Printable View
FYI : Renamed all references to our legions to the beginning of my reign. Very very minor edition to the unfinished final report. Corrected some errors. By the way, to forestall any discussion on body counts, I use the casualties in the battles for score. Thus not the 'corrected' amounts after the chirurgeons perform their miracles. I can't be bothered to do the math :laugh4: I do math all day long already.
I'm glad we're naming legions like this. However, I have a question. How are we going to keep track of which legion is which? Given the importance of the 'legion' ancillary for trait advancement, it doesn't seem practical to use that. Legion generals simply won't be able to spend all their time with one force, they will move around and their banner ancillaries will have to go with them. In addition, eventually some legions will be led by captains. I guess we'll have to just leave it up to the First Consul to keep track and pass on the info at the end of the reign?
As for Massilia, I had actually thought of it a bit differently... in order to block the pass to Cisalpine Gaul, you have to station a force inside the pass itself. If you do not own Massilia, your line of sight is heavily limited by the mountains, which also make a tower useless. If you want to know when the enemy is coming, you must keep a spy in the area at all times. If you hold Massilia, you can hold either the bridge or use a fort (my preference since the AI can't handle bridge/ford battles) and in addition you get a decent line of sight, plus you can build a tower out there for permanent extra range. Leaving a fort there isn't a big deal if you plan on fighting a field battle anyway. You simply sally and play it like a normal fight.
The legions are still numbered, I, II, etc, so this should not be a problem. If a commander wants to leave his legion, he should be expected to 'turn over command', i.e. passing on the 'legion ancillary' to the new commander. Marcellus thought it out pretty well. The number of avaliable legions increase with the amount of territory you hold, up to a maximum of 40. I suspect the number of available avatars will increase at almost the same rate as our expansion, and thus the amount of legion banners available. I think that will work out.
I personally dislike placing forts to block strategic passes and bridges and so on, as the AI can't handle it and will go around, instead of attacking the fort, even if it means crossing the half of europe. A bit cheesy. I do use forts, but I place them so that the AI can still move around them. A fort inside the pass, or just at the end, would block the AI's movement completely and it wouldn't see a 'path' to get to us and just give up and go home.
So just leave the blocking army in the field? I can live with that. I would actually like to see a new rule saying that we cannot permanently garrison a bridge. It's just too easy to win that way and our campaign shouldn't be totally free of possible crisis. Just look at how excited people got when they thought I would die! I almost felt bad winning. :laugh4:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Sure scared me ! I was terrified you'd be in a totally hopeless position or unwinnable situation or something, but after playing it I thought, lets create a riot on the senate floor :2thumbsup:
I loved it ! Everyone got worked up !
If you just stand at a brdige end, the AI will still attack. I can live with the massacres, as we just don't have the infrastructure to support an army at Massilia if it keep losing 2 units a turn. And the AI gets 10K each turn for free, so it can keep up the pressure. I guess Lucco just bought an army after his first one was destroyed. In my campaign as Rome, Carthage and Greece just drop a general in Italy. That general just buys all the mercenaries in Italy and voila, instant army behind my lines. Nasty. They did it several times to me already. That's why I'm so serious about the garrisons and legions stationed everywhere. The AI is making me a bit paranoid.
The intention was to track it by ancillary. I'll keep a record of the Legion names in my post on our military forces in the Senate library.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I'm not sure the legion ancillaries do play a role in for trait advancement. I thought what is important is years of field experience, having the pre-requisite rank (former Tribune to be Legate etc) and being with Roman infantry. The ancillaries were intended to be transferable, the notes say that. Let's keep an eye out for what happens when one of our legates becomes - or should become - a praetor. They should get a new ancillary - Roman Field Army I - so I doubt they need to already have a legion ancillary. Eventually the legions may become secondary to the Field Armies, but at least the names will give the Legates something characterful as compensation.
Generally speaking, I'd like to match up the new Roman ancillaries and leadership traits as intended (legion ancillaries reserved for Legates etc). It operationalises the ideas we had for age-related role-playing at the beginning of the campaign. I don't think it should be so necessary to split up Legates and their legions. If you've toiled for 40 turns as a Tribune to get the requisite experience, it seems unfair to take your baby away from you until you make Praetor. It's not so important now when we don't have that many avatars and we are just starting out. But it could enhance the role-playing aspects. Looking forward to working my way up as a callow 16 year old certainly seems like a different experience from playing Quintus.
Econ21, if you never gave a legion ancillary to shifty157 (Publius Laevinius) it seems that only the 10 years of military service and former tribune trait are required. Then the avatar will be able to get the legate trait. There was some confusion, as it said in the rules that 'tribune must have been in command of a roman legion'. Then again, it might imply that the tribune must have been in command of a army of legion size. I am also unsure if a roman legion banner ancillary must be available at that moment for assignment
To be honest, I can't recall what happened with shifty157. I know I gave his FLYdude's legion for a bit, but I would not have swopped the legion ancillary if shifty157 were not already a legate, as that would be against our house rules. I think one or other of them spawned the legion II ancillary, probably without having much of a stack at all. I was pleasantly surprised by that.
