Romani Starting Position

Is there a thread pointing to the historical justification of the Romani starting cities? I also noticed that the government types of the cities we do get have gov1. For me it would make more sense to only have Roma, Capua and Arretium and maybe Api but I'm not to sure about that because Corfinium wasn't conquered until 268.... and for the gov types to be allied states minus Roma so we can provide a more realistic progression by destroying the type 4s and building up the gov buildings from there at historical dates. Most of Italy's cities ended up as allied states till about 90BC as it is...so it would make sense historically. Would this be a valid addition to EB2 to make Roma a little more historically correct?

You can edit that yourself, just edit the campian, you could make a mni mod for it.

Well our "Romans" are actually mostly allies at this point but they have been fairly Romanised, so we give them the type 1 because otherwise we'd have the same units in type 1 & 4. This way outside the Italian Peninsula you really feel the bite from the lack of Romanisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well our "Romans" are actually mostly allies at this point but they have been fairly Romanised, so we give them the type 1 because otherwise we'd have the same units in type 1 & 4. This way outside the Italian Peninsula you really feel the bite from the lack of Romanisation.

---

Why would you have to have the same units in 1 and 4? The Samnites and such? All and all only Roma and later Capua were producing Camillian and later Polybian military units with the rest coming form alae city states such as Samnium and Campania (being major contributors) so that’s the point of my argument. Even Sicily was provincialized and Romanized before southern peninsular Italy's Greek cities.

I was meaning to ask a quick question about that myself
-There is a character named Scipio Asina at the beginning- is this the same scipio who got the first roman navy captured by Carthaginians? I'm pretty sure it is, and I recall translating some passage that indicated he was named Asina AFTER this failure (so he shouldn't have it in 272) and he got it because of his naval incompetance. So are we sure that's what he should be called? I know its a nit-pick but I kinda specialize in roman history and noticed a tiny error- but who knows, I might be wrong :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfshart

Why would you have to have the same units in 1 and 4? The Samnites and such? All and all only Roma and later Capua were producing Camillian and later Polybian military units with the rest coming form alae city states such as Samnium and Campania (being major contributors) so that’s the point of my argument. Even Sicily was provincialized and Romanized before southern peninsular Italy's Greek cities.

---

The Allies produced Camillian "style" units, additionally, in order for our reforms to work we have to have it like this. That's why Samnites are in our factional MIC. It's a reationalisation of the Roman system, by this point the allies were producing Romanised units and in any case Southern Italy can't produce Roman units until after the reforms.

In Camillian and Polybian armies your Hastati, Equites etc represent citizens and Allies, the later "Romanised Province" doesn't work in the same way as Italian Latinisation.

Imperator: Our naming system is being overhauled completely in the next build. You may infact be correct, I cannot remember offhand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperator

I was meaning to ask a quick question about that myself
-There is a character named Scipio Asina at the beginning- is this the same scipio who got the first roman navy captured by Carthaginians? I'm pretty sure it is, and I recall translating some passage that indicated he was named Asina AFTER this failure (so he shouldn't have it in 272) and he got it because of his naval incompetance. So are we sure that's what he should be called? I know its a nit-pick but I kinda specialize in roman history and noticed a tiny error- but who knows, I might be wrong :laugh4:

---

you're right, Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina was in fact the first roman admiral to be defeated in battle. The way the current naming system works, as far as I am aware, forces us to include Asina in his name at the beginning. However, with the new Roman ethnicities that are currently in work, he would indeed become Gnaeus Scipio, (Cornelli), and could recieve the cognomen Asina if the proper conditions were met. We'll see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

you're right, Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina was in fact the first roman admiral to be defeated in battle.

---

Wasn't he the first Roman admiral, period?

not precisely.

Well my info on the man comes entirely from Wikipedia so that's not particularly surprising!

look into roman naval activity around Tarentum prior to the pyrrhic wars

I'll see if I can find something, thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfshart

Is there a thread pointing to the historical justification of the Romani starting cities? I also noticed that the government types of the cities we do get have gov1. For me it would make more sense to only have Roma, Capua and Arretium and maybe Api but I'm not to sure about that because Corfinium wasn't conquered until 268.... and for the gov types to be allied states minus Roma so we can provide a more realistic progression by destroying the type 4s and building up the gov buildings from there at historical dates. Most of Italy's cities ended up as allied states till about 90BC as it is...so it would make sense historically. Would this be a valid addition to EB2 to make Roma a little more historically correct?

---

Agree with Wolfshart on this one, except the territories. Outside of a few cities Rome had virtually complete domination of Italy, as represented, by 272BC. I just wish I could manage to model what Rome actually did and control Tarentum and Regium by the end of 270BC :beam:

As to the level of Romanisation, Campania could be heavily Romanised (Type 2 or even Type 1 at a stretch), with others being Lightly Romanised (Type 3)......with Rome Type 1 of course. These 'lesser' levels of government do not exclude the building of Factional MIC's (up to a certain level) so this shouldn't be viewed as a justification for not doing so.

Cheers,

Quilts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quilts

Agree with Wolfshart on this one, except the territories. Outside of a few cities Rome had virtually complete domination of Italy, as represented, by 272BC. I just wish I could manage to model what Rome actually did and control Tarentum and Regium by the end of 270BC :beam:

As to the level of Romanisation, Campania could be heavily Romanised (Type 2 or even Type 1 at a stretch), with others being Lightly Romanised (Type 3)......with Rome Type 1 of course. These 'lesser' levels of government do not exclude the building of Factional MIC's (up to a certain level) so this shouldn't be viewed as a justification for not doing so.

