a few question for Romani players

[bigmilt16]

For all Romani players, a few question and shared ideas about gameplay style, and what you feel is appropriate:

1. I stick to a modified version of QS' houserules using the mini-mod pack; however, I use the 10 year tribune period as a chance for young FM's to gain some basic command skills and get that all important first star and "blooded trait". I'll allow "green" tribunes to lead an army of 5 or less units (half a legion), and after that they qualify to travel with a praetorian or consular army. I do this because I typically find myself with alot of 20-30 year old's with virtually nothing to do. too young to govern or command a legion and too old to stay in school.

2. recuitable generals/governors: Since Romans can no longer recruit generals from the Roman lvl. 5 MIC, I thought about temporarily making Roma into a type IV govt, and building up a lvl. 5 regional MIC. What do you guys think? I am really tempted to do this because I think that Rome should be able to recruit client rulers and mercenary generals.

3. How important is it that you follow historical expansion? I grapple with this all the time because it is so much work trying to keep the AI in line. If you do, do you try to focus on dates or just conqouring in a particular order.

thanks all

[Rilder]

3. How important is it that you follow historical expansion? I grapple with this all the time because it is so much work trying to keep the AI in line. If you do, do you try to focus on dates or just conqouring in a particular order.

Not important at all, I usually just expand as the game goes, not in any particular direction or directive.

[Megas Methuselah]

2. recuitable generals/governors: Since Romans can no longer recruit generals from the Roman lvl. 5 MIC, I thought about temporarily making Roma into a type IV govt, and building up a lvl. 5 regional MIC. What do you guys think? I am really tempted to do this because I think that Rome should be able to recruit client rulers and mercenary generals.

Do it. And let the English see you do it.

In all seriousness, that's exactly what I did in my Romani campaign a while back. I used the process_cq cheat to speeden things up, too.

[sanitarium]

I don't care much about historical expansion, as evidenced by my current Roman campaign (date is 205 BC)

[QuintusSertorius]

Personally I think historical expansion gives you both a goal, and restrains you from simply steamrollering all before you. Plus it makes raiding more important as a means to slow the AI down without destroying it.

Course it's difficult to do if you're playing on Very Hard campaign difficulty, since economy is meaningless to the AI.

[The Celtic Viking]

I think "historical expansion" is just trying to force a square peg into a triangular hole. The AI won't act like their historical counterparts, so it doesn't make sense for you to either. Act like your faction would've acted in the situations the game gives you, instead. That's what's called roleplaying.

[Olaf The Great]

Honestly I can't play Romani because every time I do I get mental-blocked by historical expansion.

[bigmilt16]

In all seriousness, that's exactly what I did in my Romani campaign a while back. I used the process_cq cheat to speeden things up, too.

Really!? How do you use process_cq to do that? I'm about to start a new Romani campaign and really wanted this from the begining!

[QuintusSertorius]

Really!? How do you use process_cq to do that? I'm about to start a new Romani campaign and really wanted this from the begining!

1) Put building in queue. Doesn't matter how many there are.
2) Open the console, type "process_cq [settlementname]"
3) Done.

[konny]

1. I stick to a modified version of QS' houserules using the mini-mod pack; however, I use the 10 year tribune period as a chance for young FM's to gain some basic command skills and get that all important first star and "blooded trait". I'll allow "green" tribunes to lead an army of 5 or less units (half a legion), and after that they qualify to travel with a praetorian or consular army.

It would be more accurate the other way round: Tribunes formed the "generals staff" of Roman armies. Because they were elected and not appointed they somehow formed an additional element of "constitutional control" over the Consul's leadership. Of these the Junior Tribunes should always travel either with the Consul or with an army that is actually led by a Senior Tribune. The latter might be entrusted with independent minor commands as part of the Consul's or Praetor's campaign - never as a campaign on their own.

Older FMs with military abilities might as well join the army either as Quaestors to the Consul (for example like Sulla for Marius) or as Legats, usually of (Pro-)Praetorian rank (for example like Marius for Metellus Numidicus). But you should always justify it by roleplaying why this two-commandstars-legat is helping out that consul in a campaign - not just because he is so good in leadership.

2. recuitable generals/governors: Since Romans can no longer recruit generals from the Roman lvl. 5 MIC, I thought about temporarily making Roma into a type IV govt, and building up a lvl. 5 regional MIC. What do you guys think? I am really tempted to do this because I think that Rome should be able to recruit client rulers and mercenary generals.

You might also make Roman Generals recruitable in Rome:

I am sorry konny but I am not familiar with it at all, I´ve only ever messed around with a few of the descr files and I have never taken the time to even learn the basics of how the EB scripts are written ( but it seems more and more inevitable that I do one of these days ), so please bear with me - which file is the EDB anyway ?

export_descr_buildings.txt in the data folder. It has all the lines for the recruitement in the entry of the respective barracks. So, if you want to change anything in recruitement you need to go there.

