Printable View
I'm in favour of updates of the mugshots every five years. It will be great to see the ageing/advancement process. The memorial is an excellent idea. Wishazu, there's no going back now :) By the way, I do not believe this trait is determined by success at negotiations, but is a random trait, like hooting. I might be wrong. If we ever need to provoke a nation to war with us, we have just the man fior the job :laugh4: :2thumbsup:
Its fine by me :)
~;) Hi everyone ~:wave:
Apologies but I again missed voting on the recent motions. I'm not sure why but I thought I had until Friday after having a quick glance at work. Luckily I wanted to vote Yes to all the motions so it wouldn't have changed anything ~;). I am currently trying to complete year-end at work with my appraisal lined up for next week as well as interviewing candidates for 2 positions. I sorely need them filling as there is too much work for my team at the moment. I stayed at work until 7.30pm tonight and then continued at home until 11.15pm :help: .
I have also taken the drastic step of taking my RTW to work and locking it in a cupboard to stop me playing it until year-end is finished ~:eek:. I am getting serious withdrawal symptoms and need to pop onto the org now and again to get a small fix :nurse:.
:charge:
Good luck with the appraisal next week, YAKOBU.
I know how it feels, already overworked two nights this week till 22:30, deadlines coming up on the 20th :sweatdrop: (which means everything should be finished by monday which has about as much chance of happening as a snowstorm in hell) and I was smart enough to get myself elected first consul :2thumbsup: :laugh4:
Ignoramus has raised the issue of naming our legions again . I think it would add flavour to the First Consul reports etc if we do this.
Under Marcus Camillus's mod, legions are designated as new ancillaires and typically arise when a general rises to Legate. I think we are up to about Legio IV now, aren't we DDW?
Ignoramus and I were wondering about a two part designation. The first would be regional. The second part would be honorific. Ignoramous had the idea of naming them after notable First Consuls who raised them. TinCow advocated naming one after a battle victory. Both ideas should good. So you could have Legio I Italia Victrix or Legio I Italia Quintia.
I propose the First Consuls give the legions appropriate regional names on an ad hoc basis - they might want to consult with any historical or Latin buffs we have in order to do this.
So far, I am wondering about:
Legio I - Italia (for Latium)
Legio II - Sabina (for other Italy)
Legio III - Sicilia (was that the Latin for Sicily?)
Legio IV - Gallica
What we call the 5th may depend on where we expand into next.
More names and links to names are given in my earlier post on this subject:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=261
For the honorifics do we also want to leave those to the First Consul or have them proposed in Senate motions? For personal reasons, Ignoramus requests that he be allowed to name the 10th legion.
We also wondered about naming forts, and in particular assigning them to legions. Thus the fort between Roma and Capua could be Fort Legio I Italia and be the home barracks of the legion. These forts could always be moved, if the Legion moves, but could still keep the name.
We currently have three Roman Legion banners and one Consular Army banner. I don't have time to check out Marcellus's mod details right now, but I guess a fourth will arrive soon as it depends on available legates and number of troops if I recall correctly.
I personally like a combination of both ideas. So that would give you Legio I - Italia 'Victrix'.
Yes, Legion IV will arrive with the next Legate. IIRC, that will probably be TinCow's avatar. So if he does not currently have the "Legio I" ancillary and is going to keep his troops for a while, you could hold on and call Legio IV "Gallica Victrix".
What do people think - do we leave naming to the First Consuls? Or have Senate motions for honorifics?
I think it’s a great idea, don’t know how we’ll track it – my assumption is that it’s not something you can do in the game, or can you edit .txt files to produce this??
On the full matter I think that you should give a guideline out of character that the first consuls can name the Legions using both or either methods but that they stick! We can’t have consuls changing names to and fro.
My personal favourite is the uses of the honorific as DDW suggests.
Not sure if this was clear, but TinCow is currently in possesion of the legion I standard and legion I troops. So I think Legio I - Italia 'Victrix' is what you mean ? Or do you mean he gets to keep the legion I standard and I wait untill the legion IV standard is released to Lucius ?
