Depiction of imperial reforms

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Foot's suggestion of some kind of Roman mod sounds appealing, which would allow those interested in a complete Roman campaign with the Imperial reforms as grand conclusion to have their fill, and would allow other factions to be fleshed out that little bit more. Perhaps even as a seperate install option akin to the Gaesatae patch? Although that comes close to RTRs 'counter faction' feature using batch files, which I think EB said they wouldn't want to use.

---

Not being a programmer myself, but would it not be possible to give a standard 450 units + 100 or so which have been developed? That way, a player can choose which of those 100 units to include and exclude from his game. The user just needs to compile / run a compilation program, to include the last units.

I am happy with the Imperial Reforms. Even moreso when I am playing the Romans. But if I were playing Epeiros, intent on the destruction of Rome, I doubt whether the Romans even would get past the Polybian Reforms. Then the Reform units take up quite a few slots.

By the time the Imperial reforms hit, you'd expect at least some factions to be wiped out. Is it not possible to use the slots that have become available (unique units of wiped out factions) for other factions then?

First of all, all the positions of those denying the Imperial reforms are highly valued, and thus perfectly legitimate. Yet I respectfully disagree with all of them and anyone asking for their abandonment.

@Foot, you speak of a hospital and "care for the needy", yet I have never perceived EB as a hospital. To me it has always been a place of learing, a "stealth learning tool" :2thumbsup: which will award those who persevere by rewarding them with the gift of knowledge of those ancient times. (not to mention better units at the end-especially so the Romani- who basically kicked the crap out of anyone else, conquering both Epiros, and Hayasdan.):surrender2:

This thread is getting rather grim, and has to lighten up a bit. :help:

So,please excuse the following "funny story"
The following is a gangsta-type account of Romani history...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Born by "peculiar" parents in a VERY tough neighbourhood. Faced with all sort of emenies (including 2 gangs "the greeks" and "the celts") and the neighborhoods' greedy merchant (qarthadastim), not to mention early struggles with the kid next door (Samniti) he managed to take over all of the neighboorhood, which in turn seemed to like him (sometimes by kiling those who opposed him, taking their women, and selling anyone else into slavery - but then again, it WAS a tough neighboorhood), take after him, and even speak and look like him. Then he turned his neighbourhood into the most rich in the city, so a long, long time after he was gone, they were still speaking about him. :laugh4:

Now back to serious arguements, and since we are talking in metaphores I feel I must speak for the Romani. The letters we are writing in are theirs (actually it is the Cumae western greek alphabet, but Cumae is gone and they are the rightfull heirs and also present owners.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumae_alphabet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Italic_alphabets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet

--The ideas we consider "human achievement" are theirs... Liber-ty (from Liber=free), Equal-ity (from Eqvus=Horse, and horseman, a class of men of equal standing amongst themselves, Equites), Progress, Future-(Futurum) and so many other words, that baffle the mind. In fact, English, while a Gemanic language, has many more words from Latin than from any other language, including Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_grammar

for some amazing similarities to English, which aren't all superficial.

For me EB has always been about honouring those who came before us, making sure that they are represented as vividly and as thorougly as we can. To present history as best we could without making it sound as the ones teaching it do...boring (most of them, at least). To boldly go... oh, no...:oops: I think I need say no further on Romani's . No need.

So, why Imperial reforms? Who was that emperor? Do we truly need him and his reforms around?

Well, had it not been for Octavianus Augustus, or someone else like him who would destroy the republic for a system that could work and did work, then the Roman Republic would either be destroyed by civil war (as happened in Hellenistic states) or by its consequences (foreign invasion, again as happened in Hellenistic states. Unfortunately this fate was the one that did happen to Roma, but much later than it would have, had not Julius Caesar, or his nephew and rightful heir, Octavianus Augustus, been able to stop it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octavianus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki

He ended a century of civil wars and gave Rome an era of peace, prosperity, and imperial greatness, known as the Pax Romana, or Roman peace, which lasted for over 200 years.

