The Will of the Senate - Senate Deliberations III

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Honoured conscript fathers,

There are reports of Phoenician spies in our capital, so hence the departure of my grandson Servius Aemilius and his legion, backed up up by some extra phalanx cohorts, was kept a secret. I urge you to be very careful of your words in the coming days, as this entire operation depends on suprise.

He is to land at Lepcis Magna and raid it for slaves, but we will not abandon the settlement. Tribune Servius Aemilius will continue to make a nuisance of himself in the region, hopefully drawing a part of the Cartheginian army towards his remote position. He will be relatively safe from the east as the Ptolemic empire is not able to cross the Sahara by land. This will clear some of the opposition for the Consular Army, which will be ready to ship in the first season of the next consul's term (2 seasons from now). It is my recommendation that the next consul invades the Cartheginian heartland with the Consular Army, beginning with the capture of their capital. The Cartheginians have massive forces at their disposal. The risk of total defeat of our forces during this operation will be very high. Our best hope is that the massive amount of forces west of Utica is used by the Cartheginians to recapture their lost colonies in Spain. With the Cartheginian fleet destroyed, the danger of invasion is lessened, but not gone. The islands are of minor strategic importance, I am ignoring them for now.

There have been many requests for legions send here and there, by senators who are not aware of our desperate straits. It has cost me incredible efforts just to keep our current legions up to strength, with our massive losses.
I myself am now leading a conglemoration of battered troops and merceneries, which is having to do the impossible task of taking over the work of two regular legions in guarding the Danube river.
In the east, we have three legions trying to do the work of five in guarding our northern and eastern border. In order to do this, we are running massive risks. Our only hope is that the Bosporus naval blockade, which will hopefully start working soon (suggestions on why this is not working are welcome !) will free our troops from guarding the Eastern border.
In the west, two legions are threathened by the massive forces of the Iberians, who have just moved a Consular sized force smack into the middle of our province. I fear war will break out next season.
For the Cartheginian operation, no more troops can be spared than the Consular Army and the praetorian legion already assigned to it.

To answer all the desperate pleas for more troops, I have exactly one (1) praetorian legion to send from Roma. I consider the greatest danger the Iberian threat at the moment, and will send out this legion to bring the army of Augustus Verginius near Gergovia up to Consular Army strength.

EDIT:
Should the next consul decide to act otherwise, there are ships enough gathered to evacuate Servius Aemlius and his troops and to transport the Consular Army to a location of his choosing.

[Braden]

Consul,

You send your Grandson into peril. If you do this willingly then I cannot argue against it.

Suffice to say that we are like the lone farmer fighting the ever encroaching forest fires….frantically scrambling from one point to the next trying to beat out the flames as each new spark ignites another crop….

I was not aware that Iberia had now entered the equation and I feel greatly depressed about this. Soon it will be time for our greatest heroes to emerge! Out numbered and desperate it will only be through our commander’s military genius that we will prevail.

I am sorry to say that all you can do now, Consul, is try to beat out those fires and glowing embers and do your best for the Republic in this dire time.

I am sure the Senate is behind you in these last few months and pray that we can turn this evil tide and return to the profitable times that signalled the start of your Consulship.

[TinCow]

A messenger arrives with a scroll from Augustus Verginius.

Senators, I have recently received word that a large Iberian army has crossed our frontier and is currently encamped on Roman soil. I wish to assure you that I am closely monitoring this force and will engage it immediately if its intentions prove to be hostile. However, this show of aggression on what is our only peaceful border has the potential to impact many events in the future. I have recently spoken out in favor of a strong attack on Carthage. I am not withdrawing my support for such a plan, but I believe that it would be imprudent of me to continue discussions when the course of events on the Gallic frontier remains uncertain.

As such, please allow me some time to ponder the current situation and discuss it with my own advisors. I shall return to state my position on our future course of action once the current Consulship has finally run its term. In the meantime, please consider all of my previous statements regarding Carthage in stasis. I neither reject them nor embrace them at this moment.

From the Gallic border,
Augustus Verginius

[econ21]

[SENATE SPEAKER]: The Senate is now open for the submission of motions and of manifestoes for candidates for the post of First Consul. The deadline for motions to be seconded and candidates to identify themseleves is Saturday 8pm UK. There will then be a 24 hour period of voting.

[Braden]

Hmmm…..a difficult time to be proposing any specific Motions however I shall start with the following:

Motion #11.00:

The Senate Instructs the seaborne invasion of North Afrika with at least two Consular sized armies.

Motion #11.01:

The Senate instructs that the invasion of North Afrika have the targets of Carthago and Hadrumentum as a minimum. The Senate will not instruct further due to the issue of Tactical Variance.

Motion #11.02:

The Senate calls for the positioning of a Legion or other assembled force to “face off” against the Iberian incursion – this is not authorisation to initiate hostile activity but to show Iberia how seriously we take such unwarranted actions and allow them the chance to withdraw with honour to their own lands.

Motion #11.03:

The Senate Instructs, when funds permit, the construction of and manning of fortifications to prevent incursions by the Iberians.

Motion #11.04:

Byzantion is to be held against all odds and to the last man.

Senators, I am well aware that my proposed motion #11.04 is very abrasive but I strongly feel that if we are to mount any effective counterstrikes against the Selucids the key to such a venture is the retention of Byzantion.

However, I will not be offended should my last motion find no support.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Conscript fathers,

It is with relief that I lay down my rod of office, which has turned out to be deceptively heavy. I have done my best to lead the Republic to greatness, but I am not greatly pleased with my results.
My term has seen the death of two of our consuls, my friends Amulius Coruncanius and Publius Pansa (who still awaits transfer to the Mausoleum). Tribune Gaius Rutilius and the young Herennius Genucius also found their doom. I will first present you with a summary of our current situation, to get a good view of our situation it is best to read my last report.

