Romani Starting Position

[Ignoramus]

I am another one of those players who like recreating history. I know that some people may think it's silly, but it adds immersion to the game for me. I feel really guilty if, as Rome, I conquer Germania, or go to the steppes. In fact, sometimes I have had to force myself to do something ahistorical just so I can enjoy the game(Otherwise I'd be waiting 20 years before I was supposed to begin another war).

[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.

[kalkwerk]

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.

Youre right, it doesnt work like Id want it to, because Im not playing against Hannibal or Phillip V themselves, but the AI.
I got 2 strategies to cope with this problem, although they cant really solve it:
1. I use the force diplomacy mod to a certain extent (making realistic peace/protectorates).
2. I dont have to keep the conquered lands after a war myself, but give them to the right factions or let them rebel.

But of course I cant expect EVERYTHING to run historical. Maybe you understand me better if we look at it this way.
The roman empire developed around the mediterannean. This had economical, cultural and logistic reasons which still are only partially modelled in EB (inventing the cultures from BI would still be great though). So I play with house rules which makes the same happen. The way the roman empire developed is generally no damn coincident like some people in here suggest. Although it was no necessity, it had reasons and the "playing historical" house rules help the player take them into account. Also its surely the much harder approach, and some people seek some rest of challenge for the roman faction.

[alatar]

I expand around the cost aswell for trade and easy of recruitments. But it's 200bc and I only have Arse, Epirdarmous (sp) Ippone and Carthage on the costs, and I will not go inland for a long time.

[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.

[Foot]

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.

And with the ability to decide recruiting abilities by culture in MTW2 Kingdoms we have ten thousand possibilities. I cannot wait!

Foot

[alatar]

I though the number of relgions was stuck as it is, but if it not then the possibites would be great, imagine no more MIC's just one baraks that recruits deifferent people depending on the culture!
So you could add local italien as a culture and rome couild lose the smite units when he gets to strong. Or Palahva could change from nomad to eastern.

It would be good.

[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

[Geoffrey S]

And with the ability to decide recruiting abilities by culture in MTW2 Kingdoms we have ten thousand possibilities. I cannot wait!

Foot

Does this mean the expansion pack will likely be required to run EB2, unlike the policy regarding expansions for RTW and EB?

[Foot]

Does this mean the expansion pack will likely be required to run EB2, unlike the policy regarding expansions for RTW and EB?

We don't know yet, it may be that some of the new features that we want to use will appear in parallel updates to the MTW2 exe as well as the Kingdoms exe (just like some of the BI features appeared in RTW 1.3 and 1.5). However there are certainly some features of Kingdoms that has really got us excited (permanent forts, anyone?), so it may be the case that Kingdoms will be required. We haven't made any decisions though.

Foot

[Sheep]

For the Teutonic campaign in Kingdoms, the Gamespot preview says that the Teutonic Order will be a playable faction without a family tree. How awesome would it be for the Romans to finally not have a family tree??

[Foot]

For the Teutonic campaign in Kingdoms, the Gamespot preview says that the Teutonic Order will be a playable faction without a family tree. How awesome would it be for the Romans to finally not have a family tree??

There is already that option in MTW2 as far as I am aware. We haven't tested it out yet, but yes, this would be awesome. Its almost as if CA created this option just for us.

Foot