Unwanted Marian Reforms! :(

[Jorduan]

While recently playing in my Roman campaign.. I have conquered all foes of the west and have entered a superpower war with the seleucids. HOWEVER!!!
After completing one turn, approx. 215 B.C, the advisor guy told me that the Marian reforms had occured.
At first I thought this was good... but then I was faced with the grim reality that my vast polybian armies, which are fantasticly amazing troops, are now totally redundant, and no longer re-trainable.... Is there anyway around this????
This is particularly annoying with units such as the Roman allied elite cavalry, which are a God send for the Roman army...
I do admit that legionaries will be fantastic when I send them into battle... but I am very pissed off that all my polybian troops have reached the end of their days DESPITE them being kick-ass troops...

Is there any way to retrain them again????????!?!?!?!

[Korlon]

This has got to be the first time a person didn't want the Marian Reforms... no, make that the second time.

I don't think there's any way to retrain them. Get some allied cavalry from your other provinces.

[Jorduan]

allied cavalry from other provinces is unnecessary bollocks because:

1 - They are nowhere near as good as the heavy allied cavalry
2 - This requires large scale barracks construction in regions have not contributed forces throughout the whole campaign.

I always read people in this forum claiming how they want to follow historical reality to the fullest extent.... and I feel this Marian reform situation in the game has been mishandled.
The development of a state-equipped legionaries, and utilising of foreign auxilaries would not remove the ability to muster heavy cavalry from the italian peninsula..... So there is no need to remove this in the game.

[Sdragon]

You just going to have to keep mixing depleted units till you reach the point where you have 1 unit left that's too under strength to be of value. Like you say, you have vast numbers of them. Should get a good few years worth of combat from them yet.

[QuintusSertorius]

I thought it couldn't happen before 176BC?

If it comes down to it, you can always use create_unit to spawn Polybian troops in your settlements.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Yeah, did you alter the script to get them so early, or did you conquer 90 settlements already?

Secondly, the reforms represent the fact that your are streching your military beyond what Italy can resupply. Since it sounds like you are far from your core, the reforms are logical for you. Remember, reforms don't always means something good is happening. When it actually happened, many people tried to appose the Marian Reforms but there was no other option.

[Sygrod]

One way around this is to do a sort of cheat.
Perhaps with some "house rules": create_unit <settlement> "<Marian unit>" followed by the values of one of your units there. Then discharge the old unit. This would actually be a more realistic way to convert troops.

[Jorduan]

I havnt changed anything on the script... But i probably do have 90+ settlements..

I tried out the new leigonaries for the first time this morning and they are pretty good.

Also, I'm going to turn Carthage into an Elephant factory to make up for the lack of Cavalry recruitability in Italy..

[Tyrfingr]

I got the Marian Reforms in 208BC, when I conquered 90 settlements. Although I miss the Equites Extraordinarii, I must say that the satisfaction of having Prima Cohors, Cohors Reformata and Cohors Evocata slaughtering all opposition is greater than a few units of Italic heavy cavalry. Besides, mercenaries do just fine, hell, my main cavalry unit is the Illyrioi Hippeis

[Sdragon]

Make use of mercenaries, there should decent cavalry in Greece to hire along with South Italy.

[alatar]

I think EB is not made to conquer 90 porvinces in 70 years, and had Rome done that, they would have needed the reforms.

As you do, imagine it as a oposition to all your armies depleting Italy.

[Strategos Alexandros]

You can still get Brihentin from Gaul which are the best Western cavalry except for Hetairoi and arguably Thessalian and Iberian heavies.

[Tellos Athenaios]

IIRC, Remi Mairepos are better.

[Strategos Alexandros]

Can Romans get them?

[Moros]

IIRC, Remi Mairepos are better.

they're practically the same. But the Remi I believe were indeed supposed to be a little tiny bit better. But they are practically the same.

[Strategos Alexandros]

I think they have an extra point of morale over Brihentin.

[Moros]

yeah and have an attack point more, I believe.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And a defense one too, IIRC.

Also: fijne verjaardag, Moros!

