Reform suggestions

After playing a campaign with the Romans, I would like to discuss the reforms. I particularly like the way the Romans continuously change as you progress in the campaign but I'm not so sure about the requirements for the reforms (particularly in the AI's case). Now, don't get me wrong - I love EB - I'm not attacking it, I just want to try and improve it further.

It seems the team has approached the requirements asking themselves, "What was the state of the Republic/Empire at this time?", rather than, "What could cause these reforms?"

Looking at the Polybian reforms for example...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

at least year 242, either hold 2 of these cities (Segesta, Mediolanum, Patavium, Bononia) AND 2 of these (Lilibeo, Messana, Syracuse) OR wait until 210BC

Both require a specific year, which, personally I don't see the need for. To me, the year is irrelevant for reforms, it should focus on things like the military, political, financial and social situations. I realise you can't model these exactly but I feel using the year is a carry over from vanilla and not necessary. If the team is worried about reforms occurring too early it is still possible to raise the requirements to prolong the reforms without involving the year.

Now, for the first half, it requires the Romans controlling specific cities. As far as I can tell, the Polybian reforms represent a gradual evolution of the military in response to meeting new equipment and tactics. The team has chosen to represent this by requiring them to expand into the surrounding area. This makes sense but it causes a problem in that the AI does not necessarily try to expand with those cities in mind. This can result in the Romans expanding greatly, but not achieving the reforms until the unconditional in 210BC kicks in (often the AI expands northwards and neglects southern Italia). To me, a more suitable restriction would be based on the number of battles fought (representing their experience fighting against other equipment and tactics) or, perhaps, on the number of provinces controlled (but not specific ones).

Next, the marian reforms...

At least year 172BC, have 6 Latifundia built, hold at least 45 settlements, fight more than 250 battles and have a character that is:

Intelligent/Charismatic/Vigorous
Popularis
Consul or Ex-Consul
Has Influence and Command > 2

OR just conquer 90 settlements.

While Marius is responsible for the reforms, I don't see him as the underlying cause. From what I understand, it was due to the number of recruitable land owners dwindling both due to casualties and due to large agricultural estates taking over from smaller land owners. The team have represented this with the number of battles fought and the number of Latifundia built (large agricultural estates). This makes perfect sense to me. What I don't agree with, however, is the requirements for year (as I've already discussed), the number of settlements controlled and controlling a specific character (representing someone like Marius). If the Romans did not expand to such a large extent and yet still had a man power shortage, would they not seek a solution and thus reform the military? The Marius-esque character requirement, I'm not so sure about but I feel the senate would realise the need to institute the reforms eventually if such a man power problem occurred.

The Augustinian reforms seem to represent a simple reorganisation and standardisation of the military and I'm not entirely sure what the root cause of that was but I would be interested to hear about this.

Having said all that, I really like the idea of reforms and would love to see more added (though I know they're limited due to building spots).

Anyway, any thoughts on what I've said would be appreciated. I would like to thank the EB team for taking the time to develop this mod to the point where I own the next game in the series (Medieval 2) and I'm still playing EB :)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The reforms include some changes in roman society, customs and in some cases a technological progress, all things that can't happen overnight, thus the minimum year requirements

The city requirement of the polybian reforms is there that the romani have to fight against the right enemies to adopt some of their equippment. Celts for chainmail and Carthage with it's iberian mercs for the gladius, as it happened in history. The 210 BC condition is especially there for the AI, so that the reforms are triggered even if it fails to fight the carthaginians.

The size of the republic triggered the events that lead to the marian reforms. Without expansion and an empire to conquer, defend and controll there would be no manpower shortage. Without the conscript farmer beeing years away on campaigns abroad and the booty from many wars for the richer classes there would be no large agricultural estates taking over smaller land owners in that scale. Thus the province requirement for the marian reforms. A roman republic limited to Italia could still recruit enough men to defend their peninsula and so no need to reform anything.

Edit: Also the romans have defeated carthage and the hellenistic powers with a polybian style army in history and should do so in game too.

The senate generally opposed any kind of land reforms to increase the number of small farmers and feared the un calculate able costs to pay for the equippment of their soldiers and to take care for veterans that don't have enough property to live from in peacetime. So you need any intelligent man with the necessary influence who is somewhat in opposition to the more conservative elements of society to recognize the need for and can enforce such changes as represented by the marian reforms. The 90 province requirement is there because at one point it becomes impossible to controll an empire of such size with an italian militia army and even the most conservative man has to admit this.

The reorganisation and standardisation of the military by during augustus reign: For the first time in roman history one man effectively controlled the whole state and roman army and thus could actually do something like this. He had the necessary experience to realize that a strong army was needed to defend the roman empire and perhaps more importantly his and his families postion in the state.

My jury is still out on wether I like your ideas or not, but there is one thing I am sure of. It's 215BC in my Roman campain and I find that I am just trying to go through the motions until i reach 172 BC. Everything seems to be at a stand still (boring) until I get Marius. Maybe I expanded too fast or maybe things are set to easy (VH/M). I also built lvl 2 government pretty much everywhere. This has limited my recruitment to Italy pretty much.

http://wm18.inbox.com/dnl/rome_214bc...TH=0_-10_1&V=1

You also seem to forget that the Senate was always against such reforms, it took a man with the influence of Marius to implement them in any real form. The 'head count' army was extremely controversial.

I think this is the right place to ask this.

Excuse my little knowledge about the following theme, but Who made the Polybian reform?


Thanks =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eduorius

I think this is the right place to ask this.

Excuse my little knowledge about the following theme, but Who made the Polybian reform?


Thanks =)

---

IIRC, the Polybian reform wasn't really a sudden reform, just a slow change of equiptment from early Rome to the Rome Polybius described.

