Quote Originally Posted by Foot
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