Our main military forces at present :
The Legio I Italia Victrix, under the command of tribune Cornelius Saturnius, is stationed in Tylis.
The banner of the Legio II Sabina Quintia is being carried by the commander-to-be of the Consular Army, tribune Marcellus Aemilius.
The Legio III Sicilia Aemilia, under the command of tribune Flavius Pacuvius, is stationed in a fort next to Comata.
The Legio IV Gallica Firma banner is currently in the temple of Mars in Roma.
The Legio V Alaudae is currently carried by legate Numerius Aureolius in Byzantium. The actual legion is stationed outside the city in a fort.
The banner of the Legio VI Phoenix is currently carried by Gnaeus Hordeonius, a tribune in the Field Army II.
The Consular Army, under the temporary command of tribune Manius Coruncanius, is about to enter Sicily.
The Field Army I, under the command of praetor Tiberius Coruncanius, is on the march near Maronia.
The Field Army II, under the command of praetor Lucius Aemilius, is standing outside the town of Oduba.
The German Legion, under the command of tribune Quintus Libo, is on the march near Viberi.
The Cispine Gaul Legion, under the command of tribune Quintus Naevius, is stationed in a fort near Jenuensis.
The Gaul Narbonensis Legion, under the command of legate Augustus Verginius, is stationed in a fort near Gergovia.
The Italian Legion, under the command of legate Valerius Paullus, is on the march near Roma.
The Cartheginian Legion, under the command of tribune Servius Aemilius, is about to land in Africa.

I have no correct estimates of our financial revenue. At the last report, our income had dropped by well over 10.000 denarii to a measly 14.000 denarii. This immense setback is caused by the loss of trade with the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic empire.

A complete list of all the battle statistics can be found here. The summary :

Factions destroyed :
- Illyria
- The kingdom of Macedon
- Gaul
- The Greek Cities

Our total losses during my term :
Total enemy casualties : 23780 men
Total Roman casualties : 5896 men
Average kill ratio : 4.0 - 1
Total enemy ships sunk : 23 ships
Total Roman ships sunk : 4 ships

We have conquered 18 provinces, namely Chalkida, Salona, Delmatia, Kydonia, Hyrapytna, Bylazora, Ratiaria, Philipii, Comata, Gergovia, Luvavum, Debeltos, Oduba, Tylis, Byzantium, Nicomedia, Prusa and Viberi.
We want to get rid of Nicomedia, Prusa and Viberi.
We have conquered and lost Maronia.
We have lost Melite.

In spite of my warnings during midterm, we have become involved in war with the great empires of the East, the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid empire. We cannot hope to win this war in the long term and I encourage the next consul to keep up attempts to block the Bosporus with fleets (I'm pretty sure it can work, we just need several 3-ship fleets). The loss of trade has been a total disaster for the Republic, almost halving our total revenue.

Hence I propose
Motion 11.5 : We will attempt to set up a naval blockade in the Bosporus and no further incursions into Asia Minor are allowed this term (this does not include Rhodes).

My advice is to invade the Republic of Carthage in a war of conquest. It is the only place we can fight our enemies and make a profit. If we do not, we will go broke in the short term. We might be able to pay our armies, but we will not be able to develop our cities.

Aside from the war of conquest on Carthage, I encourage the next consul to launch a naval expedition to Rhodes, as the capture of Rhodes would do much to improve our disastrous financial situation (as it has the Colossus wonder).

Hence I propose
Motion 11.6 : We will attempt an amphibious invasion of Rhodes during this term.

There are several cities that are screaming for developement. Aside from the cities in Greece, Syracuse is the very worst case. I encourage the next consul to build an aquaduct there as soon as the forum is finished.

My grandson, Servius, has suggested to me that we extend the roman citizenship to our Italian allies. I have praised our Italian allies many times for their excellent performance in battle, and the great sacrifices they were willing to make for the Republic. On the other hand, the citizenship is not something we can give away lightly. The very fabric of our society rests on a balance between citizen, freemen and slaves in the population, just as the balance in our politics depends on the balance between Patricians and Plebejians.
The honour and priveliges of becoming a Roman citizen are something that must remain a prize that is attainable in theory, but in practice, almost, but not quite, out of reach of the common freeman.
If the citizenship becomes too widespread its value will deflate and our society will become unstable. On the other hand, our Republic has grown so large that an extension of the citizenship to some of our Latin allies seems a wise decision. The citizenship has become too exclusive, the other wrong side of the balance. I think if we offer citizenship to Ancona and Capua we will bring the balance back to its perfect ratio.

Hence, I will propose
Motion 11.7 : We will extend citizenship (i.e. build citizenship building) to the cities of Capua and Ancona during this consul's term.

I further propose the following motions :
Motion 11.8 : We will not extend our borders in Europe during this consul's term, except for Maronia

Motion 11.9 : We will try to return Viberi to our allies, the Germans, during this consul's term.

Motion 11.10 : We will not try to hold on to Nicomedia and Prusa

Motion 11.11 : We will repopulate our Italian cities using enslavement and governors. Any conquered city with a population over 4000 souls is to be enslaved after making sure that only the cities that are depopulated (like Corfinium) have governors inside them.

Motion 11.12 : We will attempt to conquer Vicus Marcomanii and Vicus Goth, if the Germans have not done so, and give them to our allies, the Germans. We will not attack an Iberian-held town while we are not at war with them (Vicus Goth is held by Iberia).

