Casse Rivals- A proposition

[Brennus]

Dubliners are barbarians, not like us good civilised people in Belfast. lol.

[oudysseos]

Dubliners are barbarians, not like us good civilised people in Belfast. lol.

I know I didn't just read that.

[Subotan]

Dubliners are barbarians, not like us good civilised people in Belfast. lol.

Too right

[B-Wing]

Well I figured it was obvious I was using the term "barbarian" in the modern sense. Guess that's what happens when you assume.

[Horatius]

Well about Massilia it did have a major part in our timeframe besides economic, the Alliance between Massilia and it's allies with Rome is the reason Rome sided with Suguntum, causing the Second Punic War. It's colonies in Spain, and the allies of those colonies fell under Roman protection, so perhaps Massilia could start out in a way that makes it permanently submissive to Rome, and it's goal is to Colonize the Iberian Penninsula?

If even that is hardcoded against I apologize for yet another suggestion into the obvious.

[oudysseos]

Look, in real-world terms, many of these suggestions are perfectly reasonable: but Total War is not a model of the real world. It is an engine whose primary function is to generate battles, and whose only goal is to conquer territory. Many real, historically important entities (like Massalia) simply do not fit well into that paradigm, and it is very difficult to make economic or cultural dominance significant in the game. So yes, Massalia was part of the process that brought Rome and Carthage into conflict- but how do we realistically introduce something like that into the game? How can there be a faction that starts with one territory and always stays that way? Would anyone really play that faction for more than a few turns?

I'm afraid we're up against the limit of the engine, here: it was not intended or designed for these things. You might as well complain that your Dodge mini-van can't win a Grand Prix. It's just not what it's for.

EDIT: Completely OT, but Horatius, with all due respect, I'm a little tired of the kind of sentiments you expressed in your sig. I certainly am not in favour of bombing soft targets for political purposes- but that standard has to apply to everyone, not just Hezbollah or Al Qaeda. Why is it wrong for the 7/7 or 9/11 bombers to attack civilians (and it is wrong), but not wrong for Israel, the United States and Great Britain to do exactly the same kind of thing but on a much larger and more terrible scale? Do you even know how many totally innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians have been killed by us? Is it impossible to conceive that the peoples from whom Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda draw their ranks might just have some legitimate grievances, and that Great Britain and the US just might bear some responsibility? A moral standard that you don't apply to yourself (and that has to include the nation to which you belong) is worthless and hypocritical rubbish.

[Brennus]

EDIT: Completely OT, but Horatius, with all due respect, I'm a little tired of the kind of sentiments you expressed in your sig. I certainly am not in favour of bombing soft targets for political purposes- but that standard has to apply to everyone, not just Hezbollah or Al Qaeda. Why is it wrong for the 7/7 or 9/11 bombers to attack civilians (and it is wrong), but not wrong for Israel, the United States and Great Britain to do exactly the same kind of thing but on a much larger and more terrible scale? Do you even know how many totally innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians have been killed by us? Is it impossible to conceive that the peoples from whom Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda draw their ranks might just have some legitimate grievances, and that Great Britain and the US just might bear some responsibility? A moral standard that you don't apply to yourself (and that has to include the nation to which you belong) is worthless and hypocritical rubbish.

Where on earth did that come from?

[Brennus]

Oh wait I just read his signature, now I understand. You spelt Britannia wrong.