Printable View
Maybe its as simple as adding another MIC building to the tree that has very complex pre-requisites and takes a long time to build. That way you can ensure a province has been in the right hands for long enough. I imagine the AI will need a shortcut to enable it though...?
I'm not sure what you mean. What are you ultimately trying to do, and how are you proposing to do it?
Thanks for your patience.
I mean in order to represent a faction which controls an area for a very long period of time being able to recruit its own national troops due to cultural assimilation etc as discussed earlier in this thread. That should be very difficult to achieve both in reality and in EB.
I dont even know what is possible, but a special building with, say, a 20 year+ (minimum 80 turns, yes) build time and -10 law or something - which then allows a province to build a local MIC that recruits faction specific local troops. ie Hastati, Principes, Velites and Ascensi for Romani. The prerequisites must be a lvl 2 govt in a province and quite a few other faction specifics buildings to be specified by yourself.
It might mean changing the MIC system slightly so that all factions have a Romani type environment. ie they cant originally build local MICs outside of lvl 1 govt territories. A third MIC building for "allied" troops could come in. So ie for lusotannan all Iberians might be allies not national.
Alterantively the current MIC system could be maintained in most provinces but the extra MIC type would be the one that allows the local faction specific troops to be trained.
Romani arent perhaps the best example of this. But the premise that subjects within an empire eventually gain the franchise and would join the regular military, as every large empire must - surely - have a structured army is sound I believe.
In addition it might mean relooking at the govt types assigned to each faction.
Anyway, just a thought that has gone on a bit too long
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it worked that way historically. To use your example, Rome did not recruit Hastati, Principes, Velites, etc. anywhere but in Italy. The other great expanding culture of the era, the Hellenistic one, did recruit "factional units" in their new territories, but they recruited these from migrated Hellenes, not natives. The natives had their own units, and were only allowed into Hellenic units when the successors started to run out of Hellenes. Apparently, two hundred years of domination by the Hellenes had been unable to transform the original culture, and it was only manpower problems that convinced their leaders to expand the franchise. Rome seems to have been unique in allowing different peoples into its core army, and this was a late development.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambyses
The culture idea sounds really good. However, if implemented, it should take a really long time (I'm talking 100 years) to fully "culturise" a new province. Also, culture should not have as bad a public order hit.
Yeah, culture is a good idea, but as I understand it, the EB-team has come up with something different for religion. We'll just have to see what suprises they have in store for us!:yes:
Sorry its taken me so long to reply. I appreciate your answer but it has triggered further thoughts in my feeble brain. :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Firstly, yes, Rome is not a good example in many ways. However eventually they did recruit "factional units" in a large part of their empire. Those parts that had the franchise and could be trusted. Many (although not all) of these were descendants of Romans who had migrated to an area. For the game's purposes however this distinction does seem somwhat moot. There were people in a province who would sign up as legionnaries, that's what we need to know. So, no, Rome never did recruit hastati in Athens, but instead over the course of several hundred years they changed the structure of their entire army, including recruitment. This is of course represented in EB1 as the Marian reforms.
Then, I was thinking, what of other empires? Well, the Achaemenids would probably be the perfect example from my point of view, especially the recruitment of the Immortals. of course they are slightly out of EB's time frame, but they remained relevant to the ancient world until and arguably even after the coming of Islam. Ive always felt the more "tribal" the faction is, the more likely they would have adopted, as such, a much looser system of control.
The Carthaginians - are a more topical example perhaps - they also showed signs that they would train and equip people from other regions in a manner similar to their own troops. Note, not the same.
Your comments about the Hellenes are obviously very valid, assimilation was never that civilizations strongpoint. But then again what was Baktria, for example, other than a Greek colony? Hellenic type troops recruitable in the furthest East of the Seleucid kingdom.
How to represent this in the game? Well, maybe to add on my initial suggestion that troops recruited in this manner from other regions would get a morale penalty, is that possible, a "negative bonus"?
Anyway, I just feel it would add a good sense of progression in the game, for many factions. Clearly there is a limit to what EB can do with the engine, social infrastructure, distribution of the franchise, settling veterans etc etc etc. But we will just have to fill such blanks with our imagination.
Well, that's it, just wanted to share my thoughts :juggle2:
I am not sure if I agree with your examples. Bactria had actually quite a decent Hellenic population at the game's start due to migrations and earlier Achaemenid deportations. You'll note that their units still distinguish between Hellenes and easterners. It's probably a bit too easy for them to recruit Hellenic units, because the population couldn't have been that big, but they sure had the capability to do so. The Carthaginians didn't really have their own fighting style to speak of, at least not by the time of the mod. They supplied the officer corps and the elite units, but not the rank-and-file of the Carthaginian army. Iberians in Carthaginian service still fought like Iberians. There was no enfranchisement either. I know less about the Acheamenids, but I am pretty sure that they didn't train their local levies to fight in the Persian manner. These locals weren't enfranchised, and so wouldn't have been hugely concerned with the welfare of the Persian empire. It's bad policy to train potential disloyal soldiers.
