Romani Starting Position

[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.

[Quilts]

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.

Tell you what. I'll try not to say things you consider 'lecturing' if you try not to draw inference on others use, or lack thereof, of 'the grey matter'. So let's build a bridge

Now, to the point. I have a vision .....where Rome (also very applicable to the Hellenics who colonised) seeds territories with Latin/Roman colonies which determines what level of Government/Troops can be built/recruited there. Simple enough on the face of it but it would obviously require the use of a building that may be needed for something else.....c'est la vie, but I can dream.

The pro's of building colonies- Higher government level access, better access to factional troops.

The con's of building colonies- Expensive to build, a reduced tax/trade income for every level (say, 20+%) to represent to lesser tax payed by citizens etc

That's the basics of it which I can't flesh out without knowing what limitations need to be worked within, whether those restictions are from the RTW engine or the system EB has adopted

Now for the ramble.....

Disclaimer- Everything from this point is outside the scope of EB purely because of the RTW system that is being used.....I think.....

This system would probably work best under a BI/M2TW system where religion could represent Culture, where if you installed too high a Government control you would experience ridiculous levels of unrest.

For instance, the highest level of 'government' would be Latin (where the chief 'religion' was Latin), followed by Italian (chief religion.....'Italian'), followed by.....say Greek (chief religion.....), and last would be a 'catch all' 'religion' government type for all those other cultures.

So if you installed a Latin Government, the chief 'religion' would be Latin. If 70% of the population were Italian this would cause high levels of unrest. So an Italian Government would be best.

However, over time the Latin influence may slowly take over (characters, colonies, some other specific buildings etc), and by keeping the Italian government you may experience.....unrest (ala Social Wars).

This would encourage the player to keep Romans in Rome, or at least fully Latinised areas, when not needed to fight wars as their 'culture' would slowly rub off on the territories they inhabit.

The motivation not to 'Romanise the world' would be the high level of tax/trade penalties paid (well not paid in reality) the higher up the government/colony ladder one climbed.

Does this all make sense?

Cheers,

Quilts

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, it does make sense.

We have had these ideas but we need building complexes to make them work and we don't have any free for the Romani, we already use two for recruitment as it is.

Various ideas have been put foward for religion, if and when it is used in EBII it will almost certainly stay religion. The tax penalty is an interesting idea but I would have thought a tax bonus would be more likely.

Finally, when this was put foward it was decided to limit it using the homeland and expansion resources, mainly because of the mechanics of colonisation. You would have a very hard time persuading Greeks to live in the Steppes, for example.

I have to say that personally I'm happy with the way we represent Roman recruitment and expansion. If anything it's too generous and we should contract the expansion regions.

Just a personnal note, I find it a little odd when people insist on playing "historically" you guys should really try a little more experementation.

We know how it happened in history, try something different.

[kalkwerk]

Just a personnal note, I find it a little odd when people insist on playing "historically" you guys should really try a little more experementation.

We know how it happened in history, try something different.

That would be world of warcraft.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I beg your pardon? I'm not Warcraft fan, so the reference doesn't make sense.

[alatar]

So you tell me that you play all your campians exactly as history had them? I can understand doing a Roman campian for it, but for the other ones it's impossible. As soon as the sun roes on the first day of 272 BC anything could happen.
So play Macedonia and recreate Alexanders Empire, and then fufill al his deams and concer the med.

Don't just sit around there waiting for the romans to destroy you.

[Quilts]

We have had these ideas but we need building complexes to make them work and we don't have any free for the Romani, we already use two for recruitment as it is.

I suspected as much. If I remember correctly you guys experienced some horrendous problems with 'barracks building' when you ported to 1.5.

So I may be way off track but must ask, would it be possible for the 'colony' itself to provide the troops, rather than a Factional MIC? So the colony is the factional MIC? Leaving the local MIC for auxiliaries?

Various ideas have been put foward for religion, if and when it is used in EBII it will almost certainly stay religion.

Really? I guess you have your reasons

The tax penalty is an interesting idea but I would have thought a tax bonus would be more likely.

Not really. The Romans themselves paid very little tax, as was the case with most citizens of any other city-state. Your obligation was to fight. I think tax of Romans was abolished in 177BC??? with the passing of some law. As a result the Italiots bore more and more of the tax burden. You still had to pay money to farm public land (tax?) and excise on trade (using the docks etc) but physical tax on income didn't really exist.

The Quaestors? dipping into their own pocket to fund the yearly games highlights that Rome didn't 'usually' have a very deep treasury.

It's wealth was manpower that had an obligation to fight, but even the minimal pay that legions eventually received prevented the Senate from using them when not necessary.

So the more 'Latins' you move into an area, the less revenue you receive.

