Romani Starting Position

[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.

[kalkwerk]

What I meant to say is that a lot of players have their joy recreating history, not only in this game, but in other strategic games like those from paradox too. Its an atmosphere thing, I guess. Thats also the main reason I always tend to play the romani or pahlava, because with the other factions you really cant do this. I could never play carthage and conquering Italy - because Hannibal didnt, it just wouldnt feel right lol. Cant explain it better than that, but I guess the people who are hooked on playing historically understand what I mean.

[Thaatu]

I could never play carthage and conquering Italy - because Hannibal didnt, it just wouldnt feel right lol. Cant explain it better than that, but I guess the people who are hooked on playing historically understand what I mean.

I have the same disease. In my Seleukid campaign I'm so po'd at my king, because historically he died in 246BC, if I remember correctly, and I just can't get him to die realistically. Now it's 238BC and I feel lost... And this is not a joke.

[Ower]

but he asked about what has WoW have with his post. Wich intereses me as well.

[shlin28]

I think that he said that because in WOW everything focuses on you, and so the player could save the world a dozen times and even change history (sort of) by going back in time.

And because none of the things the player does in Wow actually counts in the actual story.

[kalkwerk]

but he asked about what has WoW have with his post. Wich intereses me as well.

WoW is a online fantasy RPG-game and I used is as a maybe not very convincing metapher for what it would mean to me not playing historically - it would have nothing to do with tw-gaming anymore.

[Ower]

WoW is a online fantasy RPG-game and I used is as a maybe not very convincing metapher for what it would mean to me not playing historically - it would have nothing to do with tw-gaming anymore.

Why? Tw gaiming, is not about playing historically, iz is about what when? history, and original TW games, not eaven that, as we all know about their acurracy. EB as well is not about playing historically, but abaut ok I have how it was in this point of history,(well as much as the engine allows), so wath if I was ... and would do ... .

[kalkwerk]

So you see we have different opinions about whats fun with this game.

[Wolfshart]

Why? Tw gaiming, is not about playing historically, iz is about what when? history, and original TW games, not eaven that, as we all know about their acurracy. EB as well is not about playing historically, but abaut ok I have how it was in this point of history,(well as much as the engine allows), so wath if I was ... and would do ... .

I disagree...for me it is way more challenging to try and follow the history to the letter then just to blitz everthing and be done 200 years early. Admittedly this whole War Craft thing is way off topic so I will not comment.

[Ower]

I didn't say, that your way is not fun, or anithing like that. I said TW/gaming is not about playing historicaly, it's not the base of the games, that dosn't mean you can't try, and that it's chalenging or funn. But I think, that if you stick only to this part, you miss the greather part of this lovely game.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Guys, I hate to say this but this obsession with playing on the rails I find a little sad (not sad pathetic, just sad.)

I mean we give you all these options, all that map space and all you want to do is re-create exactly what happened? That's like living your life to a script and just going through the motions.

I couldn't do that in this game, for one thing I don't hold a timeline in my head of what happened, so I'd have to keep looking things up to see what I needed to do next.

Please, do this for me. Pick a faction you know nothing about and go fight another faction you know nothing about.

I'm sorry is this post sounds offish but I'm genuinely flabbagasted, I cannot fathom your thought process at all.

[Wolfshart]

Guys, I hate to say this but this obsession with playing on the rails I find a little sad (not sad pathetic, just sad.)

I mean we give you all these options, all that map space and all you want to do is re-create exactly what happened? That's like living your life to a script and just going through the motions.

I couldn't do that in this game, for one thing I don't hold a timeline in my head of what happened, so I'd have to keep looking things up to see what I needed to do next.

Please, do this for me. Pick a faction you know nothing about and go fight another faction you know nothing about.

I'm sorry is this post sounds offish but I'm genuinely flabbagasted, I cannot fathom your thought process at all.

I only ever play to the strict historical timeline when playing Romani. I have a couple other campaigns playing Mac and Sweboz where I am just trying to take over the world history be damned. I just find playing Romani with house rules and historically adds more spice to the campaign. It is hard to have to hold yourself back for years at a time and only haveing historical armies and roll playing the Gov/Gens to historic house rules. For me it just adds a little bit of interest and hell I'm learning alot in the process too. :) So I don't see how I'm missing out on anything. Its a great mod and great fun either way you play it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well ultimately whatever floats your boat but for myself I prefer to roleplay the Romani as they would have acted in the situations thrown up by the campaign.

It is, for example, horrifically un-Roman to break your alliance with Carthage, just because that happened in reality, without provocation.

[kalkwerk]

I couldn't do that in this game, for one thing I don't hold a timeline in my head of what happened, so I'd have to keep looking things up to see what I needed to do next.

Well my problem is I have that timeline in my head and have been attached to that timeline stuying historical maps and reading roman history since I was a small boy. It would be to break with what I am and where I come from NOT to play historically as the romani lol. If I get time Ill make an AAR for my next roman campaign and maybe you will see that this type of gaming contains a lot of love to detail in the work you have done with this mod.

That said I agree that for the other factions a historical approach doesnt make much sense.