---

Quote:

---

Augustus was deified soon after his death, and both his borrowed surname, Caesar, and his title Augustus became the permanent titles of the rulers of Roman Empire for fourteen centuries after his death, in use both at Old Rome and New Rome. In many languages, caesar became the word for emperor, as in German (Kaiser) and in Russian (Tsar). The cult of Divus Augustus continued until the state religion of the Empire was changed to Christianity in the 4th century following the Edict of Milan. Consequently, there are many excellent statues and busts of the first, and in some ways the greatest, of the emperors. Augustus' mausoleum also originally contained bronze pillars inscribed with a record of his life, the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, which had also been disseminated throughout the empire upon his death.

Many consider Augustus to be Rome's greatest emperor; his policies certainly extended the empire's life span and initiated the celebrated Pax Romana or Pax Augusta. He was intelligent, decisive, and a shrewd politician, but he was not perhaps as charismatic as Julius Caesar, and was influenced on occasion by his third wife, Livia (sometimes for the worse). Nevertheless, his legacy proved more enduring.

---

Quote:

---

As Tacitus wrote, the younger generations alive in AD 14 had never known any form of government other than the Principate

---

The only thing left to say is that today, after 2 thousand years, US has a Senate, and European Union is struggling to become a small part (both legally and politically) that the Empire was in the time of Octavianus Augustus Caesar. Slowly but certainly the world is becoming more "unified", speaking the same language, working toward the same goals, and living "the same way". If there is one empire that the WHOLE of the modern world can look up to as common ground, its original birthplace and place of origin, it would be the Roman Empire, and mostly its first emperor, Augustus, for truly few other emperors could compare to him, Trajan or maybe Constantinus.

To not have the imperial reforms to me is an atrocity commited to the historicity of EB. We will lose so much, compared to whatever it is we stand to gain. So far as EB1 for RTW is concerned, Hellenistic factions currently use 44 slots of the 60 or so they should, so it isn't like there are other factions, other than Hayasdan who don't get their share. But glory has never been about numbers has it? I said it before, I started up hating the Romani, but then as I was growing up, seeing the advances they helped bring into the world, (from cement to aqueducts to Collosal construction building), in governing an empire, in the way they conducted themselves, or formed/reformed their army, has earned nothing but the greatest respect for them. There are no simple truths in history, but the Western World as is now, owes too much to them, for us to NOT having them WHOLE. Not amputated, due to models being needed elsewhere.

Romani should stay exactly as they are now. Some small aesthetic changes, aside, they are the most historical of our factions, mainly because we know so much about them. This is much more evident to me, being a Co-Faction Coordinator for the Sakae, where the word "needle in a heystack" becomes a favorite word, or for Indo-Greeks, whose fate is well, buried under 6 meters of river sediments in present day Pakistan. (check sig)

One shouldn't need a batch program or mini-mod to play the greatest troops of the greatest empire of EB' timeframes' history. It is plain a-historical and feels dead wrong.

well said

and me too even if i never will arrive to play as the imperial reform in a campaign as Roma, im agree it must be as it is.

(PS. im not agree on the Augustian Era<=>UE, to me the actual EU sadly resemble much more to the holy roman empire~D )

At the moment EB respects and honours Augustus only if the player plays as Romans for almost a thousand turns and then Augustus himself won't be there to be honoured. Even the reformed troops won't have too many enemies left to conquer (well, depends on the player). Personally I'd rather have Athenian, Corinthian, etc. hoplites return, but it's not my choice. The best way to solve this would infact be via a mini-mod, but I don't know if there's anyone crazy enough to start one.

@Keravnos: To not have the imperial reforms isn't an atrocity committed to the historicity of EB, it would be an atrocity committed to the drama of EB.

My feeling for EB was from the beginning that it was a mod of the very colourful last period of the true classical world. If one centers on the Romans (one should not) the end of the republic and the disappearance of the last structured classical enemies (Parthia was not that classical) would be a very good ending point. The imperial period is different, it belongs to another time. Just a feeling however, based on a very rough holistic perspective.

