Should the Augustan Reforms be removed?
Printable View
Should the Augustan Reforms be removed?
i think they are more or less useless, cause the Marian Reforms give you everything, what you need for a great empire, the praetorian units are only recruitable in rome and at the time you get the Augustan Reforms your empire is so big that the transport of the praetorian units would take you several seasons till you get them to the outer regions of your empire. in my opinion these slots should used for some other units, pherhaps some new units for KH:yes:, like special hoplites for athenai or something like that:beam:
No they should not be removed. If my Consul overthrows the Republic and becomes Emperor I want him to be able to push the Marian reforms through that necessary stage to further professionalise and Centralise the army. They are necessary in order for me to do that.
Yes, they should be removed. Any decent Senator with a mind to the Republic would do his utmost to avoid that much power falling into the hands of one person.
The selfishly motivated civil war/s that led to such desperate measures being necessary may not have occured had 'good men done something' when it was needed ie- about the time they were forming the first triumvirate.....maybe.....
Cheers,
Quilts
i agree with ur post put not all units should go to KH .Quote:
Originally Posted by Zett
some to other new factions ...
lets wait for the new factions to come and then decide.:thumbsup:
Out with them.
At least, if no new units, make a governmental reform with the imperator trait, and amici imperatore, Caesares, Augusti and all thee other post-imerial jobs
maybe if the time restriction is taken out it will be easier to atain them ... cause many of us have gotten perfect candidates for augustans but we are missing several -a lot - of years to get them and before it's time, our augustus is dead <.<
Yes, when the only difference between Marian and Imperial legionaries are the skins used, it's a waste of slots.
Besides it's pretty rare anyone actually gets to them legitimately, without modding stuff to make it so.
IMO the game shouldn't run as late as 14AD anyway...
It would be a shame to see them go, but their unit slots will be used up by units that will have more uses than just "being in the game"...
It is fun to have them but really not worth using up limited space that can be put to better use.
Well, in a perfect world, we could have unlimited unit slots, but, alas, you can't have it all!
So I think they could be sacrificed.
The unit slots could be used for a much better purpose than to further promote a single faction which has already received more than enough attention. Besides, you don't necessarily need new skins for the Augustan Reforms.
Quote:
At least, if no new units, make a governmental reform with the imperator trait, and amici imperatore, Caesares, Augusti and all thee other post-imerial jobs
It seems that most people want the Imperial Reforms removed in favor of other factions. Is there an official opinion from the EB Team or is it to early to tell?
All Roman reforms are under inspection and will see this or that changes. A final decision on the Imperial Reforms has not been made so far but the topic is already on the table. It is obvious that the Marian-Imperial pool might be candidat to cut out units if free slots would be needed, but we are still to early in the process of creating units to say anything in that direction. Each unit had do be done new from scratch and making units for M2TW takes way longer than it does for RTW.
No they should not be removed. They form part of EB's historical background, even if few people generally play long enough to trigger these reforms. In my current campaign, thats my main goal, but it is a long long way, its 184 BCE.
Cheers.
if EB team really claim that they are following historical accuracy no they should not be....
but the reforms may be easier to get for example holding 45 province may trigger Marian reforms while holding 80 or 90 provinces directly opens the way of augustan reforms.
Honestly, the game gets unhistorical by 200 B.C. so I figure the game should just be cut to 27 B.C. and the imperial reforms and units removed. Its dissapointing to hear that some units could not be added due to unit limit and here is the "imperial units" which were only historically used for the last 31 years of the game. So basically, make the end 27 B.C. get rid of the imperial units and i am sure everyone will enjoy the units that fill those spots, whatever faction they may be.
Also, for the imperiator trait, could that be part of the victory requirements? Like "have all these settlements, and a faction leader with imperiator"?
No, some people don´t want an Imperator. Or at least, the choice not go get one exists right now, I don´t see why we should remove it.
Wait I am confused at what you are trying to say in your second sentence. I am just saying that because the majority seem to want the imperial reforms and units gone, we might as well make the imperator trait a victory condition or its basically pointless as there wont be any transition to empire in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
Well, the option to keep a republic should be left, I believe. But maybe you´d have to meet certain conditions to keep the republic as well, a certain amount of stability or something. I don´t know, sounds very difficult to accurately represent.