Oh so that was :laugh4:

Thanks a lot for the quick response.

First, thank you for the replies. A lot of what you've said, cunctator, makes a lot of sense but I can see the Marian reforms as something the AI will never achieve which, to me, is a bit of a shame.

About the Polybian reforms - is it possible to have some kind of trigger in the script when a general battles against units using the gladius and units with chainmail? (like the Cataphract reforms) That way, they wouldn't have to control particular areas, they would just have to meet them in battle. When they had experience of both, then it could trigger. I'm not sure how viable that is as I know there are issues with the Cataphract reform at the moment (though I'm not sure of their nature).

I would really like to see more reforms for other factions. For example, Thorikitai say in the description that they are influenced by the Romans and yet quite often they are being recruited before the Romans have even achieved the Polybian reforms. Same thing goes for Libyan and Liby-phoenician heavy infantry. Don't get me wrong though, I have no problem with factions having access to elite units from the start.

Would any of this be possible?

Thanks again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erugolon

About the Polybian reforms - is it possible to have some kind of trigger in the script when a general battles against units using the gladius and units with chainmail?

---

There really isn't any way for us to get at that sort of information using the scripting interface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erugolon

I would really like to see more reforms for other factions.

---

This will only happen if the historians sign off on it, if RTW has any remaining "building slots" to do so, and if doing so does not slow the game down further. Due to the technical gymnastics required to work around the 1.5 changes we are somewhat limited in how the reforms work but if the historians sign off on it then you can be sure we will make the attempt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

There really isn't any way for us to get at that sort of information using the scripting interface.

---

What about using the trigger generalfoughtfaction and have them fight Iberia and Carthage? Or any faction known to have chainmail and swords as a major part of their army?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gazius

What about using the trigger generalfoughtfaction and have them fight Iberia and Carthage? Or any faction known to have chainmail and swords as a major part of their army?

---

That would work. However:

(1) I was responding to the question is it possible to have some kind of trigger in the script when a general battles against units using the gladius and units with chainmail?

(2) The transition from the Camillan to Polybian army involved much more than equipment. Whereas most light troops (rorarii and accensi) were placed behind the heavy infantry in the older army, all light troops are positioned in front of the Hastati in the Polybian system. To the extent that it did involve equipment changes, it was dependent on Roman citizens having access to it and the additional wealth necessary to purchase it.

So, if I understand you correctly, it not only requires contact with that equipment but the necessary wealth to acquire it. Could you trigger the reform based on the amount of mnai the Romans had acquired and whether general(s) had fought against factions with the required equipment?

Thanks again for your replies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erugolon

So, if I understand you correctly, it not only requires contact with that equipment but the necessary wealth to acquire it. Could you trigger the reform based on the amount of mnai the Romans had acquired and whether general(s) had fought against factions with the required equipment?

Thanks again for your replies

---

Again, I suppose so, but the amount of money in the treasury would not necessarily correlate with the wealth available to the individual citizen. The point I was trying to make is that army reforms have a cultural and sociological component. As cunctator said above:

The reforms include some changes in roman society, customs and in some cases a technological progress, all things that can't happen overnight...

Consider a modern example: Why do the US armed forces now recruit women? To counter the Amazons of other nations? No, the primary reason is cultural.

Capturing the Gallic and Sicillian cities represents both increased wealth from sacking those cities but also access to craftsmen who can produce the equipment.

I agree that cultural changes are required and thus I cede the point that a year requirement is necessary. However, what I'm trying to get at is that I don't believe controlling those specific cities is necessary for the Polybian reforms to have occurred. Yes, they would have given them wealth and experience with the necessary equipment but that's just one way of achieving those goals. If they were instead to expand in other areas and become wealthy as well as having experience fighting the necessary forces, I believe the reforms would still have occurred.

Ok, look, if you read the second part of my post you'll see the words "access to craftsmen."

The Romans themselves were not known for their metalworking or their inventiveness. The majoriety of Roman armour throughout history was produced by Gallic smiths, thats everything from helmets to mail to the later Lorica Segmentata. I'm not saying a Roman smith couldn't produce a mail shirt but in order to be able to mass-equip the legions with the stuff you needed lots of hands, and that means Gauls. When you look at the early Roman Gladius and Pugio they're so close to the originals they might almost have been produced by the same smiths, and they may well have been.

I see what you're saying but what I'm trying to get at is...why those specific provinces? Couldn't they expand into Iberia, for example, and get access to craftsmen capable of producing the gladius there?

yeah but as a completely different question--how, and why, would the Romans advance into Iberia before they went through northern Italy?

I feel the need to state at this point that our Reforms have been re-worked several times, and we've put a lot of thought into this.

So, to be honest we're happy with them and they aren't going to be changed.

Well, when I was talking about expanding into Iberia, I was referring to the Gladius and not chainmail. I was focusing on this mainly because the AI often avoids southern Italy.

Anyway, I see where you're coming from with this, it's just a shame that you're unlikely to fight against post-polybian armies. Though I realise this is pretty realistic.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erugolon

Well, when I was talking about expanding into Iberia, I was referring to the Gladius and not chainmail. I was focusing on this mainly because the AI often avoids southern Italy.

Anyway, I see where you're coming from with this, it's just a shame that you're unlikely to fight against post-polybian armies. Though I realise this is pretty realistic.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply though.

---

Sorry if that last sounded a bit snappish, the fact is we've been over this every which way and we've come up with the best solution we can for gameplay and historical accuracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Sorry if that last sounded a bit snappish, the fact is we've been over this every which way and we've come up with the best solution we can for gameplay and historical accuracy.

---

Oh, that's ok...I appreciate you taking the time to explain both your decision and the history behind it.