Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 231

Thread: [Research] Collection

  1. #81

    Default Re: [Preview] Roman Overhaul (under construction)

    If I may, a bit of a critique for the Roman roster - just as I did with RSII......

    Polybian period (source, Polybius Books 1-5 & 12 - most detail in Bk 6):

    - Polybius doesn't mention the Rorarii at all - they simply are not a part of his army construct. Mentioned only briefly by Livy, precious little is known about them. They do not feature, it seems, in any battle from the 3rdC BC and onwards, which is the timeframe under discussion

    - where are the Roman Equites?

    - Hastati and Principes are the same troops, simply separated by age (hence why no difference in RSII)

    - the Extraordinarii are nothing 'special'. They are simply a subset of the normal Socii troops (containing all types), best represented by simply 'using' the most experienced troops of their types (ie perhaps 1 x Velites, 2 x Hastati/Principes; 1 x Triarii; and 1 x Equites)

    - Socii Campani - didn't exist. The Romans had some initial trouble with the the experienced horsemen from Campania, but soon overcame that. Men from that area simply became ordinary Socii Equites thereafter

    - calling the Equites 'Light Cavalry' is perhaps disingenuous, depending what is meant. They were not skirmishing/missile cavalry at that period and were often expected to dismount and fight. 'Medium cavalry' could be better as they were not heavily armoured

    - 'Italic mercenaries', certainly don't appear much, if at all, in the texts. Could be added for flavour, should be expensive and not common; certainly not part of the regular roster


    Marian reforms (specifically 105BC to 28BC - a long discussion with RSII - very few sources, mostly Caesar's Commentaries):

    - Antesignanii - no one knows what this actually refers to (although I may have a clue), but reference is occasionally made to 'lighter troops' within the legions. RSII has it not bad, they might be better represented as an early form of the Late Auxilia Spear-type. They are most probably not 'Elite Foot Scouts'

    - First Cohort, reasonable, but only of 'normal' size. Eagle Cohort - no

    - Praetorian cohorts - sometimes mentioned and hinted at, but also like the fairly mythical Evocati. Evocati are experienced veterans that are recalled to (or choose to) the legions after retirement. They should simply be of superior morale, armed and armoured the same, probably less fit and have greater fatigue, probably slightly past their best, but would stand in the face of fear. Probably best to use Evocati as a 'praetorian' unit (singular). One could appear as a garrison (general's unit), representing colonists and retirees

    - Equites Alares - no - the Romans had no legionary cavalry at this period; nor 'Praetorian' cavalry

    - Arcanii - should be represented by the Champions/Spies/Diplomats - not a fighting unit

    - Elite bodyguards - no

    - Need Allied/Mercenary cavalry units. Perhaps some sprinkling of similar infantry. The odd unit of Balearic slingers and Cretan archers perhaps


    Augustan Period (the assumed reorganisation of the army post Civil War - little detail available, Josephus, Tacitus and Cassius Dio useful):

    - this is when the regularised units of Auxiliary Infantry and Cavalry appear - spear and light javelin armed, cavalry are therefore 'missile cavalry'. There should not be any cataphracts or horse archers really for this time period

    - it's when the 'real' 'named and numbered' legions appear

    - it's when the Praetorian mixed cohorts appear and later the Equites Singulares (German bodyguard)

    - it's when the expanded First Cohort (Eagle cohort?) probably appears and also the Legionary cavalry (Equites Promoti?)

    - it's after this that segmentata starts to appear


    Specific legions:

    I can see what is suggested, but particularly want to note that, with 2 or 3 specific aberrations, that ALL of the legions were created from Roman citizens, with the vast majority therefore coming from Italy.

    All legions (Deiotariana part-exception) were recruited before those legions (many long before) served in the regions they later occupied and left evidence. Legions XVII; XVIII; & XVIIII were raised long before and died in 'Suebia'!

    Too much Lorica Segmentata I suspect - although it's very 'popular'.