[Strategos Alexandros]

[Jorduan]

I think EB is not made to conquer 90 porvinces in 70 years, and had Rome done that, they would have needed the reforms.

As you do, imagine it as a oposition to all your armies depleting Italy.

why is EB not 'made' to conquer this area in this time? are you implying that the im playing the game wrong or something?

Also, Rome would not require 'reforms' as such purely on the basis of conquering a large area in a short time, in the context of my particular game, becuase my armies wiped out the audui, averni, lusotanns, carthage, sweboz, epiros, K.H, Macedon and the Getai in their entirety... the system evidently worked fine. Also, the large area was no setback to my armies in terms of recruitment, as regional troops proved their worth...

E.B should provide the ability to enact such 'reforms' when the user so pleases, as I had absolutely no intention of reaching them at this point.

And P.S, for you people pointing out how and where to buy mercenary cavalry, do you actually think that I have no knowledge of this already??!? Smart-Arse answers like that are of no use to anyone and really get on my tits.

[Foot]

Jorduan, they were not being rude, they were just trying to help. How are they going to know what you do and don't know. I think you need to change your attitude a bit.

Yes, we are implying you are playing the game wrong. Our scripting is based around a certain type of game-style, people who don't play in that style will obviously see some inconsistencies.

As for in the context of your game, we cannot replicate every detail of the social, political and military changes that will naturally occur with the conquering of a large empire, however we are fine with the current requirements for the marian reforms and we feel that they reflect the events that led up to the reforms as best as we can given the restrictions of the game.

Foot

[QuintusSertorius]

Basically Jorduan, before the reforms occurred, you needed to change the unconditional trigger in the script from 90 provinces to a higher number.

[Jorduan]

Jorduan, they were not being rude, they were just trying to help. How are they going to know what you do and don't know. I think you need to change your attitude a bit.

Yes, we are implying you are playing the game wrong. Our scripting is based around a certain type of game-style, people who don't play in that style will obviously see some inconsistencies.

As for in the context of your game, we cannot replicate every detail of the social, political and military changes that will naturally occur with the conquering of a large empire, however we are fine with the current requirements for the marian reforms and we feel that they reflect the events that led up to the reforms as best as we can given the restrictions of the game.

Foot

So please explain to me just HOW I have been playing the game WRONG...

? ? ? ?

[Foot]

Being able to conquer 90 regions in 70 years means that you have been blitzing, conquering many provinces in as few turns as possible is not how EB is meant to be played. We have designed the game to be played slowly, roleplaying your characters, conquering with respect to historical details that cannot be represented in the game.

Foot

[Tellos Athenaios]

Simple math really: >90 provinces in 70 years? That's roughly 50 years away from the real Marians, 50-100 years of city development you 'skipped'... You've been going way to fast.

Ironically the situation pre=Marian reforms was about exactly what has happened post-reforms to you: 'suddenly' (actually it had been a gradual development, but it hadn't hit as hard yet) Rome ran out of sufficient infantry man-power to wage it wars; accompanied by a rather large number of people who were practically incapbale of making a living due to the slaves employed in every major business. Massive social pressure + lack of men where it mattered most for the Romans meant reforms. Quite massive and far-reaching reforms.https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/editp...post&p=1935906

[Jorduan]

Foot, to be honest with you, I think that you are completely wrong.
First of all, you presume that I have not been developing my characters, which is of great importance in my campaigns...

I only declared war on 2 nations of my own accord, each other faction declared war on me... and therefore they were conquered, not as fast as I possibly could, but merely as fast as it took to destroy them.

You state that I am 'blitzing' and advancing as fast as is possible, which 'is not what the game is about'. Not only did I never have any intent on spreading as fast as is possible.... I simply managed to overcome all my enemies through winning large scale battles, but also this is essentially negligable anway, as isnt this what the objective of the game is??? to complete it? and enjoy yourself in the process??

I am absolutely astounded that you consider me to be 'cheating' the game. After all... this is a computer game, with an objective.. I have been working towards that objective, hence playing the game as it has been designed.