Modding it is comparable easy once you know how to do so...

When I´ve found it and the line with "roman infantry triarii early" I should go the \EB\Data\World\maps\base\DESCR_REGIONS.TXT and find the hidden ressources for Latium2, but are the hidden ressources also those which are listed under the normal ressources, for example the line from Latium2: bigport, tradeport, italy, rome, variantro, SW, B, y1, y2, y4, n8 ? And should I copy the whole line ?

"SW, B, y1, y2, y4, n8" are the ressoruces you'll have to look for:

recruit "roman infantry triarii early" 0 requires factions { seleucid, } and hidden_resource SW and hidden_resource B and hidden_resource y1 and hidden_resource y2 and hidden_resource y4 and hidden_resource n8

It says the faction with the internal name "seleucid", what are our Romans, can recruite the named unit with ecperince 0 in a province with the sayed hidden resources, what is Latium2 (Roma).

When you duplicate this line and replace in the copied line "roman infantry triarii early" with "roman cavalry eqvites consvlares", it will enable recruiting Equites Consulares in the same town. But this only applies to this barracks (level 3 Camillan). So, you have copy the result to the other two levels of Camillan barracks (the next following buildings). Otherwise you'll lose the ability to recruite the Consulares when upgrading the barracks.

You also need to copy this line to the barracks for the Polybian, and if you like, Marian and Augustan barracks. These are the next buildings. Always make sure you have your new line above the line that has the "}" at the end of the list and everything should be fine (you should backup your files before of course).

greetings,

konny

3. How important is it that you follow historical expansion? I grapple with this all the time because it is so much work trying to keep the AI in line. If you do, do you try to focus on dates or just conqouring in a particular order.

You shouldn't follow the expansion province by province but follow the historical reasons for the Romans to enter in this or that war.

[Chris_]

Something I tried with one of my recent Romani campaigns was to use diplomats for communication. It goes something like this :

1. Each city/army has a diplomat (or several) which carry messages between cities/armies.
2. Cities with governors have a degree of autonomy - they can build what they want to keep their city happy
3. Special orders must be taken from the capital via diplomat to other cities ( ie, build building x ).
4. Armies receive their orders in the same way.
5. Diplomacy with other factions also carried out in the same way.
6. The sender doesn't officially know the outcome of a communication until the diplomat returns.

Makes you think about where you're going to send each diplomat - you may need it in an emergency - for example if a city is besieged, other cities won't immediately know about it unless you send your diplomat (I decided they would eventually find out - with a turn or so delay).

[bigmilt16]

Something I tried with one of my recent Romani campaigns was to use diplomats for communication. It goes something like this :

1. Each city/army has a diplomat (or several) which carry messages between cities/armies.
2. Cities with governors have a degree of autonomy - they can build what they want to keep their city happy
3. Special orders must be taken from the capital via diplomat to other cities ( ie, build building x ).
4. Armies receive their orders in the same way.
5. Diplomacy with other factions also carried out in the same way.
6. The sender doesn't officially know the outcome of a communication until the diplomat returns.

Makes you think about where you're going to send each diplomat - you may need it in an emergency - for example if a city is besieged, other cities won't immediately know about it unless you send your diplomat (I decided they would eventually find out - with a turn or so delay).

That is very thoughtful, Chris! That would definitely force me to keep diplomats in every city

The more I think about it, the more I realize that I don't stick to my own houserules once the campaign gets difficult (past the polybian period) because I start having to get into serious border conflicts. The houserule of "consuls/praetors" only leading armies should make the game difficult enough. That in itself should limit the number of forces actively campaigning and make it harder to go to war with everybody at once.

[bigmilt16]

It would be more accurate the other way round: Tribunes formed the "generals staff" of Roman armies. Because they were elected and not appointed they somehow formed an additional element of "constitutional control" over the Consul's leadership. Of these the Junior Tribunes should always travel either with the Consul or with an army that is actually led by a Senior Tribune. The latter might be entrusted with independent minor commands as part of the Consul's or Praetor's campaign - never as a campaign on their own.

Older FMs with military abilities might as well join the army either as Quaestors to the Consul (for example like Sulla for Marius) or as Legats, usually of (Pro-)Praetorian rank (for example like Marius for Metellus Numidicus). But you should always justify it by roleplaying why this two-commandstars-legat is helping out that consul in a campaign - not just because he is so good in leadership.

That's good advice. I was just frustrated with having so many tribunes and nothing to do with them. Do you keep the tribunes in Rome during the 10 year period? Also, what do you do for newly adopted FM's who are appear too old to go to school or be a junior assistant. (i.e. adopting 30+ yr old members). What on earth do you do with them?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

As Rome I'm following historical expansion as a broad objective, but not declaring war on anyone unless I have a very good reason. I won't attack Carthage until they actually take Messana, so the First Punic War is often long delayed from its historical date.