    Note: Just like in RSII's timeframe, most people if on a 'historical timeline' would probably finish the game before really getting into the last period. Depends on how the transitions are handled.


    Would love to help shape the troop types and make things authentic as possible - it just depends how much authenticity is wanted vs the desire for super-units and 'specials'.
    Last edited by ur-Lord Tedric; August 01, 2014 at 05:06 AM. Reason: format
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  2. #82

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    hello there if you would like to join as a researcher I suggest speaking to alec but if you do have a lot of research on the romans that's fantasic. As for the specific legions we wont be reaching the augustan period and go "there you go guys theres 28 legions for you appearing out of nowhere" we have done a lot of research on the legions and hopefully plan for the legions to be progressive. the augustan legions we know were old legions merge, chopped and changed from previous legions ect .

    here the research so far, pre augustan legions to augustan, what happened to the legions and subsequent legions raised to raise legions number by later emperors, and it ends up as the historical recorded 33 at the end of the later emperors reign

    Post Marian Reforms - 107BC
    Legio I Germanica - (Raised) Julius Caesar 48BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio II Sabina - (Raised) Julius Caesar 43BC - Became Legio II Augusta one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio III Cyrenaica - (Raised) Mark Antony 36BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio III Gallica - (Raised) Julius Caesar 49BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio IV Macedonia - (Raised) Julius Caesar 48BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio IV Sythica - (Raised) Mark Antony 42BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio V Alaudae - (Raised) Julius Caesar 52BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio VI Ferrata - (Raised) Julius Caesar 52BC -Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio VI Victrix - (Raised) Octavian 41BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio VII Claudia Pia Fedelis - (Raised) Julius Caesar 51BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio VIII Augusta -(Raised) Julius Caesar 59BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio IX Hispania Triumphalis - (Raised) Julius Caesar 59BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions - Legio IX Hispania
    Legio X Fretensis - was X Equestris before 58BC - (Raised) Julius Caesar - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio XI - (Raised) Julius Caesar 58BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio XII Victrix - (Raised) Julius Caesar 57BC - merged with Legio XII Antiqua to create augustan XII Fulminata one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio XII Antiqua - (Raised) Mark Antony 43BC - merged with Legio XII Victrix to create augustan XII Fulmniata one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio XIII Gemina - (Raised) Julius Caesar 57BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions
    Legio XIV Gemina - (Raised) Julius Caesar 57BC - Became one of the 28 Augustan Legions as Leg XIV Gemina Martia Victrix
    Legio XVIII Libyca - (Raised) Mark Antony - dispanded 31C
    Legio XXX Classica - Naval - (Raised) Julius Caesar - 48bc dispanded

    Augustan Reforms - 41 > 40 BC
    Legio I Germanica - dispanded 69AD
    Legio II Augusta
    Legio III Augusta
    Legio III Gallicia
    Legio III Cyrenacia
    Legio IV Sythica
    Legio IV Macedonia
    Legio V Alaudae
    Legio V Macedonia
    Legio VI Victrix
    Legio VI Ferrata
    Legio VII Claudia Pia Fedelis
    Legio VIII Augusta
    Legio IX Hispania
    Legio X Gemina
    Legio X Firentis
    Legio XI Claudia Pia Fedelis
    Legio XII Fulminata
    Legio XIII Gemina
    Legio XIV Gemina Martia Victrix
    Legio XV Apollinaris
    Legio XVI Gallica - destroyed 70AD
    Legio XVII - destroyed 9AD
    Legio XVIII - destroyed 9AD
    Legio XIX - destroyed 9AD
    Legio XX Valeria Victrix
    Legio XXI Rapax
    Legio XXII Deiiotariana - heavy losses in 132AD and disbanded