Well we could just make the E.B. timeline entirely during the Republic's time. If we are getting rid of the reforms and units, we should just get rid of the imperator trait as well and make the end time 27 B.C. so there is no transition to empire period. Theres not a difference between how you control Romani if its a republic or empire, so lets just cut out the entire empire part.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
Well, unless it´s a really big work with scripts and all I don´t see why. It´s not like the transition to Empire occupies any limited slots, so why not keep it as a nice little bonus for Romani players making it that far, now that we´re (possibly) removing the biggest bonus for making it there.
But my point is why should we keep the empire transition if we are going to take out the units? Its kind of pointless to transition to the empire if there are no empire units.Quote:
Originally Posted by General Appo
But it´s a nice feature that doesn´t really detract from anything. If it doesn´t get in the way for anything else, is considered historically accurate and is indeed optional, then why the hell wouldn´t we have it?
IMO the camillan ones should be removed also.
Not so sure about that. It's arguable that they might have still been around at the start of the game, and getting the Polybian reforms is something to work towards. Balance-wise, that would make the Romani game even easier than it already is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaivs
I share Quintus' feelings regarding the Camillan era units. Using them for a good 30 years before the Polybian reforms gives you a 'feel' for the Roman way of war, and it's all the more satisfying when you reach the Polybian reforms and see how your army has evolved.
As for the Imperial units, in my 2+ years playing EB I've never once reached them. Maybe that's a weakness on my part, but I just never felt the drive to play so long to get new units that I'd be able to use for a short period of time (compared to other reform units) and with how the ai progresses there'd probably only 3 or 4 factions I could use them against.
Definitely not. Everything was vastly different before the Polybian reforms and it is utterly necessary to show this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaivs
If removing the Augustan reforms will give the Romans more new units, then I agree. The Romans may have tons of units, but I am in the opinion that During the Polybian and especially Marian eras there is simply not enough unit variety. I really hope EB II will give the Romans more units. During the Marian and Polybian era, the only missile unit are the Velites. Now I know the Romans did not think highly of missiles, but there is got to be a missile unit (slingers or archers) out there there that you could give to the Romans for a bit of game balance.
The Romans currently have more units than any other faction, and if you need archers/slingers there are always plenty of auxiliaries, so if the Imperial reforms were taken out (which IMHO they should be) the slots should be given to the ten new factions.
IMHO the option to have an "Augustus" should be mantained (just like you can be a "High King" or similar with other factions) but i think the reform is quite useless, for the reasons other people have already explained
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Eh? The romans probably if not do have the best ability to get local aor units. Even with just Italy you should have no trouble filling out your armies with auxilia. And the romans do have their own slinger unit already.
I voted neutral.
EB campaign depicts the years 272 BC to 10 AD. The Augustan reforms happened some 50 years before the EB ending date historically, for reasons that are also depicted in EB as the reform conditions. If they would be taken away, it would hurt the historical accuracy of the mod, at least IMHO. We cannot say for certain that the Augustan reforms were inevitable, but they are the only example that we have of what the romans did to cope with the demands of maintaining and defending a vast empire.
The other side to the problem is also valid. Not many players ever get to Augustan reforms (one reason could be that they at least used to be bugged so they couldn't be achieved). Also they use up precious unit slots.
So, I voted neutral.
I believe that if the team decides to remove the Augustan reforms and the units, a scenario that I highly doubt, they do it because they really really need those few unit slots at some much more important place. In other words, it will be a last resort not to be taking lightly.
I can fill my units with auxilia as any faction, I don't have to play Romani to do that. Regional units is my favorite feature in EB after the new campaign map as well as the improved & expanded traits system. Auxilia adds simply a gargantuan amount of variety to any EB game, but I would still like to have some Roman units. Regionals can be levied by any faction whereas Principes can only be recruited by the Romani.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fondor_Yards
As for the slinger unit, I am well aware of that. They are Accensi and they are great - but they're only trainable during the Camillian military era. Which is perfectly historical because I am almost 100% positive that no Roman slingers were found in the legions after the reforms of Gaius Marius. The only slingers in the Roman army were auxiliries of non-Italian background. However, I am not sure sure about the Polybian Era... I would really like to know if native slingers were still employed by the Romani after the Polybian reforms. If not, then I'll just have to go back to using Iaosatae and Mercenary Balearics, which is perfectly historical.
