OOC Thread and Chatroom

[SwissBarbar]

Let's call them "Victis" - the defeated ones ^^

[/Bean\]

My god, Mini, what has gotten into you?

I'm not saying they can't call themselves what they want. I'm saying we should call them differently, to show our domination over them.

I really don't care what the real Romans views over protectorates and provinces were. I want to play BtSH, not reenact a real Roman world according to exaclty how they did it.

And 2-3 people pulling the strings? What the hell?

[mini]

don't get so worked up :p

I just find the name changing a silly and unneccesary piece of legislation.

And YOU may not care about Real Roman views are, but I do. So therefore I can choose to disagree with this if I want, and choose to fight this by normal debate in the curia.
That's the way of politics.

You don't have to throw a fit everytime someone disagrees. If you want, put it to the vote.
At this moment you -we- belong to the only house in the game, and we have the most active members (and since the house is basically 'ruled' by those 2-3 privileged few, you know where the comment came from.)

So basically you can get anything you want voted anyway. So dont let me stop you.
But if I choose to disagree with you on this, I can argue against it in the Curia and try to gather support to vote no for it..


Really nothign wrong with that, that's the game. Nothing personal really.

[everyone]

well it (Aquila Ascendtis charter/guidelines) doesn't matter in the Curia in this situation, since Norbanus is just another ToP, working with Quintus Aemilius (as long as that doesn't mean mini can have double ToP privelleges); and not part of the Aquila Ascendtis.

anyway, I think renaming them refers to how they would rename themselves, since they don't control Epirus. I remember someone (I think it's TPC) saying something in the EB forum recently (on a thread about pahlavs) that factions should be named according to their ruling dynasties, e.g. Ptolemaioi, Seleukeia; instead of the region they hail from, since ingame they power base may shift, or they may lose their homelands; so what bean(erz)/Cotta is suggesting here is probably changing the Epirote faction name into something like "Pyrrhic dynasty", or however it should be referred to in Greek.

[mini]

I fully understand what Bean is trying to say.
I just think it's silly and unnecessary.

But hey, if it polls enough votes i'll stick to it :)


The protectorate thingy however, I'll fight nail and tooth ;)

[/Bean\]

Sorry guys, I'm not worked up. I know you can't always tell just from text.

What I'm saying about the names is we can change them in the text files, so that when we see them, they attack us, the faction names, all that stuff, is shown as, not as Epirite, but another name, such as Thracians, Dacians, Epirite allies, that sort of thing. As part of the proud (and yes, vain and unfair) Roman victors refusal to acknowledge them as Epirites anymore, because the Epirites are defeated. ]

On my EB games I constantly change the names of the factions if they lose their homeland or an important part of their tribe/alliance. For example, I change the Maks to the Antigonids or somehting similar because they always lose Makedonia early and rarely reclaim it. If they do reclaim it, it becomes Makedonia again. If the Grey Death or Yellow Death happens, they can become Megalos Arche Seleukeia, or Arche Ptolemaios etc. It just keeps it fun and interactive.

[SwissBarbar]

I do that too, but don't change faction names in any files, but only role play them to be named otherwise.

[mini]

wont that create problems with save game compatibility... those files have to be changed at every participants PC, all newcomes have to do it too etc...
Makes things unncessary complicated.

[everyone]

I think what mini doesn't see here is that we're renaming the faction into a 'dynasty name'; which is still run by the same family/dynasty but in different lands. Norbanus' argument sounds as if he thinks we're renaming the region of Epirus/the refugees of Epirus or something similar to that.

[/Bean\]

Mini, will a picture help? I am not talking about calling the Epirites another name. They areny a faction anymore, because we have captured Epeiros. Its the former Epirite allies and subjigates that remain, albeit under mainly Epirite family and soldier rule and occupation, but that doesnt make them Epirites. Its just te game engine does not differentiate between homelands and conquests. If the faction Epeiros captures Thracian cities, they are called Epirite cities, which isnt my fault, but it doesnt make the Epirites. Do you understand now? Cos I'm getting bored of saying the same thing in the Curia.

@Everyone-Yay, someone understands!

EDIT: Yes it might do Mini, we don't need to change the text files. We just need to understand what we're talking about if in the future I say the Dacians have attacked us, and the stack is green (Epeiros). get it?

