Depiction of imperial reforms

[keravnos]

The Imperial reforms have no actual historical basis? I'm very confused.

The imperial reforms were done after the empire was actually done, and for the explicit purpose of creating a "professional" force with standard armament that could fight any/all of Roma's enemies, with the aid of local auxilliaries (which were sometimes as many or even double the size of Romani professional trooops). The auxilliaries were mainly skirmishers/archers and deffinitely cavalry.

I said it before I will say it again, however many times I will have to. Imperial reforms and the soldiers that these will bring you are actually the MOST ACCURATE units that EB has, for the exact reason that they are the most documented. "Golden eras" tend to have a lot of people talking/writing about them, and Octavianus Augustus and Perikles had that thing in common. Too many things are known of their time, in contrast to previous or later ones.

I do believe they were "upped" up historically, as much as they could have been without distorting history. Any higher up, and you might as well give the Romani tanks and rockets, because Imperial units at the beginning of EB timeline, might have had guns and ammo. YES, they were that good! YES, they could fight any/all enemies of Roma at the time. And if you know them of one defeat at Teutoburg forest, then you forget 100 victories which aren't as well documented as their one defeat.

In fact, I must say that it isn't EB you should be worried about, (we really DON'T NEED the unit space that IMPERIAL REFORMS take), it is the fact that most people can't persevere long enough to have them. While I understand the "urge" to move on to another faction, put it plainly, if they can't wait for the Imperial reforms for the Romani, well people may very well not need them, BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN, WERE UBERCOOL, AND IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE TIME TO HAVE THEM, THEN YOU PROBABLY NEEDN'T HAVE JOINED THE ROMANI.

Yes, I am mad, and I am one of those people who have spent a lot of time double/triple checking some trivial facts for many units, some of them you will not see. I understand firsthand the actual pain the Romani crew went to verify if the Pugio was 8.7 or 8.6 cm's long at the beginning of the Imperial time.

Some of you may consider me a UBER ROMANI FAN. I don't think so. In fact when I was younger I hated them with a passion, having seen first hand the amount of devastation that Epiros suffered in 167 BCE (In 3 different archaeological sites in Epeiros). 10 nuclear bombs would have left more survivors in Epiros then the Romani did. But that doesn't change the fact that they were the best army of their time. (And that was prior to Imperial reforms). Post them, they were basically invincible.

This is what the Imperial reforms are all about. Historically "cheating". Having some troops so good that you can basically throw them at anyone/anything and not worry. Is that bad? No, you persevered through Roarri and hastati for a long tome. Is it ahistorical? Hell no, this is JUST how it happened. Should it happen earlier? Well if it does, I think we at EB can give the Romani assault rifles and Cevlar because those two will have less of an influence on the Romani devellopment than Imperial legionnaires at 272 BCE.

Thanks for reading thus far.

[Foot]

That has never been the argument here, neither that the imperial reforms make the romans too hard nor that they are unhistorical. The question is neither whether the units have had a lot of work put into them, nor whether the reforms a "ubercool". The question is entirely, given the limitations of RTW with regards to resources, and given the imperial reforms use of a few of those resources are the arguments for the inclusion of the imperial reforms strong enough to overcome the need to better represent many areas at the start of our timeframe?

There is no question that the height of the Roman Empire is one of the best documented periods of our historical timeperiod, but this fact does, in my opinion, does not strengthen the argument, to any degree, for the inclusion of the imperial reforms. If we were to take this argument to its absurd conclusion, namely that those factions and areas of the mod with the most historical evidence get the most resources, then factions such as the Sweboz, Hayasadan, Saba and the like would be left with very few troops indeed. In fact, counting from the direct evidence, both archaelogical and textual I would only be happy with a light cavalry unit, a heavy, armoured cavalry unit and one unit of spearmen. Whether or not the imperial age of the Roman empire is well documented or not is neither here nor there when it comes to the question at hand, namely "given the limitations of RTW with regards to resources, and given the imperial reforms use of a few of those resources are the arguments for the inclusion of the imperial reforms strong enough to overcome the need to better represent many areas at the start of our timeframe?"

Perhaps listing the arguments for and against the inclusion of the imperial reforms would be a good way to go. Oh, and we are short on unit slots so to free up some more, especially given that Romans are not even close to being under-represented, is a legitimate enquiry. So far all I have seen for the "pro Imperial Reform" posters have been fanboy posts, with a slight hint that to denounce the Imperial Reforms is some sort of blasphemy.

Foot

[keravnos]

I completely understand that "blasphemy" you speak of but the answer here is "Please CA, give us more unit slots" rather than "chop off what we have so that we may plan for tomorrow".

Besides, it isn't set in stone that M2TW should absolutely/positively have 500 units top, or is there?

This way, both the factions that feel left out, will be completed and the Romani will keep their magnificent war machine.