Anyway, it does not really matter to me who decides. We can let the first consul pick the name and let the senate vote if they can keep it for instance. By the way. I would like to reserve 'Rapax' for whichever legion I end up with :) If it bleeds, we can kill it :)
Hmm, let's see.
Regional is definitely a tick. Macedonica, Scythia, Italia, Gallica, Hispana, the list goes on.
For the victories, there was historically a Legio XII Victrix. Legio IX Triumphalis, another legion which is kind of named after victory, another one levied by Caesar. Even better, Legio XX Valeria Victrix: valourous AND victorious.
Essentially, whatever we want. Themed legions, perhaps? There was a legion named Legio VI Ferrata, led by Pompey, meaning 'ironclad'. I'm not sure if this has a particular reason for the name, but we could give it extra armour to make it do so, for example. There was a Legio VI Gemina, NOT the same as Pompey's other Legio VI. This one meant 'twin', because it was formed from the remnants of two legions. Another interesting name is Legio X Equestris. Meaning, knights. We could do this, and have extra cavalry in this legion, for example. Legio I Macriana Liberatrix from the empire, the liberator of Macer, a governor. Legio XXX Classica or Legio X Fretensis, the former as our overseas 'naval' legion, the latter as the legion of the sea-straits, to protect the republic from naval invasion.
Defender legions, Legio I Adiutrix, the helper legion, and Legio II Adiutrix Pia Fidelis, the helpful, faithful and loyal legion.
There were legions named after Emperors, eg. Legio XII Certa Constans. Legions named after deities, Legio X Veneria, after Venus, or Legio XV Apollinaris, a legion devoted to Apollo.
There are also completely irrelevant names, such as Legio XII Fulminata, wielders of the thunderbolt.
Also, do not forget that Legions do have name changes quite frequently.
I propose naming the victorious legion Legio (is it IV?) Verginia Fortis, the brave, standfast legion of Verginius.
Um, OK, but I thought that was against the house rules, seeing as he is just a Tribune? Where we have legates, the legion ancillaries should be reserved for them. (Ditto the Roman field armies for Praetors and the Consular armies for the two Consuls). In exceptional circumstances, we might deviate from that, but for role-playing, we should try to stick to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Death the destroyer of worlds
But anyway, for the three legions we currently have, how about:
Legio I Italia Victrix: recruited in Latium; won a great victory under TinCow
Legio II Sicilia Quintia: took part in the conquest of Sicily under First Consul Quintus
Legio III Gallica Aemilia: took part in the conquest of Cisalpine Gaul under First Consul Aemilius
Naming the legions after any notable First Consuls that raised them was Ignoramus's idea. If they get into some great scrapes like Legio I we can always change the honorific for something more dramatic.
IIRC, we can around 1 legion ancillaries/3 settlements, so we should get plenty of opportunities to try out some of Tiberius's names.
I agree with you, but seeing as I was sending practically all the troops I had with Augustus, and his 8 years of military service, combined with the real threat in our west, it seemed fair to give him a temporary command (I even borrowed him my priest of Jupiter, and of course the chirurgon (drat, how do you spell that ?)). It felt a bit silly hanging on to the standard with my miniscule force while the legion proper marched off with Augustus. Still, I agree that legion banners should be reserved for legates and so on. He will have to hand over the banner back to me within a year.
My suggestions :
Legio I Italia Victrix: recruited in Latium; won a great victory under TinCow
Legio II Sabina Quintia: took part in the conquest of Sicily under First Consul Quintus
Legio III Sicilia Aemilia: took part in the conquest of Cartheginian Islands (and will see more action soon, porbably in Narbonensis) under First Consul Aemilius
Legio IV Gallica [insert next consul here] [insert conquest/other here].
This seems more logical considering their history. The third legion was only formed after Sicilia was conquered.