Also, the Italian cities were 'self determining' outside of foreign policy for which they defered to Rome. They also had obligations to self fund troop levies when required, but still ran their own governments (so 'all' that money shouldn't go to Rome's coffers).

Finally, when this was put foward it was decided to limit it using the homeland and expansion resources, mainly because of the mechanics of colonisation. You would have a very hard time persuading Greeks to live in the Steppes, for example.

When I said expensive. I meant expensive

I have to say that personally I'm happy with the way we represent Roman recruitment and expansion. If anything it's too generous and we should contract the expansion regions.

I agree. Way too generous! But you could just let the player determine where he 'expands' with colonies.....when he has enough money that is (see below)

Another Disclaimer-This idea is for the player ONLY. Not the AI!
In my 'ultimate' vision you see, fielding a legion would be very quick (0-turn recruitment and minimal cost) but VERY expensive. Enough so that if in the early game you kept all 4 Urban Legions and Ala in the field for the year you would well exceed your yearly income and bankrupt yourself. So if you were fighting and conquering alot you would not have the funds for expanding your colonies.....but if you weren't you wouldn't have the space to expand into.

I hope this makes sense and doesn't just receive the 'black banned for mentioning 0-turn recruitment' response

Just a personnal note, I find it a little odd when people insist on playing "historically" you guys should really try a little more experementation.

We know how it happened in history, try something different.

That's exactly what I do. It's why I'd prefer (if it wasn't too easy) to play on Medium campaign difficulty. You can actually negotiate with the AI on that setting

But ultimately I want to be presented with the difficulties that Rome experienced. Why did Rome take 50 years of dominating the Greek region to actually make it a Roman 'possession'? Cultire and cost I'd suggest.

Why did Rome smash the Illyrian tribes but still take 100 years to make it a 'possession'? Culture and cost?

Cheers,

Quilts

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I suspected as much. If I remember correctly you guys experienced some horrendous problems with 'barracks building' when you ported to 1.5.

So I may be way off track but must ask, would it be possible for the 'colony' itself to provide the troops, rather than a Factional MIC? So the colony is the factional MIC? Leaving the local MIC for auxiliaries?

Then it doesn't work with reforms. Nice idea though.

Really? I guess you have your reasons

Yes, we do, the Romans and the Druids are a good example, though polytheism is by definition more permeable than mon-theism.

Not really. The Romans themselves paid very little tax, as was the case with most citizens of any other city-state. Your obligation was to fight. I think tax of Romans was abolished in 177BC??? with the passing of some law. As a result the Italiots bore more and more of the tax burden. You still had to pay money to farm public land (tax?) and excise on trade (using the docks etc) but physical tax on income didn't really exist.

The Quaestors? dipping into their own pocket to fund the yearly games highlights that Rome didn't 'usually' have a very deep treasury.

It's wealth was manpower that had an obligation to fight, but even the minimal pay that legions eventually received prevented the Senate from using them when not necessary.

So the more 'Latins' you move into an area, the less revenue you receive.

True, but the more Latins you move in the more trade in high value goods, the more commerce in general. Aditionally, the more wealthy people giving back to the community.

In ny case tax in general was low in Rome, around 5% in todays terms in Caesar's times.

Also, the Italian cities were 'self determining' outside of foreign policy for which they defered to Rome. They also had obligations to self fund troop levies when required, but still ran their own governments (so 'all' that money shouldn't go to Rome's coffers).

Also true, but the Romani faction doesn't represent Roma independantly, it has to take into account all her "Allies."

When I said expensive. I meant expensive

Let me put it another way. I don't think you could pay a Greek money to live in the Steppes.

Another Disclaimer

-This idea is for the player ONLY. Not the AI!
In my 'ultimate' vision you see, fielding a legion would be very quick (0-turn recruitment and minimal cost) but VERY expensive. Enough so that if in the early game you kept all 4 Urban Legions and Ala in the field for the year you would well exceed your yearly income and bankrupt yourself. So if you were fighting and conquering alot you would not have the funds for expanding your colonies.....but if you weren't you wouldn't have the space to expand into.

I hope this makes sense and doesn't just receive the 'black banned for mentioning 0-turn recruitment' response

We work with RTW the best we can, Roman Legions did spend years under arms and it didn't bankrupt Rome, so your system isn't really representative. Additionally, we can't have a different set of rules like that for the player

As to your final point: We try to represent the problems Rome, or any faction, really experienced. With that said, in both you examples Rome did not gain control of those areas because she lacked commitment. In Greece the Roman armies went in at the behest of Greeks and left once the job was done. Greece was finally annexed because the Senate got fed up.

[Quilts]

Then it doesn't work with reforms. Nice idea though.