Cheers,

Quilts

---

You are missing the point. At game start you need to think of type 1 as an Italian government because the main function of our government is to regulate what troops can be produced and "Roman" and "Italian" at this point meant roughly the same thing in terms of soldiers.

In order to represent this we give them type 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quilts

Agree with Wolfshart on this one, except the territories. Outside of a few cities Rome had virtually complete domination of Italy, as represented, by 272BC. I just wish I could manage to model what Rome actually did and control Tarentum and Regium by the end of 270BC :beam:

As to the level of Romanisation, Campania could be heavily Romanised (Type 2 or even Type 1 at a stretch), with others being Lightly Romanised (Type 3)......with Rome Type 1 of course. These 'lesser' levels of government do not exclude the building of Factional MIC's (up to a certain level) so this shouldn't be viewed as a justification for not doing so.

Cheers,

Quilts

---

Hehe I bum rush Tarentum and take it the first year (272) and then rush to Rhegium and take it at (270) so it works for me as those are the correct dates. ;)

I agree however. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histo...ly_500_100.jpg
This map shows that as late as about 100BC Rome only directly controlled/colonized small portions of the peninsula while I can see Roma and Capua having type 1 govs I think type 3/4 would be more appropriate for Arretium, Arminium and Arpi. Why can't we start them out at that level and then upgrade from there? I only ever recruit from Capua or Roma anyway so I still don't see what it would hurt.

As far as good admiral Asina goes...he wasn't the first to be defeated as the fleet off Tarentum was as well and that’s what started the Wars with the Greek cities in the south. It does seem weird to have an admiral in control of land forces however. Why was he included?

Asina was appointed an Admiral but so was Aggripa at one point, ancient governments didn't have strict divisions between Army and Navy.

I am going to say this once more:

Technically the political situation warrents Type 4s everywhere outside Roma, for reasons of recruitment that is not appropriate.

But how different to Rome would you say the Socii (allied, but apparently subservient Italian states) were? The Romans were Italians, so there's not much of a culture clash, which is mainly what the government types are about.

It's a good question guys. But our recruitment system (making do the best as we can) does cause some issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maeran

But how different to Rome would you say the Socii (allied, but apparently subservient Italian states) were? The Romans were Italians, so there's not much of a culture clash, which is mainly what the government types are about.

---

You get a gold star for using the grey matter. Although there was some culture clash to the South with the non-Latins they all fought the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

It's a good question guys. But our recruitment system (making do the best as we can) does cause some issues.

---

Maybe I don't understand the recruitment system then...what issues does it cause? I feel like I'm being thick or just missing something then....as I understand it local MICs in Italy don't really do a thing for Romani but Capua and Roma can build all the factional troops so I don't see how it would hurt dropping the gov types to 3 or 4 in other cities. Your right that most troop types were similar in the Latin allied cites after a time but I was just talking about the start date of 272 were they still had unique local troops. I guess this stems from me playing by the books and only training troops in Roma and Capua until about the Marian reforms. There I go being thick again. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfshart

Maybe I don't understand the recruitment system then...what issues does it cause? I feel like I'm being thick or just missing something then....as I understand it local MICs in Italy don't really do a thing for Romani but Capua and Roma can build all the factional troops so I don't see how it would hurt dropping the gov types to 3 or 4 in other cities. Your right that most troop types were similar in the Latin allied cites after a time but I was just talking about the start date of 272 were they still had unique local troops. I guess this stems from me playing by the books and only training troops in Roma and Capua until about the Marian reforms. There I go being thick again. ;)

---

Because 3 and particuarly 4 cannot build the factional mics to the correct level to recruit the troops that we would want them to.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Because 3 and particuarly 4 cannot build the factional mics to the correct level to recruit the troops that we would want them to.

Foot

---

Ok gotcha. Like I said for me it wouldn't be an issue as I only ever recruit from Roma or Capua and play historically only following correct dates but I could see how it could hinder the blitz players out there. :juggle2: So I guess it comes down to game play over history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfshart

Ok gotcha. Like I said for me it wouldn't be an issue as I only ever recruit from Roma or Capua and play historically only following correct dates but I could see how it could hinder the blitz players out there. :juggle2:

---

We are not pandering to the blitz players with this, the Romans sure recruited latin and italic troops from other cities than Roma and Capua. The only way we can represent this with the recruitment system we have is if those cities have gov1s or gov2s

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

We are not pandering to the blitz players with this, the Romans sure recruited latin and italic troops from other cities than Roma and Capua. The only way we can represent this with the recruitment system we have is if those cities have gov1s or gov2s

Foot

---

Ok so it comes down to a conflict with scripting, unit slots, building slots and game play then? If so I guess that very little could be done and the most would be to reduce them to gov 2. Ohh well. :wizard:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfshart

Ok so it comes down to a conflict with scripting, unit slots, building slots and game play then? If so I guess that very little could be done and the most would be to reduce them to gov 2. Ohh well. :wizard:

---

It's not about history over gameplay, it's about using the Engine to represent history the best way we can. The Romani are a special case and they are already given an unreasonable amount of attention compared to every other faction.

To be honest I find your insistance that we preference gameplay over history to be slightly offensive given our stated aims.

Our Roman troops also represent the Soccii, it's really that simple.

Recruiting from even Capua is probably a-historical if you just want "pure" Roman troops, only recruiting from Roma and Capua is a-historical if you follow the conventions EB uses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It's not about history over gameplay, it's about using the Engine to represent history the best way we can. The Romani are a special case and they are already given an unreasonable amount of attention compared to every other faction.

