rome doesn't feel 'Roman'

[unmerged(63589)]

Not quite. The levy model that most ancient and classical civilizations used was based on the idea that everyone drafted into the military would supply his own military gear - which means that a person's function in the military was dictated by his social status and wealth.

This means that heavily armed troops were almost exclusively drafted from the middleclass and above (depending on how affordable these heavy arms were, of course). A professionalisation of the army would open that military function to people of lower status.

What limited the professionalisation of armies was that this was, of course, a horrendously expensive endeavour. Few premodern armies could afford to maintain more than only a small core of professionals in this way.

Yes, although the poorer class was levied as Velites, light infantry with what equipment they could afford - usually just a dagger (or gladius) and a few javelins. The reforms opened the even more lower classes up for recruiting, and in antiquity there's always a lower class

But yeah, I do see your point and it could be implemented that way also. I was originally thinking more of both pros and cons to consider when choosing such a National Idea. What would be cons of Professional Army that way?

 

[von Sachsen]

As for diplo-annexing, the best way is by event. I have two ideas:
1) If a tributary state has good relations and has been paying tribute for a long time (lets say 30 years) there would be a decent chance for an event to pop up asking if the player wishes to assume control of the country.

2) Similar to 1, but before annexation a majority of the nobles of the tributary need to have been romanizied, hellenized, punicized ect Trade routes would speed up this proccess to simulate the exchange of ideas and luxury goods

In addition to both of these, a condition could be added that would be required that the tribute state have some sort of major disturbance, be it civil war, chronic bankruptcy and so on. This would give the other nation the excuse to come in administrate, effectivly bringing the tribute state into the empire, be it Roman, Hellenic, Punic or otherwise.

 

[Tomdidiot]

Alexander fielded on his trip quite a few mercenaries and other greek allies, and Philip's professional core of the Macedonian army was few in numbers with most of the forces drawn milita for the campaigns, as usual.

The heart of Alexander's army was his phalanx and the Macedonian cavalry who dedicated large portions of their lives to the army. The army Alexander used during his early years was certainly pretty professional.

1st century BC is already after the reforms, which was what I tried to tell you.

I meant the 2nd Century BCE. Oops.

During the early Republic, Rome was nothing more special than any other state.

But EU: Rome is set during the mid-Republic. Rome was also special in that it was extremely willing to adapt, and change.

Comparing with any other civilized ancient state, early Roman military was no more organized than the other. Greek had highly organized phalanxes, Egyptians, Carthago.. all had relatively well organized milita-based forces. Rome gained the edge during the late Republic.

The roman Manipular system is significantly more complex and organized, IMO. You have troops constantly moving in and out of the line, which would have required considerable discipline and organization.

 

[unmerged(90249)]

this also annoys me. i have 2 legions (=20 cohorts) standing in bononia that are attacked by ~19 000 barbarians. and guess who loses?
this cant be serious, i am sure, the romans would have never lost a defensive battle against an enemy equal in numbers when they can chose the battlefield

It have happend several time, both in Gaul, in Italy with Hanibal, against Pyrhus , in Greece.

The strenght of Rome was simple to be able to raise armies after armies and fight a total war (read De Gallo Bellici to see Julius Caius sending the legions to kill everyone in Belgiae for exemple after 2 (two) legions were wipped out during a battle).

Most of the European tribes (sic) were doing war like a sport, Rome changed it , Wars were fought the whole year, noone stopping for the harvest. ...

So yes, Rome was military strong, but not invicible, the strenght was simply in the stubborness of the romans (from the velites up to the senators)

 

[Inkompetent]

But EU: Rome is set during the mid-Republic. Rome was also special in that it was extremely willing to adapt, and change.

The roman Manipular system is significantly more complex and organized, IMO. You have troops constantly moving in and out of the line, which would have required considerable discipline and organization.

And still, the Velites and Hastati were poorly equipped, and aside from their shield the Hastati wasn't better than any other light infantry in armour and weapons.

Roman generals were, like in most other cultures, selected based on their social status rather than skill, which put more incompetents in place rather than good ones.

Also, during especially the Republic the way of fighting was very conservative and often unimaginative with a few golden exceptions and the manipular system was rarely used as effectively as it could be.

The real Roman superiority in army organization and skill among both generals and soldiers didn't start until around the time of the Marian reform, and that's quite some time after the Second Punic War


The Romans seems fine to me in the game. I'm just a bit sad that they don't differentiate between militia and light infantry since the light infantry surely would have more training and better discipline.