[Ower]

My opinion is, that historical aprouch is funn, but sometimes I just have a urge for a change. Playing What if historz, dosn't mean bliy everithing. I just wan to know sometimes what can i pull out of the faction. So I play slow and don't think about historicity, whit pahlava or rome, but how the game and rpg comes. So I end up like in me curent Pahlava campain, I fend off seleucid heavy elit armies, whit only 2-3 parthian HA, 1-2FM, 3-4 archers and 2-3 slingers, and it's quit exhausting, to manage all thous missails, and protecting them from enemz cavalery and so .. but in the end revarding, when you teke dow a seleucid full stack of archers slinger elite and medium phalanx

[Boyar Son]

What I meant to say is that a lot of players have their joy recreating history, not only in this game, but in other strategic games like those from paradox too. Its an atmosphere thing, I guess. Thats also the main reason I always tend to play the romani or pahlava, because with the other factions you really cant do this. I could never play carthage and conquering Italy - because Hannibal didnt, it just wouldnt feel right lol. Cant explain it better than that, but I guess the people who are hooked on playing historically understand what I mean.

Lol I do the samething!

I'ts just not right to me when the Roman conquer Germania.....

[Ower]

Lol I do the samething!
I'ts just not right to me when the Roman conquer Germania.....

why not? You don't have Varus, so what if Teutonberg forest, would not hapen? It's not totaly ahistoricall, it's just the main motor of sience: the question What if?
You just search in the means of the engine, what would hapen, if something did'n hapen and something other did. How would the Roman Empire look like then?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well my problem is I have that timeline in my head and have been attached to that timeline stuying historical maps and reading roman history since I was a small boy. It would be to break with what I am and where I come from NOT to play historically as the romani lol. If I get time Ill make an AAR for my next roman campaign and maybe you will see that this type of gaming contains a lot of love to detail in the work you have done with this mod.

That said I agree that for the other factions a historical approach doesnt make much sense.

Ok, what if Makedonia lands in Italy? What do you do when the AI refuses to act historically? What if Makedonia asks for an Alliance and the Ptolomaoi prosecte a vicious war against you?

Do you ignore the masters of Egypt and, in a very unRoman way, persecute the Highlanders?

I see what you're saying but I don't see how it can possibly work in EB.

[alatar]

Exactly, I was playing slowly, but the Avreni were wiping Aediu off the map and the sweboz, so a sent a couple of legions in, giving away the provinces to the other side to keep the game lasting. Palahava had a money boost from me, but the Sabens Ptolmies and Pontos were destroyed by the AS while the Mac's were over running greece and touching the baltic...
So I sent a legion in the help the KH and Getai, then retreated, but the KH attacked me, so I am going to have to burn Sparta, Athens and Corinth to the ground

And I am staying out of spain as the Lustions have united most of the island and are ighting my Galic enemies. Carthage betreyed me so I took the city and the north afrcan coast (2 provinces). Nice and slow, no blitzine, I have 3 citiesmore out side italy, and there are almost no rebel cities left. Time to expand? 224 bc?

[Wolfshart]

Ok, what if Makedonia lands in Italy? What do you do when the AI refuses to act historically? What if Makedonia asks for an Alliance and the Ptolomaoi prosecte a vicious war against you?

Do you ignore the masters of Egypt and, in a very unRoman way, persecute the Highlanders?

I see what you're saying but I don't see how it can possibly work in EB.

I agree that sometimes the AI really screws things up for us that want to play historically. It usually takes playing power broker i.e. bribing settlements/armies and gifting/disbanding. It can be a pain but sometimes you just have to force the hand of the AI. It does take you out of the immersive play (but not always as Rome was a power broker in their own right) just for a minute till you get everyone back to where they need to be. It takes a lot of patience but that’s part of the challenge. I may work on an AAR up that follows history as close as possible with exact dates/actions and such...that is what I'm looking forward to.

[alatar]

I agree that sometimes the AI really screws things up for us that want to play historically. It usually takes playing power broker i.e. bribing settlements/armies and gifting/disbanding. It can be a pain but sometimes you just have to force the hand of the AI. It does take you out of the immersive play but just for a minute till you get everyone back to where they need to be. It takes a lot of patience but that’s part of the challenge. I may work on an AAR up that follows history as close as possible with exact dates/actions and such...that is what I'm looking forward to.

I rember rreading one like that, it was in a history book

Just play like the romans, not exactly as they did it but how you think they would react to how the ai expands.

[Wolfshart]

I rember rreading one like that, it was in a history book

Just play like the romans, not exactly as they did it but how you think they would react to how the ai expands.

I have done that too many times before....this time it will be a REAL challenge!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree that sometimes the AI really screws things up for us that want to play historically. It usually takes playing power broker i.e. bribing settlements/armies and gifting/disbanding. It can be a pain but sometimes you just have to force the hand of the AI. It does take you out of the immersive play (but not always as Rome was a power broker in their own right) just for a minute till you get everyone back to where they need to be. It takes a lot of patience but that’s part of the challenge. I may work on an AAR up that follows history as close as possible with exact dates/actions and such...that is what I'm looking forward to.

Well sorry to say that sounds really boring.

Still, if it's what you want to do.

Personnally I take great pleasure in destroying Rome.

[alatar]

The trouble is the Pathians will stagnate in the east, or the sweboz will concer the steppes.
To much hard work to keep them inline exactly.

[Wolfshart]

The trouble is the Pathians will stagnate in the east, or the sweboz will concer the steppes.
To much hard work to keep them inline exactly.

Thats the point! I have been playing TW titles since STW came out and I find this a nice change of pace.

[alatar]

STW was good as everyone had essential the same troops so you were fighting your equals, unfortunally the AI was afwull