To be honest I find your insistance that we preference gameplay over history to be slightly offensive given our stated aims.

Our Roman troops also represent the Soccii, it's really that simple.

Recruiting from even Capua is probably a-historical if you just want "pure" Roman troops, only recruiting from Roma and Capua is a-historical if you follow the conventions EB uses.

---

I don't think Wolfshart suggested any such thing (gameplay over history), so don't get your knickers in a knot! It is clear to me that he has accepted the explanation, but still exhibits some disappointment.....which is fair enough.

Like myself it would appear that Wolfshart is a new member to these forums so may not be 'intimately knowledgable' about decisions that have been made for unavoidable reasons. However, what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to others.

The first time a booted up EB it seemed obvious to me that Roman troops must represent the Soccii/Latins as well. But just to clarify I asked the question in a PM to a member. The answer I got didn't answer the question. It left me more clueless than what I had been to start with. Now I know for certain, so thank you.

So please be patient with those who are 'not in the know' or haven't been around long enough to witness certain evolutions. They may actually have some ideas that get around some perceived obstacles, if they haven't walked away mumbling 'what a pack of beligerent !@#$%^&*'.....

Cheers,

Quilts

Please don't lecture me. I realise that not everyone is entirely clued up on everything. However, it gets frustrating when you have to make the same point in every post in the same thread.

We work very hard, we are almost all academics or students working within a field related to our roles in EB. We know about the reality of ancient Rome and her relationship to the other Italian states at the start of the game.
Sometimes it feels like people role up, look over the mod, find something they don't think fits and assume we don't know what we're talking about. While I don't think that is really the case here it does become rather wearing in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Please don't lecture me. I realise that not everyone is entirely clued up on everything. However, it gets frustrating when you have to make the same point in every post in the same thread.

---

He is not lecturing you...he is stating the obvious from an unbiased point of view. I don't know him from Adam yet he saw where I was coming from. Somehow I incited you to feel like I was attacking you or the mod and that is the farthest from the truth. This is a great mod and there is a hell of a lot of work that has been put into it. For that I am in the EB team members debt. If you look back in the thread you did not explain it as well as you may have thought to an outsider so I was still unsure of "why" it was that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

We work very hard, we are almost all academics or students working within a field related to our roles in EB. We know about the reality of ancient Rome and her relationship to the other Italian states at the start of the game.
Sometimes it feels like people role up, look over the mod, find something they don't think fits and assume we don't know what we're talking about. While I don't think that is really the case here it does become rather wearing in general.

---

I never doubted the hard work the team members have put into the mod. Like I said I wasn't looking to unravel the fabric of the mod and find faults with it. It was just a question and maybe an observation for EB2. I wasn't aware of the limitations in representing recruitment choices. I'm not a moder and don't know anything past installing a mod and playing. That’s what I meant about game play over history. It wasn't a jab at you or the mod just my lack of knowledge concerning modding limitations. That is not your fault but I think there could have been more tact used rather then a knee jerk reaction to a perceived offense, especially directed at a new menber.

@Quilts: Thanks for seeing where I was coming from....

Guys, we are looking at the situation. It was a good initial point to bring up - but we might not be able to do anything about it. We really are looking at the situation and thinking about it. We'll let you know if we can do anything.

Wolfshart, I appreciate that you aren't actually attacking us but I did say several times that Roman troops also represented Allies, and if you look at your first post again perhaps you'll see how it can be missinterpreted.

Basically the lower the government the lower the factional MIC, our elite Allied units are contained in the higher level factional MICs, because they are factional troops. Also, the higher the government level the lower the regional MIC, so either way you'd end up with unrealistic recruitment, because you'd be badly hurt by either Romanising or by having Allied states.

To get around the problem we have the Italian Allies considered Roman for governmental processes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Please don't lecture me. I realise that not everyone is entirely clued up on everything. However, it gets frustrating when you have to make the same point in every post in the same thread.

We work very hard, we are almost all academics or students working within a field related to our roles in EB. We know about the reality of ancient Rome and her relationship to the other Italian states at the start of the game.
Sometimes it feels like people role up, look over the mod, find something they don't think fits and assume we don't know what we're talking about. While I don't think that is really the case here it does become rather wearing in general.

---

Tell you what. I'll try not to say things you consider 'lecturing' if you try not to draw inference on others use, or lack thereof, of 'the grey matter'. So let's build a bridge :2thumbsup:

Now, to the point. I have a vision :dizzy2: .....where Rome (also very applicable to the Hellenics who colonised) seeds territories with Latin/Roman colonies which determines what level of Government/Troops can be built/recruited there. Simple enough on the face of it but it would obviously require the use of a building that may be needed for something else.....c'est la vie, but I can dream.

The pro's of building colonies- Higher government level access, better access to factional troops.

The con's of building colonies- Expensive to build, a reduced tax/trade income for every level (say, 20+%) to represent to lesser tax payed by citizens etc

That's the basics of it which I can't flesh out without knowing what limitations need to be worked within, whether those restictions are from the RTW engine or the system EB has adopted :help:

Now for the ramble.....

Disclaimer- Everything from this point is outside the scope of EB purely because of the RTW system that is being used.....I think.....

This system would probably work best under a BI/M2TW system where religion could represent Culture, where if you installed too high a Government control you would experience ridiculous levels of unrest.