I feel that your attitude is arrogant, as you cannot accept the way in which I play this game: merely seeking to beat it, because I enjoy playing this game very much. What does it then matter if I am not 'role playing' enough, or 'sticking to historical reality' enough. If this is so important within the game then it is itself fundamentally flawed. Any person who creates an 'empire' as such which never existed in reality is going against this, and by your way of understanding concerning my gameplay, this would be not playing the game 'properly'...

Europa Barbarorum is my favourite computer game, and I am 100% gratefull for its construction. I have passed it on to 5 of my friends, who now themselves also appreicate the great game. Why, therefore, can you not be pleased that I am enjoying this game and have done for a long time, rather than criticising me for 'the way in which I play it', which does not fall into your own distinct criteria? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[QuintusSertorius]

Uh, the problem you're experiencing is a direct result of the way you're playing.

For example, I'm a lot further into the game than you - 171BC - yet I don't even have 30 provinces yet. My campaign map looks thus:

[Jorduan]

The 'problem' of cavalry is not only sortable... in the long run the reforms will probably be better for me...

and it doesnt change the fact that to claim that I am playing the game wrong is arrogant.

[Foot]

Foot, to be honest with you, I think that you are completely wrong.
First of all, you presume that I have not been developing my characters, which is of great importance in my campaigns...

I only declared war on 2 nations of my own accord, each other faction declared war on me... and therefore they were conquered, not as fast as I possibly could, but merely as fast as it took to destroy them.

You state that I am 'blitzing' and advancing as fast as is possible, which 'is not what the game is about'. Not only did I never have any intent on spreading as fast as is possible.... I simply managed to overcome all my enemies through winning large scale battles, but also this is essentially negligable anway, as isnt this what the objective of the game is??? to complete it? and enjoy yourself in the process??

I am absolutely astounded that you consider me to be 'cheating' the game. After all... this is a computer game, with an objective.. I have been working towards that objective, hence playing the game as it has been designed.

I feel that your attitude is arrogant, as you cannot accept the way in which I play this game: merely seeking to beat it, because I enjoy playing this game very much. What does it then matter if I am not 'role playing' enough, or 'sticking to historical reality' enough. If this is so important within the game then it is itself fundamentally flawed. Any person who creates an 'empire' as such which never existed in reality is going against this, and by your way of understanding concerning my gameplay, this would be not playing the game 'properly'...

Europa Barbarorum is my favourite computer game, and I am 100% gratefull for its construction. I have passed it on to 5 of my friends, who now themselves also appreicate the great game. Why, therefore, can you not be pleased that I am enjoying this game and have done for a long time, rather than criticising me for 'the way in which I play it', which does not fall into your own distinct criteria? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Explain to me where I said you were cheating.

Arrogant? You asked me how you are supposed to play the game, well I answered. That was how the game was designed, that is how the game is meant to be played. Thats not how the game can only be played. Neospartan is a great lover of the blitz game, where the purposes is to beat the AI at the hardest setting. He, however, doesn't seem to complain so heartily when things in the game seem slightly odd, nor does he attack those who are trying to help.

Where did I say you couldn't enjoy the game as you play it? Am I glad that you do? Not really, we've put a lot of work into areas of the game that you won't ever be able to see and which I would like you to see. However everyone has their own preference. And the EB vision only fits a small number of these.

To be frank I have found your posts here to be aggressive and rude. I have tried to answer as best I can, yet you seem to have read my post completely differently from how I wrote it. You complained because a certain game mechanic didn't seem correct to you. I, and others, explained that this was because the game is fine-tuned to be played in a certain style. You pressed me for this style and how it differed from yours. Obviously I cannot answer the last part very well as I haven't been sitting over your shoulder and nor have you described your game in detail. I gave the stock answer we like to give and then you go chew my face off for some imagined slight I made about your game-style.

I'm sorry but 90 provinces in 70 years is blitzing, I don't care how you paint it. Thats absolutely fine if that is how you want to play, but don't expect the game to meet your every expectation, it won't.

So until you learn how to read my posts don't expect any further answers from me. I don't enjoy having reactionary nonsense being written about me because I try to help.

Foot

[Jorduan]

yes that is fair enough, but you stated that you felt that I was playing the game wrong..
this doesnt seem to me to be respecting the way in which people play this game.