The Romans are also the most popular faction. Are they not? That's probably why they were given so many units (along with the fact that there is more material about the Romans than any other nation of that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by strategos alexandros
not really, My fav faction's the Maks and I'm sure there's a whole bunch of fellow philhellens around, and we got lots of HA lovers and celts too
Yea, but from what I know*admittedly not as much as most here probably* of the roman armies of this time, there weren't really any other unit that could be added for them. Other then the Hastati, Principes, Triarii, equites, and the various levies, the only other thing in their armies was allies. And you can train accensi during Polybian times too*and according to konny, you should*.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I certainly doubt that's the reason why, considering the team's goal is to raise historical knowledge/awareness of all factions equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
My personal opinion is that I wouldn't consider both Marian and Imperial units together. The topic about removing Imperial units is one, but thinking also of Marian units is another one and IMHO they shouldn't be removed (more easily and quickly to get than Imperial units, and they also cover a larger timeframe).Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
If slots are needed I would consider only the Imperial units to be cut out, and even after them I would consider rare minor units of any faction rather than Marian ones.
No Konny meant, if I got it right, that conceptually, there exists overlap between Marian and Augustan reforms; in other words: that there are currently purely duplicate units present. Those duplicates may be removed.
Uh, alright then, I though he meant "there is the Marian units pool and the Imperial units pool and they may be considered for etc.". ;)
True, but from all the polls I have looked at, there are still more Roman lovers than of any other factions. Maybe they should have one of those polls again...Quote:
Originally Posted by satalexton
It has never been about how many roman fans there are. Even if no one played any faction but the romans we would still strive to represent all factions equally. We are hear to teach and inspire people about history.
Foot
I honestly think theyre not needed.
Yes, that's the point. For example the Marian and early Imperial Cohortes are absolutly the same unit by look and stats, and colud be merged into one "Reformed" unit. There are also many, many reformed cavalry units for a faction that made not much use of cavalry. But all this would only become a topic if new unit slots were needed - and we are still far away from that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
It would be nice to somehow implement the underlying political and social factors that allowed Octavian to become emperor, rather than the very superficial date and personal qualities of the man.
That's not to say that any schmuck should become Augustus. I'm only saying that there were probably a huge number of men all throughout history with the intellect and ability of Augustus. There were just deeper reasons for his ascension.
yeh...but people are already complaining that getting augustus is way to hard as it is <.<
Killing off anyone who might have been a rival or equal had a lot to do with that accession.Quote:
Originally Posted by lobf
I guess I don't understand what this has to do with what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius
he's commenting that Octavianus killed those who opposed him... <.< and THAT helped him in his accenssion... <.<
Right, but I'm talking about maybe adding some more complex strategy map requirements and/or toning down the FM requirements. Does that make sense? I just http://cache.hyves-static.net/images...ey_smoking.gif
I still think that if you are going to take out the units just take out the reforms entirely. We have 10 new factions, same number of unit slots. Make the game end at 27 B.C., get rid of the Augustus trait, units and reform. No one even gets to the Augustus reforms unless they purposely try to, and even then its a real pain, with the sheer number of turns to get to it, the 66 B.C. CTD, etc.
One vote for removing the reform.
I have only achieved the augustan reform cheating the game.
And if you don't make the game last longer without cheating the reform is almost useless.
If i recall, units after reform get stronger than before. So if we are to remove this reform all together, does this mean we get reformed units rightaway or do we just stuck with units before the reform and not get the new ones. Resoning behind this is: If we get reformed units right away that might give an advantage to Roman AI if i were to play some neighboor nation. so how exactrly are they planing on doing this?
The question about if the Augustan reforms being removed is not on the opinion that the reform itself is not needed, but if the Augustan units should be kept, especially with 10 new factions filling up unit spots. The point is we can either keep it all or remove it all, theres no point to remove just the units, or just the reform, or just the traits.Quote:
Originally Posted by cybermage83
I want to make this absolutely clear. This thread is entirely speculation from fans and there is no official position from the team on this. Do not confuse lots of posts with what will occur in EBII.Quote:
Originally Posted by cybermage83
Foot
I agree with what other people have said about the units being put to better use among other factions. It's true that very few people ever get to the Augustan era in EB anyway, and the only significant changes are aesthetic.
Moreover however, I think that I should point out that very few people even get near 100 BC, let alone 14 AD. Most people (from what I can tell from reading TWC and the Org), including myself, achieve their victory conditions by about 150 BC at the latest, unless they are deliberately playing slowly. And if the player doesn't achieve victory by then, one of the AI factions frequently gets near it. Consequently, my advice to the EB team would be that you should concentrate your attention on the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, and forget about reforms that might occur in the 1st century BC or AD. You should try your hardest to immerse us in this mid-Hellenistic world; by the time that the player arrives in the Augustan era anyway history will have changed so much that pre-determined reforms may well be quite inappropriate.
In summary, put your resources into depicting the 3rd/2nd cent. BC.
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Wait, what?
