords for defense), and some were even the exact same as Legionnaires, but with slightly less training and discipline.
During the Marian Period they provided all of that, but in far less number than the Augustan Period. In the Marian period they were also far inferior to Legionnaires, and only served effectively as light infantry and cavalry.

That's all I have off the top of my head, but those are several diferences that would manifest in units between the Marian and Augustan periods.

btw, the thing in my earlier post were from the book Roman warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy, considered the leading authority on Roman and Hellenic periods in the world at the moment.

[Zaknafien]

considered by whom? Goldsworthy is alright, but he's certainly not gospel.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

it has often been speculated that the conquest of Parthia and Germania would have been possible had it not been for the political system of Rome in that time.
They could have conquered Germania, but they weren't ready to invest such a massive amount of troops, after Teutoburger Wald. That's basically the reason why Tiberius said "this land to conquer is not worth the blood of a single legionary", and thus dropped the conquest. They could've conquered Scotland and Ireland as well, and the invasion was afaik planned and almost ready, but it was stopped because the emperor's fear the general in charge could become to powerful. Parthia I'm not sure. Traian reached the Persian Gulf after conquering Mesopotamia, but Hadrian skipped almost all his conquests, surrendering against future enemies...

I'm really looking forward to the new roman goodies you guys have in store. I want an epic roman campaign.

[Watchman]

I've seen it observed that an army is, essentially, a small city (at the least) in regards to food consumption and similar logistical issues. Thus, if you want to permanently station one in a region, the region in question must be capable of supporting the equivalent of an additional small city one way or another - and I can kind of imagine the Germanic forests failed on that count, which would have made effectively occupying them more than a little challenging. After all, one of the reasons the Celts had left them alone cannot but have been the consideration that the land simply was not worth fighting over...

[Geoffrey S]

One thing to say about the Imperial Reforms is they aren't finished. Although the military aspect is virtually complete, sans First Cohorts, the social and trait aspects are barely started.

By 1.0 the difference between Marian and Imperial will be much more marked and it will be something the player can choose. Republic or Principate. That's really important for the faction.
Interesting, I'm looking forward to seeing that.

[russia almighty]

Eh I could see Germany being subdued , brutally with no forest and nearly no person left .



Parthia is a whole other different story .


I do know of the Roman victories against them but look how far they stretched . They could call on just as many exotic auxiliaries as the Romans could .

[Thaatu]

btw, If you can give suggestions for units to replace the Legionnaires which are historically accurate, balanced, and add to the game go for it, but saying "Legionnaires stink cause they come in to late and take unit slots" is not enough.
I'm not a historian, thus not an expert. I can't make up units from my clear blue mind that would fit in with EB, but I can see that there's a lack of L5 Regionals. I can't find the file where I'd get better info on this, but I'd imagine that the Galatian heavy cavalry is one, some Iberian super units might make it three and maybe the Irish sledgehammer unit counts up to four. Still most regions give no benefits out of the L5 regional MIC.

[Imperator]

I'm not a historian, thus not an expert. I can't make up units from my clear blue mind that would fit in with EB, but I can see that there's a lack of L5 Regionals. I can't find the file where I'd get better info on this, but I'd imagine that the Galatian heavy cavalry is one, some Iberian super units might make it three and maybe the Irish sledgehammer unit counts up to four. Still most regions give no benefits out of the L5 regional MIC.
I agree whole-heartedly! :yes: But why the legionaries?

In a way, it almost seems like people are giving the Imperials a bad rep, as if somehow if we removed them, all our regional unit problems would be solved. If we needed regionals so badly why not give some merc units the chop and turn them into regionals? If the Roman player want Peltastai, or if a barbarian player wants a phalanx (a greek one that is) they should conquer and hold some Greek lands! I think the AI abuses the merc feature anyway, and in general I don't agree with how the Mercenaries are treated in the game system. Really, I doubt whether there were armies of unemployed soldiers wandering about, ready for hiring. (14 Mercenaries available, eh? I wonder what they're up to when no one's a'callin?)

For Carthage, the team prefers to use regionals to symbolize the mercenaries they employed, so why not do that for everyone? How many skins and units could we add if we converted 80% or 90% of mercenaries into regionals? (Sorry if I'm changing the subject somewhat- but I for one think this isn't a bad idea, and much better than ditching my poor, beloved Imperials.:sweatdrop: )

[Thaatu]

For Carthage, the team prefers to use regionals to symbolize the mercenaries they employed, so why not do that for everyone? How many skins and units could we add if we converted 80% or 90% of mercenaries into regionals? (Sorry if I'm changing the subject somewhat- but I for one think this isn't a bad idea, and much better than ditching my poor, beloved Imperials.:sweatdrop: )
Could be a solution... Anyway, I doubt the team will scrap Imperials at this stage. I've just always wondered, what's the big deal with Imperial Roman legionaries? Especially since there's a "why no lorica segmentata" thread each week...

By the way Imperator, don't take this the wrong way or anything, but have you ever gotten the Imperial reforms, without "cheating"? :fishbowl:

[Imperator]

By the way Imperator, don't take this the wrong way or anything, but have you ever gotten the Imperial reforms, without "cheating"?
Sadly, not yet. :embarassed:
I had a Roman campaign in an earlier build, but stopped and waited for a stable EB before committing myself to such a loooong campaign. Now that .8 is out I've been (slowly but surely) advancing in my Romani campaign, with a Koinon Hellenon and Seleukid campaign on the side. I'm about to hit the Marian reforms now, and I am pumped to finally get my Imperials...in another 60 or 100 years. Oh but it WILL be worth it. The wait, as well as this debate, has made me desperate to finally get my hands on those delicious legionaries. :smash:

[Watchman]

That sounds... kinky.

[gran_guitarra]

Well several of my history teachers have referred to him, and my dad mentioned him as one of the best. (Thanks to his book I was able to shut up my Spanish teacher, who said the phalanx was a Roman Formation where all the Legionnaires locked their shields and formed a wall of shields, and that it was the precursor to armored cavalry (way to go dumbo))

btw, I think the mercenary thing makes the most sense. Have a few eliter units (like Thessalian Cavalry and Galatian Wildmen, or mercenary uber elites (like Pheraspidai mercenaries or Mercenary heavy Hellenic Spears) for sale. I don't think its very fair that I can hire two armies worth of mercenaries in Makedonia and conquer the Makedonians with it.

[mlp071]

Well M2TW has option of limiting each faction to be able to recruit only factional units. So i have high hopes for EB2 in that regard .

In the meantime you can try link bellow to remedy loads of mercenaries:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=87649

[gran_guitarra]

Thanks but for now I'll try to avoid adding anything on to my game.

Besides, I heavily rely on those mercenaries in alternate theatres of war, since I rarely have more than two or three stacks for any theatre of war.

[Bellum]

I know this is old, but I just wanted to say: I'd like to see EB2 within my lifetime. The Imperial Reforms aren't a bad thing, and scraping them and whatever cool features you have planned for them would indicate a lot of needed changes to EB1 that wouldn't be necessary otherwise. These limmitations can be remedied quite well with certain features is M2TW, so, y'know.... :D

[Centurion Crastinus]

Scrap some of the mercenaries, not my legionairres.

[Spoofa]

well only about 1% of the EB population actually gets to use them:shame:

[ZinedineZidane]

how exactly do u change the imperial reforms and polybian reforms to earlier times? to be honest i usually get to around 220 bce and i get bored of the romans and the same with the gauls cuz it'll take like 4000 turns to get to 120 bce or whatever