Gens and traits importance

[Akashic]

In my recent games I found out that I usually expect for a general with appropriate gens to prepare one to be my main general. To what point does gens influence the aquisition of traits? For instance, is it possiblie for someone with gens fabian to become a great general? Is it much more difficult? How?


And the second question refers to the Sharp/Charismatic/Vigorous. How much do these influence in the aquisition of certain traits? Are they more important than gens? How likely is someone with a Sharp father to be Sharp too? Or is it just random?



K, lots of question, but if you can guess any of the answers, I´d appreciate :)

Thanks

Akashic

[anubis88]

what are gens supposed to be?:dizzy2:

[Warmaster Horus]

Gaius Iulius Caesar.

Gaius of the Stirps Caesar of the Gens Iulii.
The gens is the larger family to which a Roman belonged. They are either Plebean or Patrician.

Haven't you played the Romani? Or read the previews, or release post?

[Pharnakes]

I don't think any of those would answer his questions. I'm afraid I can't either, except for one: Hereditery is included in eb, the son stands a decent chance of taking after his father.

[pezhetairoi]

As I see it, the Gens doesn't affect anything at all except perhaps the name, since there's only 'threshold' related to the Gens trait. Whereas sharpness, charisma and vigour all have qualifiers that go 'affects GoodLeader 1/2/3, GoodAdministrator' etc etc. So on first look I'd say the Gens don't actually affect anything except to differentiate a Cornelius from a Statius or an Aemilius.

What's stirps, though, and is that the correct spelling? Always wondered what Caesar actually was. Clan? Family?

[Foot]

stirps is the branch of a gens. So, for example, the Plebeian Sempronii and several different stirps, the most important of which were Sempronii Blaesi, Sempronii Gracchae, Sempronii Longi, Sempronii Sophi, and Sempronii Tuditani (according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sempronius_%28gens%29)).

Foot

[Horst Nordfink]

A Roman name consisted of a praenomen (Caivs, Marcvs etc), a nomen (Ivlivs, Licinivs etc) and a cognomen (Caesar, Crassvs etc).

The nomen indicated which gens or clan, the bearer belonged to. The cognomen indicated to which branch of said clan the bearer belonged.

Sometimes someone would have a fourth name. This was usually because he had been adopted. For example, Gaivs Octavivs Thvrinvs (Augustus) was adopted by Gaivs Jvlivs Caesar on his death. He then became Gaivs Jvlivs Caesar Octavianvs. The suffix -anvs was added to his nomen to indicate which clan he had been adopted from.

[Akashic]

So I should´t really bother with the gens but for roleplay? I always rejected gens Fabian because I wanted warriors and administrators, not poets!

[Horst Nordfink]

What about Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator? He was dictator twice, consul five times and a famous soldier!

Which poet are you talking about called Fabius?

[Akashic]

No one specifically... but the description for the Fabian says they were more likely to be poets and appreciate the finer things of life instead of becoming leaders like many other families.

[Pharnakes]

If the description says so, in that case it is probably true.

[Long lost Caesar]

sounds like a good governor to me mate.

[Horst Nordfink]

No one specifically... but the description for the Fabian says they were more likely to be poets and appreciate the finer things of life instead of becoming leaders like many other families.

I wonder why that is? The Fabii have a long history of leading the Republic. Could an EB member explain this?

[Teleklos Archelaou]

The ethnicities and such affect chances for the general to get certain traits - but the main determinent is their own natural abilities. Anyone with a cowardly Spartan, or an Athenian who was a country-bumpkin, or such can attest to these things. Ethnicities increase chances for trait acquisition, but I don't think it is a dramatic increase over the natural chances for that trait acquisition in the first place given their temperment/abilities/personality.

[Pharnakes]

So if a FM gets "contadictory" traits like that, is it worse than if it was say, a cowardly rohdian, not cowardly spartan?

[CirdanDharix]

I think the only time a bad trait gets worse because of ethnicity, is when a Spartan fails the Agoge.

[Atilius]

In my recent games I found out that I usually expect for a general with appropriate gens to prepare one to be my main general. To what point does gens influence the aquisition of traits? For instance, is it possiblie for someone with gens fabian to become a great general? Is it much more difficult? How?
A character's gens does influence how likely he is to acquire certain traits, but no gens has much of an advantage over any other where overall military effectiveness is concerned. Members of some gens are more likely to be good recruiters, members of another to be good tacticians, and members of still another to be poor besiegers.



And the second question refers to the Sharp/Charismatic/Vigorous. How much do these influence in the aquisition of certain traits? Are they more important than gens? How likely is someone with a Sharp father to be Sharp too? Or is it just random?

These are quite important. For instance, Intelligence helps a character learn from experience and advance through levels of (mostly) favorable traits more quickly. These are more important than gens, and a character with an intelligent (energetic, charismatic) father is more likely to be intelligent (energetic, charismatic) himself.