Further I propose this consular amendment as I am a bit tired with fighting everyone :
Constitutional Amendment 11.A : We will organize a poll on changing the difficulty settings of the game to M/VH, M/H. M/M, H/VH, H/H or H/M. The one with the most votes, not 2/3 majority, or even a majority, will become the new setting. Only lower house senate member votes on the poll are valid and influence is not a factor in this poll. This amendment itself does require a 2/3 majority of senate votes to pass.

I also propose this amendment in view of the recent discussions in the senate :
Constitutional Amendment 11.B : If there are conflicting motions, the one with the most votes in favour of them is the motion that supersedes the other. At the moment it is the order in which votes have been proposed. This amendment itself requires 2/3 of the votes to pass, and if it passes will be in effect over the motions voted on this session and into the future.

Lastly, if the esteemed senator Augustus Verginius decided to run for the office of consul, he has my full backing. His previous reign as consul has proved very succesfull and he is the only senate member, besides myself, who saw the need for improving our economy even so long ago. Our nation has made great strides in that direction during his term and I have great faith he will help us recover from our dramatic setbacks in the coming years. He is also an excellent strategist and his war of manouver in Gaul was a masterpiece.

EDIT : Motion 11.12 and Constitutional Amendment 11.A have been updated.
EDIT : The Legio IV Gallica has been given its correct name, the Legio IV Gallica Firma.
EDIT : Whoops, forgot Gaius Rutilius, who also perished.
EDIT : Motion 11.5 is retracted, as a naval blockade does not work.
EDIT : Motion 11.9 is retracted, as when Viberi rebels it becomes a rebel town and that will provide a better protection for us than if the Germans get it.

[econ21]

SENATE SPEAKER: I would ask Senator Manius Coruncanius to review his use of the word "authorise" in his motions. It should be recalled that all prior motions have now lapsed with the change in first Consul, hence strictly speaking motions 11.00, 11.02 and 11.03 seem redundant: the new First Consul will already have the power to authorise the actions mentioned. Perhaps the Senator wishes to use a stronger term - e.g. "instructs" or "calls for"?

[econ21]

OOC: I am strongly against changing the difficulty level (Constitutional Ammendment 11A). I think it is important not to pass that motion, because it will then very easily switch the difficulty level from what it presently is (there are only a handful of lower house members and on the voting rules in the ammendment, if, say, 3 want it to X, it will be switched to X).

There are several reasons why I don't want to change the difficulty level:

Firstly, it is not clear we can do it - RTW was not designed to have the difficulty level switched within a campaign and some of the posts in RTR PE forums at TWcentre report that the hack to do so messes up the dates. I've had enough of a fright with the rebellion CTDs and don't want to do anything that will mess up this now 100+ turn PBM.

Secondly, it is shutting the door after the horse has bolted. We are already at war with virtually everyone. Adding Iberia or Germany to the list won't change much. And I am not convinced changing the campaign difficulty level will keep them significantly more peaceful than they are going to be, or magically induce the others to be our friends again.

Thirdly, I actually think Roman campaigns are a lot more fun when you are at war with everyone. It's a very strong faction and needs to be overstretched to be challenged. If we could just salami slice one faction at a time, it would be trivial. The "total war" aspect means that this PBM seems to actually have gotten harder, first with FLYdude's second half of his term and then with the last First Consul. This is a good thing, IMO. Our objectives for the campaign include taking down Seleucia, Egypt, Carthage & Thrace. Well, now we have a good reason to. Iberia is on the list too.

Fourthly, DDW may be tired of fighting everyone but a lot of us in the Lower House are itching to have battles. If he is talking from a First Consul point of view only, I can understand the frustration but then again maybe other First Consuls would not mind managing a "total war" situation.

Fifthly, on the battle difficulty, the battles are quite hard enough already, given how stretched our forces are. A Praetorian Roman army against a Consular Successor one is not a push over, as our Co-Consul has proven twice. Quite frankly, I am worried for Numerius holding Byzantion with what he's got. If he is not reinforced, sooner or later, he's going down. If he has to face the Seleucids with a +4 attack, +4 morale or whatever hard is, I'm going to be seriously depressed.

Sixthly, I've always like Medium battles because I like the historical match-ups. Playing a realism mod and then skewing the combat to be unrealistic has never struck me as very intuitive.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

OOC : I understand your feelings, econ21, and may even be swayed by them. However, it seems like a good idea to have this issue debated one and for all. Based on the arguments presented I will either retract my amendment sunday or let it stand.
Suffice to say, I've one played a VH/VH campaign to the finish, and I wasn't all that pleased with the gameplay. I really miss having allies to fight alongside with (really the most fun aspect of RTW in my opinion) and the endless armies got really tiresome after a while. I prefer fewer, but harder fights.

EDIT : I just realised I won't be able to retract this amendment on time on sunday. If no other senator wants to take over this amendment before sunday 6PM, it can be considered withdrawn.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I second all motions currently proposed so far (up to 11.12) and the Constitutional Amendment 11.B. I do not second 11.A.

However, let it be said that if the wording of 11.01 changes I may withdraw my support. If there are no immediate reinforcements coming to Afrika then I suggest that my legion take Hadrumentum and hold it indefinitely, waiting for reinforcements to form before continuing the expedition. This is not a motion.

[Dutch_guy]

I am not in favor of Constitutional Amendment 11.A, it seems fine as it is.

I am, on the other hand, in agreement concerning the other motions. Especially motion 11.8 - this seems very wise, especially seeing War with Iberia is only moments away.

Motion 11.8 : We will not extend our borders in Europe during this consul's term, except for Maronia

I however, do not quite understand why we should return Viberi to our allies. If a war might break out between our German ''Allies'' we'd have to re conquer the settlement and lose countless lives doing so. I just don't see what we have to gain by such an action.

Motion 11.9 : We will try to return Viberi to our allies, the Germans, during this consul's term.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

I however, do not quite understand why we should return Viberi to our allies.