Based on this preconception the most valid argument for me is that space is needed for units. So I concur with Foot et al. that the late Roman troops should be sacrified in favour of other units.

Btw why do we know for sure that the Roman army of the principate was generally so much better than its predecessors? Not so many equivalent enemies left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thaatu

Personally I'd rather have Athenian, Corinthian, etc. hoplites return, but it's not my choice.
drama of EB.

---

Corintian Hoplites were already present in 0.72 and 0.74, they were eliminated in 0.8x, now we got the Spartans, why not to delete the spartans, and have back the Corinthian hoplites? Id like it much better as it was before.
After have played for a while ive arrived to the conclusion (but it's just my opinion) that the spartans have ruined the atmosphere of playing the KH as it was in 0.74 (But it's just an opinion and dont want to start a debate on that).

@Geela I think EB is centered on every faction, it is not Romano-Centric. And it is not centered on the "classic" era in a strict sense. Parthian have not big affairs with Rome in the 272 for sure, but so Baktria, the Shythians etc... and if it was a sort of Rome TW, it should have been a smaller map, and less faction... but it's not named Rome TW (ok it could be called Eurasia TW :laugh4: )
But it is focused on accuracy (as it is possible) so it illustrate the further evolution of the army of a faction in its timeframe (that is historically documented as in this case of the Romans)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obelics

@Geela I think EB is centered on every faction, it is not Romano-Centric. And it is not centered on the "classic" era in a strict sense. Parthian have not big affairs with Rome in the 272 for sure, but so Baktria, the Shythians etc... and if it was a sort of Rome TW, it should have been a smaller map, and less faction... but it's not named Rome TW (ok it could be called Eurasia TW :laugh4: )
But it is focused on accuracy (as it is possible) so it illustrate the further evolution of the army of a faction in its timeframe (that is historically documented as in this case of the Romans)

---

I really don't think that this is the best argument. There are lots of areas of the mod that are under represented, the Roman army is not one of them. Other factions, including Hayasdan, have to scrimp and save every resource we've been given. Areas of the mod from the first 150-200 years should weigh far more heavily on the mods resources than events that many players will never see. We have to be practical with what we have and not spend it on areas of the mod that are already taking so much. That is why I propose that the Imperial Reforms be scrapped from EB.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

I really don't think that this is the best argument. There are lots of areas of the mod that are under represented, the Roman army is not one of them. Other factions, including Hayasdan, have to scrimp and save every resource we've been given. Areas of the mod from the first 150-200 years should weigh far more heavily on the mods resources than events that many players will never see. We have to be practical with what we have and not spend it on areas of the mod that are already taking so much. That is why I propose that the Imperial Reforms be scrapped from EB.

Foot

---

well, it was not my apology of the roman reform, so it was not for sure the best argument...
it was a consideration on that idea of a sort of "imperial Age" out of the domain of the EB mod whose setted on a "classic Age"
you cant speak in those terms, for EB whose setted on a map that go from africa to a piece of india, so we cant speak of classic/imperial age related to romans parameters.
So i dont see EB as setted in a particular Age, but covering the armies real or potential of the period it covers (till the 11 after.C. if i well remember)
that's is.

If "the romans are not under-rapresented" and "we have to keep what we already have" why to cut it?
than EB should end in the 31 b.C, the battle of Azio and the end of Civil war, so no imperial reform.

anyway, if there is an urgent need for new important units for other faction that is a EB modders domain, so i cant say too much here, but im not agree if it is a sort of historical (timeframe etc.) / ideological (imperial/classical age etc) / gameplay (people dont play the game more than 120 B.C. etc.) debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obelics

Corintian Hoplites were already present in 0.72 and 0.74, they were eliminated in 0.8x, now we got the Spartans, why not to delete the spartans, and have back the Corinthian hoplites? Id like it much better as it was before.

