The Will of the Senate - out of character thread

[econ21]

Just an out of character note on the direction of this campaign - it's been said that I'm pushing the PBM into the direction of a "blitz" campaign, which is uninteresting. I confess there's an element of truth in this, although I did not plan to take Carthage until I found they held Messana (do they start with Messana?) I have ended up blitzing, although it was interesting - at least for me.

Inevitably, we will vote for candidates and motions for a variety of reasons. For the good of the Republic. For other role-playing reasons. Or because we as players want to see the game to play out in a certain way. That's fine and I don't mean to bulldoze the campaign in any particular direction. I've certainly been playing Quintus as a bulldozing conqueror, although I am not sure which of the three kinds of reason explain that (may be all three).

But I would like to make a few observations on gameplay, based on my experience with RTR. Basically, it can be really easy as Romans. They have some really nice units and a fairly "safe" starting position. Our rules try to constrain them in various historical ways - especially the historical armies. The most boring TW game I've ever played was a "win at all costs" RTR game as Romans. A full stack of principes and funditores kills everything effortlessly.

Conversely the most fun (solo) TW game I've ever played was also a RTR game as Romans, one in which I ended up at war with almost everyone (Carthage, Greece, Gaul, Macedon, Spain, Numidia, Seleucia, Germany) simultaneously and although I got to 50 provinces, I never really knocked out any of them. My armies were spread out, under-strength, battling all over the place, far far from home. The no-retraining and no extermination rules really make fighting far from home tough. The VH campaign difficulty means the AI can keep throwing full stacks at you. Similarly, in this campaign, it was really fun to try to take Sicily very quickly on a shoestring (apologies for Shifty157 for having to use him to control Syracuse). I had to make some careful strategic choices, as I knew our position was precarious and we were potentially over-extended.

Anyway just a few thoughts - players are free to try to push this campaign in any direction they want. One of the nice things about playing Roma is that they have such potential, you can do lots of adventurous things (anyone want to sail to Britain?). There's really only one rule - that we try to make it fun.

[Braden]

Simon, from a personal standpoint I think that it would be unfair to say you’re pushing this campaign in any one direction – you only have direct control whilst you’re character is Consul, after that it’s up to the next player and the Senate.

Sure you may appear aggressive, in fact, you’ve played a more aggressive game than you actually described in character as Quintus.

What I think is very important is that each successive Consul stamps their own In Character personality on the game. I can see why you are, IC, declaring the need to expand – it keeps the Roma armies small and the game more interesting.

I say, as long as you can justify it to my character, in character, then I’ll act in character to it – Out of Character intent or feelings don’t come into it.

The downside to the campaign is the weighted voting system due to influence scores but this will even out as more characters are spawned and the influence is spread out to more characters during the course of the game. This is the only thing that I think people could use to accuse you of pushing the game along – as Consul/Ex-Consul you nearly have a “casting” vote.

[econ21]

... as Consul/Ex-Consul you nearly have a “casting” vote.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I think I have 6/36 of the votes at the moment. It may be actually fairly historical - think of Deng Xiaoping or any other "retired" leader. But I'll try to abstain a lot! I don't believe in tying the First Consul's hands much anyway.

[econ21]

Ignoramus has proposed giving names to our legions. Here are the names that LestaT on the RTR forums has listed for his Imperator mod:

01. Legio I Italica - Italy
02. Legio II Augusta - Punic
03. Legio III Gallica - Gaul
04. Legio IV Skythia - Illyria
05. Legio V Makedonica - Macedonia
06. Legio VI Ferrata - Greek
07. Legio VII Alaudae - Gaul
08. Legio VIII Gemina - Germania
09. Legio IX Hispana - Iberia
10. Legio X Primigenia - recruited only in Rome
11. Legio XI Cyrenaica - Egypt
12. Legio XII Fulminata - recruited only in region of Umbria
13. Legio XIII Fretensis - Egypt & Syria
14. Legio XIV Parthica - Persia
15. Legio XV Apollinaris - Galatia
16. Legio XVI Triana Fortis - East (Arab & Hill)
17. Legio XVII Claudia Pia Fidelis - East (Arab & Persia)
18. Legio XVIII Macriana Liberatrix - Iberia & Dacia
19. Legio XIX Minervia - Germania & Numidia
20. Legio XX Valeria Victrix - Dacia & Scythia
21. Legio XXI Rapax - Nothern Italy
22. Legio XXII Deiotariana - Galatia

They are for post-Marian legions, but might give us some inspiration.
There are more names listed here:
http://www.davros.org/romans/legions.html
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_legions

I think to make life easy, we should only name legions that have a legion ancillary. Currently, we have Legio I and Legio II ancillaries. Legio I Italica seems like a no-brainer. For Legio II, we might go for Legio II Sabina, as in wikipedia, as that will also have been recruited in Italy. When we get a Legio III, then Gallica might be appropriate if we enter Gaul.

The Consular ancillary supposed to have two legions (and the field army ancillaries we'll eventually get will also include legions) but I think we should leave them nameless for convenience, otherwise we'll lose track.

NB: For the purposes of forming historical armies, I'm treating 1 velite+1principes+1hastati+1general as the core of a legion (to be supplemented by one or more of triarii, cavalry and funditores). But legions should typically be accompanied by equal sized alae of allied troops, making up a half stack army.