For instance, the highest level of 'government' would be Latin (where the chief 'religion' was Latin), followed by Italian (chief religion.....'Italian'), followed by.....say Greek (chief religion.....), and last would be a 'catch all' 'religion' government type for all those other cultures.

So if you installed a Latin Government, the chief 'religion' would be Latin. If 70% of the population were Italian this would cause high levels of unrest. So an Italian Government would be best.

However, over time the Latin influence may slowly take over (characters, colonies, some other specific buildings etc), and by keeping the Italian government you may experience.....unrest (ala Social Wars).

This would encourage the player to keep Romans in Rome, or at least fully Latinised areas, when not needed to fight wars as their 'culture' would slowly rub off on the territories they inhabit.

The motivation not to 'Romanise the world' would be the high level of tax/trade penalties paid (well not paid in reality) the higher up the government/colony ladder one climbed.

Does this all make sense?

Cheers,

Quilts

Yes, it does make sense.

We have had these ideas but we need building complexes to make them work and we don't have any free for the Romani, we already use two for recruitment as it is.

Various ideas have been put foward for religion, if and when it is used in EBII it will almost certainly stay religion. The tax penalty is an interesting idea but I would have thought a tax bonus would be more likely.

Finally, when this was put foward it was decided to limit it using the homeland and expansion resources, mainly because of the mechanics of colonisation. You would have a very hard time persuading Greeks to live in the Steppes, for example.

I have to say that personally I'm happy with the way we represent Roman recruitment and expansion. If anything it's too generous and we should contract the expansion regions.

Just a personnal note, I find it a little odd when people insist on playing "historically" you guys should really try a little more experementation.

We know how it happened in history, try something different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Just a personnal note, I find it a little odd when people insist on playing "historically" you guys should really try a little more experementation.

We know how it happened in history, try something different.

---

That would be world of warcraft.

I beg your pardon? I'm not Warcraft fan, so the reference doesn't make sense.

So you tell me that you play all your campians exactly as history had them? I can understand doing a Roman campian for it, but for the other ones it's impossible. As soon as the sun roes on the first day of 272 BC anything could happen.
So play Macedonia and recreate Alexanders Empire, and then fufill al his deams and concer the med.

Don't just sit around there waiting for the romans to destroy you.

What I meant to say is that a lot of players have their joy recreating history, not only in this game, but in other strategic games like those from paradox too. Its an atmosphere thing, I guess. Thats also the main reason I always tend to play the romani or pahlava, because with the other factions you really cant do this. I could never play carthage and conquering Italy - because Hannibal didnt, it just wouldnt feel right lol. Cant explain it better than that, but I guess the people who are hooked on playing historically understand what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalkwerk

I could never play carthage and conquering Italy - because Hannibal didnt, it just wouldnt feel right lol. Cant explain it better than that, but I guess the people who are hooked on playing historically understand what I mean.

---

I have the same disease. In my Seleukid campaign I'm so po'd at my king, because historically he died in 246BC, if I remember correctly, and I just can't get him to die realistically. Now it's 238BC and I feel lost... And this is not a joke.

but he asked about what has WoW have with his post. Wich intereses me as well.

I think that he said that because in WOW everything focuses on you, and so the player could save the world a dozen times and even change history (sort of) by going back in time.

And because none of the things the player does in Wow actually counts in the actual story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ower

but he asked about what has WoW have with his post. Wich intereses me as well.

---

WoW is a online fantasy RPG-game and I used is as a maybe not very convincing metapher for what it would mean to me not playing historically - it would have nothing to do with tw-gaming anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalkwerk

WoW is a online fantasy RPG-game and I used is as a maybe not very convincing metapher for what it would mean to me not playing historically - it would have nothing to do with tw-gaming anymore.

---

Why? Tw gaiming, is not about playing historically, iz is about what when? history, and original TW games, not eaven that, as we all know about their acurracy. EB as well is not about playing historically, but abaut ok I have how it was in this point of history,(well as much as the engine allows), so wath if I was ... and would do ... .

So you see we have different opinions about whats fun with this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ower

Why? Tw gaiming, is not about playing historically, iz is about what when? history, and original TW games, not eaven that, as we all know about their acurracy. EB as well is not about playing historically, but abaut ok I have how it was in this point of history,(well as much as the engine allows), so wath if I was ... and would do ... .

---

I disagree...for me it is way more challenging to try and follow the history to the letter then just to blitz everthing and be done 200 years early. Admittedly this whole War Craft thing is way off topic so I will not comment.

I didn't say, that your way is not fun, or anithing like that. I said TW/gaming is not about playing historicaly, it's not the base of the games, that dosn't mean you can't try, and that it's chalenging or funn. But I think, that if you stick only to this part, you miss the greather part of this lovely game.

Guys, I hate to say this but this obsession with playing on the rails I find a little sad (not sad pathetic, just sad.)

I mean we give you all these options, all that map space and all you want to do is re-create exactly what happened? That's like living your life to a script and just going through the motions.

I couldn't do that in this game, for one thing I don't hold a timeline in my head of what happened, so I'd have to keep looking things up to see what I needed to do next.

Please, do this for me. Pick a faction you know nothing about and go fight another faction you know nothing about.

I'm sorry is this post sounds offish but I'm genuinely flabbagasted, I cannot fathom your thought process at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Guys, I hate to say this but this obsession with playing on the rails I find a little sad (not sad pathetic, just sad.)

I mean we give you all these options, all that map space and all you want to do is re-create exactly what happened? That's like living your life to a script and just going through the motions.