---

The Corinthian hoplites haven't been eliminated, they've been replaced with the standard hoplites, which are pretty much the same (apart from the phalanx ability, but that has been removed from all classical-hoplite types). Similarly, Athenian hoplites would be identical to Iphikratean ones. Although I am not so sure about the Imperial reforms either, I don't see the point of removing the Imperial units to add a bunch of Greek units that are almost identical to already-existing ones. It's not as if the Hellenes are underrepresented either, is it?

yeah, its Saba, Haysdan, Saka that need the units, and, of course:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

PONTUS!!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

The Corinthian hoplites haven't been eliminated, they've been replaced with the standard hoplites, which are pretty much the same (apart from the phalanx ability, but that has been removed from all classical-hoplite types). Similarly, Athenian hoplites would be identical to Iphikratean ones. Although I am not so sure about the Imperial reforms either, I don't see the point of removing the Imperial units to add a bunch of Greek units that are almost identical to already-existing ones. It's not as if the Hellenes are underrepresented either, is it?

---

From what I recall Athenian hoplites looked nothing like Iphikratean hoplites skin&model wise. Not sure weather Corinthians looked like the present hoplites, but it did add a lot of depth to the faction, which is supposed to be uniquely divided. With no way to distinguish between different hoplites, it's a hard thing to roleplay any division, especially if you don't play every day (meaning you sometimes forget which army belongs to what city). Plus, removing Imperial units would add more than a few slots, and most regions need units on the highest regional MIC level. I don't know a single unit which is only available on regional level 5, (though I have to admit, I haven't looked very hard).

If you don't mind my asking- what units do you suggest we add instead of Imperials? And what are your standards for deciding which unit deserves a slot?
I think EB should examine 1) Accuracy of the unit 2) Overall Historical Impact of the unit 3) Game Balance 4) Coolness. In general, any unit that excels in all four catagories HAS to be put in. Sadly, I cannot honestly say my beloved Legionaries fill all four- only three. :no:

Still, I want to know what unit would be replacing these Legionaries. I am adamant in my refusal to allow Imperial Legionaries be knocked off so we can another useless MIC unit, trained in 3 dirt-poor Armenian mountain-towns or
some Scythian infantry. Why? Because the only thing those units have going for them is game balance. There's not a chance that they'll be that accurate compared to our legionaries, the only unit who can compete with the legionaries in terms of overall world impact is the phalanx (and those too are abundantly represented) and, quite frankly, it is next to impossible to find a cooler unit that our Imperial Legions. :2thumbsup:

Again, I feel that this discussion so far has been like a debate where the negative (ie Anti-Legions) has yet to offer a counter-plan. This isn't good form in a debate, for the simple reason that it degenerates into simple stone-walling, with one side attacking the status quo, and the others stone-walling in its defense. It's not enough to say "We need unit slots! The Legions must go!". What units are so accurate, invaluable to both history and gameplay, and downright bad-a** that they are worth losing our legionaries? If no one knows, then maybe there isn't such a unit, and there's no reason to drop said Imperials...

The "coolness" argument is an empty one, being a matter of taste. I for example find the postmarian legionaries tad boring, partly because they're so well rounded and known. Sort of like how steady "workhorse" vehicles like the Jeep or Hummer tend to be a bit on the uninteresting side.

Conversely I'm rather fascinated by the multitudous little-known soldiery from obscure parts of the world, as even if their in-game representation by necessity involves a hefty dose of pure conjecture and guesswork they nonetheless offer interesting tidbits of information on how things were done "out of the limelight" - and not solely in regards to warfare. After all the info texts on many an unit contain data on social structures, political systems, economy, geography and how humans dealt with these matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thaatu

From what I recall Athenian hoplites looked nothing like Iphikratean hoplites skin&model wise. Not sure weather Corinthians looked like the present hoplites, but it did add a lot of depth to the faction, which is supposed to be uniquely divided. With no way to distinguish between different hoplites, it's a hard thing to roleplay any division, especially if you don't play every day (meaning you sometimes forget which army belongs to what city). Plus, removing Imperial units would add more than a few slots, and most regions need units on the highest regional MIC level. I don't know a single unit which is only available on regional level 5, (though I have to admit, I haven't looked very hard).

