2 roman factions?

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I want to make just constructive criticism.
Although I think the best EB mod for RTW, I am sorry we can not do it in the Roman civil war.
Also in custom I can't fight as romani vs other romani.

The solution?
maybe have 2 Roman factions.

Perhaps this topic has already been discussed and closed, but I do like to hear what you think.

In theory it would be easy to make another Roman faction (same skin, same story, same building). Sorry my insistence great modders, you are the best.

[antisocialmunky]

Sorry, but no. This like LS has been discussed ad nauseum. For MP, it would be nice though though Iberians units end up being quite similar.

[oudysseos]

Officially: No. One Rome. The loyalty feature in M2TW will at least give you the possibility of rebelling FMs, who you then have to suppress.

[Phalanx300]

Or we should have a rebel faction to which all rebelling units and familly members of all factions go to. Though not practical, using all slots for real factions is probably better.

[BozosLiveHere]

We have that. That's what happens when disloyal characters defect: they join the Eleutheroi (the rebel faction).

[Phalanx300]

We have that. That's what happens when disloyal characters defect: they join the Eleutheroi (the rebel faction).

Yes I know that, I was more thinking of a real faction which would try to expand and survive but that wouldn't work .

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

For MP, it would be nice though though Iberians units end up being quite similar.

For campaign i have resolved problem of civil war(Pompeo e Tito Labieno) and social war(Spartaco)with script.

But if we make roman units available for slave factions and make slave faction playable in custom, we can play in MP romani vs romani(slave), cannot we?

Also with this system we can recreate great historical battle like Farsalo, Munda ecc

Why this solution isn't take yet?

[oudysseos]

Aulus, in 272 BC there was no hint of a Roman Civil War, nor was it inevitable: why should we script a civil war for a faction that might be defeated by Epeiros, Carthage or the Averni before it gets to that point? I have played a Carthage campaign where the first faction I eliminated was Rome. Many kingdoms and nations experienced internal strife in this time period: we are not going to single out the Romans for special treatment.

[Bucefalo]

We don´t really know how the EB is going to implement the rebellion of generals and armies, if it is going to be different from vanilla or similar to other released mods like DLV. Regardless this i am sure they will think of a good way to represent it just using the rebel faction. An example, could be: the more territories you have the more chance to have rebellious generals. Something like that would be good

[antisocialmunky]

Then there's the ever present "If Rome gets civil wars so must the Seleucids."

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Aulus, in 272 BC there was no hint of a Roman Civil War, nor was it inevitable: why should we script a civil war for a faction that might be defeated by Epeiros, Carthage or the Averni before it gets to that point? I have played a Carthage campaign where the first faction I eliminated was Rome. Many kingdoms and nations experienced internal strife in this time period: we are not going to single out the Romans for special treatment.

Oudysseos, perhaps you have not understood what I wrote.
I wrote that I(only me) made 2 simple scripts because they form in a given year in a given place of the armies.
I could also appear Hannibal in South Italy in right historical period.

I do not understand what do you refer when you talk about favoritism, maybe you have not understood well what I wanted to explain.

Do not clearly show the Army of Spartacus in 272 BC but many years later.
This is a script of 10 lines.
The revolt of slaves and the civil war between Caesar and Pompey were both in the very over the years.

also

Make the roman units available to the slave faction side is not my invention nor armed to appear suddenly. I have seen done in the SPQR mod.

For the purpose of custom battles, I do not think of being the only one who wanted the Romans vs Romans.
Favoritism?
It is foolish to deny that historically in the first century BC the Roman side had the same weight of the others factions(for example britons who historically haven't any european expansion).

The most important battles of this century were fought by the Romans against Romans.
Otherwise we end up in EB 120 a.c. so we could carry the importance that Rome has taken the following period.
So this is a historical mod or not?

[Rilder]

The Thing is, Civil wars weren't exclusive to Rome, if they added a special Rebellion feature then they'd have to give EVERY faction the possibility of rebellion.

[Urg]

Aulus, in 272 BC there was no hint of a Roman Civil War, nor was it inevitable: why should we script a civil war for a faction that might be defeated by Epeiros, Carthage or the Averni before it gets to that point? I have played a Carthage campaign where the first faction I eliminated was Rome. Many kingdoms and nations experienced internal strife in this time period: we are not going to single out the Romans for special treatment.

I agree. EB is about historical accuracy. In 272 BC Rome was a nation with very few internal divisions, and had nothing approaching a civil war.

The only realistic historical way to represent the Roman story would be to have the "empire" split apart some time during the 1st century BC, and that would make gameplay very awkward. I'm sure it would also be a code/script nightmare.

Think of things this way - after Caesar became dictator, and even later when Augustus became Imperator, the territory of Rome was still the territory of Rome. Does that make sense?

[Alsatia]

I agree. EB is about historical accuracy. In 272 BC Rome was a nation with very few internal divisions, and had nothing approaching a civil war.

The only realistic historical way to represent the Roman story would be to have the "empire" split apart some time during the 1st century BC, and that would make gameplay very awkward. I'm sure it would also be a code/script nightmare.

Think of things this way - after Caesar became dictator, and even later when Augustus became Imperator, the territory of Rome was still the territory of Rome. Does that make sense?

Can I also add that all of the empire was ruled by Rome and the Senate (albeit as puppets) until Constantine moved the Capital to Byzantium in 306AD, further worsened by the permanent division in 395AD which we all know far is out of the EB time frame.

People always have a stereotypical view of things. As said before, Rome was in no danger of falling apart at 272BC.