    Post Augustan Reforms - 39AD onward
    Legio XV Primigenia - (Raised) Gaius 39AD
    Legio XXII Primigenia - (Raised) Gaius 39AD
    Legio I Adiutrix - (Raised) Nero 66 or 67AD
    Legio I Italica - (Raised) Nero 66AD
    Legio II Adiutrix - (Raised) Nero 66 or 67AD
    Legio VII Hispania later Gemina - (Raised) Galba 68AD
    Legio I Macriana Liberatrix - (Raised) L.Clodius Macer 68AD- Destroyed in battle and disbanded as L.Clodius Macer was a rebellious governor and the legion couldn't be trusted
    Legio IV Flavia Felix - (Raised) Vespasian 70AD
    Legio XVI Flavia Firma - (Reconstituted) Vespasian 71AD - From the remains of Legio XVI Gallica
    Legio I Minerva - (Raised) Domitian 83AD
    Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix - (Raised) Trajan 105AD
    Legio II Trajana Fortis - (Raised) Trajan 105AD
    Legio II Italica - (Raised) Marcus Aurelius 165AD
    Legio III Italica - (Raised) Marcus Aurelius 165AD
    Legio I Parthica - (Raised) Septimius Severus 197AD
    Legio II Parthica - (Raised) Septimius Severus 197AD
    Legio III Parthica - (Raised) Septimius Severus 197AD

    as for the hastate and principes yes they were very similar but as history shows very distinctly different troops, having different rolls in the army and experience. if a hastate survived long enough he was moved to the principes so in game there has to be these 2 different units so show the difference of experience, authenticity of the manipular army and also the strengths and weaknesses of the 2 units. that's my belief anyway unless you can only recruit hastate and then they get promoted to principes instead of recruited when they have enough experience hence the more experienced the army you have it evolves as a manipular army
    Last edited by Hloeric; August 01, 2014 at 10:46 AM.

  3. #83

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    don't know how that would be implemented ingame though :/

  4. #84
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    My quess will be technology/script for reforms plus AOR system for recruitment. Pretty much Vanilla,DeI and many others.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  5. #85

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    ahh so that can be done

  6. #86
    tungri_centurio's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    belgium/flanders/tungria
    Posts
    1,177

    Default Re: [Research] Weapons and Armor of the Ancient World


    roman spears

    more javelin spears but only a,b and c are relevant

    greek hoplite

    early spartan hoplite

    sarissa vs dori

    for germanic weapons check http://www.projectgermani.org/ good source imo

    celtic spearmen
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. -Marcus Aurelius

  7. #87

    Default Re: [Research] Weapons and Armor of the Ancient World

    Thanks for adding the pictures. Saved some work for me there. I really appreciate it.


  8. #88

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    I'd rather not use a script for the units at all unless it's fully functional. Not knocking any of the great work done, but it personally bugs me when the scripts sometimes don't act as they should in game. They also have a detrimental effect on load times.

    But I assure you, everything you want can be done through the DB with regards to units.

    unless you can only recruit hastate and then they get promoted to principes instead of recruited when they have enough experience hence the more experienced the army you have it evolves as a manipular army
    Unfortunately, this isn't possible with the DB. I don't think scripts could even do it, though it's something I've wanted.

    ur-Lord Tedric
    Interesting post. I agree and disagree with some of what you posted. I have a lot of issues with the first draw, as well.

    - where are the Roman Equites?
    While there probably should be an Equites unit for Rome to recruit, I've considered (this is my thinking) there maybe shouldn't be. 75% of the typical Roman army's cavalry came from the allies according to the sources we have (during the Republican era). Still, I don't think that choice should be completely removed from the player.

    - the Extraordinarii are nothing 'special'. They are simply a subset of the normal Socii troops (containing all types), best represented by simply 'using' the most experienced troops of their types (ie perhaps 1 x Velites, 2 x Hastati/Principes; 1 x Triarii; and 1 x Equites)
    Only, this isn't how they are described to us. The Extraordinarii were hand picked of the 'fittest' men. They also were given special tasks. Their equipment probably varied depending on what they were doing, but they weren't simply the most experienced. I would imagine they could have been picked for political and practical reasons. They may have simply been the best fighting men for the most part, which in itself does not imply experience.