My primary targets are always the Elutheroi cities, because they hate me and refuse to trade. So I assume they are mistreating my merchants, which entitles me to take revenge.

I aim to conquer every Elutheroi city I can and install a client ruler in each one.

[QuintusSertorius]

That's good advice. I was just frustrated with having so many tribunes and nothing to do with them. Do you keep the tribunes in Rome during the 10 year period? Also, what do you do for newly adopted FM's who are appear too old to go to school or be a junior assistant. (i.e. adopting 30+ yr old members). What on earth do you do with them?

Personally, I do keep them in Rome, occasionally foraying out for field trips and sometimes putting down rebellions. I do occasionally use them as governors in other Italian regions where they're seeing how Roman government works alongside provincial government.

Those who are "too old" I send straight into business, since they're already men of ability.

[konny]

That's good advice. I was just frustrated with having so many tribunes and nothing to do with them. Do you keep the tribunes in Rome during the 10 year period?

Sometimes you have much more Tribunes than you would need without making SPQR a horsemen faction. In this case I reduce their term to five years and let them serve by seniority. The youngbloods that are in waiting stay in Rome for the time.

Every Tribune is assigned to a specific Legion (i.e. half-stack). He is always where his Legion is, be it in garrison duty either in Italy or a province or out in the fields. He might as well do administrative work; for example when in provincial duty on guard where a governor is missing for a minor town where parts of the local Legion is billeted, or on campaign in newly conquered settlements.

The fact that a single Tribune is moving around with a specific Legion for up to ten years makes it also easy to identify the unit, like "The Legion of Tribune Marcvs Cornelivs Scipio that had been raised in Capua".

Also, what do you do for newly adopted FM's who are appear too old to go to school or be a junior assistant. (i.e. adopting 30+ yr old members). What on earth do you do with them?

I would reject suitors over 25 years. Adoptees are considered to have achieved what would be normal for their age; for example, having served 10 years for a 30+ years adoptee. I would nevertheless keep them in Rome for about a year or two to allow them collecting ancillaries.

[||Lz3||]

I'm thinking that I could make a Citymod B for my romani camapigns.. I hate that in 200bc every enemy city is huge or (in my case) can't be updgraded <.<

In my current Roman camapaign I used QS as close as I could , (remember to use the Time line) and its pretty nteresting I should say , but for example when you have to wait 20 years for the next war... it is a bit emm boring

[QuintusSertorius]

I'm thinking that I could make a Citymod B for my romani camapigns.. I hate that in 200bc every enemy city is huge or (in my case) can't be updgraded <.<

In my current Roman camapaign I used QS as close as I could , (remember to use the Time line) and its pretty nteresting I should say , but for example when you have to wait 20 years for the next war... it is a bit emm boring

"Down times" between military campaigns are when you should be making full use of your agents to sow dischord and keep all the other factions weak. A spy destabilising a city here, an assassin sabotaging buildings there. And diplomats buying off small armies and bribing their FMs.

[bigmilt16]

I just completed a savegame file that starts Rome off in a much more difficult situation than we are accustomed to. Now Rome starts off in a position a bit closer in difficulty to some of the eastern factions. The changes include:

-Rome is the only type I govt.
-All other Italian States are Type IV
-Rome can recruit Italian Generals from the start (thanks Konny and Quintus S. for the tip).

This doesn't sound like it will do much to make the game more difficult, but I found myself walking on ice for the first 10 years. Rome LOSES A TON OF MONEY THE FIRST FEW YEARS. At one point I was nearly -17K in the red and there was nothing I could do about it. I played on H/M so the rebels were attacking cities forcing me to whittle my forces even further. I had to carefully pick my battles, fighting them myself so that i may preserve my men (I couldn't recruit new one's). Thus, if I lost a battle, Rome was finished (almost like the eastern factions' starting positions).

Moreover, I was able to keep all of my starting FM's in Rome exclusively (a student, a soon-to-be questor, a questor, a praetor, and a consul). It allowed me to make Rome the mainstay and primary focus of the SPQR. I am using Lz3's minimod so I am sill able to recruit like before from allied cities, but Italy feels much more like a confederation of states now and not so "unified" from the start.

Oh yeah, since I am so broke from the begining, I HAVE to slow down and not be so fast to start kicking rocks at cathage, barbarians, and heck... even the northern italian slaves! I had to be much "nicer" to everybody around me because I was walking on such thin ice.

[Reno Melitensis]

I too like to play a bit historically with the Romans, I guess it comes naturally to any true Roman player. But I made some rules myself to limit my expansion not to be so historically date by date.