Furthermore I suggest the Legio II Sabina to recruit some Sabine mercenaries (they're very good troops by the way) and the Legio IV Gallica use Gaul mercenaries as AoR units untill we can train them ourselves.
The issue has passed in the in-character thread, but I can't get my head around this. How is Massila easier defended than staying behind the Alps? I see two advantages to leaving it how it is:
1. Irrelevant and incorrectSpoiler Alert, click show to read:
2. There's a HUGE mountain range to separate us from the Gauls. I can't quite understand how a river (this was the argument, correct?) beats a mountain range in terms of natural defenses.
EDIT: A re-read of the Consul reports and the map shows that the Gauls have taken Massilia, but I still do not see how it is easier defended.
I agree with all of that. :2thumbsup: Is everyone else happy with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Death the destroyer of worlds
Craterus, I share your puzzlement but that is exactly the kind of stuff we debate in the in-character thread. Whether we stop at Massilia is probably going to be a key issue for the next First Consul and we will probably have candidates with different views on the matter. The whole point of the PBM is to have the Senate collectively thrash out such issues of strategic direction.
I don't understand why people are so sure that Massilia is an obvious move and will put us in a great strategic position (and apparently easier to defend than our current position).
Am I just being stupid, but I don't understand what's so great about Massilia?
Hiya Craterus,
Actually, the Gauls have not taken Massilia yet. They are too busy attacking us :)
By the way, how did you do the spoiler thing ? I wanted to use that in my reports, but I couldn't figure it out.
There no place easier to defend than a bridge, that's why we want Massilia. Numbers don't matter when defending a brdige, just morale, and the Roman morale is pretty damn good :)
Nononono!
The Legions would either be named after the place, or something else. They are NEVER NEVER NEVER both, such as Italia Victrix.
I can accept that, for a human, bridge battles (especially with Romans) are very easy. Ah whatever, I'm not too bothered. I'm sure we can manage it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Death the destroyer of worlds
I guess my problem is that the Alps are just too damn easy to cross.
Tiberius seems to be correct, altough the Romans had no real standard for nameing legions. Example :
Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix (Victorious Ulpian legion) Ulpian = gens (family name of Emperor).
Legio XX Valeria Victrix (Valorous and Victorious)
Legio XV Apollinaris (devoted to the god Apollo)
Legio XI Claudia Pia Fidelis (faithful and loyal Claudian legion)
Legio II Traiana Fortis (Trajan strong legion)
Legio I Macriana liberatrix (liberator of Macer)
None of these conforms to the same naming scheme. Basically the Romans named legions as they damn well pleased at the time or renamed them in case of a special event. So I suggest we do as we please in naming legions, but do set a convention for naming standards, so the first consul has a template to do as he pleases in naming a new legion. The senate will always have to approve the name changes at the next senate meeting.
Massilia is a veritable fortress. It is perhaps the most well defended settlement in the game. There is only a single entrance into Massilia by land and that is over a single bridge. Very conveniantly, this bridge also overlooks the entrance to the weatern mountain pass. This means that if any army wanted to go through the western mountain pass (the only mountain pass that the gauls have access to) they would first have to get by any army stationed on that bridge.
This means that even if they didnt want to, the gauls would have to fight a bridge battle on the offensive and ourselves on the defensive to get passed us. It means that northern italy will never have to worry about Gauls gettig passed the alps. Its basically a fool proof defense system that would be nearly impossible to break. Such an opportunity just cant be passed up as i doubt there is another settlement in the game that rivals Massilia in its defensive capabilities.
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 ?
I got the 450th post and I'm not even a member.
451st actually ~;)
Sorry about that. The battle had been announced in-character in the Senate and there was so much discussion about it I felt I had to respond to it in the Senate as well. I intentionally cropped those pictures way down and only did a few to keep it from cluttering the thread. Please do move it if you feel you want to make another storage area for them though.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Both he and Luca Mamilius have been added. How does it feel being bald and 'flexible' at age 16? :laugh4: I imagine you can get some good RP out of those traits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
It seems that Verginus was the one who adopted Luca Mamilius so I am going to edit my ambush battle report to indicate that he saved my life in that battle. That would give a compelling reason for his adoption.
