"Imperium" trait

[ur-Lord Tedric]

@tedric, i have 2 equestrian generals that dont have imperium trait, my 3 patrician generals al have imperium year 4.all of them are now 4 years in the field

That's sad.....

Perhaps dvk' can confirm, but that was a 'bug/feature' that was reported all through testing and should have been fixed for 2.6. It simply makes no sense in the current design.

[CatoTheYounger]

@tedric, i have 2 equestrian generals that dont have imperium trait, my 3 patrician generals al have imperium year 4.all of them are now 4 years in the field

It seems it's not clear when the General will rebel and keep the army for himself instead of surrendering his command but generaly the longer he stays against the Senate's will, the bigger the chance.

Even after the reforms Generals had limited imperium and Conuls had one year limits often followed by five year Poconcul term. So they could stretch out command for several years. And at times the people simply voted to alow generals to stay in command if far away from Rome. Scipio Africanus was allowed to retain his command in spain because of his success there. Seems there rules were flexible to alow special occasions, And sometimes they realy went against there usual rules.

Imperial years? im more of a reoublic guy so i'll leave that to Tedric. Thats an area i need to brush up on in the future.

[Zydrius]

That's sad.....

Perhaps dvk' can confirm, but that was a 'bug/feature' that was reported all through testing and should have been fixed for 2.6. It simply makes no sense in the current design.

I noticed that generals don't get imperium trait if they stick near a friendly settlement. Just there should be no empty hex between legion and the settlement.

[JohnStockton]

How can this problem be solved, that Plebs or Eques don´t get the Imperium trait? In the export_descr_characters it is
----------------------------------
Trigger Imperium_01
WhenToTest CharacterTurnEnd

Condition FactionType romans_brutii
and FactionLeaderTrait Imperator = 0
and Trait Patrician = 1
and not EndedInSettlement
and Trait Imperium = 0

Affects Imperium 1 Chance 100

;------------------------------------------;
Trigger Imperium_02
WhenToTest CharacterTurnEnd

Condition FactionType romans_brutii
and FactionLeaderTrait Imperator = 0
and Trait Patrician = 1
and not EndedInSettlement
and Trait Imperium > 0

Affects Imperium 1 Chance 100
------------------------------------------
If i change trait patrician=1 to isgeneral then all charakters get imperium trait, but in export_descr_charakters there are only this two triggers named so plebejan and equestrian generals only get Imperium 2 and then the counter stops.

Additionaly, is it possible to delete the influence of imperium to loyality without destroying the leadership system?

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Simply removing the 'and Trait Patrician = 1' line entirely will work, but it would be much better if dvk' would confirm whether this is one of the things he has and/or wants to change?

It will be worth doing that, because it's worth checking whether there are more lines to tweak.

I brought this up several times, showed how it wasn't working properly and suggested several changes; but there seems to be a reason that the Team resisted so much. I even wanted to use it as a Design-Test process example of how we should do some decent management - but you know how these creative types are!

[dvk901]

Removing the Patrician line from the triggers would indeed allow all characters to get the trait. As for how this ultimately needs to be fixed....it will be redone when I get to updating\revising the traits. The 'Imperium' trait is actually misrepresented here, because it was both a Republican and Imperial 'law', so to speak. In the Republic, the Senate gave Imperium, whereas in the Imperial Age it was more the Emperor who gave this this 'right' to command.

Lord Tedric correctly points the finger at me about this...he did report that this trait wasn't working right, and I just couldn't or didn't figure out why before we released. My bad. But it will be revised.

In truth, I would've preferred that this trait be more of an 'immersion' issue than one that required action on the part of the player. Having 'Imperium' for year historically is hard to represent in a game where two turns is a year...even four turns. And it creates issues such as lost loyalty that really shouldn't be created by this trait.

[JohnStockton]

Thank both of you for your help, i will delete this line then. I´m not very experienced in the trait system of roma surrectum and fighting me through different forums to improve my knowledge, but could it be possible (and historical) that the imperium trait only influences the opinion of the senate towards the family member? A small Imperium value could improve the career chances, a higher value would stop the career?

