OOC Thread and Chatroom

[/Bean\]

we could have a greek or Iberian war first, if we wanted

Without move_character those would be annoying wars

Nout to do with Sicily

[Mooks]

So your down with a war with Sicily just because the north was taken? I told you you didnt really have morals

[/Bean\]

As a player i have nothing wrong with attacking sicily after the north is secured. As my character, I will still say no to war with carthage while they are not in the wrong. Thats why I'm keeping it in the OOC thread that I could be persuaded if they broke the alliance first.

[Mooks]

As a player i have nothing wrong with attacking sicily after the north is secured. As my character, I will still say no to war with carthage while they are not in the wrong. Thats why I'm keeping it in the OOC thread that I could be persuaded if they broke the alliance first.

Explain to me how they can get in the wrong. Rp wise, I doubt anything will happen in the game that really warrants a invasion.

[/Bean\]

Not in the game-the game doesnt house politics or micromanaging armies to commit offences...its more like what we were talking about with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamertines

[navarro951]

well you never really know...i mean Carthage could straight up attack southern Italia without warning. Ive had allies randomly do that too. Rare, but possible.

[/Bean\]

That hardly needs explaining to the senate though does it ....no morals could prevent support for war if that happened

[navarro951]

right obviously this would mean full scale war. I hope to take the northern Arverni provinces, ally with the Aedui and support their war. Then take sicilia to boost funds, and start a Dux Campaign in Gual. I think this would all be alot of fun.

[/Bean\]

going into gaul already? i thought you supported the war in sicily? And what about mediolanium?

[Tiberius Claudius Marcellus]

Gaul?????? Take Magna Graecia before that - their cities are all within one season of marching, they have tons and tons of riches, high populations for cannon fodder, and ports for trade. They are a gold mine waiting to be plundered. Then we could consider a long knock-down, drag-out, middle of many winters, huge marches full of ambushes invasion of Gaul.

[/Bean\]

Magna Graecia? Where have you been? Rome's been in control of Magna Graecia for several years

[navarro951]

I thing he means going into like Epirote territory lol...and I do support war in Sicilia. We would only have to take one barb province, get the alliance, then head south with a secure northern border.

[/Bean\]

To be honest, I agree with going into Greece, Africa or Iberia before Gaul. Theres a lot more to gain in these three theatres, they are easier to contain the war to these theatres as well (Sweboz or Lusotanion might complicate matters in Gaul), they're richer, and would contain just as interesting campaigns. And remember we still dont have any Dux's.

[navarro951]

well we will, right after you take Patavium. And, seriously, by the time we are even considering going into Gual we will have another legion, probably an Imperial Legion, and at least 2 Duxs'. I think were getting ahead of ourselves. Well focus on Patavium for now.

[/Bean\]

What about Mediolanium and Massilia?

And when this turn ending?

[navarro951]

i already ended the turn and yes those two cities will be a focus too. Cept Mediolanum means going to war with the Arvernii...this will mean some discussion in the Curia.

[/Bean\]

Audeii...and it shouldnt, roleplay wise. They are the Insurburgs (sp), a seperate tribe, and although they may have ties with the Audeii past the Alps, they should be considered seperate. Plus 'war' wouldnt be much more than defeating the odd quarter-half stack every now and again, which will be good reason to keep a legion in the north, and to let new legions have some fighting experience.

[Mooks]

Well just keep your minds open to new possibilities. Dont focus on Sicily or Massilia just because we are discussing it.

[navarro951]

Audeii...and it shouldnt, roleplay wise. They are the Insurburgs (sp), a seperate tribe, and although they may have ties with the Audeii past the Alps, they should be considered seperate. Plus 'war' wouldnt be much more than defeating the odd quarter-half stack every now and again, which will be good reason to keep a legion in the north, and to let new legions have some fighting experience.

ya well regardless, in-game, if we attack the settlement were at war and theirs nothing i can RP in for that.

[navarro951]

Yes Basileus.

*Scipio sits down. The rest of the senate realizing they have a new king*

did you mean that sarcastically or did you forget which game this is lol...ive done it before too!

[Potocello]

i think he may have forgotten :-P ^^^. Prepare yourselves for some argument in the Curia, maybe even some party creations/divisions

[Mooks]

did you mean that sarcastically or did you forget which game this is lol...ive done it before too!

No, I didnt. Your like the dungeon master here, or a king in the game. If you dont want to be called one by my character in the curia perhaps you should make it be more like a republic then a monarchy. I dont really see the point in even discussing things if you control the armies and already have a set plan for them.

I come off as serious, but im trying not to be.

[navarro951]

well i cant just let commanders roam free to do what they want with their troops. lot more problems come from that then a monarchy.

[Mooks]

well i cant just let commanders roam free to do what they want with their troops. lot more problems come from that then a monarchy.

Maybe implement a system where if a commander is doing things out of roleplay, the senate takes away his command? That would make it so army commanders need a following in the senate, and keep in line. Of course he can just not care and march on Rome (Exactly what julius Caesar did more or less) but I dont see that happening anytime soon. The senate can also vote on what areas to attack (through edicts).