---

EB never included an Athenian hoplite as far as I know. The Corinthians looked rather like the current classical hoplite, except that they had longer spears and used the phalanx formations. This also made them redundant next to the Iphikratean hoplite, although that was also caused by near identical stats. I got this picture from the old KH preview.

https://img179.imageshack.us/img179/...een18dd.th.jpg

However, I don't agree with your points because they would apply equally to the Celts, the Iberians, the Sarmatians, etc. The Greeks were hardly the only ones who had a fierce loyalty to their origin. Also, to properly simulate this you would need an unique hoplite unit for each Greek city, and that's a lot of slots spent on units whose function and stats are going to be near identical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

Still, I want to know what unit would be replacing these Legionaries. I am adamant in my refusal to allow Imperial Legionaries be knocked off so we can another useless MIC unit, trained in 3 dirt-poor Armenian mountain-towns or
some Scythian infantry. Why? Because the only thing those units have going for them is game balance. There's not a chance that they'll be that accurate compared to our legionaries, the only unit who can compete with the legionaries in terms of overall world impact is the phalanx (and those too are abundantly represented) and, quite frankly, it is next to impossible to find a cooler unit that our Imperial Legions. :2thumbsup:

---

I thought it was exactly this lack of knowledge about other cultures that EB aims to reduce? :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

Again, I feel that this discussion so far has been like a debate where the negative (ie Anti-Legions) has yet to offer a counter-plan. This isn't good form in a debate, for the simple reason that it degenerates into simple stone-walling, with one side attacking the status quo, and the others stone-walling in its defense. It's not enough to say "We need unit slots! The Legions must go!". What units are so accurate, invaluable to both history and gameplay, and downright bad-a** that they are worth losing our legionaries? If no one knows, then maybe there isn't such a unit, and there's no reason to drop said Imperials...

---

I don't knowwhat should replace them. All I know is that I have seen team members say there's a lack of unit slots and that there are other units they'd like to see added; not necessarily even for particular factions, although as Foot points out a faction like Armenia clearly could use more slots, but various Eleutheroi settlements that only get generic units right now. That prompted me to throw my opinion into the ring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

EB never included an Athenian hoplite as far as I know. The Corinthians looked rather like the current classical hoplite, except that they had longer spears and used the phalanx formations.

---

My bad, I must be mixing pre-0.8 EB with RTR. :boxedin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludens

However, I don't agree with your points because they would apply equally to the Celts, the Iberians, the Sarmatians, etc. The Greeks were hardly the only ones who had a fierce loyalty to their origin. Also, to properly simulate this you would need an unique hoplite unit for each Greek city, and that's a lot of slots spent on units whose function and stats are going to be near identical.

---

What I'm saying is that KH is the only faction which is not infact united. It represents a fragile alliance between Sparta, Athens and Rhodes, and the faction doesn't even have a real capital. Blah, I don't what I'm saying. I agree it would be stupid to represent every city state, and creating more regionals would be better. Damn you Ludens, you won this round! :duel:

I'd still like to know if there are any units which require level 5 regional MIC.

One thing to say about the Imperial Reforms is they aren't finished. Although the military aspect is virtually complete, sans First Cohorts, the social and trait aspects are barely started.

By 1.0 the difference between Marian and Imperial will be much more marked and it will be something the player can choose. Republic or Principate. That's really important for the faction.

So there will be advantages to maintaining the rebublic?


@Thaatu I think Lavotaxurii require mic 5.

@ Geoffrey
In a way, this can almost be clasified as an economical debate. Economics can be defined as "The allocation of scarce resources." The scarce resource in question is the unit slots. Allocation here just means "Who gets the a slot, and who gets dropped?". Hell, if I was a magic uber-modder and somehow could find a way around that unit limit I would add so many obscure, local troops it would be a crime in some states. Sadly, I don't even come close :no:

I hope I didn't come off as a Romano-centric fanboy, suffering from a lack of interest or knowledge of cultures besides Rome. But I sincerely believe that there is no unit that can compete with the Imperial Legionaries in terms of accuracy, historical importance and relevancy, and "coolness"*.