I couldn't do that in this game, for one thing I don't hold a timeline in my head of what happened, so I'd have to keep looking things up to see what I needed to do next.

Please, do this for me. Pick a faction you know nothing about and go fight another faction you know nothing about.

I'm sorry is this post sounds offish but I'm genuinely flabbagasted, I cannot fathom your thought process at all.

---

I only ever play to the strict historical timeline when playing Romani. I have a couple other campaigns playing Mac and Sweboz where I am just trying to take over the world history be damned. I just find playing Romani with house rules and historically adds more spice to the campaign. It is hard to have to hold yourself back for years at a time and only haveing historical armies and roll playing the Gov/Gens to historic house rules. For me it just adds a little bit of interest and hell I'm learning alot in the process too. :) So I don't see how I'm missing out on anything. Its a great mod and great fun either way you play it.

Well ultimately whatever floats your boat but for myself I prefer to roleplay the Romani as they would have acted in the situations thrown up by the campaign.

It is, for example, horrifically un-Roman to break your alliance with Carthage, just because that happened in reality, without provocation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I couldn't do that in this game, for one thing I don't hold a timeline in my head of what happened, so I'd have to keep looking things up to see what I needed to do next.

---

Well my problem is I have that timeline in my head and have been attached to that timeline stuying historical maps and reading roman history since I was a small boy. It would be to break with what I am and where I come from NOT to play historically as the romani lol. If I get time Ill make an AAR for my next roman campaign and maybe you will see that this type of gaming contains a lot of love to detail in the work you have done with this mod.

That said I agree that for the other factions a historical approach doesnt make much sense.

My opinion is, that historical aprouch is funn, but sometimes I just have a urge for a change. Playing What if historz, dosn't mean bliy everithing. I just wan to know sometimes what can i pull out of the faction. So I play slow and don't think about historicity, whit pahlava or rome, but how the game and rpg comes. So I end up like in me curent Pahlava campain, I fend off seleucid heavy elit armies, whit only 2-3 parthian HA, 1-2FM, 3-4 archers and 2-3 slingers, and it's quit exhausting, to manage all thous missails, and protecting them from enemz cavalery and so .. but in the end revarding, when you teke dow a seleucid full stack of archers slinger elite and medium phalanx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalkwerk

What I meant to say is that a lot of players have their joy recreating history, not only in this game, but in other strategic games like those from paradox too. Its an atmosphere thing, I guess. Thats also the main reason I always tend to play the romani or pahlava, because with the other factions you really cant do this. I could never play carthage and conquering Italy - because Hannibal didnt, it just wouldnt feel right lol. Cant explain it better than that, but I guess the people who are hooked on playing historically understand what I mean.

---

Lol I do the samething!

I'ts just not right to me when the Roman conquer Germania.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Lol I do the samething!
I'ts just not right to me when the Roman conquer Germania.....

---

why not? You don't have Varus, so what if Teutonberg forest, would not hapen? It's not totaly ahistoricall, it's just the main motor of sience: the question What if?
You just search in the means of the engine, what would hapen, if something did'n hapen and something other did. How would the Roman Empire look like then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalkwerk

Well my problem is I have that timeline in my head and have been attached to that timeline stuying historical maps and reading roman history since I was a small boy. It would be to break with what I am and where I come from NOT to play historically as the romani lol. If I get time Ill make an AAR for my next roman campaign and maybe you will see that this type of gaming contains a lot of love to detail in the work you have done with this mod.

That said I agree that for the other factions a historical approach doesnt make much sense.

---

Ok, what if Makedonia lands in Italy? What do you do when the AI refuses to act historically? What if Makedonia asks for an Alliance and the Ptolomaoi prosecte a vicious war against you?

Do you ignore the masters of Egypt and, in a very unRoman way, persecute the Highlanders?

I see what you're saying but I don't see how it can possibly work in EB.

Exactly, I was playing slowly, but the Avreni were wiping Aediu off the map and the sweboz, so a sent a couple of legions in, giving away the provinces to the other side to keep the game lasting. Palahava had a money boost from me, but the Sabens Ptolmies and Pontos were destroyed by the AS while the Mac's were over running greece and touching the baltic...
So I sent a legion in the help the KH and Getai, then retreated, but the KH attacked me, so I am going to have to burn Sparta, Athens and Corinth to the ground:no:

And I am staying out of spain as the Lustions have united most of the island and are ighting my Galic enemies. Carthage betreyed me so I took the city and the north afrcan coast (2 provinces). Nice and slow, no blitzine, I have 3 citiesmore out side italy, and there are almost no rebel cities left. Time to expand? 224 bc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ok, what if Makedonia lands in Italy? What do you do when the AI refuses to act historically? What if Makedonia asks for an Alliance and the Ptolomaoi prosecte a vicious war against you?

Do you ignore the masters of Egypt and, in a very unRoman way, persecute the Highlanders?

I see what you're saying but I don't see how it can possibly work in EB.

---

I agree that sometimes the AI really screws things up for us that want to play historically. It usually takes playing power broker i.e. bribing settlements/armies and gifting/disbanding. It can be a pain but sometimes you just have to force the hand of the AI. It does take you out of the immersive play (but not always as Rome was a power broker in their own right) just for a minute till you get everyone back to where they need to be. It takes a lot of patience but that’s part of the challenge. I may work on an AAR up that follows history as close as possible with exact dates/actions and such...that is what I'm looking forward to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfshart

I agree that sometimes the AI really screws things up for us that want to play historically. It usually takes playing power broker i.e. bribing settlements/armies and gifting/disbanding. It can be a pain but sometimes you just have to force the hand of the AI. It does take you out of the immersive play but just for a minute till you get everyone back to where they need to be. It takes a lot of patience but that’s part of the challenge. I may work on an AAR up that follows history as close as possible with exact dates/actions and such...that is what I'm looking forward to.