I am also afraid a morale penalty would would not work, for three reasons. Firstly, we don't know how or whether they work in R:TW, secondly we cannot set them for specific units, and thirdly it would only serve to confuse the A.I.
Don't get me wrong, you've got a point, and I guess the EB team is thinking along the same lines. However, cultural assimilation and/or enfranchisement are slow, tricky issues that take many years and probably a lot of political infighting as well. I don't think it realistic that the Makedones should build a "assimilation" structure in Rome to recruit Pezhetairoi there.
But now Rome can build type II governments in what is now Poland (if the recruitment viewer doesn't lie).
This is incredible, when romans never crossed the Elba.
So, please, change it.
Those ideas you're suggesting could make the attempts of Seleucids and Baktrians to 'hellenize' the East more apparent in the game. In EB you really only have the military settler colony, but one of the great problems of those dynasties was their attempt of attracting Greek and Macedonian settlers to the east, so as to stabilize their rule over a population otherwise rather alien to their own culture. Fx the Seleucid empire could start out being very culturally weak, and then if the ruler is able to divert focus to strengthening hellenic culture, you might be able to stop provinces from revolting.
This would also better represent the disintegration of the Seleucid empire. In EB it's usually conquered by Ptolemies, but apart from the easternmost provinces, it doesn't seem to have the cultural difficulties that the real Seleucid empire had...
Please make requests for corrections to EB1 in the EB1 forum. The small team who is collecting those are not usually looking here and won't see your request.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartaphilus
One might suppose the EB Romani team would have their reasons for doing this. Possibly because the Romans incorporated the various Celtic people with great success and IIRC made a serious attempt at doing the same with the Germans (until Teutoburger forrest, that is). However, I too admit I am not sure why this was included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartaphilus
Roman Type2 areas do not represent where they historically ruled. They represent what they could have integrated into the Roman Empire were to have ever conquered it.
I answered this in the FAQ.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
But in Spanish your point is named: "mantenella y no enmendalla". :beam:
This question of using the religion in EB 2 has come up before.
I had a response in the "7 cultures" thread last year.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...44#post1769944
I would refine that a bit further.
Nomad (Early nomad factions, any province with nomad resource)
Tribal (many "barbarian" settlements and factions, perhaps later Saka and Sauromatae)
Eastern/divine Monarchy (Diadochi, perhaps Averni)
Popular Monarchy/Tyranny (late Rome)
Democracy/Republic (Republican Rome, Certain Greek States)
Commercial Oligarchy (Carthage, maybe settlements like Rhodes)
Theocratic (no actual factions, but present as local culture in Egypt and maybe India)
I like the idea of players having a basic political orientation (eg Monarchic) and then a set of building options that mesh or clash with that orientation.
Can a faction change culture during the game? If so Rome moving from Republican to Monarchic would bring about your civil wars with settlements revolting away from the new monarchic govt because tyhey were still Republican, until heavily garrisoned/rebuilt.
I'd also argue that all the nomad factions were monarchys waiting to happen, and although their starting settlements should have nomad political culture the faction culture should be Eastern Monarchy or tribal (or if possible transform to that as part of their urbanisation reforms).
May I speculate on a system? Each faction can build 2 or 3 tiers of MIC in each of the 7 culture types (except theocratic which gives big haoppiness bonuses but no troops).
Each gives an ascending conversion bonus to that culture type, and makes available troops associated with that political culture. Nomad gives HA's, Monarchies give elite horse or bodyguard units, democracy gives pike/hoplite, tribal gets your fierce warrior types. If a Roman wants hoplites he has to let democracy flourish, which is OK for the republic but not so good in the Principate.
If you want decent troops from a competing politcal system you'd better balance them with other buildings giving your political type a boost: you could have a three step political control tree for your faction's politcal culture giving an ascending conversion bonus.
This would be like the current faction/local MIC system, just with a little more resolution. To get greek and skythian units in the Crimea you'd need to build 2 MIC streams rather than one.
I wonder this meshes with the type I-IV system? Maybe the level of govt could limit the level of you political control tree (so its harder to pacify "non core" areas without garrisons)? I'd argue that type IV's should only allow building monarchic MIC's past level 1: they are essentially local strongmen loyal to a foreign master, is that fair?
Anyway I'm just speculating on matters I don't have the skills to mod.
That is very nice. Makes me jealous that I hadn't come up with it. What is quite nice with it is that you can have a relatively high conversion rate without upsetting things too much: political systems are far more fluid than cultural ones when it comes to change.
It certainly is a more simple system than what I've been working on indoors, yet I hope that you will approve of what we eventually bring out with EBII. More on that later.
Foot
Thank you very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Judging by the superb work in EB, and the mouth watering detail in the EB2 stelae, I am pretty sure we will all approve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
(Especially if you include Numdia~;)
The multiple MIC promoting different religions is cool but not very viable, as the game only allows us to promote the faction's own religion.
a little advice:
I have found this guide to adding religion
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=167440
it seems that 10 religions or cultures are possible and not only 7.