As long as the Germans are at war with Iberia, Iberia might not attack us. However, the Germans are losing and need to be strengthened to be able to continue this war.
Realizing I made an error, I am rephrasing
Motion 11.12 : We will attempt to conquer Vicus Marcomanii and Vicus Goth, if the Germans have not done so, and give them to our allies, the Germans. We will not attack an Iberian-held town while we are not at war with them (Vicus Goth is held by Iberia).

[StoneCold]

Motion 11.12 : We will attempt to conquer Vicus Marcomanii and Vicus Goth, if the Germans have not done so, and give them to our allies, the Germans.

I do not understand the purpose of this motion with regards to Motion 11.08. Why are we trying to expend Roman Blood so as to give the land they bought with their bloods to our allies when we have more pressing agenda like the selucids and carthagians on our hand? I believe that as with Motion 11.08, we should be on the defensive, with the securing of the Danube natural border and stay there, only doing spoiling attacks at points where threats materialize, the Thracians are weaken as it is and we should not shed any more blood there unless there are specific gains or objectives to be achieved.

Giving lands to our allies is not one of them, aiding them in the defense of their homeland I can understand.

Edit: was posting this while DDW was posting the above reply.

So what does this mean for Motion 11.12 in the event of an attack by Germans on Vicus Goth? Do we go and aid our allies, aka. be near the area to be requested to join in the attack thus breaking the peace with the Iberians? Please clarify.

[Dutch_guy]

As long as the Germans are at war with Iberia, Iberia might not attack us. However, the Germans are losing and need to be strengthened to be able to continue this war.
Realizing I made an error, I am rephrasing
Motion 11.12 : We will attempt to conquer Vicus Marcomanii and Vicus Goth, if the Germans have not done so, and give them to our allies, the Germans. We will not attack an Iberian-held town while we are not at war with them (Vicus Goth is held by Iberia).

Well as noble as your intentions may be, I don't think that giving them a razed* city would actually help them hold out against the Iberian onslaught. So keeping that in mind, I do quite understand why the Germans may not wish the extra burden of an extra city. Of course the most noble thing to do is aid them in their war, but seeing our current state of diplomacy with the known world that may not be the best thing to do at the moment.

*

I planned to give the town [Viberi] to our allies, the Germans, but they do not want it. Annoyed, I plunder everything except the market

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

So what does this mean for Motion 11.12 in the event of an attack by Germans on Vicus Goth? Do we go and aid our allies, aka. be near the area to be requested to join in the attack thus breaking the peace with the Iberians? Please clarify.

Let me be very precise. A war with Iberia is no be avoided at all costs. So that's a definite no-no. I mean if Iberia loses Vicus Goth to rebels we could go and conquer it for them.

As to the razing of Viberi, I am really tired of the idiotic diplomacy AI. If the Germans don't want it the settlement can rebel. If we are unlucky by the way, and it rebels to the Germans, we'll be at war with them. As this is not a default German settlement I don't think that will happen.

[Mount Suribachi]

Motion #11.00:

The Senate authorises the seaborne invasion of North Afrika with at least two Consular sized armies.

I believe Senate authorisation is not required for this operation - we are already at war with Carthage, the Consul may do as he pleases in this regard, unless the Senate specifically tells him otherwise.

Motion #11.02:

The Senate authorises the positioning of a Legion or other assembled force to “face off” against the Iberian incursion – this is not authorisation to initiate hostile activity but to show Iberia how seriously we take such unwarranted actions and allow them the chance to withdraw with honour to their own lands.

I believe there are already 2 legion sized forces in our Gallic provinces.


Regarding Viberi and the other Thracian provinces, I have this to say. It was agreed some time ago to use the Danube as a natural border - a wise and sound strategy. However, our enemy the Thracians remain unconquered and are unlikely to ever agree to a ceasefire. The only way we shall have peace on our northern border is by eliminating the Thracians altogether. This shall have 3 benefits, all positive.

1) It removes one of our many enemies, and frees us from fighting endless stacks of Thracians season after season. We may defeat them 95% of the time, but each battle will wear down our armies and we are not in a position to win a war of attrition.

2) Our northern border is now protected by an ALLY!! Oh praise the Gods and give thanks to consul Lucius Aemilius for negotiating an alliance with Germania. And having an ally bordering us is an enormous advantage for one simple reason - Trade!! We need every denarii we can get, and our merchants will be able to freely ply their wares with the Germans once we have eliminated Thrace.

3) It frees up our troops. Currently we have several legions worth of troops along the Danube, guarding against Thracian incursions. If it was Germania directly to our north (who I believe we have a military access agreement with), then we could leave the river crossings unguarded and leave just one legion there as a reserve. The legions released could then be sent east, west or south at the Consuls discretion.

Finally, your point about having to reconquer any cities we give to the Germans is misguided. I hope we never go to war with those fearsome barbarians, but maybe we will, if they are foolish enough to attack us at some time in the future. We must plan for the here and now. We need every piece of coin, every soldier, every ally we can right now. Our situation is desperate. Let us take advantage of our ally whilst we can. Furthermore, those towns are small and poorly developed. It will take decades before they are cities of any worth. Let us worry about having to retake cities we have gifted to Germania, if and when it comes to that.

With all this in mind I ask that Lucius Aemilius re-word & merge Motions 11.9 and 11.12 to read

Motion 11.9 - The Germanic legion under Quintus Libo shall conquer and enslave the remaining Thracian settlements of Viberi, Vicus Marcomannii, Campus Lazyges and Sarmisegetusa. These shall then be offered individually, or in a package to our allies the Germans. The consul is authorised to offer financial sweeteners to Germania to induce them to accept


Finally, I wish to second Motions 11.1, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.10

OOC: can we discuss the difficulty levels in the OOC thread?