The first 70 years are easy if you go slow by conquering the southern cities, Bononia, Patavium and Segesta, then the first punic war, then the inevitable war with the Aediu for Mediolanum and of course I waited for a good opportunity to attack Carthage, they surprised me with an invasion of Sicily and blockading Messana. It took me to 196 BCE to finish the war. but of course i didn't destroyed them, I forced them to became a client kingdom with only Attika and Carthage, and the sub saharan cities where given to Saba.

Then I found myself in an endless war with the Lusitanians, stalk after stalk are defeated, they accept a ceasefire, but within 2 years they are back. For now I am not ready to begin an invasion of inner Iberia, the reason, Greece. Its the year 189 BCE and a war against Epirus and then the Koinon Hellenon followed. There is no need to panzer through the Eb world and conquer all by 200 BCE or to destroy every faction outright, they do need a second chance and can became useful allies sometimes until they betray you, off course. So take your time, its more fun.


Cheers.

[Skandinav]

1.
This question has already been fully answered, at least I have nothing else to add.

2.
I considered doing exactly that aswell for a while until I asked one of the technical guys here ( Konny ) how to make Equites Consulares recruitable in Roma, a quite simple and practical procedure but not save-game compatible. ( EDIT: Just saw Konny had already posted a transcript of our PM´s, I must have been inattentive. )

3.
Credibility in game-situations I would say is one of the major reasons that I have always remained in favour of making the game as historical as I have had the means to.
Even though it has never really been a question to me in Total War games if I should or not I have tried a couple of times not to because of all the trouble that follows this course; but I found at each try that anything else just feels ackward to me, out of place.
Naturally you have to sacrifice some of the randomness and openness of the normal gameplay on this altar and the campaign map becomes more akin to a lush, if somewhat unruly, garden which you must ever cultivate than the tabletop wargame played against a retarded child, for whose advancement you must constantly cheat yourself, that a normal campaign looks like. Inelegant ( and inappropriate ) metaphors aside my point is merely that while events are more predictable room remains for surprises and that I find it to be more than worth it; my, by far, most memorable campaigns are those where I have managed to simulate history the most.
Only when game mechanics with my help - sometimes even, how surprisingly it may be, almost by chance on their own accord - generate situations resembling something that has happened or has been, do I get carried away.

The study of factions while playing them is also furthered by this approach, I believe, and my choice of which faction to play next is determined by which ancient civilization I wish to read more about in the following 6 months +, and which I can find ample documentation for.
Playing with historical expansion in EB more or less rigidly can also lend some clear-sightedness to ones concept of the common theories on certain historical events such as migrations ( I personally feel, for example, that simply playing even vanilla BI in this manner back then, with some books and some maps, has since helped me in my studies by boosting my understanding of the movements of the Wandering of Peoples migration period, a feature only strengthened or made more acutely available by EB, although context and setting is different ), or general geo-political changes such as the rise and fall of empires; the decline of the mighty Diadochoi or the changeable and overwhelmingly interesting destiny of the Arsacid dynasty.

While I have tried, at different times and in different campaigns, both to expand according to the exact historical dates and to, instead, simply follow the order in which said faction expanded or experienced important events, I didn´t notice much difference between the two; although I still prefer to follow the precise dates ( +, - a few years sometimes ) now that EB has opened the possibility of being as punctual as the correct season of a given year.

Taking this stand on historical expansion I best add that I, in the last couple of years, have broken with my habit of only playing one faction at a time and raised it to two; often one rich on historical evidence and another less blessed with certain data, the latter to satisfy my occasional desire for a more free game-play, but primarily one where I am in part spared the effort of using the console to micromanage the other factions, ie. one that remained relatively dormant or far away from the mediterranean ( you write that you are tiring of exchanging AI regions back and forth, which I fully understand, but rest assured that at some point in the campaign you can find a sort of foot-hold in this quagmire by carefully addressing the balance of certain factors, of which economical and geographical values are the most important ).
But I still feel restrained by the historical limits of the factions I must admit, and have no quarrels playing small ones with near-static borders ( Saba or early Pahlava and Swêboz for example ), heck I played historical danish campaigns in both Medieval games and didn´t find it boring at all; raids, border-wars, diplomacy & espionage, RP and the development of your nation are still viable options and equally exciting.


PS.
Boasts about blitzing, powergaming and generally people bragging about beating the AI and such which I considered old news and most uninspiring was all I found when visiting the Total War forums when I was younger, so I think I was under the impression, although I never really questioned it, that no one else played by such house-rules besides me until I found EB, ignorance is the only excuse for my arrogance, and I was thrilled to find that a few in this community shared with me my view on these matters and that an exchange of information was taking place, thank you Europa Babarorum.