What is the reasoning behind the fact that the romans can't recruit the greek katapeltai and lithobloi?
Printable View
What is the reasoning behind the fact that the romans can't recruit the greek katapeltai and lithobloi?
They can, but only in certain greek settlements. They weren't able to make them themselves before the Marian reforms.
Foot
But it isn't in the ebd, though. And assuming that is a mistake, surley they should be able to recruit their own though, to me it dosen't seem to make much sense that they should go from having them as a rare regional, to being able to recruit ones that are bettre than anybody else's? Espescialy since according to the description of the vitruvian artilery, the romans perfected the design of the katapeltai, through practical experince, working on the fromula developed by the greeks. If that is so how can they have that experince when these will probably be the first ever artilery the romani have had, and definatley the first the romani have had if they are a computer controled faction.
Hehe, sorry for the rant.:oops:
The Romans didn't make their own seige artillery until fairly late, so making them in core settlements is linked to the Marian reforms.
Romans in fact stole most of they're artillery early on. Esp big amount was captured in New Carthage, Syracuse and after Carthage surrendered them few years before III Punic war.
This does not mean they haven't it at all. If artillery is not buildable in any provinces, then there is probably a bug.
The biggest powers in artilery were Greek states, single most prominent centre was in Alexandria.
Very often R:TW is poorly suited to accurately simulate processes, as the adoption of new equipmnet/weapons, that stretched over decades in RL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
As the description also says real vitruvian designs appeared ca. in 58 BC - 45 BC timeframe, while the Roman army used artillery on a more regular basis since ca. the post 133 BC period, (Numantia, the jugurthine war, in the social
war, late republican artillery positions in the walls of Rome, Pompeius siege of Jerusalem for example) and probaly begun to produce thier own during this timeframe. So even without the direct help of greek engineers that enough experience with a basically centuries old design before the improved examples were introduced.
In R:TW however we can't have multiple dynamic reforms for every single arm of the Roman army or other factions, thus necessarly some things can't be reprsented in a completly logical way in game.
It is in edb (Barracks_A2). The real bug/problem is that all greek design artillery is recruited from the factional polybian baracks. These can only be build in homeland areas, but all greek artillery producing province can't have homeland governments, thus you can' recruit them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
Hmm, would it not make more sense then if the standard artilery was to become avalible by the marian refroms, and the improved vitruvian versions come with the imperial reforms?
Sorry for segesting this, I'm sure you've already thought of it, but I'm just curios.:inquisitive:
These machines were available in the late republican timeframe, before our imperial reforms and are so in EB. The army after the augustan reforms represents pretty much the endproduct after all changes made to the roman army during our timeframe. Marcus Vitruvius Pollio the engineer who has described these weapons and participated in their development was probably already dead or a very old man when our early imperial army was the reality in the last decades of Augustus reign.
However after the imperial reforms improved artillery is more easily available to the romani.
Romans were considerably backwards in matters of Siege Warfare during the early part of the EB era. A craft originating in the Middle-East, the craft of Siege Warfare travelled therefrom to Carthage, to Sicily, and from Sicily to mainland Greece. Except the Ram which travelled directly from Assyria to Greece via Minor Asia. Romans had no great use for knowing complicated siege warfare, as their foe were either other Italians or Celts. Until, that is, they got cozy with the Greeks as Pyrrhos introduced them to what proper logistics should look like. And the Punic Wars, showing them what siege warfare can do. They certainly had knowledge of Siege Warfare, from the Diadochi states. But in no way did they make any particular effort to excel or perform at the art. It was an expensive thing to invest in such academia and technology, especially as there was no pre-existing culture for such at the time. Their method of siege warfare, as with the army, was not one of finesse, but pure brute force. They knew how to use ladders, work under vineae to build dirtramps, which they would use to walk right over the walls. They also knew how to build ditches to invest (starve) a city.
It's clear though, that as they learned how to use it, they claimed it for themselves and made it better than the Greeks ever did. Their artillery became better than the Greek artillery. Their logistics too. So with all other technologies they "borrowed" from competing cultures. The boats became better adapted than the Phoenician boats, as they added technologies such as the Corvus. Their celtic Montefortino helmets became better and better than the celtic origins. Same with their shields. They were used to Hoplite shields, until Celtic influence forced them to adopt the Celtic basis for the shield design. So with the Chainmail. The Romans did borrow most of their tech, but they made it far better than the originators ever managed to - but they had the time to do it. That's what is so hard to represent in the limitations of the RTW engine.