[flyd]

I second Motions 11.5 and 11.6. The others I will have to give more thought.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Regarding Viberi and the other Thracian provinces, I have this to say. It was agreed some time ago to use the Danube as a natural border - a wise and sound strategy. However, our enemy the Thracians remain unconquered and are unlikely to ever agree to a ceasefire. The only way we shall have peace on our northern border is by eliminating the Thracians altogether.
[snip]
With all this in mind I ask that Lucius Aemilius re-word & merge Motions 11.9 and 11.12 to read
Motion 11.9 - The Germanic legion under Quintus Libo shall conquer and enslave the remaining Thracian settlements of Viberi, Vicus Marcomannii, Campus Lazyges and Sarmisegetusa. These shall then be offered individually, or in a package to our allies the Germans. The consul is authorised to offer financial sweeteners to Germania to induce them to accept

These are all valid reasons, but I prefer to make Germania stronger in the direction of Iberia, instead of in our direction. I do not want to tempt our allies into attacking us. An alternative might be conquering Thrace for ourselves, but I rather have Thrace for a neighbour behind an easily defended border, than the Sarmatians, with their fearsome horse armies. Therefore I will not alter my motion. You are of course free to propose a motion yourself.

[Glaucus]

I second motions 11.0, 11.1, 11.2, 11.4. 11.5, 11.6, 11.9, 11.11, 11.12

In regards to motion 11.7, I do not think our treasury can afford citizenship buildings in those settlements at this time. I would like to grant them this gift, but for now it should be put on hold.

I second Ammendment 11.B

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

OOC: I am strongly against changing the difficulty level (Constitutional Ammendment 11A). I think it is important not to pass that motion, because it will then very easily switch the difficulty level from what it presently is (there are only a handful of lower house members and on the voting rules in the ammendment, if, say, 3 want it to X, it will be switched to X).

Which is of course my intent. Furthermore, the only players with a good insight in how hard the battles and the opposition are now are the lower house senators.

There are several reasons why I don't want to change the difficulty level:

Firstly, it is not clear we can do it - RTW was not designed to have the difficulty level switched within a campaign and some of the posts in RTR PE forums at TWcentre report that the hack to do so messes up the dates. I've had enough of a fright with the rebellion CTDs and don't want to do anything that will mess up this now 100+ turn PBM.

We should be able to do it easily using RomeSage. I am not aware of any relation between dates and difficulty or any problems. You were ready enough to 'force peace' on Carthage last term by changing the difficulty.

Secondly, it is shutting the door after the horse has bolted. We are already at war with virtually everyone. Adding Iberia or Germany to the list won't change much. And I am not convinced changing the campaign difficulty level will keep them significantly more peaceful than they are going to be, or magically induce the others to be our friends again.

Won't change much ? 10.000 Iberians knocking on our front door ? I beg to differ. At least we can try to make peace with some of our neighbours. I think Thrace is ready to accept peace, especially if we destroy all her armies. The Ptolemaic empire is also ready for peace, and the trade benefits alone would be an extremely profitable benefit (better take Rhodes first of course). Ditto for the Seleucid empire, once we kick them back to Asia Minor.

Thirdly, I actually think Roman campaigns are a lot more fun when you are at war with everyone. It's a very strong faction and needs to be overstretched to be challenged. If we could just salami slice one faction at a time, it would be trivial. The "total war" aspect means that this PBM seems to actually have gotten harder, first with FLYdude's second half of his term and then with the last First Consul. This is a good thing, IMO. Our objectives for the campaign include taking down Seleucia, Egypt, Carthage & Thrace. Well, now we have a good reason to. Iberia is on the list too.

We have no chance whatsoever of achieving these objectives if we have to fight everyone at once. We are already broke.

Fourthly, DDW may be tired of fighting everyone but a lot of us in the Lower House are itching to have battles. If he is talking from a First Consul point of view only, I can understand the frustration but then again maybe other First Consuls would not mind managing a "total war" situation.

This is of course a personal preference. But I wonder how long the consuls will enjoy themselves if they can't build anything due to lack of funds. The enemy factions are so large now that they can raise vast armies without the bonus 10.000 they are getting now. At least this will stop them from buying up all the mercenaries all the time. I really doubt that we will have less battles if we decrease the campaign difficulty.

Fifthly, on the battle difficulty, the battles are quite hard enough already, given how stretched our forces are. A Praetorian Roman army against a Consular Successor one is not a push over, as our Co-Consul has proven twice. Quite frankly, I am worried for Numerius holding Byzantion with what he's got. If he is not reinforced, sooner or later, he's going down. If he has to face the Seleucids with a +4 attack, +4 morale or whatever hard is, I'm going to be seriously depressed.

You will be defeated anyway if you have to face endless full stacks. The battles are not really all that much harder. I am only for upping the battle difficulty to balance the loss of infinite money for the AI.

Sixthly, I've always like Medium battles because I like the historical match-ups. Playing a realism mod and then skewing the combat to be unrealistic has never struck me as very intuitive.

I feel we should balance the 'not so brilliant' AI by giving him better troops. I like a good challenge. However, the battle difficulty is not my major issue, I can live with battles on medium. But this campaign difficulty is my major issue.

With this post, let's shift the discussion on this amendment to the OOC-thread

[econ21]

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: I must start by expressing my respect and gratitude to the First Consul. He, and his Co-Consuls, have led us in an exemplary fashion throughout the last five difficult years. I fear he is far too reserved about his achievements - to have conquered 18 settlements surely rivals anything done by his predecessors.