*(Just to clarify- this is always, to a degree, subjective, but then it is also true that some units have more appeal and are simply more exciting than others, for a multitude of reasons. Spartan hoplites, Roman legionaries, gaesatae are all "cool" units even if they're not everyone's favorite.)


And just to lighten the mood- here's a Funny Forum Fact:
Did you know the spelling suggestion for the word "Gaesatae" is in fact "Caesar"?
I see some irony in that :laugh4: don't believe me? check for yourself!

Exactly as Phillipivs says, there is so much more planned for the Roman faction, that when you all say 'its the most complete', I cant wait until you see what else we have in store. The social and role-play aspects of character development, traits, ancilliaries, etc, will expand in the future certainly and the Republic and Imperial eras will have marked differences.

What I meant by historical accuracy was that people were saying having them in game was on the border of inaccuracy, since they occured in 30 BC.


btw, If you can give suggestions for units to replace the Legionnaires which are historically accurate, balanced, and add to the game go for it, but saying "Legionnaires stink cause they come in to late and take unit slots" is not enough.

btw, there were many diferences between the Imperial and Marian Military Periods.

During the Imperial Periods the Legions were standardized to 28, and they became a professional force which was maintained by the state (meaning their cost should be taken directly from the treasury, not from the cities income), with training, equipment and numbers to take down any and all of Rome's enemies (it has often been speculated that the conquest of Parthia and Germania would have been possible had it not been for the political system of Rome in that time).

Marian Legionnaires were equipped almost exactly like Augustan Legionnaires, the only diferences being their helmets and shields. It has been speculated that the Legions of the early principate were equipped with two or more pila, compared to the single pilum of the Marian legions.
Legions of the Principate had at least one (sometimes two) Cohorts which were trained to function as light infantry to fight effectively against Germanic tribes and tribes in Thracia (I think). These Legionnaires were equipped similarly to Hastati of the Polybian Period, but had far superior training, discipline, and ability. Their equipment consisted of several light javelins (similar to Plumbatarii later), swords (long swords of the late Roman Army), shields like those of standard Legionnaires (slightly smaller), and heart breast-plates (like Polybian Hastati). During the Marian Period only auxiliaries provided light infantry units.
Augustan Auxiliaries provided all the Roman Cavalry during the Augustan Period. They also served as heavy spear infantry and heavy skirmishers (equipped with chain mail, heavy shields and swords for defense), and some were even the exact same as Legionnaires, but with slightly less training and discipline.
During the Marian Period they provided all of that, but in far less number than the Augustan Period. In the Marian period they were also far inferior to Legionnaires, and only served effectively as light infantry and cavalry.

That's all I have off the top of my head, but those are several diferences that would manifest in units between the Marian and Augustan periods.

btw, the thing in my earlier post were from the book Roman warfare by Adrian Goldsworthy, considered the leading authority on Roman and Hellenic periods in the world at the moment.

considered by whom? Goldsworthy is alright, but he's certainly not gospel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran_guitarra

it has often been speculated that the conquest of Parthia and Germania would have been possible had it not been for the political system of Rome in that time.

---

They could have conquered Germania, but they weren't ready to invest such a massive amount of troops, after Teutoburger Wald. That's basically the reason why Tiberius said "this land to conquer is not worth the blood of a single legionary", and thus dropped the conquest. They could've conquered Scotland and Ireland as well, and the invasion was afaik planned and almost ready, but it was stopped because the emperor's fear the general in charge could become to powerful. Parthia I'm not sure. Traian reached the Persian Gulf after conquering Mesopotamia, but Hadrian skipped almost all his conquests, surrendering against future enemies...

I'm really looking forward to the new roman goodies you guys have in store. I want an epic roman campaign.

I've seen it observed that an army is, essentially, a small city (at the least) in regards to food consumption and similar logistical issues. Thus, if you want to permanently station one in a region, the region in question must be capable of supporting the equivalent of an additional small city one way or another - and I can kind of imagine the Germanic forests failed on that count, which would have made effectively occupying them more than a little challenging. After all, one of the reasons the Celts had left them alone cannot but have been the consideration that the land simply was not worth fighting over...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

One thing to say about the Imperial Reforms is they aren't finished. Although the military aspect is virtually complete, sans First Cohorts, the social and trait aspects are barely started.