 

[unmerged(85108)]

yep, it's true that the battle system doesn't really modelled the way it should be. Velites is a light infantry it wasn't the same with militia.

But I do really notice that the roman infantry moving rather fast, is that because of they have more discipline ? like the national Idea which I choose or what ?

so I just put 5 smaller legions ( 6 - 9 cohorts ) but many of them to manouver, escape from carthage stronger points and strike at their weak points. And that works fine though the barbarian seems need good number and clever leader to deal with.

and the navy blockades works fine thought. I do really appreciate if the unit representation modeled different thru time, I mean when will we get the hastati ? or legionaire ?

 

[Darkrenown]

The roman Manipular system is significantly more complex and organized, IMO. You have troops constantly moving in and out of the line, which would have required considerable discipline and organization.

They copied the mantiple system from the sammites after/during their first war against them.

 

[berhaven]

They copied the mantiple system from the sammites after/during their first war against them.

at the time of the game, this was already well into roman military culture, whose strength was basically to be able to adopt the good from most enemies, merging it into a pretty widespread martial culture

 

[Darkrenown]

at the time of the game, this was already well into roman military culture, whose strength was basically to be able to adopt the good from most enemies, merging it into a pretty widespread martial culture

True, but I was continuing this:

Comparing with any other civilized ancient state, early Roman military was no more organized than the other. Greek had highly organized phalanxes, Egyptians, Carthago.. all had relatively well organized milita-based forces. Rome gained the edge during the late Republic.

The roman Manipular system is significantly more complex and organized, IMO. You have troops constantly moving in and out of the line, which would have required considerable discipline and organization.

I was agreeing with Piispa that the early Roman strengths were adaptability and resilience rather than an outstanding military organisation while Tomdidiot seems to be saying Rome invented a new (Mantiple) system which carried them to victory.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

The Romans seems fine to me in the game. I'm just a bit sad that they don't differentiate between militia and light infantry since the light infantry surely would have more training and better discipline.

This is something that could have been modelled using a combination of national ideas and inventions.

 

[unmerged(16407)]

The roman Manipular system is significantly more complex and organized, IMO. You have troops constantly moving in and out of the line, which would have required considerable discipline and organization.

yes it was complex, but no more than being part of a phalanx, holdings 18 foot sarissa and having to manoeuver left and right.

 

[Tomdidiot]

And still, the Velites and Hastati were poorly equipped, and aside from their shield the Hastati wasn't better than any other light infantry in armour and weapons.

The Hastati were not "poorly equipped". It depended on how rich they were, if they were rich, they'd probably be wearing stuff like chainmail. Remember that the Roman troops provided their own equipment, and weren't issued it by the army.

Roman generals were, like in most other cultures, selected based on their social status rather than skill, which put more incompetents in place rather than good ones.

But the semi-democratic nature of the Romans meant that, in times of trouble, generals who have proven themselves to be competent would be re-elected to the post, or even given special pro-consular status in order to lead the armies to win.

Also, during especially the Republic the way of fighting was very conservative and often unimaginative with a few golden exceptions and the manipular system was rarely used as effectively as it could be.

Which I believe is a testiment to the strength and flexibility of the Roman Manipular system and to the Romans. The basic Roman plan was to break the enemy centre with their heavy infantry, a tried and true tactic that works wwell under most circumstances (i.e. You are not facing hannibal).

yes it was complex, but no more than being part of a phalanx, holdings 18 foot sarissa and having to manoeuver left and right.

But a phanalx was professional. The Roman maniples were not. Again, a testiment to the discipline and strength of the "farmer's militia"

 

[Inkompetent]

Yes, it is true that each soldier paid for his own equipment. But for those (the majority) that couldn't afford chainmail hauberks and other large pieces of armour it wasn't much they had to wear.

Once they eventually rose to the rank of Principes most had earned enough money on soldiery to afford more and better armour and and other equipment, making them more professional in both veterancy and gear.


It is also true that the manipular system was effective on its own, but it was in no way unique. Other armies used the exactly same system just as effectively, and manipular system or not it was suicide even for Romans to go against a phalanx in open terrain (and with incompetents as generals it wasn't always easy to get to pick fairly favorable terrain).

However against a more unorganized opponent it was incredibly effective since their tired troops wouldn't stand a chance once the Principes were sent in.

