Countdown to Open Beta - SENATVS POPVLVSQVE ROMANVS

Quote:

---

Traditionally, some Biblical figure also came into contact with Scotland's Stone of Destiny... you can do better than that

---

Jesus' uncle traded tin in Southern England, and stranger things have happened.

Also keep in mind the ratio of the distance between the Persian Gulf and Britian and the Persian Gulf and Armenia is something like 3:1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VandalCarthage

Jesus' uncle traded tin in Southern England, and stranger things have happened.

Also keep in mind the ratio of the distance between the Persian Gulf and Britian and the Persian Gulf and Armenia is something like 3:1.

---

You missed the point.

Guys, this is pointless. Start a new thread if you like, but this is really not the place...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Because Armenians are white, or at least were. Armenians were Iranians, like the Scythians, Persians, Parthians and Sarmatians.

---

i know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malrubius

I have done some work to restore the Cursus Honorum, but there are significant limitations on what we can do (like making sure there are the correct number of office-holders for each office), and balance issues have to be considered. I guess you can imagine that there are various men, outside your family tree, who hold some of the offices.

I like the "house rules" idea, like maybe only consuls can lead armies or something. Might be too much of a handicap, who knows? ~;)

---

Cheers, that's pretty much what I was wondering. Do offices confer a bonus on a general? That was something that annoyed me in RTW, because aside from influence I'd have assumed a general wouldn't become more adept at the various skills simply by getting elected; in theory he should have those skills already, atlhough he might be more experienced after his period in office at managing things.

The houserules I was thinking could be voluntary; as you suggest things like only having the appropriate general leading larger armies or offensives, or a realistic consular army. Such rules for each faction could certainly make playing as different factions more diverse, adding even more historical spice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Cheers, that's pretty much what I was wondering. Do offices confer a bonus on a general? That was something that annoyed me in RTW, because aside from influence I'd have assumed a general wouldn't become more adept at the various skills simply by getting elected; in theory he should have those skills already, atlhough he might be more experienced after his period in office at managing things.

The houserules I was thinking could be voluntary; as you suggest things like only having the appropriate general leading larger armies or offensives, or a realistic consular army. Such rules for each faction could certainly make playing as different factions more diverse, adding even more historical spice.

---

I always thought that holding an office, like in MTW, granted the character more power and acumen or command ability through his new collection of retainers assumed to come with the position.

I didn't adjust the values, so they may need some tweaking. However, Neon is right that he would benefit from having additional assistants to help him perform his tasks. Note that these benefits diminish when he leaves the office.

man... how the hell are sweboz gonna go up against these guys without the aid of extremely vicious ambushes?

I think extremely vicious ambushes are the best way to go anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malrubius

I didn't adjust the values, so they may need some tweaking. However, Neon is right that he would benefit from having additional assistants to help him perform his tasks. Note that these benefits diminish when he leaves the office.

---

~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

I think extremely vicious ambushes are the best way to go anyway...



~D

---

Is there a way to make ambushing easier? Or confer penalties upon the victims of ambushes? The odds of actrually ambushing anyone suck as it is. I have been involved in only two or three ambushes since owning this game. And I play for sometimes 12-16 hoiurs in a strecth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Is there a way to make ambushing easier? Or confer penalties upon the victims of ambushes? The odds of actrually ambushing anyone suck as it is. I have been involved in only two or three ambushes since owning this game. And I play for sometimes 12-16 hoiurs in a strecth.

---

The area around the Sweboz is full of forest. Attackers will be ambushed much more often than in vanilla RTW. Even on the british isles, as the Casse, I have been ambushed by the AI quite often. More forest means more ambushes.

Here's a question... What will prevent the player from skipping hastati entirely? Why would I even use Hastati unless it gives me an advtage?

For example, it would be tactically best to use hastati if they made stat sense. To clarify, if hastati had a stat that made them good attackers, then they would be best used in the front. For example, the hastati could have a 17att/09def, while principes could have a 14att/13def, and the triarii would have a 12att/17def.

Does this make sense? The hastati are attackers for that "initial shock" and to counter the enemy's intial attack, the pricipes are balanced to survive and do damage for the bulk of the battle, and the triarii are defensive to hang in there at the end when survivability is most important.

Comments, EB? I'm very curious how you worked this out.

I was under the impression that balance, in this case, would be fiscal issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

The area around the Sweboz is full of forest. Attackers will be ambushed much more often than in vanilla RTW. Even on the british isles, as the Casse, I have been ambushed by the AI quite often. More forest means more ambushes.

---

good news! Thanx. :balloon2: ~:cheers:

Unit costs are derived using a formula based on the same criteria that give us unit stats in a formula. So as the effectiveness of the unit increases, so does the cost. You may skip hastati if you wish, but you may get more bang for your buck there.

There is, unfortunately, no practical way for us to force either the player or the AI to use an historical Roman legion, from any of the periods we're depicting.