All that said, however, I find I am almost completely in disagreement with the motions he proposes to constrain and direct his successor. My basic stance is for minimal legislation - to leave the First Consuls free to respond to events and to make the hard decisions, based on careful thought and study, that are often not best made by the Senate at a distance and only in 2 and a half year intervals. My instinct, therefore, is to vote "No!" to all motions unless they are utterly necessary and self-evident (such as giving chirurgeons to front line armies, ** cough **).

Now on the substance of the motions available so far. Many appear unnecessary and others self-evidently wrong. Perhaps the most egregious is motion 11.5 calling for a sea blockade of the Bosphorus and making illegal any move across the straits. Senators, we have no evidence that a sea blockade would prevent the Seleucids crossing the straits - in fact, we have direct experience that it does not. Furthermore, it seems curious that the First Consul should seek to make illegal raids that he conducted in the last two seasons in office that secured the Republic nearly 20,000 gold and 10,000 slaves, at minimal cost in Roman blood. It is also strange that the First Consul praises the brilliance of ex-First Consul's great raid through a Gaul but seeks to prohibit a similar potential exercise through Seleucid held Asia Minor.

Senators, I do not propose that we push into Asia in a major offensive at this time. I agree that Carthage is a more tempting target - it is weaker and its lands, more self-contained so it would require less of a garrison. However, the First Consul is surely wrong to say that we can never defeat Seleucia and Egypt. It will not be easy and it is not the task for the next First Consul, but it is our destiny. And if we take settlements at the rate the First Consul has done, I suspect it will be accomplished within my life time. But that is the long term. In the short term, Seleucia will surely keep attacking us without respite and indefinitely until she is destroyed. Anything we can to weaken her - whether it is raids, pursuits across the straits, etc - should not be ruled out of hand. We would be forcing ourselves to fight with one hand behind our backs.

On motion 11.6, I confess I can see no point in an expedition to Rhodes. Surely Melite has taught us that it is hard to defend small islands? Indeed, the First Consul appears to have abandoned Melite - the Consular army aimed at Lepcis Magna could have liberated it en route - and was unwilling to even try to defend Sardinia. If Rhodes is to be raided, that is another matter but a distinctly low priority one in view of the strength of Seleucid armies around Maronia and beyond.

Motion 11.8, foreswearing further conquests in Europe appears too restrictive. What if Iberia attacks us? Should we just stand passive? The First Consul himself was certainly not passive with Greece, Macedon, Thrace and Egypt. At least put in a clause negating the motion in such an event. Are we not to take Anchlaus and close the last hole in our Danube frontier?

Motion 11.12, taking further Thracian cities and surrendering them to Germany, appears folly. Senators, I have been personally blamed for the wars with Seleucia and Egypt. I have laid before you an alternative hypothesis to explain these wars: whoever we share a land border with, will ultimately attack us. So it was with Thrace, Illyria, Macedon, Egypt and Seleucia. The only exception so far is Iberia, which we have only relatively recently bordered. Perhaps she has held off because our garrisons in the border provinces have been strong, I do not know. But if I am right, the corollary of my hypothesis is this: that, where possible, land borders with neutral powers should be avoided. It is for this reason, I have been quietly sceptical of the Viberi expediton, which will likely give us a land border with the Germans, and why I believe we should not take the last Thracian settlements in order to avoid contact with the Sarmatians. Where we wish to avoid war with powers such as Germany and Sarmatia, I believe it would be better to leave a weakened Thrace as a buffer state - much as we left two Gallic settlements between us and Iberia for so long.

I would also like to speak briefly about motion 11.4 - holding Byzantium at at all costs. I fear the motion currently seems little more than posturing. I believe serious thought should be given as to how we can best defend the straits. On the Maronia end, I believe at least a full Consular army will be required. The Seleucids are capable of sending multiple Consular-sized armies across the straits and a Praetorian army would be overwhelmed. Byzantion, unlike Maronia, has walls so has a season's grace. However, I do not believe walls provide any further advantage against the Seleucids, given that their fearsome hypaspists would likely be able to seize walls guarded even by Roman heavy infantry. Personally, I would prefer to meet the Seleucids at Byzantion in the field, where we will have more freedom to outmanouvre them, exhaust them and use our cavalry. But given the size of the Seleucid armies and the poor communications between Maronia and Byzantion, this could well require a second Consular sized army.

[Death the destroyer of worlds]

Conscript fathers,

I am gratified by the praise of Numerius Auriolus, however my goal was internal development, not conquest. I would have been a lot more pleased if we had not conquered Eastern Greece, and I have only realised half of what I wanted to accomplish economically. It is nice to have a great nation, but it would be a lot nicer if the cities in it were not rebellious low tax plague pits.

Concerning motion 11.5, I still think a naval blockade is possible. I think the fleets should just be a certain size, i.e. 3 ships seems to work. Due to the width of the land bridges at least 5 fleets will be needed, three for Maronia and two for Byzantium. Why else is there a 'no travel' zone around the fleet of three ships near Maronia ?

Concerning motion 11.6, taking Rhodes will probably add 50% to our revenue due to the Colossus wonder. Considering our current disastrous financial situation, this seems like a smart thing to do.

Concerning motion 11.8, we are already very overstretched and cannot guard what we have. Conquering even more land will make this problem even worse. Still, a looting and raiding campaign I have no problems with (OOC : But what about the rebellion problems ?)

OOC : Concerning motion 11.12, we would not have the problem of guaranteed war with our neighbours described by econ21 on a lower campaign difficulty.

EDIT : As Augustus Verginius has declined to run for consul, we have no candidates as of yet. I call on all senators who are willing to run for consul to do so. I will be away during this debate, so if anyone wants to run, but does not care for one of my motions, that motion can be considered withdrawn. Note that you can run for 2.5 years or 5 years, and can run alone or together.