Historically when Julius Caesar was in Gaul, he had proconsul powers. Basically free reign for 5 years. The boni- conservative faction - tried to get his powers out and have him exiled in court (Courts were rigged 95% of the time). Caesar had the backing of Pompey and Crassus, both important senators(and they had their own faction in the senate, with lesser senators voting on their side) and they extended his proconsul powers for another 5 years after his first one expired. When that one expired he couldnt get it renewd, and he had to march on Rome. It is much more complicated then this but thats the gist.

[navarro951]

Maybe implement a system where if a commander is doing things out of roleplay, the senate takes away his command? That would make it so army commanders need a following in the senate, and keep in line. Of course he can just not care and march on Rome (Exactly what julius Caesar did more or less) but I dont see that happening anytime soon. The senate can also vote on what areas to attack (through edicts).

Historically when Julius Caesar was in Gaul, he had proconsul powers. Basically free reign for 5 years. The boni- conservative faction - tried to get his powers out and have him exiled in court (Courts were rigged 95% of the time). Caesar had the backing of Pompey and Crassus, both important senators(and they had their own faction in the senate, with lesser senators voting on their side) and they extended his proconsul powers for another 5 years after his first one expired. When that one expired he couldnt get it renewd, and he had to march on Rome. It is much more complicated then this but thats the gist.

well we do vote on where to attack...we just did actually. I, or whoever is playing the dictator Imperii whatever you wish to call him, just gives the official order. If you read the rules it discusses how all settlements of an enemy nation are viable to attack without order. The dictator's orders are simply guidance for the good of our game, or Rome. Basically, just making sure we dont get stretched thin or ahead of ourselves. Also, it will be impossible to "march on Rome" until you are a P.Dictator and have a house of your own as you will need an army of your own. All the legions belong to Rome, basically to the gamemaster, once you declare a civil war your cut off from everything but your House, Provinces owned, and provincial legion. So you will have to be damn sure you can face the might of Rome, the dictator, or an opposing house/family's army.

^^^That is something i cant wait for. To see all the Quaestors and their house/families vying for power against one and other.

[Potocello]

that would be sweet. I think once the game progresses and more people gain provinicial dictatorships, this will be a distinct possibility. That would be funny if like Baen or everyone was the next Caesar :P

[Mooks]

well we do vote on where to attack...we just did actually. I, or whoever is playing the dictator Imperii whatever you wish to call him, just gives the official order. If you read the rules it discusses how all settlements of an enemy nation are viable to attack without order. The dictator's orders are simply guidance for the good of our game, or Rome. Basically, just making sure we dont get stretched thin or ahead of ourselves. Also, it will be impossible to "march on Rome" until you are a P.Dictator and have a house of your own as you will need an army of your own. All the legions belong to Rome, basically to the gamemaster, once you declare a civil war your cut off from everything but your House, Provinces owned, and provincial legion. So you will have to be damn sure you can face the might of Rome, the dictator, or an opposing house/family's army.

^^^That is something i cant wait for. To see all the Quaestors and their house/families vying for power against one and other.

Makes sense. I like this idea, just I dont like it right now where your saying "I want to go north, we are going north. No discussion".

Please keep in mind im not trying to undermine you or insult you in any way. I respect what your doing here, and you organized the whole thing so im happy about that.

[navarro951]

Ya thanks, I have to always give due credit to Ibn and TinCow, best PBM-writer and Mod no doubt. Without WoTB this game would of taken forever to get off the ground.

And as far as what is said in the Curia, I always love a good debate, friendship, enemy, whatever because I keep everything in the OOC room strictly fun and friendship. And i will try to be more open to commanders plans that are reasonably laid out. Such as this one about Sparte...gotta hav my reasons for being against it.

[Potocello]

Ya thanks, I have to always give due credit to Ibn and TinCow, best PBM-writer and Mod no doubt. Without WoTB this game would of taken forever to get off the ground.

And as far as what is said in the Curia, I always love a good debate, friendship, enemy, whatever because I keep everything in the OOC room strictly fun and friendship. And i will try to be more open to commanders plans that are reasonably laid out. Such as this one about Sparte...gotta hav my reasons for being against it.

yah i'm seeing your reasoning against attacking Sparte, maybe we could adjust it to Epeiros but i am leaving my character with disdain for fighting in the north.

Another objective to this proposal is to spark some heated debate. I'm hoping some will criticize my character's inexperience and what not. I hope this also creates some divisions in the Senate.
We'll see what happens

[Mjolnir]

Well we might want to limit debate and such until a time where there are enough legions, funds, and houses to actually be able to pursue more than just one or two objectives at a time.

@Navarro - it seems to me that if someone is in command of a legion and declares a civil war that unless it's an imperial legion that the legion should then be under that person's command in the civil war. This makes sense to me and would also add an interesting element in deciding who getting to command legions. I can imagining houses fighting over getting their own people assigned commands to put themselves in better positions and when civil war breaks out the sides courting neutral commanders to try to get their legions to side with them. Also, I think it's a little more historical this way.