Well, would forcing a player to use a certain structure really be positive anyway?

Quote:

---

What will prevent the player from skipping hastati entirely?

---

I would say common sense.

If you dont want to use Hastati you dont have to but its better to use them.
Why? Gauls/Sweboz have now lots of precursor weapons.
This means that there will be hail of javelins at the begining of encounter.
Why loose your better and more expensive Principes when you can use cheeper Hastati as moving targets for the enemy. It doesnt mater if you are a levy or a veteran both dies as easy from missile fire.
Its just more cost effective to put your Hastati in the first line. Plus they will also absorb initial enemy charge witch always couse additional casualties.
Then you can bring your fresh full streanght charging principes to the fight.
Much better tactic if you ask me. Damn those Romans where really smart.

Superb! Nothing more I can say really. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LorDBulA

I would say common sense.

If you dont want to use Hastati you dont have to but its better to use them.
Why? Gauls/Sweboz have now lots of precursor weapons.
This means that there will be hail of javelins at the begining of encounter.
Why loose your better and more expensive Principes when you can use cheeper Hastati as moving targets for the enemy. It doesnt mater if you are a levy or a veteran both dies as easy from missile fire.
Its just more cost effective to put your Hastati in the first line. Plus they will also absorb initial enemy charge witch always couse additional casualties.
Then you can bring your fresh full streanght charging principes to the fight.
Much better tactic if you ask me. Damn those Romans where really smart.

---

imagine being one of those poor front line guys though =(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_handsome_viking

imagine being one of those poor front line guys though =(

---

perhaps the liked it to come first in contact with naked celts or a lot larger germanics.
But to be honest - the haststi job is not a easy one:-)

comparativley easier to be a velite

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaFe

perhaps the liked it to come first in contact with naked celts or a lot larger germanics.
But to be honest - the haststi job is not a easy one:-)

---

If you survive though lots of chance for plunder...

Anyway how many big battles would you realistically see in your career? Three or four? Over 26 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

If you survive though lots of chance for plunder...

Anyway how many big battles would you realistically see in your career? Three or four? Over 26 years?

---

Actually, during most of the period when EB represents, I think the length of service was only 16 total years, and normally only 6 consecutive (though I am getting this information from a secondary source quoting Polybius, it's the genreally accurate Keppie's "The making of the Roman Army").

I do know that during the Imperial era, much longer service was required, but this varied from 16-25 years, and unofficially some soldiers were kept even longer (or at least, claimed they had been). And depending on the period, some legions saw 3-4 battles a YEAR during major wars- look at the Legio X Equestris or Legio V Alaudae during the Gallic and Civil Wars for an example of units that probably had 3 gold chevrons by the end = P. During the Republic this was presumably less the case, but still, the Legions were in theory only enlisted to fight a war, not constitute a standing army, and there appear to be very few years between 280 BC and 1 AD that the Roman Army wasn't on active campaign.

Iskandr

Let us hope that this question does not meet the fate of my last...

Will you be implementing the various crowns for the Romans, and if so, how?

Which crowns are those? Like titles for the ruler of the empire, or something else? I'm not a historian, so help me out here. ~;)

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...A*/Corona.html

I have a feeling you just set back the work on Traits & Ancilliaries another few weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jebus

I have a feeling you just set back the work on Traits & Ancilliaries another few weeks.

---

I gladly wait. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metatron

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...A*/Corona.html

---

hmmm...

I guess most of these more evident, and relevant to RTW, events are already covered by our current system of traits and events scripts.

It might be interesting to add them to our text descriptions though, if someone can point out that they were indeed a common pratice during the time period we are covering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jebus

I have a feeling you just set back the work on Traits & Ancilliaries another few weeks.

---

Impossible, as there is no end in sight right now... ~D

k

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iskandr

Actually, during most of the period when EB represents, I think the length of service was only 16 total years, and normally only 6 consecutive (though I am getting this information from a secondary source quoting Polybius, it's the genreally accurate Keppie's "The making of the Roman Army").

I do know that during the Imperial era, much longer service was required, but this varied from 16-25 years, and unofficially some soldiers were kept even longer (or at least, claimed they had been). And depending on the period, some legions saw 3-4 battles a YEAR during major wars- look at the Legio X Equestris or Legio V Alaudae during the Gallic and Civil Wars for an example of units that probably had 3 gold chevrons by the end = P. During the Republic this was presumably less the case, but still, the Legions were in theory only enlisted to fight a war, not constitute a standing army, and there appear to be very few years between 280 BC and 1 AD that the Roman Army wasn't on active campaign.

Iskandr

---

I read that a few months ago. Keppie is one of the foremost Authorities on his area of study. Great book. A little dry, but it is all based upon the equipment and development of the Roman Army. He does a lot more than quote Polybius. He is quite involved in the archeology side of his studies.