Ok, that's a bugger. But see below about reforms.

Yes, we do, the Romans and the Druids are a good example, though polytheism is by definition more permeable than mon-theism.

No offence but I hope Foot wins the debate.

True, but the more Latins you move in the more trade in high value goods, the more commerce in general. Aditionally, the more wealthy people giving back to the community.

In ny case tax in general was low in Rome, around 5% in todays terms in Caesar's times.

Yep, so maybe income from Trade should get a boost.....or lose some of the previously imposed penalty that I thought it should have.

Let's face it, we're working with an 'income generating' system that in no way reflects how money was generated in the day. We are forced to make it fit our desires in the best manner possible.

In that light, all I'm suggesting is using that system to our advantage by making it undesireable for the player to expand 'Latin' culture too far because of the hit their finances will incur, at the expense of factional troops.

It's not necessarily historical, but it makes good use of the system at hand to prevent the player Romanising the world.

Also true, but the Romani faction doesn't represent Roma independantly, it has to take into account all her "Allies."

Absolutely. But if that money could be limited to enough to keep a few (1-2)units in the field and upgrade building every few years. rather than the 'I can now double my army size because I've captured a single province' epidemic. It would actually be more historical because that's what their commitment was. Surely that would be a good thing?

Let me put it another way. I don't think you could pay a Greek money to live in the Steppes.

You may be right. But they did get them to live on little island off the coast of Africa and other inhospitable places. Rome never made it to the steppes during the period they were using colonies as a means to 'control' the populace so it's hard to be so definative in my opinion.

We work with RTW the best we can, Roman Legions did spend years under arms and it didn't bankrupt Rome, so your system isn't really representative.

Yes, they certainly did. But more so towards the middle and end of our period.

What I'm suggesting is that at the start (with 5-7 Provinces) you would send Rome into bankruptcy by keeping 4 Legions and Alae in the field.....but as Rome grows and absorbs provinces your ability to do so increases, so by the time you have twice as many provinces (and the need to protect them) you may be able to actually keep all 4 in the field depending what decisions you'd made regarding government types, which effects income.

At some point the cost of keeping Legions in the field would be too much due to the need to upgrade provinces as your culture leaks into them (reducing income) and you would need to implement a reform.....the Marian reform (not dynamic but you have to have achieved certain things). This would make your troops cost plenty to create and plenty to keep in the field like troops in the game now, with 1 turn recruitment ala Cohorts Reformata.

So now your ability to 'police' your outer provinces/interests has improved as your maintenance costs have decreased, but you need money in the bank to create them in the first place.

I know alot of these things are impossible under the current build. A lot of my ramblings are 'what if's'

Additionally, we can't have a different set of rules like that for the player

There was some talk of exec.bat files that could 'alter' the game, depending on what faction you were playing, in the old RTR forum.

Don't know the ins-and-outs of such things but it sounded doable.

As to your final point: We try to represent the problems Rome, or any faction, really experienced. With that said, in both you examples Rome did not gain control of those areas because she lacked commitment. In Greece the Roman armies went in at the behest of Greeks and left once the job was done. Greece was finally annexed because the Senate got fed up.

I know, and you guys do a great job, and it is appreciated. Believe me when I say I wouldn't spend a minute doing what I am now if I hadn't been 'inspired' by the great work of people working on this Mod.

As to Rome's expansion to the East it was pure exasperation. As far as I can determine, all Rome wanted was for the Greeks to do their thing but listen to Rome when they made a statement.

Things played out in Greece as they always had (petty rivalries) and Rome finally had had enough.

But this displays a distinct lack of desire 'to get involved'. Why? They had several forays into the east to put down what they perceived as legitimate threats but always pulled out again.

We have no way to model this.....except to make it too expensive to garrison those provinces , so the player will leave.

Who knows, with committments in Spain etc, the cost may have been the actual motivation. Do you really know for certain? I certainly don't.

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

Various ideas have been put foward for religion, if and when it is used in EBII it will almost certainly stay religion.

Not if I have anything to do with it. It aint a done deal yet, and I will certainly fight for religion in EBII to represent culture!

Foot

[alatar]

What three cultures would you have?
Roman? Greek? Eastern?
Whaty about Semtic or Celtic?

Where as religion you can be nice and vauge enough, also I'll play the romans and let everyone whorship who they want.

[Zaknafien]

well i dont think we know the limit of # of religions possible. So, it is feasible we can have a specific 'culture' for each of our current cultures in game to match their geographic area. Then, by utilizing priest agents as 'tutors' or 'philosophers' or something, you can slowly spread your culture to areas you conquer, representing the slow hellenization of outlying areas.

I think this is what Foot is going for and I think its a great idea.