I would be honored to assume control of this character. I'll finish reading through all the posts I have missed while on vacation and get up to date on events.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Luca Mamilius is quite a good character, and only 25. A good age for a new character and fits quite well his 4 years of military experience as a Tribune.
I like the idea. Further, perhaps the first post in such a thread could be used as a record of all the battles. Just name of the commander, place of battle, opponent, number of troops deployed, kills, casualties, outcome. In some sort of a list. I don't think it would be very difficult for the Consul to keep such a list during his term, then pass it to whoever is responsible for updating the record at the end of the term. The subsequent posts would then contain the reports of dramatic battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Death the destroyer of worlds
Good ideas. I'll try to work something up for my reign. DDW - have you kept the above bare bone details of battles on your watch?Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYdude
And a big hello to our newest general, Luca Mamilius aka Marcus Camillus. ~:wave: Keep in mind the stepping down into the Lower House idea. The main implication is that the First Consul may give you a command and ask you to fight a battle or too. You don't have to wait until you want to stand for First Consul before you step down - you just have to have the mod installed and be ready to play out a battle within 48 hours. If you stay in the Upper House, the First Consul is more likely to make you a second general in a stack or a governor, as if you lead troops and get into a battle, it will have to be autoresolved. :scared:
Yes, I have. I will compile a list and send it to you/post it somewhere. Marcus, if you find the time to read the (endless) amount of posts in this thread, you will notice some questions about your most excellent mod. I would be obliged if you could answer them.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
SHut it about the hair :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Don't forget, I'm still your brother in law and as such you should respect the.. running family trait of.. more visible scalps. Keep it up and you'll get disowned, you will!
I'm liking the 'calm' and 'gladiatorial fan' though. Does draughtsman mean some kind of architectual fan, who likes building buildings?
Draughtsman - "This man's interest in architecture stands him in good stead when construction work is needed." 10% construction discount, -1 squalorQuote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Flexible - "This man is regarded as morally flexible. Somehow, doing the 'right thing' does not come naturally to him." 20% decrease to bribe, -1 to law
Gladiatorial Fan - "This man's fondness for the Games makes him a popular figure among the plebs." -1 unrest
Calm - "This man seldom allows emotion to influence his decisions or his pursuit of duty." +1 influence, +1 management
Gourmet of Life - "This man appreciates the better things in life." -1 management, 10% decrease to bribe
All in all, that sounds like the perfect Tribune of the Plebs!
TinCow - any chance you could edit the size of a couple of your screenshots in the Senate deliberations thread? I can then copy them and stick them into the battle reports thread; at the moment, they are putting the layout of the thread out of whack. I don't know how you do your screenshots, but I use Irfranview to reduce them to 75% size as per Ludens's recommendation before saving them as jpg.
The ones from my ambush? I thought I cropped those enough; they look pretty small to me. How low a resolution do you people run? Let me know what the max resolution size you want is, since 75% of my game res may still be too high if those crops are too large.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Wikipedia : Technical drawing, also known as drafting or draughting, is the technique of creating accurate representations of objects for architecture and engineering drawings. A skilled practitioner of the art is known as a draftsman or draftsperson (or draughtsman, draughtsperson in the UK).
That's funny, I thought it was something to do with drinking alcohol or brewing beer or something. But then, that's what I'm usually thinking about ~:cheers:
By the way, if you're morals are low, you should throw some parties with my extravagant son Manlius :laugh4:
Sorry, I'm useless about technical stuff. DDW told me the page formatting depends partly on the size of your screen - I have a 17in screen and display it at 1024x768. I don't know if that's what you were asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
But the two screenshots that push the page formatting out of line are the 2nd and 3rd. If you could make them the size of the 1st, there should be no problem. Cheers.