    - Socii Campani - didn't exist. The Romans had some initial trouble with the the experienced horsemen from Campania, but soon overcame that. Men from that area simply became ordinary Socii Equites thereafter
    It's always been my understanding that until around the 1st century, the Campanians maintained their reputation as pretty solid horsemen. While they would have been blended into the main body of the Socii, I'm not against a representation of a regional unit.

    'Italic mercenaries', certainly don't appear much, if at all, in the texts. Could be added for flavour, should be expensive and not common; certainly not part of the regular roster
    This depends on which army you are talking about. The Romans of the Punic Wars didn't hire a lot of 'mercenaries' (a broad term), though they did have Gallic allies at times. They had little need of them as they had impressive manpower reserves. The Carthaginians, though, certainly [i]did[/b] recruit Italians for their armies - Gauls and others. Obviously Hannibal had varying levels of Italians fighting for him in the Second Punic War, but the treaty that ended the first specifically attempted to ban Carthaginian recruitment of mercenaries from Italy.

    - Antesignanii - no one knows what this actually refers to (although I may have a clue), but reference is occasionally made to 'lighter troops' within the legions. RSII has it not bad, they might be better represented as an early form of the Late Auxilia Spear-type. They are most probably not 'Elite Foot Scouts'
    I agree with this mostly. Not necessarily a late auxilla spear type, though. They were Romans. We do know that. The problem is the term itself had different meanings. Caesar was the one who took them (the young members of army) and used them as light troops. This wasn't necessarily standard. My view is expressed above. They were basically the younger members of the army with little experience in the post-Marian era. That's what the word itself indicates. Their role was typically standard, but at times different generals used them for different purposes. Mainly Caesar.

    - Equites Alares - no - the Romans had no legionary cavalry at this period; nor 'Praetorian' cavalry
    I agree on the Praetorian cavalry. I'm still not completely sure on Italian cavalry disappearing entirely. While that eventually seems to have been the case, we do know that Pompey recruited his cavalry from Italy during the Civil War. It's not as if it would have been an impossibility.

    Too much Lorica Segmentata I suspect - although it's very 'popular'.
    This is a hornets nest of an issue. There is no way to really be right or wrong based on the evidence we have. Not necessarily disagreeing on this point.

    Would love to help shape the troop types and make things authentic as possible - it just depends how much authenticity is wanted vs the desire for super-units and 'specials'.
    My goal, especially for the Romans, is authenticity. We know more about them than these other factions. I agree on quite a few of your points that certain troop types get included on their roster for the sake of 'color' instead of reality. It's a taste preference. I like to have a realistic army.


  9. #89

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    Quote Originally Posted by Hloeric View Post
    ..................
    here the research so far, pre augustan legions to augustan, what happened to the legions and subsequent legions raised to raise legions number by later emperors, and it ends up as the historical recorded 33 at the end of the later emperors reign ..........
    Nice list - may be consideration for revision.

    Some possible/probable issues that might affect the otherwise nice listing you posted (my handy summaries: Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army; and Campbell, Roman Lgionary Fortresses):


    Timelines: - Post Marian Reforms ~105BC to 31BC (Battle of Actium); supposed reforms of Octavian/Augustus 30-27BC


    For the first period, with the exception of V Alaudae and the unlisted 'Martia' legion no names are known. It is certainly possible that numbers were re-used, perhaps even re-assigned every year and that numbers I to IV were possibly reserved for the Consular amies of Roma itself. In addition, whilst we have evidence that the Middle Republic legions were brought up to strength (if deployed away from Italy) with retirees returned, and the Imperial (post-Augustan) were the long term professional legions with constant turnover of manpower; there is mostly evidence that the Late Republic/Civil War legions were recruited once and en masse and disbanded (often with subsequent re-banding) equally en masse. There is little, although some, evidence that replacements were inducted (perhaps on re-banding or serious reinforcement), but there is more evidence (Battle of Pharsalus, details of the troops Caesar went to Egypt with) that once raised legions slowly dwindled in size.