[Foot]

I completely understand that "blasphemy" you speak of but the answer here is "Please CA, give us more unit slots" rather than "chop off what we have so that we may plan for tomorrow".

Besides, it isn't set in stone that M2TW should absolutely/positively have 500 units top, or is there?

This way, both the factions that feel left out, will be completed and the Romani will keep their magnificent war machine.

That is not an answer, that is evading the question. Let me give an example:

A hospital in a poor nation at war does not have enough medical supplies for the wounded in its care. What is the best way, given that there is a limited number of supplies, to ration them out to the wounded. Your answer, it would seem to me, is to pray to God for some more medical supplies. Well let us work on the premise that no miracles will be occurring to solve our problem. Do we hand them out on a first come first served basis? Do we hand them out on the basis of who needs the most care? Do we hand them out on the basis of a utilitarian principle, so that we use the supplies to help the most number of people?

Your answer is about as much use to us in this situation as some doctor in that hospital praying to God for more medical supplies. Lets do the best we can with what we have.

Also this discussion is about EB1 not EB2. We can be relatively certain that RTW won't be having any of its hardcodes lifted or increased, but we still need to make a decision, not for the franchise, but for this particular version of the mod that is made for RTW and RTW's hardcoded restrictions.

Finally, in the highly unlikely event that MTW2 does get more than 500 units slots, then we can open up the question of how to spend them, but lets first answer the question with the materials and supplies we have at hand. There are 500 unit slots in total and 255 model slots, are the inclusion of the imperial reforms really the best way of utilising these meagre resources for the betterment of EB as a whole. I say no, and I have still to see any strong arguments from the "yes" side.

Foot

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Hmmm, here my brief opinion:

I'm not a fanboy, and I say, keep the reforms.

Since I watched Gladiator, I was a big fan of the Romans. But with reading Tom Holland's Rubicon. The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic, this opinion changed, and it changed even more with playing EB. I'm just not that fan anymore, seeing what great civilizations, kingdoms, dynasties were annihilated by the glory-seeking juggernaut from the Tiber river.

So I'm even a bit anti-Roman, but I say let's keep the reforms in place. Why? Because of the same reason that Lorica segmentata won't be included: It wouldn't be historical to let the IRs out. The IRs are the logical consequence of the evolution of the Roman state from an italic power to a global superpower, with all it's internal struggles and the final change from a republic to despotism. The Roman res publica just couldn't function anymore, because the glory and power (basically all a republican Roman ever seeked) that could be achieved by a single person was so gigantic that the res publica was inevitably to collapse.

Bearing that in mind, we see that the collapse of the res publica is the consequence of the player reaching near the victory conditions. The victory conditions for the Romans are well known, they can be summarized "conquer the known world". So the Imperial reforms are not only logical, but also a reward for the player who achieved such and spent such a great amount of time.

So please keep the Imperial reforms.

[Foot]

So I'm even a bit anti-Roman, but I say let's keep the reforms in place. Why? Because of the same reason that Lorica segmentata won't be included: It wouldn't be historical to let the IRs out. The IRs are the logical consequence of the evolution of the Roman state from an italic power to a global superpower, with all it's internal struggles and the final change from a republic to despotism. The Roman res publica just couldn't function anymore, because the glory and power (basically all a republican Roman ever seeked) that could be achieved by a single person was so gigantic that the res publica was inevitably to collapse.

Your argument is that it would be unhistorical for the Imperial Reforms to be left out. But then we could apply that argument to many other things that have been left out from EB due to hardcoded restraitants; provinces and cities, units, ships, factions, buildings, etc. The list is endless of what we chose not to include, we would have loved to but we had to make hard decisions and leave some areas out. If you apply that argumnent to the Imperial Reforms, then you must allow me to apply it to other areas as well - and so we meet an impasse. If you respond, that the difference is that the Imperial Reforms are already in the game, then I have to say that that is not response at all. We have made changes to things in game far more radical than this because our priorities changed, or situations changed. That the Imperial Reforms are already in game has no weight in the argument of whether it is justifiable for them to be included or not. On the matter of whether we can be bothered to put in the effort ... well that is another matter entirely.

Furthermore, I would certainly not suggest that the player could not make one of his Family Members into an emperor, you are right that this is an important point in roman history, but does it follow that they would require a number of new units to follow. Could not the units that were made avaliable from the Marian Reforms be used just as well in place of an almost completely new line-up of roman infantry and cavalry. And if not, then I would still question the necessity of the Imperial Reforms. If the requirement for making a roman senator "emperor" was that we need to keep the Imperial Units then I would have to say scrap the Imperial Reforms altogether and use those unit and model slots for the benefit of some neglected region or faction. The Romans have more units and models than many other factions put together, most of which they don't share amongst their fellows, I say that this no more should be spent on them and that the Imperial Reforms are a step to far, whose resources are better spent elsewhere.

Foot