Sizing pics to fit 1024x768 is prefectly reasonable, since I believe that is the norm for most PCs these days. I personally run my desktop at 1600x1200 and RTW at 1024x768. I'd like to pump it up even higher, but I don't think I'll be getting a 21" until later this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Take a look now and let me know if they fit. If they do fit, how much extra room is there? The resizes are at 600 pixel width and it would be good to know the max I can go to without distorting the thread.
Thanks - the screenshots are fine now. :2thumbsup: The first and the last are about as big as they can go without changing the page layout. One other point - do you really like the green arrows? I tend to agree with Froggy's guide, "green arrows must die!". I've also experimented with the minimal UI. I can't tell if you use it, but comparing my two battle reports - before and after I discovered it, I think it gives better screenshots.
On another topic - I've expanded the discussion of RTR combat and stats etc in the Senate library. It may interest newcomers to the mod - old timers may want to post any additional insights or disagreements in this thread, then I will integrate them over time.
I disabled green arrows shortly after that battle. I made a second install for RTR and had forgotten to turn them off.
In re: RTR combat, I disagree somewhat with your statements about Triarii. I know it isn't apparent in the stats, but there's something else to Triarii that makes them superior on the defensive to Principes. I often keep units taking the brunt of the attack on hold position and then flank with other units. I have found that Triarii hold a line far better than Principes and take far fewer casualties. Perhaps it is the spears keeping the enemy at bay, I'm not sure. Regardless, Triarii are like a mobile wall. Even when only 3 deep they can hold a line for nearly an entire battle without losing too many men. Even Principes will suffer casualties in such a situation. In fact, I've only ever seen one unit beat Triarii when used this way, Baesternai (sp?) Infantry. Those things carved through my Principes at an unbelievable speed and Triarii lost via attrition. You don't want to know what happened to the Italian Infantry I sent after them.
OK - that's good to know. I'll cut the offending line. I was largely talking off the stats. I confess I have not encountered basternae in RTR.
I also find triari disappointing in vanilla RTW. I don't think I am patient enough to use spears properly in RTW.
By constrast, triari in EB are gods (so good, Davy called them the "I win button"). They are about the only thing that can stand up to gestatae (basternae on amphetamines).
Can units swim across rivers in RTW v1.5 or is that only in BI?
There is one wading crossing at Massilia, directly in front of you as you enter the battle. I only have RTW 1.5, so it should work.
EDIT : Swimming only works in BI, along with shield wall and some other special abilities. Haven't looked into it further as I don't own BI. BUT, units can wade at a river crossing.
Some notes :
For those not in the know :
Edit your preferences.txt in the main and the prefences directory of your RTW install.
Set DISABLE_ARROW_MARKERS:TRUE for no more green arrows (units will glow slighly instead).
Set SHOW_BANNERS:FALSE for no more banners on the battefield.
Set UNLIMITED_MEN_ON_BATTLEFIELD:TRUE if you have a computer personally send to you by your diety of choice. (That's a no for almost everyone)
Set MINIMAL_UI:TRUE for the minimal interface. (Not a big fan myself).
On combat :
Spearman good against cavalry
Swordsmen good against spearmen
Cavalry good against swordsmen
After our last update cavalry has become a lot better again, so you can drop the line 'and fragile' in your first comment IMO.
Charging shaken-wavering-routing units is generally the wisest course. Otherwise never charge a unit in the front, and always retreat after the charge peters out. Regroup some distance away and charge again. Do not use the wedge formation as it is buggy. Your cavalry will panick almost at the instant your charge hits the enemy. Depth in a cavalry formation is the key for a succesfull charge.
Skirmishers have incredible morale, like nazi SS stormtroopers or something. This is my only big beef with RTR:PE. I hope this gets fixed soon.
Slingers are NOT just as good IMO. They tend to fire in a straight line and so have to be exposed in the front or they will slaughter your own men with 'friendly fire'. They also do not have the option to fire 'flammable' missiles (which are a good morale killer BTW). Give me cretan archers any day :) They are also very ineffective against units that are armoured, i.e. almost any non-barbarian infantry unit. Use them against barbarians and skirmishers and, very carefully, against cavalry.