EDIT : I have decided to change my consular amendment proposal :
Constitutional Amendment 11.A : We will organize a poll on changing the difficulty settings of the game to M/VH, M/H. M/M, H/VH, H/H or H/M. The one with the most votes, not 2/3 majority, or even a majority, will become the new setting. Only lower house senate member votes on the poll are valid and influence is not a factor in this poll. This amendment itself does require a 2/3 majority of senate votes to pass.

EDIT : I've verified a naval blockade is not possible. I must have been confused with EU II (now that's a game with good diplomacy AI). Accordingly, I am retracting Motion 11.5.

EDIT : Motion 11.9 is retracted, as when Viberi rebels it becomes a rebel town and that will provide a better protection for us than if the Germans get it.

[Braden]

Senator Marcellus Aemilius,

I have re-worded my motions BUT I point out to you that the wording for Motion #11.01 states:

“……targets of Carthago and Hadrumentum as a minimum…..”

As such it does NOT insist that both are held but rather that both are assaulted. Should it seem tactically impossible to assault and hold both, the Consul is free to order you to withdraw to any position you deem most defensible. Indeed, I have previously stated that Carthago should be sacked and only Hadrumentum held.

Senator Valerius Paullus,

My wording of Motion #11.00 has been amended but its focal point is to insist that TWO Consular armies are use.

As for Motion #11.02; we do indeed have armies stationed there. This motion is merely to ensure that they are placed in such a way as to “shepherd” the Iberian force out of our lands.

On motion #11.06 – I agree that an expedition to Rhodes will be folly. The town there is woefully underdeveloped and any force we send will be even MORE isolated than if it was in Byzantion and surrounded by Selucids! I cannot support it.

On my motion #11.04 – I confess, this is purely a personal issue. However, I believed it to have been one that you, Numerius Aureolus, would understand. Long did you lobby for the taking of that city and now….when things appear to dangerous…..you present us with doom and gloom and seemingly preparations for your withdrawal from the city?

Motion #11.04 stands as submitted but Senators, it is MY wish that Byzantion be held at all costs….it may not be yours. If not then do not support it.

(OOC: any ooc amendments I will discuss in the OOC thread).

[econ21]

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Forgive me, I was certainly not arguing for withdrawal from Byzantion. I was merely pondering outloud how best it is to be defended. Merely garrisoning the city and awaiting a siege does not seem the best tactic. On further reflection, I propose the following motion:

Motion 11.13: This Senate recognises that the Seleucia will relentlessly attack the Republic with large armies and the best places to hold them off are at Maronia and Byzantion. However, it notes that the distance between these two settlements makes it impractical to defend them with just one army and so instructs the First Consul to work towards guarding them each with a Consular sized armies, each with a chirurgeon.

Senators, it seems we are in agreement that now is not the time to move further east. We may wish to take Rhodes (in the light of the First Consul's information, I second to that proposal); we may wish to conduct some opportunistic raides. But we currently intend to adopt a largely defensive stance in the east.

However, in taking this defensive stance, we need to be aware that Seleucia will use the landbridges to attack us unremittingly and we must give careful thought to the forces required to repell such repeated attacks over the next five years.

Currently we have two armies near the straits. Praetor Coruncanius's Field Army I and Legio V. Neither are Consular strength and while each may be able to defeat a Consular sized Seleucid army, I believe they would be quickly worn down by two or three such encounters. To avoid the risk of a repetition of the battles that led to the deaths of two of our Co-Consuls - and to minimise unncessary battlefield losses - I believe that both Maronia and Byzantion need to be guarded by Consular-sized armies.

Senators must note that the two settlements are too far to travel between in a single season and if a Consular sized army marches from Maronia to relieve a besieged Byzantion, it will leave open Maronia for attack. Moreover, it would be reckless to depend on Byzantion repelling an assault on its walls. One only has to read the account of my battle at Ratiaria to see what hypaspists are capable of doing to Roman infantry in confined spaces, and to see why I would prefer to meet them in the open, when they can be more easily flanked by cavalry:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...7&postcount=34

Some Senators may wonder at the cost of two Consular armies, but this is a foolish distraction. We must stop Seleucia and if we do not do it properly, we will have to waste a lot of gold on emergency recruitment of mercenaries, the sacrifice of settlements and heavy attrition of smaller armies rushed to the scene. Our two armies near the straits are already at the size of one and a half Consular armies - all that will be required is a Praetorian sized reinforcement of a core of good Roman infantry.

On another matter, I would also like to request that the second Consular army heading for Africa first liberate Melite and drive the Carthaginians from Sardinia. Roman honour demands it.

Motion 11.14: This house requires the expulsion of Carthaginian armies from Sardinia and Melite, prior to landing a second Consular army in Africa.

[OOC: there is some weird buggy AI behaviour - the Carthaginians have sat on the beaches in Melite and Sardinia for many many turns doing nothing. Its unrealistic and not good for the roleplaying size of the campaign - confronting them removes this eyesore.]

[Braden]

Numerius Aureolus,

I had imagined that the wording of my Motion was ambiguous enough but obviously not.

By “holding” Byzantion I do not wish to restrict the future Consul and his generals to just sitting IN Byzantion……we still “hold” a settlement as long as it is under our control.

My motion merely wished to impress the fact that we must not Loose control of the city for any reason. If you feel it needs rewording I will do so.

I second your motion #11.14 certainly and without question. However, I believe your motion #11.13 is to restrictive, also I believe we will not need Consular sized armies to defend these two points personally.....if the commanders choose their territory well a legion can hold a far greater force.

Perhaps you would consider re-wording it to "Three Legions" one each for each bridging point with a third in reserve?