[ur-Lord Tedric]

'Imperium' is the 'granting of command' and was given to 'Generals' for, commonly, periods of between 3 to 5 years. After that period the 'General' was required to relinquish that command and 'return home'. The idea simply was that the armies/legions belonged to Rome and they would not, ideally, become attached to their Generals - as indeed they saw problems with from time to time.

The issue with RSII is that, quite rightly historically, the trait was limited to the Patrician class - because only they lead armies/legions and could hold 'command'. To give that 'class flavour' in RSII, however, there are also Equestrians and Plebeians - both of whom also appear, practicably, as 'Generals'.

The problem, therefore, is that the (needs tweaking actual trait) otherwise seemingly correct trait and managing it; can be entirely avoided by using Equestrians and Plebeians as Generals and leaving the Patricians at home! This, of course, is not the idea.

If it were properly historical we would, of course, only have Patricians as characters in the first place - but thus miss out on all the added flavour!

'Imperium', therefore, if kept, should apply to all.

[Alavaria]

A pretend world where random 16 year olds off the streets are given command of two legions or something...

Does this mean your general frequently gets the governor trait that slows them down?

[dvk901]

'Imperium' is the 'granting of command' and was given to 'Generals' for, commonly, periods of between 3 to 5 years. After that period the 'General' was required to relinquish that command and 'return home'. The idea simply was that the armies/legions belonged to Rome and they would not, ideally, become attached to their Generals - as indeed they saw problems with from time to time.

The issue with RSII is that, quite rightly historically, the trait was limited to the Patrician class - because only they lead armies/legions and could hold 'command'. To give that 'class flavour' in RSII, however, there are also Equestrians and Plebeians - both of whom also appear, practicably, as 'Generals'.

The problem, therefore, is that the (needs tweaking actual trait) otherwise seemingly correct trait and managing it; can be entirely avoided by using Equestrians and Plebeians as Generals and leaving the Patricians at home! This, of course, is not the idea.

If it were properly historical we would, of course, only have Patricians as characters in the first place - but thus miss out on all the added flavour!

'Imperium', therefore, if kept, should apply to all.

I agree, especially since in RTW there is no way to distinguish between 'generals'.

[LoGaL]

oh well, we could give non patrician generals a malus to command ability- morale - upkeep ecc ecc to force the player to select only patrician generals xD

[ur-Lord Tedric]

oh well, we could give non patrician generals a malus to command ability- morale - upkeep ecc ecc to force the player to select only patrician generals xD

No - that's missing the whole point.

The idea of 'Imperium' is to represent that a Leader/General would get more and more attached to their troops and they to him - thus leading to loss of Loyalty and the potential for them to rebel.

A couple of specific examples would, of course, be:

- 1 - dear old JC at the head of his long term Gallic army decides that he will not relinquish his command and crosses the Rubicon

- 2 - Vitellius decides in AD69 that he really doesn't approve of the Praetorian Guard selling the 'purple' to Otho and his Germanic legions support him to march South and take it himself; meanwhile (if it could happen in game!), the Faction Heir to 'Galba/Otho', dear old Vespasian, brings some of the Judean troops back, picks up Greek ones on the way and 'saves the day' (by defeating the 'Rebels').

So, we just need to tweak the Imperium trait so it works as intended and the messages we get make sense - and it applies to all characters placed 'in command'.

[Alavaria]

Yeah, it would be ironic if you just ended up using the generic "General X" instead of a character for command.

[dvk901]

No - that's missing the whole point.

The idea of 'Imperium' is to represent that a Leader/General would get more and more attached to their troops and they to him - thus leading to loss of Loyalty and the potential for them to rebel.

A couple of specific examples would, of course, be:

- 1 - dear old JC at the head of his long term Gallic army decides that he will not relinquish his command and crosses the Rubicon

- 2 - Vitellius decides in AD69 that he really doesn't approve of the Praetorian Guard selling the 'purple' to Otho and his Germanic legions support him to march South and take it himself; meanwhile (if it could happen in game!), the Faction Heir to 'Galba/Otho', dear old Vespasian, brings some of the Judean troops back, picks up Greek ones on the way and 'saves the day' (by defeating the 'Rebels').

So, we just need to tweak the Imperium trait so it works as intended and the messages we get make sense - and it applies to all characters placed 'in command'.

Excellent point.....and accurately describes how 'loyalty' should work.