Faction roleplaying....

[Bob the Insane]

Here one of all you faction roleplayers out there...

Anyone tried playing a game where you follow some rules for heirs, not based on ability... The MTW style heirs...

Oldest brother is automaticly the Heir unless the leader has a son of his own and then he becomes the heir,adoptions and husbands of your daughters do not count unless there is no one else left to choose.. In which case it is the oldest daughter's husband or any of the adopted men, faction leader's choice...

Also do people get really carried away and fight battles in the manner they would expect the relevent General to do so... (i.e. Plebious the Mad has his cavalry form the main line and tries to flank the enemy with his archers??? )

[Mr. taxi]

That sounds kinda fun but hard also.

If only for the fact that you'd only end up with faction leadres over the age of 50. Which I don't like.

[The Scourge]

That sounds kinda fun but hard also.

If only for the fact that you'd only end up with faction leadres over the age of 50. Which I don't like.

Well he is a faction leader(Politician.).Not a King.
So I would have thought that experience should play a big part in who gets to lead the faction.

[Bob the Insane]

Well he is a faction leader(Politician.).Not a King.
So I would have thought that experience should play a big part in who gets to lead the faction.

Game is not just about the Romans....

But I agree, it is not Medieval/Feudal either..

but it is fun...

[Akka]

To be honest, I don't have seen the point of having a good faction leader. While the king was paramount in MTW, and could hold the whole future of the country on his vice, vertues and abilities, in RTW the faction leader doesn't seem to affect the faction in any serious way. Moreover, the micromanagement of big families, and the need to constantly ship them from the capital to cities, is incredibly tedious. And anyway, despite being big, the family doesn't hold, by far, enough people to administrate the whole empire.

As such, I finished by completely neglecting my family, letting the computer chose whatever heir and leader it wants, and only using faction member as generals.

[Bhruic]

I have to agree, I don't find it terribly useful to have a "good" faction leader. Every family member regenerates units now, so the "King" effect of MTW isn't as useful. And it is incredibly easy to train up a military commander, so there seems to be no reason to pick a good general as faction leader.

At this point, I just set the youngest member of my family as "heir", just so I don't have the leader dying often. I generally don't care about his stats.

Bh

[Tamur]

I don't spend much time picking the next faction leader -- I generally just let the game stipulate who that will be.

Rather, I spend a lot of time "role-playing" a faction strategy based on the current leader's traits and retinue. For example, if a new faction leader has had high influence and a couple of "Foreign Tastes" sorts of vices, I roleplay the entire faction as diplomacy-only marshmallow who try to expand via negotiation against rebels and factions every other faction hates, and who will sell a city rather than defend it. etc etc. With maybe a rebel family member who's got high command and just wants to smash the other faction.

Makes for some amusing moments!

[Braccius Augustus]

Romans were always weary of dynasties and much of the time political heirs were not the oldest son. Leaders usually picked the most skilled or otherwise suitable person to succeed themselves.

[Modus]

As I was reading today, Gaius Julius Caeser was of the house of Julii, as was his uncle by marriage, Gaius Marius, of 'Marian Reform' fame. Caeser, was, for all intents and purposes, the heir to the mantle of responsibility that Marius caried.

Marius, had (and this is where I'm tieing into Rome: Total War) married into the house of Julii from the Plebian class and was quite the popular politician as an outspoken advocate of Plebian concerns. His reputation was solidified through his extensive campaigns in Numidia, against the Germanic tribes of the Teutones, and the Cimbri in 101BC on the field of battle at Vercellae, this all before Roman Troops first marched on the city of Rome under the command of Lucius Cornelius Sulla when Marius, with the aid of the Tribune Sulpicius Rufus, had the Senate's selection of Sulla to be the commander of the armies raised to fight Pontus disqualified in 88 BC... Marius escapes to Africa, Sulla goes on campaign, Marius returns in 87 BC and has Sulla's supporters murdered, Marius dies in 86 BC in his 7th term as Consul.

[ Warriors of Rome by Michael Simkins, ISBN 0 7137 2001 8 (hardback), pages 40-41 ]

Ah, history. You think this simulation is a poor representation in the family tree department? I beg to disagree, I think it is rather appropriate, if not less involved than it should be. I'm enjoying it tremendously!

[Ptah]

Marius was never a "politican". He was a soldier.

His concerns for the "plebs" was limited to pure military concerns, as the econmic downfall of the plebs has caused weakening of the Roman military, since now Rome had to conscript even the "proletari" to fill out their ranks - the lowest class of the free Romans who were previously exempt from military duties. His reform brought a significant social reformation, but Marius himself hardly realized this fact. He thought he found a way to strengthen the Roman military, but this reformation reopened the can of worms the Gracchus brothers had opened many years ago.

In the end, his political downfall came when he lost the popular support by obeying the Senate orders as a consul by ruthlessy putting down a public demonstration which resulted in many people lying dead in the streets of Rome.

[Modus]

Marius was never a "politican". He was a soldier.

Without being arguemenative -
In a "Roman" sense, I've always understood that the two terms were very related, so to speak. Succinctly put, good soldiers understood the neccessity of being political, and vise versa.

Anywho, I've much reading to do. Any recommendations?

[Bob the Insane]

Without being arguemenative -
In a "Roman" sense, I've always understood that the two terms were very related, so to speak. Succinctly put, good soldiers understood the neccessity of being political, and vise versa.

Anywho, I've much reading to do. Any recommendations?

I would have to agree, was General of an Army not basically a political position/appontment??

[Ptah]

It's the difference between the ideal and the reality. Up to the 2nd century experience in the military was indeed almost a prerequisite for being a successful politician - but that does not mean some people were more or less biased towards a certain side. The ideal is the "high citizen", a military leader as well as a good politician. The reality is only a handful few people ever maintained such balance.

People like Cicero or Cato for instance, took part in the civil wars as garrison commanders but they were never in any sense a "military man". On the other hand, people like Marius and Pompeius rised from the status of a "military man" and entered the world of politics as the path is laid out that way in Rome, but their basic mentality never left that of a soldier. The few that actually maintained such balance between politics and military are the ones we recognize as Roman 'heroes'.

In that sense, Marius lacked the education, the background, the basic political grasp of how the wave of change was raging around him. Being a good military leader, he devised a way to strengthen the military, as a good military leader would, not knowing just how exactly it shifted the balance of power in Roman politics. He hit the jackpot without ever knowing how or why. :)

[Alrowan]

back on topic, but in my next campaign as gaul, ive decided on a writeup, im already making some house rules, and one of them is faction hiers, succession will always follow the greatest battlechief :D