I do know Quintus went from former Consul to Consul at the end of the first turn and without any Roman leadership ancillary. So I infer you don't need to have a pre-existing Roman leadership ancillary to advance a Roman leadership trait. Indeed, such an ancillary might even prevent you advancement (e.g. because a Roman Field Army ancillary will have to occupy the Legion ancillary slot).
Marcus Camillus is back from his trip and said he will be passing through here over the weekend. He may clear up some of this, but right now things seem to be working very nicely for us. All our starting characters are either Legates or Consuls, which is as should be given their experience and starting traits.
EDIT: I've put the legion names in the Senate library thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...42&postcount=3
Later I will add little illustrative screenshots of what the formations looked like at key moments (the Consular army in the battle for Sicily; Legion I when ambushed in Cisalpine Gaul etc).
Regarding forts and their "cheesyness" or not, personally, I find the thought of combating and pwning a stack of Gauls every other turn rather tedious. If a fort to the north of Masslia stops the AI from launching pointless attack after pointless attack on us, I'm all for it.
I agree - if the Senate does want to halt expansion into Gaul, then forts would seem to be the best way to do it. Rather like how TinCpw established a system of border forts in the recent WRE PBM. It will allow Gaul to flourish withoutbeing bled to death (if that's what people want) and free everyone from repetitive fights. One thing I dislike about BI is the way you beat hordes by holding bridges and wearing down their armies. Massilia may be ideal for that, but it's not a strategy I personally would much enjoy executing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi
How were the border fort systems established? I've tried, but it's futile. The 'frozen river' sections are impossible to fortify, which is quite a pain, allowing the hordes in. The Sarmies, Goths and Franks have all entered via rivers, and the Huns destroyed trying to cross one.
Anyhow, Legion names! Apart from Traianus Fortis, the Legions weren't named after a person and anything else at all. It's one or the other. Also, if you want a regional name, the Legion is named after the place it was levied from, not, as you think, where they have had much action or even conquered territory.
So, bearing this in mind, I propose naming Legion I:
- Legio I Italica (or even Roma!)
- Renaming it after to victory to any number of different names:
+ Legio I Verginia Fortis
+ Legio I Victrix
+ Legio I Valeria Victrix
+ Legio I Triumphalis
+ Legio I Pia Fidelis (none routing against 1k+ Gauls is pretty faithful)
Legion II, I think, seeing how successful they are in night battles, should be named:
- Legio II Italica or Legio II Sabina originally
- Success after success calls for a renaming:
+ Legio II Fretensis (fighting around sea straits?)
+ Legio II Noctis (of the night)
+ Legio II Liberatrix (liberators)
+ Legio II Sicilia Liberatrix (liberators of Sicily, though I'm unsure if it's Sicilia or Sicilium or something else)
- Legio III Italica, Sabina, Roma?
- Renaming after a bit of island action sounds great:
+ Legio III Fratres (brothers, of Legio II during Sicily's liberation)
+ Legio III Classica (naval legion, scurrying around in boats)
+ Any of the Legio I names I guess, of brave, triumphant, victorious etc
- Legio IV Italica again, or some other name. Perhaps just vary it a little? Samnium, Etrusca, or any other Italian regions.
- Legio IV Barbarorum (due to the fact that they have barbarian scum in their ranks)
- Renamed? Nah, they don't seem to have achieved much that's major yet.
Anyway, that's all I can think of right now.
I don't know what the "frozen river" you're talking about is, but this was the border fort system:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=110
It was essentially a method to secure a very long border with minimal forces. It worked pretty well and was somewhat historical as well. Briefly, forts are built at all chokepoints into a region. The forts are manned by a single unit and are only meant to delay the enemy. A full sized legion is then stationed within quick march time (ideally 1 turn) of all the forts in an area and instantly moves to engage any force that besieges a border fort.
I've done all that, but I didn't know where to put the Italian one.
About the rivers: In the Sirmium-Carnuntum area's forts, I can't build a fort in one region. It says I can't construct a fort there. Ditto in France, there's another area where it seems that my generals are forbidden to construct forts, no idea why.
I would just like to applaud Tiberius enthousiasm and feeling in the matter of the naming of legions. I am not necessarily agreeing with his points, mind you. What are other people thinking about is subject ?
Meanhwile, I will hold on to the names we've chosen at the moment, as renamingis a pain.
Let's keep to what we've agree for now and put it to a vote in the next Senate session. If he likes, Tiberius - or anyone - can propose motions for alternative names. Naming can be a First Consul's perogative but needs ratification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Death the destroyer of worlds
BTW, Tiberius, we understand regional names designated where a legion was levied from but right now AFAIK we can only recruit Romans in our three starting provinces. It would be a little dull to have 3 Legio Italias, but I still like regional names. I have little doubt we will start recruiting in the conquered territories eventually so I am happy to overlook the sequencing issue. Remember, because we can't retrain to make up losses, replacement units to merge with our old ones are going to have to come from some where.
Also, it may be incorrect for Romans to have two names - region and honorific - but I think many military units in other armies (British regiments for example) have both a formal region name and a parallel "nickname" of sorts. It just seems fun.