    The long and short of that tale is that the RSII inspired 'named and numbered' didn't really exist until after 27 BC. If you wish to see them 'earlier' then they definitely wouldn't have had segmentata, nor would have larger first cohorts!


    Details for consideration:


    - Legio I - possibly Caesar's consular series (48 BC) or Pansa's (43 BC) - reconstituted by Augustus; probably didn't gain it's epithet 'Germania' until after service on the Rhine 14-16AD


    - Legio II - possibly Pansa 43BC - reconstituted by Augustus (II Augusta) - possibly referrred to as Gallica and/or Sabina in earlier incarnations


    Missing - Legio III - could be Caesar or Pansa - reconstituted by Augustus (III Augusta)


    - Legio X (Equestris later Gemina) - Caesar - Gemina after Battle of Actium (where they had fought for Antony, with hints of mutiny)


    - Legio X (Fretensis NOT Equestris) - Octavian 41BC - named after victory at Fretum


    - Legio XII - first Caesar, then possibly in the East under Antonywhere it might acquire Antiqua then reconstituted by Augustus - Fulminata


    - Legio XV (Apollinaris) - Octavian?


    - Legio XVI (Gallica) - Octavian?


    Missing - Legio XVII - Octavian? Presumed lost in 9AD but no source or epigraphy mentions it


    Missing - Legio XVIII - Octavian? No record during Civil War - "No link with Antony's XVIII Libyca is likely"


    Missing - Legio XIX - Octavian?


    Missing - Legio XX - Octavian, possibly after Actium (it and the latter the last numbers in his series)


    Missing - Legio XXI Octavian, possibly after Actium


    - Legio XXII Deiotariana - formed perhaps 2 years after the 'reforms' from the Galatian Royal Guards - the last of the 28 'original' legions


    Minor details on the later legions.....




    Finally, no, the Hastati and Principes are exactly the same troop type and used in exactly the same way (hence the RSII Polybian 'Cohorts'). They are merely separated by age, there is no 'mythical' Light Infantry and Heavy Infantry difference, there is no transition from one to the other except by age, which could equally go 'backwards'. There is no evolution part in the manipular army - they are simply a functioning part of it.
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  10. #90

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    ..
    ur-Lord Tedric
    Interesting post. I agree and disagree with some of what you posted. I have a lot of issues with the first draw, as well.


    While there probably should be an Equites unit for Rome to recruit, I've considered (this is my thinking) there maybe shouldn't be. 75% of the typical Roman army's cavalry came from the allies according to the sources we have (during the Republican era). Still, I don't think that choice should be completely removed from the player.

    Certainly up to 75% of the total cavalry came from the Socii - but these were the Roman Equestrians - they definitely existed - as noted, there should really be no difference between Hastati and Principes, but if there are subtle differences between Romans and Socii, then it should be represented by the cavalry too.


    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    Only, this isn't how they are described to us. The Extraordinarii were hand picked of the 'fittest' men. They also were given special tasks. Their equipment probably varied depending on what they were doing, but they weren't simply the most experienced. I would imagine they could have been picked for political and practical reasons. They may have simply been the best fighting men for the most part, which in itself does not imply experience.

    What evidence describes them like that? Polybius is quite clear, they are simply 1/5th of the Allied infantry (10 centuries per legion?) and ~1/3rd of the cavalry, with no differences as to arms and armour mentioned. It seems they did become a feature and were possibly the most experienced, but certainly nothing 'special' - simply 'better' (represented by experience). Yes, they are used as an Advanced (sometimes Rear) guard and used to guard the camp, etc, but that's because they are simply the handy picked body. They are 'elite' simply by service, nothing else. Many terms such as these are over-used and with modern connotations. They also aren't mentioned when the 'larger' legions are in play - for good reason.


