Marian Reform

[-Praetor-]

k raso: wouldn't the latifundia be in Italy somewhere?

Yes, that`s why I put them 2 paragraphs below the egyptian grain (I`m ignorant, but not so much, thanks for asking ). But, thruith to be told, the latifundia could be found in Italy as well as in Sicily, and also in Hispania.

There were some latifundias even in Egypt, but they should be classified as hellenistic latifundia.

Those large estates could be found, in sum, in almost all the roman world, but they were most caracteristic of Italy (Specially Campania and Magna Graecia) and Sicily.

[Trithemius]

The native agricultors couldn`t compete with the low price grain coming from Sicily and Egypt. Simple.

Yes, and this is obviously an economic factor - and one that can be associated with the incorporation of these areas into Rome's sphere of influence.

They also couldn`t compete against the latifundia, because of the increase of slave labor, which made possible the production of high quantitys of... everything, with extremely low costs.

Another economic factor, again brought about by the expansion of the Roman sphere.

Am I to take it that you go along with a materialist view of history as well k raso?

[Trithemius]

We have a certain number of controlled provinces as well as a certain number of latifundia in Italia as conditions, besides a minimum year, a general with certain traits and some other things.

Well, I am not really enthusiastic about the general part (the trait system seems pretty complex and sometimes strange things happen - like murderous generals picking up Aesthete all of a sudden...) and I think that the minimum year is superfluous since the requirement of a certain number of latifundia (which need a certain level of settlement + the cash to spend on them + a desire to actually build them) and the conquest of provinces should be effective in restricting the occurrence of the reforms to the desired phase of the game.

[-Praetor-]

Am I to take it that you go along with a materialist view of history as well k raso?

Emmm, it appears so

[cunctator]

I think that the minimum year is superfluous since the requirement of a certain number of latifundia (which need a certain level of settlement + the cash to spend on them + a desire to actually build them) and the conquest of provinces should be effective in restricting the occurrence of the reforms to the desired phase of the game.

The problem is that with the 4 turns per year script you can tech up to any realistic conditions much too quickly, so that the reforms could happen many years or even decades before 200 BC.

[Trithemius]

The problem is that with the 4 turns per year script you can tech up to any realistic conditions much too quickly, so that the reforms could happen many years or even decades before 200 BC.

You can't "tech up" to population levels though, or to possession of provinces. A combination of these factors should do nicely, in my opinion.

[maskoolin]

and now i ve got 102 bc and there is no reform yet. for sure i got highest building level, in rome for example. what the heck i need these troops because ptolmaio is making troubles again

[MSB]

and now i ve got 102 bc and there is no reform yet. for sure i got highest building level, in rome for example. what the heck i need these troops because ptolmaio is making troubles again

Thats strange. They always happen in 107BC for me. Perhaps reforms aren't working at all in your campaign. Could you please answer this question?
Can Trarii form phalanx in your campaign?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Or, have you played multiple turns with the script off?

[Darkarbiter]

Well i think all reforms should be because the player is losing for a certain reason. For with the marian reforms i think it should be if the player is running out of population in rome and on the italian penisuala or if they get 30 provinces then lose a few back to 25. This would mean that the necessity is there so the reform should be. Just like how you are able to get kataphraktoi after you lose to them as selecuds and bactrians.

[maskoolin]

HI everbody. Yes Triarii still can form phalanx and what do you mean with " have you played multiple turns with the script off? " best regards

[MSB]

HI everbody. Yes Triarii still can form phalanx and what do you mean with " have you played multiple turns with the script off? " best regards

Reforms are not working in your campaign. The Polybian reforms occur 209BC and they remove the phalanx ability for the Triarii. I suggest you ask in the EB Technical Support Forum, you either have not had the script on at all (the script is the advisor popping up at the start of you campaign and asking you to press "show me how") or you have a bad install.

[Avicenna]

Or he hasn't built new triarii.

[MSB]

Or he hasn't built new triarii.

Fair point.

[maskoolin]

ok ok :( , i didnt have the advisor on, just noisy, anyway it must be a bug or something. well thanx for the help, i gonna try a new faction

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

The advisor should pop up no matter the advisor level settings, immediately upon seeing the campaign map for the first time. At which point click show-me-how... scripts, reforms, four turns-per-year, AI super treasury, and accurately timed historical events: will all be inabled. (You must click on a settlement and then show-me-how every time you load a saved game.)