I say for now that which ever Consul raises the legion gets to name it however he wants if the Senate does not otherwise specify a name for it. In addition, the Senate can obviously rename a legion at will through a motion.
Different regions of Italia, and like I said, special deeds are commemorated, for example Legio III Classicanus due to their running about in ships a lot, being a naval legion if you like. Also, could we change retraining rules? eg, if the said settlement is not recruiting ANY units that turn, it can retrain the equivalent of ONE unit tops. eg, if you have two units on normal size with 20 units of hastasi each, both can be retrained.
The reason for prohibiting retraining is not so much constraints on how many men could be trained - which your proposal addresses - but because when you retrain units the replacements get the same experience as the survivors in the unit. That doesn't sound quite right. And it also tends to mean the humans severely outclass the AI over time, as our units live and can be retrained but their's are wiped out[1]. Of course, we will outclass them anyway but with RTRs auxilia system, we often have limited armies and so attrition is non-negligible.
Manually replenishing units is a bit of micromanagement but it can add fun - e.g. when your supply of replacements has to march through hostile territory.
[1]Plus someone said the AI never retrains (not sure that's true).
It's true. I am against retraining.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The legions weren't named unit the imperial period. Before then they were just Legion 1, 2, 3 etc. I think we ought to name them after characters and regions.
Holy crap, I just took at look at econ21's pending battle... he has to go on the offensive against a significant force of pretty decent Carthaginians.
3.5 Scutarii Falcata
5 Liby-Phoenician Spearmen
3 Caetrati Cavalry Auxilia
1.5 Scutarii Spearmen
1 Mercenary Hoplite
1 Italian Spearmen
plus a whole bunch of skirmisher units. That's a ton of spears and a lot of heavy infantry to take on with a single legion! If he doesn't withdraw, I fear I may be starting the Memorial sooner than I expected!
Yeah, we're not talking barbarians now. At least there aren't any elephants :)
Just to check it out, I went into the battle... the Punic force is on top of a VERY steep mountain. My choice would be to withdraw and let them hit us in a defensive battle.
I jus tried it and won, but I lost ca. 350 men AND Quintus :oops:
The best thing in IMO is to meet them in the cusp between you and the hill. Try to draw half their men to your right and occupy them with the cavalry. Keep a small line. When they attacked the line (fighting uphill) I swept around them with all my swordsmen on my left and then they charged the enemy frontline from the side charging downhill. It went pretty well actually. Shame about Quintus :)
Just a word on the First Consul Reports thread - I envisage that as our "after-action report" thread, so I think it is ok for Lower House members to post battle reports in it, provided they are in character. They fit very well with the rest of the thread, which is reporting what is going on in the First Consul's reign. I did the report as a personal letter, but in future they could just be a report from the general to the First Consul, which is relayed to the Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by shifty157
I thought about posting my battle report in the Senate library, but that is turning out to be very much focussed on our characters, which is fine, and so it would not fit so well there. A battle report is not a reference material per se.
Another alternative is to put them in the Senate deliberations thread like TinCow did, but to be honest, I think that thread is more ephemeral and the report would just get lost. I could move TinCow's battle report to the First Consul Reports thread but he wrote it so nicely in character for the Senate that I think it is fine to stay where it is.
[EDIT]: At the end of the battle, we were offered this character for adoption:
https://img145.imageshack.us/img145/...amillus2ak.jpg
Marcus Camillus has said he will pass by this weekend, so I am inclined to assign him this character if he wants him. Marcus created the 4 turns per year mod we are using, and the Roman leadership traits/ancillaries. He will join the Upper House, but I hope he will step down the Lower House in due course.
I Marcus Camillus is not a true roman, then who is ? I second this proposal.
I agree with the battle reports in the first consul thread, but I would prefer it if people only did that if they had a 'climatic' battle, like Augustus's his ambush or this latest battle by Quintus. Otherwise the thread will become a 'battle' report thread, which is not what we want I think. Shifty157 is now attacking Massilia by the way (271 BC spring).
Wow, that's a real future benefit, for sure! This character has loads of potential. How on earth did you get a 3 management and influence person via adoption?!
By the way, Decius Laevinius and his ugly mug should be added to the library.
Good point, I agree. IIRC, I offered FLYdude the chance to post his battle reports in the First Consul reports thread but he didn't, I guess because they were not climatic enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Death the destroyer of worlds
How many generals do we have? It just seems like we have quite a few considering that the game tries to keep a set ratio between generals and provinces.
On second tought I suggest the creation of a
'the will of the senate - Dramatic battles' thread
and I suggest moving both econ21's battle report and augustus's ambush report to there, along with future dramatic battle reports. I further suggest that it is up to the first consul to decide if a battle is dramatic and he should notify the senate as soon as possible if one occurs. I will adjust/insert links in the report accordingly.
I also advise generals who fight a battle that they are (very) welcome to send links to images of their non-dramatic battles and descriptions of their battles. I will then insert these into the report as well. I'm losing the thread of the unfolding story of our campaign at the moment.
Your toughts ?