Printable View
Witam!
First -please forgive me my very bad english ( I am from Poland)
I found some historical bugs in the EB beta -for the Romani faction
-where is the nomen gentilicum of Gnaeus Scipio Asina?
-why is Caius Aurelius Cotta called "patrician"? The gens Aurelia was plebeian.
-why is a province called Aemilia in the Boii teritory in 272?
Cotta being Patrician would be my fault. If he should be Plebeian, I'll have it fixed next time. I'll direct one of our faction advisors this way to check out the other questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus Curiatius Trigeminus
We are somewhat limited by RTW's very simple system for naming and rarely use the entire name. His full name is Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina and so his nomen gentilicum is Cornelius. As the Scipios are part of the Cornelius gens, it is understood that Gnaeus Scipio Asina (sometimes referred to just as Scipio Asina) is a Cornelii.
Can you (or anybody) point me towards a source or quote something about the gens Aurelia being Plebeian?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus Curiatius Trigeminus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malrubius
Right here.
Of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by Malrubius
Simple example-
Lucius Aurelius Cotta was tribunus plebis in 103 BC. I suppose that you know it was impossible for a patrician to be a tribunus plebis ( there were of course exeptions-addictio ad plebem-Clodius)
Heh, very funny, Jebus.
How 'bout this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelius
Nevermind, here's a pretty reliable source:
http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/0445.html
Teleklos-ok I understand that-but did you know that the historical Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina was the brother of Lucius Cornelius Scipio (who is in the EB) ? They were the sons of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Another bug:
I play as Romani and in 261 BC Lucius Cornelius Scipio has a son -named Servius Talmudius Scipio. What is "Talmudius"?
Was this son born into the campaign? Because this is expected. The mod will not follow history to a "t" after the start of the campaign (otherwise it would all be the same)
I don't understand. The son of Lucius Cornelius Scipio may not have the nomen gentilicum Cornelius? Please explain it to meQuote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Rome: Total War was not designed to handle Roman names, if you can believe it. :no:
Nor Greek ones. No "son of Bob" type names.
Also, Romans aren't supposed to be having children in EB.
I think Mastia should be "bastetanian rebels", because in 272 Before Crist, Carthage only has Gadir in Iberian peninsula.
There were a number of Phoenician colonies in the southern end of Iberia. Founding of New Carthage may be later, but control of the coast was already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Artabrii
Indeed, there were numerous punic colonies -dating from before 7th century BC- in the south east coast of Iberia, comprising the coastal zones of Turdetania, Bastetania and Contestania. Among others, I can recall Karteia, Sexi, Malaka, Abdera, Tagilit, etc.
You were surely misleaded by Hasdrubal's foundations in the area, in order to ensure Punic control of a -by then- rather decaying zone: Mastia/Cartago Nova (Cartagena) and Akra Leuké (Alicante) in 237 BC.
Cartago Nova was, in fact, a refundation of an existing city, Mastia, an important Iberian-Punic settlement.
But Phoenicians had already settled in the area at least five centuries before. Besides, there are no records of an active 'Bastetanian' resistance against Hasdrubal, who limited to extend Punic area of influence from the coast to the interior without trouble -being in fact an occupation of the inner lands. Thus, the existence of Bastetanian 'rebels' would seem really out of place.
If that isn't convincing enough, refer to Polybius who mentions a treaty between Rome and Carthage (the 2nd he mentions, 3.24) that expressly refers to Mastia. This treaty was concluded at sometime before Pyrrhus's invasion of Italy.
I back this up...Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
Say, have you switched the locations of Pyrrhus's sons ~D ?
Where should they be? I'm probably the one who has messed with the most family trees lately, LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Here ya are:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
:bump:
Hey Reenk, I posted on the internal board about this earlier today. I recommended:
Helenos definitely needs to be the character in Taras. No doubt about that.
Alexandros could be whereever we want him to in Epeiros itself. Probably in Ambrakia I'd say.
Pyrrhos and Ptolemaios - I'd say put them together with an army at 131, 118 (on the corner of epeiros, thessalia). Don't put them near Thermon as they'll cause a war there instead with KH.
A simple general should be inserted in Epidamnos as no family character will be there.
-Move the army with alexandros down to be the army with Pyrrhos and Ptolemaios
-Take the elephants and taxeis phalangitai out of Epidamnos (with pyrrhos too) and put them with this pyrrhos/alexandros army.
-Leave the other city garrisons as they are (epidamnos is still ok with troops after pyrrhos/elephants/phalanx are removed, taras is fine leaving it alone, and ambrakia is fine leaving it alone).
This doesn't add or subtract any characters or units. It just makes pyrrhos more likely to go either east after Maks or south (without getting stalled at Thermon) sooner. Thanks for reminding us about the whole issue though - had forgotten about a problem being there.
:bow:
And I'm implementing it! ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou