Romani Starting Position

[Wolfshart]

Is there a thread pointing to the historical justification of the Romani starting cities? I also noticed that the government types of the cities we do get have gov1. For me it would make more sense to only have Roma, Capua and Arretium and maybe Api but I'm not to sure about that because Corfinium wasn't conquered until 268.... and for the gov types to be allied states minus Roma so we can provide a more realistic progression by destroying the type 4s and building up the gov buildings from there at historical dates. Most of Italy's cities ended up as allied states till about 90BC as it is...so it would make sense historically. Would this be a valid addition to EB2 to make Roma a little more historically correct?

[alatar]

You can edit that yourself, just edit the campian, you could make a mni mod for it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well our "Romans" are actually mostly allies at this point but they have been fairly Romanised, so we give them the type 1 because otherwise we'd have the same units in type 1 & 4. This way outside the Italian Peninsula you really feel the bite from the lack of Romanisation.

[Wolfshart]

Well our "Romans" are actually mostly allies at this point but they have been fairly Romanised, so we give them the type 1 because otherwise we'd have the same units in type 1 & 4. This way outside the Italian Peninsula you really feel the bite from the lack of Romanisation.

Why would you have to have the same units in 1 and 4? The Samnites and such? All and all only Roma and later Capua were producing Camillian and later Polybian military units with the rest coming form alae city states such as Samnium and Campania (being major contributors) so that’s the point of my argument. Even Sicily was provincialized and Romanized before southern peninsular Italy's Greek cities.

[Imperator]

I was meaning to ask a quick question about that myself
-There is a character named Scipio Asina at the beginning- is this the same scipio who got the first roman navy captured by Carthaginians? I'm pretty sure it is, and I recall translating some passage that indicated he was named Asina AFTER this failure (so he shouldn't have it in 272) and he got it because of his naval incompetance. So are we sure that's what he should be called? I know its a nit-pick but I kinda specialize in roman history and noticed a tiny error- but who knows, I might be wrong

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why would you have to have the same units in 1 and 4? The Samnites and such? All and all only Roma and later Capua were producing Camillian and later Polybian military units with the rest coming form alae city states such as Samnium and Campania (being major contributors) so that’s the point of my argument. Even Sicily was provincialized and Romanized before southern peninsular Italy's Greek cities.

The Allies produced Camillian "style" units, additionally, in order for our reforms to work we have to have it like this. That's why Samnites are in our factional MIC. It's a reationalisation of the Roman system, by this point the allies were producing Romanised units and in any case Southern Italy can't produce Roman units until after the reforms.

In Camillian and Polybian armies your Hastati, Equites etc represent citizens and Allies, the later "Romanised Province" doesn't work in the same way as Italian Latinisation.

Imperator: Our naming system is being overhauled completely in the next build. You may infact be correct, I cannot remember offhand.

[Zaknafien]

I was meaning to ask a quick question about that myself
-There is a character named Scipio Asina at the beginning- is this the same scipio who got the first roman navy captured by Carthaginians? I'm pretty sure it is, and I recall translating some passage that indicated he was named Asina AFTER this failure (so he shouldn't have it in 272) and he got it because of his naval incompetance. So are we sure that's what he should be called? I know its a nit-pick but I kinda specialize in roman history and noticed a tiny error- but who knows, I might be wrong

you're right, Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina was in fact the first roman admiral to be defeated in battle. The way the current naming system works, as far as I am aware, forces us to include Asina in his name at the beginning. However, with the new Roman ethnicities that are currently in work, he would indeed become Gnaeus Scipio, (Cornelli), and could recieve the cognomen Asina if the proper conditions were met. We'll see.

[Sheep]

you're right, Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina was in fact the first roman admiral to be defeated in battle.

Wasn't he the first Roman admiral, period?

[Zaknafien]

not precisely.

[Sheep]

Well my info on the man comes entirely from Wikipedia so that's not particularly surprising!

[Zaknafien]

look into roman naval activity around Tarentum prior to the pyrrhic wars

[Sheep]

I'll see if I can find something, thanks!

[Quilts]

Is there a thread pointing to the historical justification of the Romani starting cities? I also noticed that the government types of the cities we do get have gov1. For me it would make more sense to only have Roma, Capua and Arretium and maybe Api but I'm not to sure about that because Corfinium wasn't conquered until 268.... and for the gov types to be allied states minus Roma so we can provide a more realistic progression by destroying the type 4s and building up the gov buildings from there at historical dates. Most of Italy's cities ended up as allied states till about 90BC as it is...so it would make sense historically. Would this be a valid addition to EB2 to make Roma a little more historically correct?

Agree with Wolfshart on this one, except the territories. Outside of a few cities Rome had virtually complete domination of Italy, as represented, by 272BC. I just wish I could manage to model what Rome actually did and control Tarentum and Regium by the end of 270BC

As to the level of Romanisation, Campania could be heavily Romanised (Type 2 or even Type 1 at a stretch), with others being Lightly Romanised (Type 3)......with Rome Type 1 of course. These 'lesser' levels of government do not exclude the building of Factional MIC's (up to a certain level) so this shouldn't be viewed as a justification for not doing so.

Cheers,

Quilts

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Agree with Wolfshart on this one, except the territories. Outside of a few cities Rome had virtually complete domination of Italy, as represented, by 272BC. I just wish I could manage to model what Rome actually did and control Tarentum and Regium by the end of 270BC

As to the level of Romanisation, Campania could be heavily Romanised (Type 2 or even Type 1 at a stretch), with others being Lightly Romanised (Type 3)......with Rome Type 1 of course. These 'lesser' levels of government do not exclude the building of Factional MIC's (up to a certain level) so this shouldn't be viewed as a justification for not doing so.

Cheers,

Quilts

You are missing the point. At game start you need to think of type 1 as an Italian government because the main function of our government is to regulate what troops can be produced and "Roman" and "Italian" at this point meant roughly the same thing in terms of soldiers.

In order to represent this we give them type 1.

[Wolfshart]

Agree with Wolfshart on this one, except the territories. Outside of a few cities Rome had virtually complete domination of Italy, as represented, by 272BC. I just wish I could manage to model what Rome actually did and control Tarentum and Regium by the end of 270BC

As to the level of Romanisation, Campania could be heavily Romanised (Type 2 or even Type 1 at a stretch), with others being Lightly Romanised (Type 3)......with Rome Type 1 of course. These 'lesser' levels of government do not exclude the building of Factional MIC's (up to a certain level) so this shouldn't be viewed as a justification for not doing so.

Cheers,

Quilts

Hehe I bum rush Tarentum and take it the first year (272) and then rush to Rhegium and take it at (270) so it works for me as those are the correct dates. ;)

I agree however. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histo...ly_500_100.jpg
This map shows that as late as about 100BC Rome only directly controlled/colonized small portions of the peninsula while I can see Roma and Capua having type 1 govs I think type 3/4 would be more appropriate for Arretium, Arminium and Arpi. Why can't we start them out at that level and then upgrade from there? I only ever recruit from Capua or Roma anyway so I still don't see what it would hurt.

As far as good admiral Asina goes...he wasn't the first to be defeated as the fleet off Tarentum was as well and that’s what started the Wars with the Greek cities in the south. It does seem weird to have an admiral in control of land forces however. Why was he included?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Asina was appointed an Admiral but so was Aggripa at one point, ancient governments didn't have strict divisions between Army and Navy.

I am going to say this once more:

Technically the political situation warrents Type 4s everywhere outside Roma, for reasons of recruitment that is not appropriate.

[Maeran]

But how different to Rome would you say the Socii (allied, but apparently subservient Italian states) were? The Romans were Italians, so there's not much of a culture clash, which is mainly what the government types are about.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

It's a good question guys. But our recruitment system (making do the best as we can) does cause some issues.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But how different to Rome would you say the Socii (allied, but apparently subservient Italian states) were? The Romans were Italians, so there's not much of a culture clash, which is mainly what the government types are about.

You get a gold star for using the grey matter. Although there was some culture clash to the South with the non-Latins they all fought the same.

[Wolfshart]

It's a good question guys. But our recruitment system (making do the best as we can) does cause some issues.

Maybe I don't understand the recruitment system then...what issues does it cause? I feel like I'm being thick or just missing something then....as I understand it local MICs in Italy don't really do a thing for Romani but Capua and Roma can build all the factional troops so I don't see how it would hurt dropping the gov types to 3 or 4 in other cities. Your right that most troop types were similar in the Latin allied cites after a time but I was just talking about the start date of 272 were they still had unique local troops. I guess this stems from me playing by the books and only training troops in Roma and Capua until about the Marian reforms. There I go being thick again. ;)

[Foot]

Maybe I don't understand the recruitment system then...what issues does it cause? I feel like I'm being thick or just missing something then....as I understand it local MICs in Italy don't really do a thing for Romani but Capua and Roma can build all the factional troops so I don't see how it would hurt dropping the gov types to 3 or 4 in other cities. Your right that most troop types were similar in the Latin allied cites after a time but I was just talking about the start date of 272 were they still had unique local troops. I guess this stems from me playing by the books and only training troops in Roma and Capua until about the Marian reforms. There I go being thick again. ;)

Because 3 and particuarly 4 cannot build the factional mics to the correct level to recruit the troops that we would want them to.

Foot

[Wolfshart]

Because 3 and particuarly 4 cannot build the factional mics to the correct level to recruit the troops that we would want them to.

Foot

Ok gotcha. Like I said for me it wouldn't be an issue as I only ever recruit from Roma or Capua and play historically only following correct dates but I could see how it could hinder the blitz players out there. So I guess it comes down to game play over history.

[Foot]

Ok gotcha. Like I said for me it wouldn't be an issue as I only ever recruit from Roma or Capua and play historically only following correct dates but I could see how it could hinder the blitz players out there.