You want MORE units for Rome?
Goddamn, some people sure are greedy. Down with 'em fanboys.
I'm for removing the reforms. Few people get there, and by the time one reaches them their effect on the gameplay is minimal at best, one would speculate (in any real, meaningful way).
Also, the removal of the reforms would allow more unit slots to be spent on the other factions and I believe this would be more in line with EB's general aim to represent the non-Roman factions better. One would think two reforms and a pretty damn good unit pool/variety Rome possesses even without the Augustan reforms would be quite enough for one faction, especially comparing it to some of the other factions.
That's right, I am THAT greedy:laugh4:. Actually, I have changed my opinion by now and I do agree that the Augustan reforms should be removed, regardless of whether it'll benefit the Romani or not. However, is there any way the Praetorians could be given to the Romani without the Augustan Reforms? I would sure hate to see those backstabbing, emperor-killing elites go~:mecry:!Quote:
Originally Posted by The General
Mike H couldn't have stated it better. The faction limit or M2TW has been increased, but the number of unit slots has remained the same:angry:. Even though being a huge Romani fan, I still realize that I must sacrifice the Augustan Reforms so that those new factions can get more units. The Romani have the largest amount of unique units in EB, and that cannot remain the same.
P.S. Most units in EB have slightly different skins (such as Ptolemaic and Seleukid and Makedonian peltasts all look different) however, all of these variations still fill up only one unit slot, right?
Huh? I was under the impression that the Camillian units are the best. By now in my Romani campaign, I only 5 territories away from the victory conditions (and I have many more territories that aren't required for a victory) and I am still playing wit Camillian units. Roman units simply don't get much better than the early Triarii (Antesignani are better, but also fewer and more expensive), Pedites Extraordinarii or Accensi! Also, aren't the Marian and Imperial legionary cohort stats pretty much the same? 11 attack, 22 defence vs 11 attack and 22 defence.Quote:
Originally Posted by cybermage83
polybian units have a higher leathality with the gladius. But marian legions are nothing more than lots of hastati, thats y i loath the marian reform D=
No, the marian legionnaires are actually a load of polybian principes. They certainly aren't hastati.
If it has the same unit name then it is the same unit, regardless of what shield design it has. Each unit is assigned a model and each model as 22 different texture paths (each faction, slave and merc).
Foot
I think I remember reading that statwise the marian legionaries are the same as polybian hastatii , and that they are inferior to polybian princeps one vs one... but they overcome this problem by being more of them in a same unit (160 princeps/ 200 legionaries)
yea thats wt i meant ^^; and also the reason y i hated the marian reforms... I never field more than 3 armies as Romani no matter what, so they tend to be really experianced too (i only merge, yes it takes a lot of battles...) therefore, it simply drives me nuts that i have train these buggers from ground up, n they're much harder to toughen up cuz stat-wise they're equal to the polybian hastati...
Have you guys checked the stats? I mean seriously, do just mouth off without checking the facts. Principes have 2 higher armour, buts all they are better in. mental_stat they are worse. Formation they are worse. And the legionnaires are better than hastati in at least three different areas. mental_stat, armour and formation. So wtf?! Reformata are Principes minus 2 points of armour, plus better morale.
FootCode:
;238
type roman infantry hastati
dictionary roman_infantry_hastati ; Hastati
category infantry
class light
voice_type General_1
soldier roman_infantry_hastati_principes, 40, 0, 1.15
officer ebofficer_roman_early_centurion
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 4, 4, pilum, 35, 2, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 11, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 9, 9, 4, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 3
stat_ground 0, 0, -1, -3
stat_mental 13, disciplined, trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1066, 267, 50, 70, 1066
ownership seleucid, slave
;241
type roman infantry legionary cohort i
dictionary roman_infantry_legionary_cohort_i ; Cohortes Reformata
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type General_1
soldier roman_infantry_cohorsreformata, 50, 0, 1.18
officer ebofficer_roman_centurion
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, square, testudo
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 4, 4, pilum, 35, 2, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 11, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 10, 8, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 4
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -2
stat_mental 14, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1790, 448, 100, 160, 1790
ownership seleucid, slave
;247
type roman infantry principes
dictionary roman_infantry_principes ; Principes
category infantry
class heavy
voice_type General_1
soldier roman_infantry_hastati_principes, 40, 0, 1.18
officer ebofficer_roman_early_centurion
officer ebofficer_roman_early_standard
attributes sea_faring, hide_forest, can_sap, mercenary_unit, hardy
formation 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, square
stat_health 1, 1
stat_pri 4, 4, pilum, 35, 2, thrown, blade, piercing, spear, 15 ,1
stat_pri_attr prec, thrown, ap
stat_sec 11, 4, no, 0, 0, melee, simple, piercing, sword, 0 ,0.13
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 12, 8, 4, metal
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 5
stat_ground 0, 0, -2, -3
stat_mental 13, disciplined, highly_trained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 1, 1185, 296, 50, 80, 1185
ownership seleucid, slave
but they die like flies when compared to my polybian troops by the time the reform pops in...it usually takes more than 30 years for me to fully 'upgrade' my legions with marian troops...it's a sad sight to see my silver 2 chev principes being phased out... =[ I dun retrain, so it takes a bloody long time for my legions to gain experience...
