Depicting Imperium in-game

[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

[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

Fair enough. Forgive me, but I don't think I'll ever get used to the concept of anyone wanting to play the Romani any other way than historically, and by that I don't mean historical expansion or anything along those lines. The symbiosis between their political and military systems is.....well, fascinating.

Yes, I would be hoping to substancially increase Consular availability. One a year would be desireable , with Praetors becoming available as their territory increases.

Regarding the morale penalty. In the system I'm envisioning, it would only occur when the army was outside Roman territory. Anybody could lead an army in Roman territory, to prevent undue advantage to the player when Consuls are far away, but I suspect your objection was far more general.....yes?

Also, to simulate the occasional 'Scipio Africanus/Pompey etc' there should also be a rare trait that gives some characters the ability to lead armies outside Roman Territories without penalty.

As an aside, the morale penalty only 'surfaced' when I was looking at how a system like this could be implemented on the RTW engine, as opposed to the MTW2 engine, where a loyalty penalty would be far more appropriate.

My next Question
Is there a limit to the number of characters (male, female and children) that can exist in a family tree at the start of the game?

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

Regarding the morale penalty. In the system I'm envisioning, it would only occur when the army was outside Roman territory. Anybody could lead an army in Roman territory, to prevent undue advantage to the player when Consuls are far away, but I suspect your objection was far more general.....yes?

No it is entirely this restriction, outside Roman territory. I have no problem with people playing this way, but in turn I have no problem with people not playing this way. The morale penalty really puts roman players in a bind if they want to play by the latter.

Also, to simulate the occasional 'Scipio Africanus/Pompey etc' there should also be a rare trait that gives some characters the ability to lead armies outside Roman Territories without penalty.

And here is a second objection, if the roman player does want to play how you do, with only consuls leading foreign invasions, but then finds that he wants to break this role, for roleplaying reasons, for a particular general, then this system again confines him. Basically this system confines people to a certain way of playing, yet does not boast any improvement, except for people who already play that way anyway.

My next Question
Is there a limit to the number of characters (male, female and children) that can exist in a family tree at the start of the game?

Cheers,

Quilts

Only by the number of names avaliable to faction (cannot duplicate names in descr_strat) as far as I am aware. The slave faction, for example, as loads!

Foot

[Quilts]

No it is entirely this restriction, outside Roman territory. I have no problem with people playing this way, but in turn I have no problem with people not playing this way. The morale penalty really puts roman players in a bind if they want to play by the latter.

True. As I thought. I wholeheartedly acknkowledge your objection.....but, personally, would say 'play another faction'

I'm sure there's a compromise, but I need to clarify my own whirling thoughts before I can get into that. It's getting late so will 'dream' about possibilities.

And here is a second objection, if the roman player does want to play how you do, with only consuls leading foreign invasions, but then finds that he wants to break this role, for roleplaying reasons, for a particular general, then this system again confines him. Basically this system confines people to a certain way of playing, yet does not boast any improvement, except for people who already play that way anyway.

That's a very good objection and one that Kalkwerk's suggestion could solve. A 'Scipio Africanus' (other name needed of course) ancilliary which could be given to a character to allow those abnormalities. Food for thought!

Only by the number of names avaliable to faction (cannot duplicate names in descr_strat) as far as I am aware. The slave faction, for example, as loads!

Great!

Thanks again. Have to hit the sack, but will mull over what I've learnt for future 'submissions'

Cheers,

Quilts

[Foot]

True. As I thought. I wholeheartedly acknkowledge your objection.....but, personally, would say 'play another faction'

Whilst I realise this is a joke, I really think that it is still unfair to expect others to either play your way or not play at all. Of course as a mini-mod for EB this would undoubtedly be well received. Perhaps as part of cunctator's mini-mod.

Foot

[Zaknafien]

Don't worry. The Roman political system is being overhauled and improved upon as we speak. I won't say more than that now, except that in the future you can expect to see Consulars as well as Consuls, provincial Praetors, and perhaps a Magister Peditum if we can get it to work correctly.



THe problem with your system is that as Consul the player only has 4 turns to prosecute his foreign war. In the RTW system it is often impossible to even transport your army to the field in 4 turns. The limitations of the game engine and all.

The problem we have with ancilliaries is that they can be moved around at will, and a player must actively not only understand their limitations but know how the cursus honorum works in order to properly award them. EB is meant to be educational, not require an education in the subject already.

[Quilts]

Whilst I realise this is a joke, I really think that it is still unfair to expect others to either play your way or not play at all. Of course as a mini-mod for EB this would undoubtedly be well received. Perhaps as part of cunctator's mini-mod.

Yes, definately a joke on this occasion. However I'm not asking them to play my way, nor your way, but the Roman way.

It's got potential to be a wonderful educational way to inform those who don't know about the ins-and-outs of the Republican system. There has been so much work put into EB to reflect historical occurences (auto wars for invading certain provinces etc) that I think it would be a real missed opportunity to not use this 'peculiarity' of the Republic (and Early Principate) to it's full advantage. But, c'est la vie! We'll agree to disagree.

Cheers,

Quilts