---

I rember rreading one like that, it was in a history book:laugh4:

Just play like the romans, not exactly as they did it but how you think they would react to how the ai expands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alatar

I rember rreading one like that, it was in a history book:laugh4:

Just play like the romans, not exactly as they did it but how you think they would react to how the ai expands.

---

I have done that too many times before....this time it will be a REAL challenge!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfshart

I agree that sometimes the AI really screws things up for us that want to play historically. It usually takes playing power broker i.e. bribing settlements/armies and gifting/disbanding. It can be a pain but sometimes you just have to force the hand of the AI. It does take you out of the immersive play (but not always as Rome was a power broker in their own right) just for a minute till you get everyone back to where they need to be. It takes a lot of patience but that’s part of the challenge. I may work on an AAR up that follows history as close as possible with exact dates/actions and such...that is what I'm looking forward to.

---

Well sorry to say that sounds really boring.

Still, if it's what you want to do.

Personnally I take great pleasure in destroying Rome.

The trouble is the Pathians will stagnate in the east, or the sweboz will concer the steppes.
To much hard work to keep them inline exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alatar

The trouble is the Pathians will stagnate in the east, or the sweboz will concer the steppes.
To much hard work to keep them inline exactly.

---

Thats the point! I have been playing TW titles since STW came out and I find this a nice change of pace.

STW was good as everyone had essential the same troops so you were fighting your equals, unfortunally the AI was afwull:embarassed:

I am another one of those players who like recreating history. I know that some people may think it's silly, but it adds immersion to the game for me. I feel really guilty if, as Rome, I conquer Germania, or go to the steppes. In fact, sometimes I have had to force myself to do something ahistorical just so I can enjoy the game(Otherwise I'd be waiting 20 years before I was supposed to begin another war).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

We have had these ideas but we need building complexes to make them work and we don't have any free for the Romani, we already use two for recruitment as it is.

---

I suspected as much. If I remember correctly you guys experienced some horrendous problems with 'barracks building' when you ported to 1.5.

So I may be way off track but must ask, would it be possible for the 'colony' itself to provide the troops, rather than a Factional MIC? So the colony is the factional MIC? Leaving the local MIC for auxiliaries?

Quote:

---

Various ideas have been put foward for religion, if and when it is used in EBII it will almost certainly stay religion.

---

Really? I guess you have your reasons:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

The tax penalty is an interesting idea but I would have thought a tax bonus would be more likely.

---

Not really. The Romans themselves paid very little tax, as was the case with most citizens of any other city-state. Your obligation was to fight. I think tax of Romans was abolished in 177BC??? with the passing of some law. As a result the Italiots bore more and more of the tax burden. You still had to pay money to farm public land (tax?) and excise on trade (using the docks etc) but physical tax on income didn't really exist.

The Quaestors? dipping into their own pocket to fund the yearly games highlights that Rome didn't 'usually' have a very deep treasury.

It's wealth was manpower that had an obligation to fight, but even the minimal pay that legions eventually received prevented the Senate from using them when not necessary.

So the more 'Latins' you move into an area, the less revenue you receive.

Also, the Italian cities were 'self determining' outside of foreign policy for which they defered to Rome. They also had obligations to self fund troop levies when required, but still ran their own governments (so 'all' that money shouldn't go to Rome's coffers).

Quote:

---

Finally, when this was put foward it was decided to limit it using the homeland and expansion resources, mainly because of the mechanics of colonisation. You would have a very hard time persuading Greeks to live in the Steppes, for example.

---

When I said expensive. I meant expensive :beam:

Quote:

---

I have to say that personally I'm happy with the way we represent Roman recruitment and expansion. If anything it's too generous and we should contract the expansion regions.

---

I agree. Way too generous! But you could just let the player determine where he 'expands' with colonies.....when he has enough money that is (see below)

Another Disclaimer-This idea is for the player ONLY. Not the AI!
In my 'ultimate' vision you see, fielding a legion would be very quick (0-turn recruitment and minimal cost) but VERY expensive. Enough so that if in the early game you kept all 4 Urban Legions and Ala in the field for the year you would well exceed your yearly income and bankrupt yourself. So if you were fighting and conquering alot you would not have the funds for expanding your colonies.....but if you weren't you wouldn't have the space to expand into.

I hope this makes sense and doesn't just receive the 'black banned for mentioning 0-turn recruitment' response :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Just a personnal note, I find it a little odd when people insist on playing "historically" you guys should really try a little more experementation.

We know how it happened in history, try something different.

---

That's exactly what I do. It's why I'd prefer (if it wasn't too easy) to play on Medium campaign difficulty. You can actually negotiate with the AI on that setting :yes:

But ultimately I want to be presented with the difficulties that Rome experienced. Why did Rome take 50 years of dominating the Greek region to actually make it a Roman 'possession'? Cultire and cost I'd suggest.

Why did Rome smash the Illyrian tribes but still take 100 years to make it a 'possession'? Culture and cost?

Cheers,

Quilts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quilts

I suspected as much. If I remember correctly you guys experienced some horrendous problems with 'barracks building' when you ported to 1.5.

So I may be way off track but must ask, would it be possible for the 'colony' itself to provide the troops, rather than a Factional MIC? So the colony is the factional MIC? Leaving the local MIC for auxiliaries?