What the...? Why do Camillian Hastati and Principes have the same morale?!? That cannot be accurate! Hastati were the younger, poorer (although richer than the Accensi, Leves, or Rorari), and less experienced recruits, compared to the older, wealthier, and veteran Principes.
not really, during that period, what you fight as really just depends on what you can afford =/
Firstly, its polybian hastati and principes, secondly they don't have the same morale. Principes are highly_trained and Hastati are simply trained. Why do people jump to conclusions? If you don't understand the ins and outs of the stating system its really difficult to comprehend what is going on and how that effects the units in the game.
Foot
I do understand that "highly_trained" means that they will lose morale slower and regain it faster than "trained", but shouldn't the Principes also start out with higher morale?
I stated that 1vs1 a polybian principii would beat a legionaire... and moral doesn't matter in that case, does it?
still legionaires are better overall as a unit than princeps...
but casualty wise I think you would loose more legionaires than princeps given the fact that they have lower armor. (all of this before routing, legionaires are harder to rout...)
You also said that "statwise the marian legionaries are the same as polybian hastatii", which is blatantly false if one actually takes the time to check facts. But its so much easier to go with the rest of the crowd and complain about the stats for roman units.
As for armour, we work off a very strict table. If the reformata lose a bit of equipment that would offer them an armour bonus compare to the principes then that will show up. If the reformata are equipped with armour that is of a lower quality or quantity then its not something that can be blamed on us, blame the historical marian reforms.
Foot
No. Green troops are often more eager to fight than blooded ones, in particular when talking of not professional soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
well I did say "if I remember"... I appologize still, I didn't had the stats at hand at that moment.
and at no moment I complained , I'm sorry if it seems as if I had , I understand the reasons of that decision, and in no way I blame the EB team...
:shame:
That's right, you-Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Wait, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Blergh, at whom shall I shout now, then?
I agree with this guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediolanicus
EDIT : doh!, I forgot I have already voted!!!!!:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Seriously Foot, is this poll even making an impact on the decision of the EB team? Because if they feel that removing the Augustian Reforms would be unhistorical, then I see little reason why they would remove it, even if the fans are 54% to 36% in favor of removing the reforms for more troop variety in the ten new factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
It's useful for us to know what EB players think, but often a decision on an issue depends on considerations that only the development team is aware of. That means these discussions often completely miss the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Actually, the differences between the units in the Roman Army are rather small. Generally, EB unit stat system is good, although completely not designed to work properly with experience bonuses, but in this case there are some things which just don't seem right.
Let's just analyze two essential units in Polybian army - hastati and principes. Principes have 3 armor points more (+), tire quickier (heat 5 vs 3) and are worse in forests (-2 vs -1 penalty... It hardly means anything, but anyway...). They are also "highly_trained", while hastati are "trained", which means that princeps have a little better formation. However, there are no changes to discipline (both are "disciplined") or morale (both have 13). There are no changes to attack or lethality (11 and 0.13), either. Also, cost is almost the same (1185 vs 1066). Some of those things are strange. Principes are supposed to be experienced soldiers, while hastati should be young and unexperienced. It's not very evident in their stats.
Cohortes Reformata are more or less fine, mostly because they have more men in the unit (200 vs 160). It's quite a difference, which makes lack of significant changes in other stats (attack, lethality) and worse armor (12 vs 10) "not that hard" to swallow. There is also a small morale bonus (+1), which is always nice. However, they cost much more (1790 vs 1185) and you could argue that principes are more cost efficient.
Hopefully, the situation will improve in EB2.
Not to restart the previous discussion of the current unit stats, but to get back to the original point, has the EB team decided one way or another about whether they will remove the Augustan reforms?
I totally forgot about this thread, and now I am immensely interested if the EB team has made a decision or not after 2 months.