With most opponents in the very northern Italy, and the whole of northern Europe being quite simple in culture (i.e. barbarians) the biggest difficulty was to fight in enemy territory, rather than having dangerous opponents to fight (yes, I know of Teutoberg and stuff, but that meant they had for once managed to cooperate against the Romans with larger forces).

Fighting Illyrians, Greeks, Macedonians, Seleucids, etc, meant much more work since they did have an organized and often professional army culture, and the maniples can't against such enemies win on its own.

 

[unmerged(34863)]

tactical battles

My dream game would be a strategic game built to the level of a paradox game with tactical level battles. But for now if I want to play a strategic game I play Paradox games.

My opinion is that the best game-mechanic for the tactical level could be find in:

THE GREAT BATTLES OF ALEXANDER

http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-games/the-great-battles-of/4505-9696_7-152593.html

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Battles..._10?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1216906948&sr=8-10

Yes, the game is old, the graphic is bad, but I really liked those step-by-step tactical battles. Although graphic of "Total War" is superb, I find real-time battles really confusing. A real mess. In "Alexander", you at least have a full control over the leaders, while they could influence the movement of the troops only if they are within their range. In "Alexander" your troops could panic and run away if a leader is not close enough to call them back.

I think that it would really be great if Paradox could get a license to use "Alexander" mechanism at tactical level. Than, a player could have a choice between automatic battles (as done in EU games) and more detailed tactical level.

There are two more games in that series:

Great Battles of Caesar

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Battles-of-Caesar-PC/dp/B0007NY6FU/ref=pd_sim_sw_1

and

Great Battles Of Hannibal

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Battles-Hannibal-PC-Boxed/dp/B0002KV4OE/ref=pd_sim_vg_2

I would really like to know what does paradox team thinks about the mechanism of those 3 games. Thanks.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Adding turn-based tactical battles would mess up timing in multiplayer for sure. What would work, though, would be a simple square-based system, where armies act on auto-pilot unless the player gives exact instructions on how to move. Still, I think tactical combat would be a luxury. I'd rather have Paradox fine-tune the existing stuff in the game, such as fix the rather arbitrary peace resolution system, than add entirely new dimensions to it.

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

I would like to see a simple graphical tactical battle. Played CENTURION: Defender of Rome yesterday , i hope you can remember this classic. Has a very simple graphic battle but does the job very good.

 

[Swamp Rat]

I would like to see a simple graphical tactical battle. Played CENTURION: Defender of Rome yesterday , i hope you can remember this classic. Has a very simple graphic battle but does the job very good.

Yes that was a classic. Wonder if anyone remembers the game Cohort: Fighting for Rome? Made on the same engine that brought us Rorke's Drift, only with Roman era soldiers fighting instead of zulus vs a handful of redcoats.

 

[unmerged(67718)]

I agree with the original poster to some extent. I would say that the level of abstraction of the military portion of the game is too high for two reasons.

The scale of the game both in time and in other factors is too low to abstract out all the differences of military organization and doctrine.

The majority of the game is about moving your army and battles so if anything this area of the game should have more detail then other parts of the game, not less.

From a military history point of view, the time period in question saw the eclipsing of the Macedonian art of war by the Roman. Other less competitve systems are also featured, in particular the Carthaginian "hired Army" approach and the "Barbarian" tribal levy.

Each type of military was a organic outgorwth of the culture it spawned from., each had its strenghts and weaknesses and each developed over time. Getting these systems in the game at a appropriate level of abstraction showing how the developed and how the interacted would make the game much richer.

 

[unmerged(47028)]

From my experience with EU2 bigger the country (lots of non-national and different religion provinces) the slower is research. I just wondering that in the EU:R Romans will be badly underdeveloped by the end of the game and will win the game only by sheer numbers. So Rome will never have the best armies and will look rather Barbarians in the eyes of unconquered civilised world. Am I wrong?

 

[unmerged(87984)]

It is also true that the manipular system was effective on its own, but it was in no way unique.

The manipular system was only copied from the samnites after bitter experiences in the samnite wars, IIRC. Earlier they used the phalanx-system adopted from the etruscans, who copied it from the greek colonies and so on.
What makes the roman military so unique are imo two things:

- they were willing to adopt new and better strategies and tactics

- they were able to replace their losses to a greater extent than their adversaries, they could afford "to lose every battle but the last", so to speak.

The first thing is difficult to model correctly in a game, the second should be easy but could be improved upon.