---

Then it doesn't work with reforms. Nice idea though.

Quote:

---

Really? I guess you have your reasons:inquisitive:

---

Yes, we do, the Romans and the Druids are a good example, though polytheism is by definition more permeable than mon-theism.

Quote:

---

Not really. The Romans themselves paid very little tax, as was the case with most citizens of any other city-state. Your obligation was to fight. I think tax of Romans was abolished in 177BC??? with the passing of some law. As a result the Italiots bore more and more of the tax burden. You still had to pay money to farm public land (tax?) and excise on trade (using the docks etc) but physical tax on income didn't really exist.

The Quaestors? dipping into their own pocket to fund the yearly games highlights that Rome didn't 'usually' have a very deep treasury.

It's wealth was manpower that had an obligation to fight, but even the minimal pay that legions eventually received prevented the Senate from using them when not necessary.

So the more 'Latins' you move into an area, the less revenue you receive.

---

True, but the more Latins you move in the more trade in high value goods, the more commerce in general. Aditionally, the more wealthy people giving back to the community.

In ny case tax in general was low in Rome, around 5% in todays terms in Caesar's times.

Quote:

---

Also, the Italian cities were 'self determining' outside of foreign policy for which they defered to Rome. They also had obligations to self fund troop levies when required, but still ran their own governments (so 'all' that money shouldn't go to Rome's coffers).

---

Also true, but the Romani faction doesn't represent Roma independantly, it has to take into account all her "Allies."

Quote:

---

When I said expensive. I meant expensive :beam:

---

Let me put it another way. I don't think you could pay a Greek money to live in the Steppes.

Quote:

---

Another Disclaimer

---

Quote:

---

-This idea is for the player ONLY. Not the AI!
In my 'ultimate' vision you see, fielding a legion would be very quick (0-turn recruitment and minimal cost) but VERY expensive. Enough so that if in the early game you kept all 4 Urban Legions and Ala in the field for the year you would well exceed your yearly income and bankrupt yourself. So if you were fighting and conquering alot you would not have the funds for expanding your colonies.....but if you weren't you wouldn't have the space to expand into.

I hope this makes sense and doesn't just receive the 'black banned for mentioning 0-turn recruitment' response :sweatdrop:

---

We work with RTW the best we can, Roman Legions did spend years under arms and it didn't bankrupt Rome, so your system isn't really representative. Additionally, we can't have a different set of rules like that for the player

As to your final point: We try to represent the problems Rome, or any faction, really experienced. With that said, in both you examples Rome did not gain control of those areas because she lacked commitment. In Greece the Roman armies went in at the behest of Greeks and left once the job was done. Greece was finally annexed because the Senate got fed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ok, what if Makedonia lands in Italy? What do you do when the AI refuses to act historically? What if Makedonia asks for an Alliance and the Ptolomaoi prosecte a vicious war against you?

Do you ignore the masters of Egypt and, in a very unRoman way, persecute the Highlanders?

I see what you're saying but I don't see how it can possibly work in EB.

---

Youre right, it doesnt work like Id want it to, because Im not playing against Hannibal or Phillip V themselves, but the AI.
I got 2 strategies to cope with this problem, although they cant really solve it:
1. I use the force diplomacy mod to a certain extent (making realistic peace/protectorates).
2. I dont have to keep the conquered lands after a war myself, but give them to the right factions or let them rebel.

But of course I cant expect EVERYTHING to run historical. Maybe you understand me better if we look at it this way.
The roman empire developed around the mediterannean. This had economical, cultural and logistic reasons which still are only partially modelled in EB (inventing the cultures from BI would still be great though). So I play with house rules which makes the same happen. The way the roman empire developed is generally no damn coincident like some people in here suggest. Although it was no necessity, it had reasons and the "playing historical" house rules help the player take them into account. Also its surely the much harder approach, and some people seek some rest of challenge for the roman faction.

I expand around the cost aswell for trade and easy of recruitments. But it's 200bc and I only have Arse, Epirdarmous (sp) Ippone and Carthage on the costs, and I will not go inland for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Various ideas have been put foward for religion, if and when it is used in EBII it will almost certainly stay religion.

---

Not if I have anything to do with it. It aint a done deal yet, and I will certainly fight for religion in EBII to represent culture!

Foot

What three cultures would you have?
Roman? Greek? Eastern?
Whaty about Semtic or Celtic?

Where as religion you can be nice and vauge enough, also I'll play the romans and let everyone whorship who they want.

well i dont think we know the limit of # of religions possible. So, it is feasible we can have a specific 'culture' for each of our current cultures in game to match their geographic area. Then, by utilizing priest agents as 'tutors' or 'philosophers' or something, you can slowly spread your culture to areas you conquer, representing the slow hellenization of outlying areas.

I think this is what Foot is going for and I think its a great idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

well i dont think we know the limit of # of religions possible. So, it is feasible we can have a specific 'culture' for each of our current cultures in game to match their geographic area. Then, by utilizing priest agents as 'tutors' or 'philosophers' or something, you can slowly spread your culture to areas you conquer, representing the slow hellenization of outlying areas.

I think this is what Foot is going for and I think its a great idea.

---

And with the ability to decide recruiting abilities by culture in MTW2 Kingdoms we have ten thousand possibilities. I cannot wait!

Foot

I though the number of relgions was stuck as it is, but if it not then the possibites would be great, imagine no more MIC's just one baraks that recruits deifferent people depending on the culture!
So you could add local italien as a culture and rome couild lose the smite units when he gets to strong. Or Palahva could change from nomad to eastern.