[mini]

So it will only be a name change RP-wise, no files need changing?

Anyway, I still think it's something that makes the game unnecessary complicated.
New people will have to dig to find the how&why the epeiros are to be called the Sesamestreet Maffia Crew from this point on etc..
You will have to constantly remind yourself not to talk about the Epeiros etc.. seriously, makes things much too complicated and bothersome if you ask me

But like I said: if people will actually vote on this, fine by me.


As on the protectorate, it has been cleared that the ingameprotectorate system is definately a nono.
The 'Forced Ally' solution is still something I deplore, though can accept.

As I see it, we either make it a province or make it a client-ruled kingdom (type IV).
As long as it doesn't become an ingame protectorate, i'm a bit happier :)

[The Celtic Viking]

EDIT: Yes it might do Mini, we don't need to change the text files. We just need to understand what we're talking about if in the future I say the Dacians have attacked us, and the stack is green (Epeiros). get it?

Mini has a good point, bean. I agree with him that this is just too complicated, and "Dacians" (just as well as "Thracians") might as well mean Getai, which is another misunderstanding if you say that. I will vote against it if it comes to that, and I will probably not follow it if it passes - not by choice, mind you. I wouldn't be able to keep track of such things.

[/Bean\]

Bah, fine. I agree it would be hard to follow if we dont officially change it, and we can't do that easily. I retract that one then.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

dear lord, we cant get anything done without atleast a page of insults and arguements.....

[mini]

That's the senate of rome right there :p

[/Bean\]

Isnt that the beauty of democracy?

EDIT: DAMN!

[mini]

SNAP!

[desert]

I'm glad cooler heads prevailed and Baen's hideous demoniac plot of eldritch horror from beyond time and space was scrapped.

[navarro951]

hey everyone, looking at cicero you know your close to getting triumph right? you now have the Carthaginian vanquisher trait.

[/Bean\]

I was going to suggest he got one in the Curia anyway, but then we had an intense conversation and I forgot to mention it. I'm still waiting for mine though

[mini]

wait until thereforms kick in, you can quick vote it ;)


Anyway, maybe we should distinct between an ovation (votable) and a triumph (has to be awarded ingame)
Just a suggestion.

I hope you know the historical difference between the two.

[/Bean\]

Yes, but no matter however easy it was in-game, I don't think conquering Illyria and Epirus is cause for some people standing and clapping.

[mini]

But as you say: the ingame thing is much harder to reach.
Therefore maybe we should make a distinction between both :)

Just a suggestion..

[everyone]

hey everyone, looking at cicero you know your close to getting triumph right? you now have the Carthaginian vanquisher trait.

I was going to suggest he got one in the Curia anyway, but then we had an intense conversation and I forgot to mention it. I'm still waiting for mine though

I know, it's reflected in my SOT; I'm just hoping that the Carthaginians would allow me to defeat them once more in battle; so that I could get the Triumphator trait. because I tried doing that in the savegame when I was bored; I spawned a halfstack, defeated it with the consular legion; and behold, Cicero received the "prospective triumphator" trait.
since 1.1 it's been rather easy to get the triumphator trait; when I was playing Rome in 0.8, in a campaign of 70 years (lost because of persistent CTDs), only 1 character has attained a triumph, and I blitzed, so by then I already had Gaul, Iberia, a chunk of Greece, and another larger chunk of Africa.

[mini]

Erm

Did you spawn a halfstack on your own account, just to get this trait?

[everyone]

no, Cicero got the "vanquisher of carthaginians" from the 3/4 (or so) stack that attacked me a few turns ago; and he has yet to gain the triumphator trait
what I'm saying is that I wanted to see how many more battles I needed to get the "triumphator" trait. and it seemed only one did, after I tested so on a savegame and played but is not in use.
(so it has become a "private" savegame, which is not in use in the main game, and it's on my hard disk, and nobody else is using it; which means I've done nothing via console to aid my character in the real game itself)

[mini]

alrighty

[Iskander 3.1]

Though spawning a half-stack here and there wouldn't be a bad idea, to keep us on our toes.

[/Bean\]

That shuld be solely Navarro's job; anyone else is at too much risk of personal gain

[Iskander 3.1]

Well yeah, I figured it would be up to him, I'm just suggesting...