explanation please?

[theoldbelgian]

I got a few in game questions and a few historical
first the in game:
1) how do you decrease corruption?
2) when you get the trait attuned governor there is something there +#construction what does it do exactly?
historical:
1): how is it when pyrhus definitely crushed the romans on several occasions( with heavy losses yes but he won) the romans kept on spawning armies till he was forced to retreat, yet when the Gauls invaded and when they would have won at telamon, it says in the description of the Battle(yes i learn history from here) that the romans would be pretty ****** and that Rome may be plundered.
what is the cause of this?
2) how did field battles turn out in real life? I mean I can't think that armies would keep on fighting till one side was so obliterated till like 10 men that could flee the field
3) assaults on city's: did the defenders utterly fight till the last of the city was taken? or did they see in time the city was lost?

hopefully I get some answers soon
btw love the mod and it teaches patience like no other (sorry just had to point that out )

[Foot]

1) Law bonuses increase public order and reduce corruption
2) It can reduce construction times or costs or both.

1) The Romans had a very impressive call-up system and could raise several legions in quick succession. It was common practice in the ancient world that if a battle was lost the victor was the winner, but the romans never gave up. I imagine that the Sack of Rome by the Celts was before the Romans learned this trait.

2) Field Battles were likely lost as soon as one army lost their organisation as war can be damn scary when you don't have your friends egging you on.

3) Depends on the scenario, but mostly once the battle was the lost the survivors would surrender rather than run back to the central plaza and regroup.

Foot

[theoldbelgian]

1) 1) The Romans had a very impressive call-up system and could raise several legions in quick succession. It was common practice in the ancient world that if a battle was lost the victor was the winner, but the romans never gave up. I imagine that the Sack of Rome by the Celts was before the Romans learned this trait.
Foot

I actually meant the Battle of telamon (the second Gallic expedition where the first ended in the sacking of Rome) it says so in the historic battle description

[SwissBarbar]

historical:
1): how is it when pyrhus definitely crushed the romans on several occasions( with heavy losses yes but he won) the romans kept on spawning armies till he was forced to retreat, yet when the Gauls invaded and when they would have won at telamon, it says in the description of the Battle(yes i learn history from here) that the romans would be pretty ****** and that Rome may be plundered.
what is the cause of this?

Well, Pyrrus did lose many men too. He hoped for support from the italic peoples, the allies of rome. He hoped they would run over to him when he defeats the romans in several battles... but they did not (except for the samnites who almost ALWAYS revolted against rome, as EB-Description of these samnite units tells us ;-) ). The roman federation network proved to be very stable.

Rome made an alliance with carthago, who were pissed of by pyrros, because he wanted to unify Sicily under his banner... wich he almost managed to do, only the carthagian city of Lilybaion could ressist. After his "pyrric victories" Pyrros of Epeiros was not able to challange carthago AND rome, especially because the greek cities made an appointment with carthago behind his back.


Rome did no manage pyrros alone. they had help.



2) how did field battles turn out in real life? I mean I can't think that armies would keep on fighting till one side was so obliterated till like 10 men that could flee the field

Depends on what kind of army. its another manner of fighting when 2 phalanxes or if 2 armies of light infantery fougt. think for example of the roman defeats during the second punic war, where many men died, f.e. at cannae.



3) assaults on city's: did the defenders utterly fight till the last of the city was taken? or did they see in time the city was lost?

Unlike EB, undefendet cities had the possibility of surrender. but in ancient times there was no Geneva Convention ;-) killing every single inhabitant of a city could be the result of losing the city, so i think its possible, that defenders just had to fight till the last man