On fire at will, be extremely careful, or you will kill more of your own troops than the enemy. I usually take units off fire at will once the infantry is in a general melee. It also prevents skirmishers from throwing 80 spears at a single soldier. Almost all the german units are armed with throwing spears, making them quite dangerous.
All the spearmen units have the 'phalanx' ability, meaning that they are really strong defensively if put on guard. I always try to let the enemy charge my spear-armed units on guard. Flank them with swordsmen off guard and hit them in the back with cavalry. When attacking with spearmen units take them off guard mode for best effects.
Basternae are really nasty and have 2 HP AND an incredibly powerful attack. They can chop up anything. The only unit which beats them is Hypaspitai with an incredible 3 HP AND excellent defense/attack.
Hypaspitai spearmen are horrible, but Hypaspitai Swordsmen are truly awesome. Unfortunately the AI tends to build them in large quantities, while they historically were rare, being the elite of the elite. They come in half-normal size units.
Both these units are supreme when it comes to storming heavily defended walls. Nothing can stand against them.
One thing I don't understand about this mod, DDW, is what has happened to the phalanx formation? You say all spearmen have it - do you mean they have some bonuses (short_pike)? I don't see a phalanx button on my Italian spearmen. Is there a phalanx button even for pikemen? Hoplites etc never seem to use that slow old formation from vanilla RTW.
It´s a bit wierd, I´ll grant you that. Basically the easiest way to workaround the new bugs in RTW 1.5 was to give all spearmen units the phalanx ability. There is no button, they have it automatically on guard mode. Historically hoplites didn´t walk, but charged running.
http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/i...howtopic=20852
http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/i...howtopic=20524
http://forums.rometotalrealism.org/i...howtopic=20098
To summarize, a spearmen unit with "short_pike" and "light_spear" can hold its line in organized pikeman formation with "guard mode" on.
Thanks, DDW, I will have to read those reports but it sounds interesting. In practice, does it mean that AI spears start deployed with "guard mode" on and so are phalanxes that can run? Yikes. I will have to strengthen my recommendation in the Senate library that they be flanked.
BTW, hasn't this campaign suddenly got really challenging? It is just like the other superb RTR Roman campaign I mentioned before where I ended up at war with almost everyone. With VH difficulty, factions that are weak in vanilla - Gauls and Carthage - can spam out full stacks of troops. With the RTR stats, these troops can still kill a lot of Romans. And with the campaign house rules, it's a struggle to make up our losses. Great fun! :2thumbsup:
EDIT: just seen Shifty157's battle report. Outstanding victory! Looking at the forces ranged against us, I think it was the best victory of the campaign so far. :bow: But I can't find the post-battle savegame - have you uploaded it yet? Also, can you reduce your screenshots by 75% so that the page formatting is maintained? Cheers.
I am not quite sure about what the AI does. If its takes its spearmen (hoplites, not REAL phalanxes who have 'long spear' or 'sarissa') of guard mode they will lose the 'phalanx' ability. If the Thracians join in, we will be in serious trouble. Luckily, they have their hands full with Macedon at the moment. With the naval invasions and M&N mod Carthage is very dangerous. You see why I reinforced legions all over the place.
Gah, the Achaeans are the father of the phalanx! Macedonian imitator :furious3:
So, does this mean that we should focus on the Carthaginian threat for now? No use in delaying an invasion, it will just make them stronger. We must act quickly while in character and come to a decision about who to invade.
Hi, I'd like to join this campaign as a member of the Upper House, if that's possible.
Certainly, I think there is a spare avatar, even if there isn't it doesn't matter. When econ21 come on, he'll sort you out.
We have a whole bunch of avatars. Three spies, an assassin and several general characters. I'll update the first consul reports tonight and then you can make a better selection (at work).
Actually, seeing as I'm in the upper house anyway, could I get a diplomat when one goes spare?
We have no spare diplomats, but several spies and one assassin.