By 1.0 the difference between Marian and Imperial will be much more marked and it will be something the player can choose. Republic or Principate. That's really important for the faction.

---

Interesting, I'm looking forward to seeing that.

Eh I could see Germany being subdued , brutally with no forest and nearly no person left .



Parthia is a whole other different story .


I do know of the Roman victories against them but look how far they stretched . They could call on just as many exotic auxiliaries as the Romans could .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gran_guitarra

btw, If you can give suggestions for units to replace the Legionnaires which are historically accurate, balanced, and add to the game go for it, but saying "Legionnaires stink cause they come in to late and take unit slots" is not enough.

---

I'm not a historian, thus not an expert. I can't make up units from my clear blue mind that would fit in with EB, but I can see that there's a lack of L5 Regionals. I can't find the file where I'd get better info on this, but I'd imagine that the Galatian heavy cavalry is one, some Iberian super units might make it three and maybe the Irish sledgehammer unit counts up to four. Still most regions give no benefits out of the L5 regional MIC.

Quote:

---

I'm not a historian, thus not an expert. I can't make up units from my clear blue mind that would fit in with EB, but I can see that there's a lack of L5 Regionals. I can't find the file where I'd get better info on this, but I'd imagine that the Galatian heavy cavalry is one, some Iberian super units might make it three and maybe the Irish sledgehammer unit counts up to four. Still most regions give no benefits out of the L5 regional MIC.

---

I agree whole-heartedly! :yes: But why the legionaries?

In a way, it almost seems like people are giving the Imperials a bad rep, as if somehow if we removed them, all our regional unit problems would be solved. If we needed regionals so badly why not give some merc units the chop and turn them into regionals? If the Roman player want Peltastai, or if a barbarian player wants a phalanx (a greek one that is) they should conquer and hold some Greek lands! I think the AI abuses the merc feature anyway, and in general I don't agree with how the Mercenaries are treated in the game system. Really, I doubt whether there were armies of unemployed soldiers wandering about, ready for hiring. (14 Mercenaries available, eh? I wonder what they're up to when no one's a'callin?)

For Carthage, the team prefers to use regionals to symbolize the mercenaries they employed, so why not do that for everyone? How many skins and units could we add if we converted 80% or 90% of mercenaries into regionals? (Sorry if I'm changing the subject somewhat- but I for one think this isn't a bad idea, and much better than ditching my poor, beloved Imperials.:sweatdrop: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

For Carthage, the team prefers to use regionals to symbolize the mercenaries they employed, so why not do that for everyone? How many skins and units could we add if we converted 80% or 90% of mercenaries into regionals? (Sorry if I'm changing the subject somewhat- but I for one think this isn't a bad idea, and much better than ditching my poor, beloved Imperials.:sweatdrop: )

---

Could be a solution... Anyway, I doubt the team will scrap Imperials at this stage. I've just always wondered, what's the big deal with Imperial Roman legionaries? Especially since there's a "why no lorica segmentata" thread each week...

By the way Imperator, don't take this the wrong way or anything, but have you ever gotten the Imperial reforms, without "cheating"? :fishbowl:

Quote:

---

By the way Imperator, don't take this the wrong way or anything, but have you ever gotten the Imperial reforms, without "cheating"?

---

Sadly, not yet. :embarassed:
I had a Roman campaign in an earlier build, but stopped and waited for a stable EB before committing myself to such a loooong campaign. Now that .8 is out I've been (slowly but surely) advancing in my Romani campaign, with a Koinon Hellenon and Seleukid campaign on the side. I'm about to hit the Marian reforms now, and I am pumped to finally get my Imperials...in another 60 or 100 years. Oh but it WILL be worth it. The wait, as well as this debate, has made me desperate to finally get my hands on those delicious legionaries. :smash: