Romani Starting Position

[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.