Now, on your tactical assessment. I agree that the Selucids will continue to strike at us, however I have a slightly alternative plan which was inspired by your raids South.

Many of the Selucid settlements directly South to us are Coastal and I feel it would be very feasible to assemble a force to strike at these settlements and raid them. We have been shown that we can raid easily into Selucid territory and withdraw before the giant awakes. Now the point of my proposal are several in nature but the main ones are:

Revenue – the sums generated by these raids are very large indeed as are the influx of slaves to our population.

Production – the destruction of Selucid troop training and arming facilities that are ALL within a season or two’s march of OUR territories.

Scorched Earth – we leave the Selucids with a ravaged land where which mainly allows our spies and diplomats a large area to view and “control” without military forces being present.

Currently we have NO early warning of any very large Selucid army marching to the Bosperous (sp) straits, I feel we need to ensure that the Selucids CANNOT recruit and train locally to our border AND that any invading armies need to traverse all the way from the Selucid heartlands before reaching us and allowing us several seasons warning.

This will not require us to remain in their lands, only to leave small holding forces behind which can be paid for from the income generated by the raids. Also the raiding force need not be larger than a legion provided it is well supported by our navy in the area so they can withdraw to the ships should it become untenable.

We currently have naval superiority in the area, we should make THE best use of it now.

[econ21]

[NUMERIUS AUREOLUS]: Senator Manius Coruncanius, please consult the report of the second battle of Maronia:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...0&postcount=43

A single Praetorian army can hold a ford from Gauls. It cannot easily hold a settlement from a Consular sized Seleucid one. Legio V, guarding Byzantion, is in no better shape than Legio IV was before its destruction.

Immediately after Maronia was taken, Seleucia entered Europe with a second army as strong as that which destroyed Legio IV. There was a reason why the First Consul withdrew the First Field Army from Tylis in the face of this advance - and indeed why he refused my request to march Legio V to close the breach at Maronia. The First Consul recognised that sending a Praetorian sized force against a Consular one was folly - even if we succeed, the cost of victory would be too high.

I believe Seleucia can field many more armies of the Consular size. They have many settlements and deep pockets to recruit the ample mercenaries in the lands east of Byzantion (I could have recruited around 1000 men when I ventured there last season).

Senators, we need two Consular armies at the straits. To try to hold off a great kingdom like Seleucia with any less is folly. I do not understand how Senators can recognise that two Consular sized armies are a minimum to confront Carthage, but believe that Seleucia, a mightier power, can be held back with less. Consult the kill ratios for our battles with Seleucia, or the other successor kingdom, Macedonia. They tell the story.

Senator Manius Coruncanius, if you do not will the necessary resources to defend Byzantion, but insist on it being held to the last man, then I fear you will get your wish.

I should also add, that I am quite in agreement with the idea of an active defence of Byzantion, as should be evident by my proposing the raid on Prusa. Having two Consular arimies at the straits would make it much easier to conduct raids on the east, during lulls between Seleucid offensives. Believe me, Senators, men under my command do not sit idly by if I can help it.

[StoneCold]

I will second motion #11.13 and motion #11.14

[Braden]

Your information has swayed me, I to now second Motion #11.13

[Lucjan]

Servius's clerk stands, opens a scroll bearing the Aemilii seal, and begins to read.


Senator Servius Aemilius has left me with the following motions for proposal before he embarked upon his expedition.

Motion 11.15 The Carthaginian armies must be drawn away from Carthago for at least 3 seasons following the fall of Lepcis Magna before any consular army lands in Carthage.

This will allow sufficient time to draw away the bulk of their forces.

Motion 11.16 The praetorian army under the command of senator Servius Aemilius will be severely outnumbered, and therefore requests the right to purchase between 4 and 8 mercenary units following the fall of Lepcis Magna.

This will give sufficient troop numbers to defend against a consular sized Carthy army, will provide local troops who know the terrain, the locations and weaknesses of the local cities, and will provide fodder in case a fighting withdrawel is necessary. Why waste good Roman lives when mercenaries are so much more expendable?


He has also given me the right to second motions and vote in his stead. I therefore feel my master would second motions 11.4, 11.6, 11.7, and amendment 11.B .

EDIT - And, after personally reviewing the situation. I think I may have a suggestion myself for the eastern theatre.
Motion 11.17 Employ two units of mercenaries from the Bythinia region, one to garrison Nicomedia and one to garrison Prusa.

This is not with the intention of actually holding the provinces, but rather with the intention of slowing the Seleucids down..and with a strong enough mercenary force sent to Prusa, perhaps Thracian infantry, you may also notice that Pissidia is nearly undefended. After our mercenaries are pushed from Prusa, they may be able to loop around and sack Pissidia, this would continue to hinder the Seleucids and prove that even when outnumbered and surrounded, Rome can still strike out and make itself a sore thorn in the side. The manpower they would need to concentrate on chasing the mercs around would delay them temporarily, one season, maybe two, but any time would be welcome if it allows more troops to reach the eastern theatre.

(OOC - Adding any army unit to these towns before you hit end turn cancels that ctd error. The mercs are the cheapest way to go, and, at this point, the only reasonable option available.)

[Braden]

Motion #11.15 confuses me slightly. Does your master mean to insist that the Consular army withhold from landing near Carthago until at least three seasons after your masters landing at Lepcis Magna?

If it does then I support and second Motion #11.15, even though I feel three seasons march will bring the whole of Carthage against your master….but that is his choice.

As for Motion #11.16 – it is the Consuls choice at the time that allows funds for Mecenaries and instead of a Motion I would propose your master strongly lobby the new Consul directly to release funds for such a task.

Motion #11.17 (mainly for OOC reasons) I also second.

For the record I also support Constitutional Amendment 11.B