[maskoolin]

so i can do it now now or what is your conclusio? because i really dont understand what u mean :S

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I would say start a new campaign... when you select a faction, then it loaded... when it loads you will see the campaign map, centered on your capital... at this time, or when clicking on your capital (nothing else), in the top left of the screen a picture of the advisor lady guy will slide in... no?

EDIT: Victoria is gone? My bad, I never pay attention.

[MSB]

I would say start a new campaign... when you select a faction, then it loaded... when it loads you will see the campaign map, centered on your capital... at this time, or when clicking on your capital (nothing else), in the top left of the screen a picture of the advisor lady will slide in... no?

Lady advisor! EB killed Victoria off! It's a male advisor now and the advisor that you have now varies between factions! Anyway when the advisor turns up click "show me how" to activate the script so that you can have the multiple reforms and the full EB experience.

[Foot]

Lady advisor! EB killed Victoria off!

Yeh, well that annoying bitch wanted a pay rise, but we couldn't afford it, she left in a huff and we couldn't run the risk of her letting a few of our secrets out so we had her killed.

Motto: You should never ask for a pay-rise higher than it costs to have you killed by a professional.

Foot

[maskoolin]

ok now i ve understand what you mean. allthough its too late, thank you very much

[oudysseos]

It seems that Maskoolin's problems have been solved, but I still wanted to chip my two cents' worth in.
Just wanted to point out that most of the previous discussion in this thread seems to have centred on the positive dynamic conditions necessary for the various reform events- i.e. a certain number of provinces, population levels, various technical achievements (latifundia), etc. However I think that many of the "reforms" that we are speaking about were responses to negative conditions. The suspension of the property requirement for enlistment came about because of a lack of qualified men in general and a specific political need of Marius' in particular. But if Quintus Caecilius Metellus had quickly and decisively defeated the Numidians, Marius would have had no pretext for stealing the command from him. What price then the "Marian Reforms"?
The point that I want to make is that if the real Romans had been uninterruptedly successful and had easily defeated their enemies (as is usually the case when you play them as a faction) then there would have been little pressure on them to reform anything.
You don't fix what aint broke.
It is because of the great difficulties that the Romans faced during the early part of their expansion that they had to change, adapt, and reform. They never had a big navy before the first Punic war, for example, and if for some reason they had not expanded into North Africa they might never have developed one.

I, for one, am happy with an EB system that makes these reforms possible but not inevitable. But I'm going crazy waiting for the next build.

Just in case anyone's interested, a lot of my analysis is informed by the works of John Keegan and Jared Diamond. Holistic, not materialistic.

[Trithemius]

It seems that Maskoolin's problems have been solved, but I still wanted to chip my two cents' worth in.
Just wanted to point out that most of the previous discussion in this thread seems to have centred on the positive dynamic conditions necessary for the various reform events- i.e. a certain number of provinces, population levels, various technical achievements (latifundia), etc. However I think that many of the "reforms" that we are speaking about were responses to negative conditions. The suspension of the property requirement for enlistment came about because of a lack of qualified men in general and a specific political need of Marius' in particular. But if Quintus Caecilius Metellus had quickly and decisively defeated the Numidians, Marius would have had no pretext for stealing the command from him. What price then the "Marian Reforms"?
The point that I want to make is that if the real Romans had been uninterruptedly successful and had easily defeated their enemies (as is usually the case when you play them as a faction) then there would have been little pressure on them to reform anything.
You don't fix what aint broke.
It is because of the great difficulties that the Romans faced during the early part of their expansion that they had to change, adapt, and reform. They never had a big navy before the first Punic war, for example, and if for some reason they had not expanded into North Africa they might never have developed one.

Yes, but these social (and largel unmodelled aspects) can be reasonably attributed changes which can be modelled. The social climate of Rome would not have developed in the way that it did without the decline of the small farmer, the increase in urban poor, etc; and all of this was a result of expansion and ad hoc infrastructural developments.

I, for one, am happy with an EB system that makes these reforms possible but not inevitable. But I'm going crazy waiting for the next build.

Well, technically they are all possible, rather than inevitable, correct? I agree with you, that if the conditions are not met then reforms should not happen - but wasn't this true in vanilla RTW (albeit with far simpler conditions)?.

Just in case anyone's interested, a lot of my analysis is informed by the works of John Keegan and Jared Diamond. Holistic, not materialistic.

What's the rationale behind "holistic vs materialistic"? Diamond struck me as intensely materialistic, to be honest.