It would be good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Then it doesn't work with reforms. Nice idea though.

---

Ok, that's a bugger. But see below about reforms.

Quote:

---

Yes, we do, the Romans and the Druids are a good example, though polytheism is by definition more permeable than mon-theism.

---

No offence but I hope Foot wins the debate.

Quote:

---

True, but the more Latins you move in the more trade in high value goods, the more commerce in general. Aditionally, the more wealthy people giving back to the community.

In ny case tax in general was low in Rome, around 5% in todays terms in Caesar's times.

---

Yep, so maybe income from Trade should get a boost.....or lose some of the previously imposed penalty that I thought it should have.

Let's face it, we're working with an 'income generating' system that in no way reflects how money was generated in the day. We are forced to make it fit our desires in the best manner possible.

In that light, all I'm suggesting is using that system to our advantage by making it undesireable for the player to expand 'Latin' culture too far because of the hit their finances will incur, at the expense of factional troops.

It's not necessarily historical, but it makes good use of the system at hand to prevent the player Romanising the world.

Quote:

---

Also true, but the Romani faction doesn't represent Roma independantly, it has to take into account all her "Allies."

---

Absolutely. But if that money could be limited to enough to keep a few (1-2)units in the field and upgrade building every few years. rather than the 'I can now double my army size because I've captured a single province' epidemic. It would actually be more historical because that's what their commitment was. Surely that would be a good thing?

Quote:

---

Let me put it another way. I don't think you could pay a Greek money to live in the Steppes.

---

You may be right. But they did get them to live on little island off the coast of Africa and other inhospitable places. Rome never made it to the steppes during the period they were using colonies as a means to 'control' the populace so it's hard to be so definative in my opinion.

Quote:

---

We work with RTW the best we can, Roman Legions did spend years under arms and it didn't bankrupt Rome, so your system isn't really representative.

---

Yes, they certainly did. But more so towards the middle and end of our period.

What I'm suggesting is that at the start (with 5-7 Provinces) you would send Rome into bankruptcy by keeping 4 Legions and Alae in the field.....but as Rome grows and absorbs provinces your ability to do so increases, so by the time you have twice as many provinces (and the need to protect them) you may be able to actually keep all 4 in the field depending what decisions you'd made regarding government types, which effects income.

At some point the cost of keeping Legions in the field would be too much due to the need to upgrade provinces as your culture leaks into them (reducing income) and you would need to implement a reform.....the Marian reform (not dynamic but you have to have achieved certain things). This would make your troops cost plenty to create and plenty to keep in the field like troops in the game now, with 1 turn recruitment ala Cohorts Reformata.

So now your ability to 'police' your outer provinces/interests has improved as your maintenance costs have decreased, but you need money in the bank to create them in the first place.

I know alot of these things are impossible under the current build. A lot of my ramblings are 'what if's' :book:

Quote:

---

Additionally, we can't have a different set of rules like that for the player

---

There was some talk of exec.bat files that could 'alter' the game, depending on what faction you were playing, in the old RTR forum.

Don't know the ins-and-outs of such things but it sounded doable.

Quote:

---

As to your final point: We try to represent the problems Rome, or any faction, really experienced. With that said, in both you examples Rome did not gain control of those areas because she lacked commitment. In Greece the Roman armies went in at the behest of Greeks and left once the job was done. Greece was finally annexed because the Senate got fed up.

---

I know, and you guys do a great job, and it is appreciated. Believe me when I say I wouldn't spend a minute doing what I am now if I hadn't been 'inspired' by the great work of people working on this Mod.

As to Rome's expansion to the East it was pure exasperation. As far as I can determine, all Rome wanted was for the Greeks to do their thing but listen to Rome when they made a statement.

Things played out in Greece as they always had (petty rivalries) and Rome finally had had enough.

But this displays a distinct lack of desire 'to get involved'. Why? They had several forays into the east to put down what they perceived as legitimate threats but always pulled out again.

We have no way to model this.....except to make it too expensive to garrison those provinces :beam: , so the player will leave.

Who knows, with committments in Spain etc, the cost may have been the actual motivation. Do you really know for certain? I certainly don't.

Cheers,

Quilts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

And with the ability to decide recruiting abilities by culture in MTW2 Kingdoms we have ten thousand possibilities. I cannot wait!

Foot

---

Does this mean the expansion pack will likely be required to run EB2, unlike the policy regarding expansions for RTW and EB?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Does this mean the expansion pack will likely be required to run EB2, unlike the policy regarding expansions for RTW and EB?

---

We don't know yet, it may be that some of the new features that we want to use will appear in parallel updates to the MTW2 exe as well as the Kingdoms exe (just like some of the BI features appeared in RTW 1.3 and 1.5). However there are certainly some features of Kingdoms that has really got us excited (permanent forts, anyone?), so it may be the case that Kingdoms will be required. We haven't made any decisions though.

Foot

For the Teutonic campaign in Kingdoms, the Gamespot preview says that the Teutonic Order will be a playable faction without a family tree. How awesome would it be for the Romans to finally not have a family tree??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheep

For the Teutonic campaign in Kingdoms, the Gamespot preview says that the Teutonic Order will be a playable faction without a family tree. How awesome would it be for the Romans to finally not have a family tree??

---

There is already that option in MTW2 as far as I am aware. We haven't tested it out yet, but yes, this would be awesome. Its almost as if CA created this option just for us.

Foot