We are not pandering to the blitz players with this, the Romans sure recruited latin and italic troops from other cities than Roma and Capua. The only way we can represent this with the recruitment system we have is if those cities have gov1s or gov2s

Foot

[Wolfshart]

We are not pandering to the blitz players with this, the Romans sure recruited latin and italic troops from other cities than Roma and Capua. The only way we can represent this with the recruitment system we have is if those cities have gov1s or gov2s

Foot

Ok so it comes down to a conflict with scripting, unit slots, building slots and game play then? If so I guess that very little could be done and the most would be to reduce them to gov 2. Ohh well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok so it comes down to a conflict with scripting, unit slots, building slots and game play then? If so I guess that very little could be done and the most would be to reduce them to gov 2. Ohh well.

It's not about history over gameplay, it's about using the Engine to represent history the best way we can. The Romani are a special case and they are already given an unreasonable amount of attention compared to every other faction.

To be honest I find your insistance that we preference gameplay over history to be slightly offensive given our stated aims.

Our Roman troops also represent the Soccii, it's really that simple.

Recruiting from even Capua is probably a-historical if you just want "pure" Roman troops, only recruiting from Roma and Capua is a-historical if you follow the conventions EB uses.

[Quilts]

It's not about history over gameplay, it's about using the Engine to represent history the best way we can. The Romani are a special case and they are already given an unreasonable amount of attention compared to every other faction.

To be honest I find your insistance that we preference gameplay over history to be slightly offensive given our stated aims.

Our Roman troops also represent the Soccii, it's really that simple.

Recruiting from even Capua is probably a-historical if you just want "pure" Roman troops, only recruiting from Roma and Capua is a-historical if you follow the conventions EB uses.

I don't think Wolfshart suggested any such thing (gameplay over history), so don't get your knickers in a knot! It is clear to me that he has accepted the explanation, but still exhibits some disappointment.....which is fair enough.

Like myself it would appear that Wolfshart is a new member to these forums so may not be 'intimately knowledgable' about decisions that have been made for unavoidable reasons. However, what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to others.

The first time a booted up EB it seemed obvious to me that Roman troops must represent the Soccii/Latins as well. But just to clarify I asked the question in a PM to a member. The answer I got didn't answer the question. It left me more clueless than what I had been to start with. Now I know for certain, so thank you.

So please be patient with those who are 'not in the know' or haven't been around long enough to witness certain evolutions. They may actually have some ideas that get around some perceived obstacles, if they haven't walked away mumbling 'what a pack of beligerent !@#$%^&*'.....

Cheers,

Quilts

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Please don't lecture me. I realise that not everyone is entirely clued up on everything. However, it gets frustrating when you have to make the same point in every post in the same thread.

We work very hard, we are almost all academics or students working within a field related to our roles in EB. We know about the reality of ancient Rome and her relationship to the other Italian states at the start of the game.
Sometimes it feels like people role up, look over the mod, find something they don't think fits and assume we don't know what we're talking about. While I don't think that is really the case here it does become rather wearing in general.

[Wolfshart]

Please don't lecture me. I realise that not everyone is entirely clued up on everything. However, it gets frustrating when you have to make the same point in every post in the same thread.

He is not lecturing you...he is stating the obvious from an unbiased point of view. I don't know him from Adam yet he saw where I was coming from. Somehow I incited you to feel like I was attacking you or the mod and that is the farthest from the truth. This is a great mod and there is a hell of a lot of work that has been put into it. For that I am in the EB team members debt. If you look back in the thread you did not explain it as well as you may have thought to an outsider so I was still unsure of "why" it was that way.

We work very hard, we are almost all academics or students working within a field related to our roles in EB. We know about the reality of ancient Rome and her relationship to the other Italian states at the start of the game.
Sometimes it feels like people role up, look over the mod, find something they don't think fits and assume we don't know what we're talking about. While I don't think that is really the case here it does become rather wearing in general.

I never doubted the hard work the team members have put into the mod. Like I said I wasn't looking to unravel the fabric of the mod and find faults with it. It was just a question and maybe an observation for EB2. I wasn't aware of the limitations in representing recruitment choices. I'm not a moder and don't know anything past installing a mod and playing. That’s what I meant about game play over history. It wasn't a jab at you or the mod just my lack of knowledge concerning modding limitations. That is not your fault but I think there could have been more tact used rather then a knee jerk reaction to a perceived offense, especially directed at a new menber.

@Quilts: Thanks for seeing where I was coming from....

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Guys, we are looking at the situation. It was a good initial point to bring up - but we might not be able to do anything about it. We really are looking at the situation and thinking about it. We'll let you know if we can do anything.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wolfshart, I appreciate that you aren't actually attacking us but I did say several times that Roman troops also represented Allies, and if you look at your first post again perhaps you'll see how it can be missinterpreted.

Basically the lower the government the lower the factional MIC, our elite Allied units are contained in the higher level factional MICs, because they are factional troops. Also, the higher the government level the lower the regional MIC, so either way you'd end up with unrealistic recruitment, because you'd be badly hurt by either Romanising or by having Allied states.

To get around the problem we have the Italian Allies considered Roman for governmental processes.