The Will of the Senate - out of character thread

**Mount Suribachi** · 06-06-2006, 16:50

Originally Posted by Braden

We have to come up with some arguments against the Republic being insular, which will be difficult as the Republic was traditionally insular.

Given the dumb RTW strategic AI, and the fact we've got about 1000 turns to go, I'm sure they'll attack us sooner or later anyway, therefore removing the need to blacklist them.

So I say make merry with the alliances. We don't need to bother engineering wars of conquest, the AI will give them to us.

**Death the destroyer of worlds** · 06-06-2006, 16:55

I agree. I prefer simplicity. How about : Diplomacy is free for the first consul unless expressively forbidden by the senate ? So no alliance with Gaul (yet) or Carthage (yet), but the rest is fair game ? Or no alliances with our enemies, only protectorate will be accepted and alliances with everyone else ?

**econ21** · 06-06-2006, 16:59

I've just noticed Illyria was not on our "blacklist". I would have included it, had I remembered it. But maybe we just leave it off? It's down to two settlements, AFAIK, and won't last anyway.

We don't all have to actively work towards taking down the blacklist (although some of us may

) but I think it is a reasonable goal for the campaign that we become the dominant power, which we entail defeating those targeted factions at some stage. I am open to letting some become Protectorates instead of being wiped out. Seleucia, in particular, has vast lands and having to conquer them all means going further than Rome actually did.

Maybe I should have another look at EBs victory conditions for Rome. I seem to recall they were similarly epic and ambitious.

**Mount Suribachi** · 06-06-2006, 18:58

think it is a reasonable goal for the campaign that we become the dominant power

Like I said, that will happen anyway. The AI will not be able resist attacking us, and so we will wipe out each faction as they do so. Kinda like how Rome acquired much of her Empire

Seleucia, in particular, has vast lands and having to conquer them all means going further than Rome actually did.

I have no problem whatsoever with building an "un-historical" Roman Empire. The Empire took the size and shape it did due to a series of specific events - wars, births, deaths, elections etc etc. We have already deviated from the timeline that produced those events. I would rather we played the game on its own terms - our actions such be dictated by the strategic & tactical situation combined with role-playing the Senators we produce, all under-pinned by traditional Roman values.

**GeneralHankerchief** · 06-06-2006, 20:34

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

Like I said, that will happen anyway. The AI will not be able resist attacking us, and so we will wipe out each faction as they do so. Kinda like how Rome acquired much of her Empire

Agreed. Your argument here and in the PM makes sense.

BTW, I got your reply, but I decided to respond here because my inbox is going to overflow in the next couple of days.

**Mount Suribachi** · 06-06-2006, 21:49

lol I can imagine. I never really had more than a handful of PMs in my inbox, so the 12 max limit never concerned me. Now they're flying thick and fast I'm grateful for my Senior Membership and 75 PM limit!

**econ21** · 06-06-2006, 22:12

Just a note: I'm having nasty internet connection problems. I'll try to post the motions poll now but I may get kicked out before I do.

**TinCow** · 06-07-2006, 00:57

Bio for Oppius Vitruvius (Wishazu) has been posted. I considered posting mid-term pictures of everyone, but we're already going to be racking up a lot of mugshots even only doing them at election times. I would prefer to keep all mugshots up for each person so that we can see how the avatars have developed over the years. When they start dying off I will probably move them to a Memorial thread or something like that, so that they don't clutter up the Library, but are still accessible if people want to look back on old characters. Thoughts?

**YAKOBU** · 06-07-2006, 23:59

Hi everyone

Apologies but I again missed voting on the recent motions. I'm not sure why but I thought I had until Friday after having a quick glance at work. Luckily I wanted to vote Yes to all the motions so it wouldn't have changed anything

. I am currently trying to complete year-end at work with my appraisal lined up for next week as well as interviewing candidates for 2 positions. I sorely need them filling as there is too much work for my team at the moment. I stayed at work until 7.30pm tonight and then continued at home until 11.15pm

.

I have also taken the drastic step of taking my RTW to work and locking it in a cupboard to stop me playing it until year-end is finished

. I am getting serious withdrawal symptoms and need to pop onto the org now and again to get a small fix

.

**Death the destroyer of worlds** · 06-08-2006, 00:17

Good luck with the appraisal next week, YAKOBU.
I know how it feels, already overworked two nights this week till 22:30, deadlines coming up on the 20th

(which means everything should be finished by monday which has about as much chance of happening as a snowstorm in hell) and I was smart enough to get myself elected first consul

**econ21** · 06-08-2006, 12:53

Ignoramus has raised the issue of naming our legions again . I think it would add flavour to the First Consul reports etc if we do this.

Under Marcus Camillus's mod, legions are designated as new ancillaires and typically arise when a general rises to Legate. I think we are up to about Legio IV now, aren't we DDW?

Ignoramus and I were wondering about a two part designation. The first would be regional. The second part would be honorific. Ignoramous had the idea of naming them after notable First Consuls who raised them. TinCow advocated naming one after a battle victory. Both ideas should good. So you could have Legio I Italia Victrix or Legio I Italia Quintia.

I propose the First Consuls give the legions appropriate regional names on an ad hoc basis - they might want to consult with any historical or Latin buffs we have in order to do this.

So far, I am wondering about:

Legio I - Italia (for Latium)
Legio II - Sabina (for other Italy)
Legio III - Sicilia (was that the Latin for Sicily?)
Legio IV - Gallica

What we call the 5th may depend on where we expand into next.

More names and links to names are given in my earlier post on this subject:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=261

For the honorifics do we also want to leave those to the First Consul or have them proposed in Senate motions? For personal reasons, Ignoramus requests that he be allowed to name the 10th legion.

We also wondered about naming forts, and in particular assigning them to legions. Thus the fort between Roma and Capua could be Fort Legio I Italia and be the home barracks of the legion. These forts could always be moved, if the Legion moves, but could still keep the name.

**Death the destroyer of worlds** · 06-08-2006, 13:31

We currently have three Roman Legion banners and one Consular Army banner. I don't have time to check out Marcellus's mod details right now, but I guess a fourth will arrive soon as it depends on available legates and number of troops if I recall correctly.
I personally like a combination of both ideas. So that would give you Legio I - Italia 'Victrix'.

**econ21** · 06-08-2006, 13:47

Yes, Legion IV will arrive with the next Legate. IIRC, that will probably be TinCow's avatar. So if he does not currently have the "Legio I" ancillary and is going to keep his troops for a while, you could hold on and call Legio IV "Gallica Victrix".

What do people think - do we leave naming to the First Consuls? Or have Senate motions for honorifics?