Depicting Imperium in-game

[Foot]

Hi,

Had some thoughts about depicting the concept of 'Imperium' for the Romani.

'Generally', during the Republic, power was only invested in Consuls to wage wars, but more relevant to my ideas/thoughts, wars in foreign lands. This system began to break down towards the Mid-Late Rebublic for numerous reasons, which can also be taken into account, but I'll stick with the main question to start with. So-

Is it possible, through traiting, to give some feel for this uniquely Roman concept (Imperium) by limiting foreign wars to Consuls, so that if your not a Consul, and in a non-Romani controlled territory, you incur severe penalties to your personal traits/morale (or for EB2, all of the above plus lowered loyalty ).

This would encourage players to only use Consuls for foreign conquests and the AI could get one of those hidden traits that give them more command stars.....maybe?

So before I go any further, can someone with good traiting know-how please answer this question. Much appreciated!

Cheers,

Quilts

Yes that would be possible, but I can think of two objections. Firstly, it is really really restrictive on how a player plays the game, roleplaying would be far better. Secondly, the roman family tree does not represent all possible roman men, and it is often the case that a player won't have consuls for some number of years. Obviously that doesn't mean that there are no consuls, but essentially Rome would not be able to wage forum wars.

Foot

[Quilts]

Yes that would be possible, but I can think of two objections. Firstly, it is really really restrictive on how a player plays the game, roleplaying would be far better. Secondly, the roman family tree does not represent all possible roman men, and it is often the case that a player won't have consuls for some number of years. Obviously that doesn't mean that there are no consuls, but essentially Rome would not be able to wage forum wars.

Foot

I hear what your saying about the family tree and completely agree. I see a way around that.....but will keep it to myself for now.

Funny, just before posting I was thinking about typing a 'family tree caveat' as a P.S. and thought 'nah, I'll cover that if it comes up'. First reply.....who would have thought.....

Don't agree on the 'restrictive' aspect. If anything, I think it would encourage roleplaying. The replacement of Consuls whose Imperium was not extended (spoiler?????) was a HUGE aspect of 'The Republican Way' and should be encouraged, rather than ignored as inconvenient. But I'll get into the nitty gritty as I expand on my thoughts in later posts.

Thanks for the answer!

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

But you must remember that not everyone plays the same way that you do, and in giving this trait you are forcing them to. I see no reason why roleplaying this aspect of the imperium would not be suitable, as all this is doing is making the player want to use the consuls in foreign wars, which we do already, if that player is so inclined. As far as I can see this adds nothing, except alienates certain players who don't want to roleplay to the same extent as others.

Foot

[Quilts]

But you must remember that not everyone plays the same way that you do, and in giving this trait you are forcing them to. I see no reason why roleplaying this aspect of the imperium would not be suitable, as all this is doing is making the player want to use the consuls in foreign wars, which we do already, if that player is so inclined. As far as I can see this adds nothing, except alienates certain players who don't want to roleplay to the same extent as others.

Foot

I see where your coming from, but differ in my 'conclusion' in that I fail to see what a 'history mod' fails to gain from having the faction played 'somewhat' historically.

Your failure to see what this may add may be because all you've seen is the general shape, but not the detail.....which I will get into in time.

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

I see where your coming from, but differ in my 'conclusion' in that I fail to see what a 'history mod' fails to gain from having the faction played 'somewhat' historically.

Your failure to see what this may add may be because all you've seen is the general shape, but not the detail.....which I will get into in time.

Cheers,

Quilts

I don't think you've really met my objection. If someone wants to play so that the consul can only be used in foreign wars then that mechanism is already there; we give certain generals the consul traits and the player chooses that general to lead the army into foreign wars.

What you are suggesting, and unless your further detail changes this substantially, is to restrict all players so that they must essentially only use the consul to conduct foreign wars, even if those players don't want. That has never once been our project goal. Our game is a sandbox, we give the initial start positions, and try to put some interesting mid-game stuff in as well (eg reforms), but we have never wanted to restrict how a player plays the game.

However, I am ready to listen, so please do go into this in more detail. I'm sure the roman guys will be very interested.

Foot

[kalkwerk]

Wouldnt it be nice to have consul as an ancilliary so you can choose who is consul?

[Quilts]

I don't think you've really met my objection. If someone wants to play so that the consul can only be used in foreign wars then that mechanism is already there; we give certain generals the consul traits and the player chooses that general to lead the army into foreign wars.

What you are suggesting, and unless your further detail changes this substantially, is to restrict all players so that they must essentially only use the consul to conduct foreign wars, even if those players don't want. That has never once been our project goal. Our game is a sandbox, we give the initial start positions, and try to put some interesting mid-game stuff in as well (eg reforms), but we have never wanted to restrict how a player plays the game.

However, I am ready to listen, so please do go into this in more detail. I'm sure the roman guys will be very interested.

Foot

That may be because I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. I'm merely suggesting that 'when in Rome, do as the Romans did'. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of EB members there are many other factions with which to play if one finds their historical political/military system too restrictive.

The current in-game Consuls arrive so rarely that if anything they inhibit roleplaying in the manner you describe. Using that system your armies will very very rarely be lead by characters, because they very rarely get the Consul trait with which to roleplay.

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

That may be because I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. I'm merely suggesting that 'when in Rome, do as the Romans did'. Thanks to the hard work and dedication of EB members there are many other factions with which to play if one finds their historical political/military system too restrictive.

The current in-game Consuls arrive so rarely that if anything they inhibit roleplaying in the manner you describe. Using that system your armies will very very rarely be lead by characters, because they very rarely get the Consul trait with which to roleplay.

Cheers,

Quilts

I have no objection to the idea at all, as long as it is a choice of the player to use it. If we were to include it in an official EB release, some players would feel unduly restricted if they could only lead armies with a consul character - some people just don't want to play like that.

If your idea is to increase consul avaliability then we would gladly like to hear your plan, but I certainly would not want a moral penalty to armies if I lead them with a non-consul character. Thats all I'm saying.

Foot