    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    It's always been my understanding that until around the 1st century, the Campanians maintained their reputation as pretty solid horsemen. While they would have been blended into the main body of the Socii, I'm not against a representation of a regional unit.

    So they maintained their reputation and would have been an excellent source of cavalry for the Socii allies to contribute - but still just Socii equites. A completely mythical super-unit.




    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    This depends on which army you are talking about. The Romans of the Punic Wars didn't hire a lot of 'mercenaries' (a broad term), though they did have Gallic allies at times. They had little need of them as they had impressive manpower reserves. The Carthaginians, though, certainly [i]did[/b] recruit Italians for their armies - Gauls and others. Obviously Hannibal had varying levels of Italians fighting for him in the Second Punic War, but the treaty that ended the first specifically attempted to ban Carthaginian recruitment of mercenaries from Italy.
    Hannibal certainly hired/used Celts from Northern Italy - the Romans didn't much at all. I am mostly concerned by the appearance of many 'super-troops', that will result in mostly un-authentic armies

    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    I agree with this mostly. Not necessarily a late auxilla spear type, though. They were Romans. We do know that. The problem is the term itself had different meanings. Caesar was the one who took them (the young members of army) and used them as light troops. This wasn't necessarily standard. My view is expressed above. They were basically the younger members of the army with little experience in the post-Marian era. That's what the word itself indicates. Their role was typically standard, but at times different generals used them for different purposes. Mainly Caesar.

    AFAIK Caesar (Commentaries) only uses the word a single time - with no detail. The term seemingly has only one meaning ('those who go before the standards'); I have not yet seen a reference that says they were the youngest. And I meant 'spear-and light javelin armed', not actual auxilia. BTW - which troop types in the Roman legions provided the template for the auxilia when they were formed? The RSII representation is fairly good, although I'd prefer something along the lines of a 'spear-armed peltast' myself.
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  11. #91

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    I appreciate the feedback. It's good to have these sorts of discussions.

    Certainly up to 75% of the total cavalry came from the Socii - but these were the Roman Equestrians - they definitely existed - as noted, there should really be no difference between Hastati and Principes, but if there are subtle differences between Romans and Socii, then it should be represented by the cavalry too.
    Yes, as I said, they should exist. The compositions weren't static. It is logically consistent, as well.

    So they maintained their reputation and would have been an excellent source of cavalry for the Socii allies to contribute - but still just Socii equites. A completely mythical super-unit.
    One solution would be just adding a regional effect which gives Socii equites an experience boost from that region only. Or perhaps some other sort of buff.

    Hannibal certainly hired/used Celts from Northern Italy - the Romans didn't much at all. I am mostly concerned by the appearance of many 'super-troops', that will result in mostly un-authentic armies
    The Romans did have Gallic allies. They fought on both sides in the Second Punic War. These wouldn't have really been mercenaries, though the difference may have been negligible. Hannibal had issues with both his Celtic and Italian allies and they were driven by self-interest/profit. I don't necessarily agree with the mercenary list done (and other points in the list) which is very tentative still, I believe.

    I'd like to see some Italic mercenaries for Carthage which can be hired only in Italy. I'd also like to give them some AOR units to represent the Italian infantry Hannibal used. This would be good for both the main campaign and HaTG. I don't think it's accurate to say there weren't Italian mercenaries, however.

    Again, they were employed by the Carthaginians in the First Punic War. It's also a sandbox game. This was prohibited by the peace treaty which ended the first conflict, but that sort of goes out the window in the Second.

    What evidence describes them like that? Polybius is quite clear, they are simply 1/5th of the Allied infantry (10 centuries per legion?) and ~1/3rd of the cavalry, with no differences as to arms and armour mentioned. It seems they did become a feature and were possibly the most experienced, but certainly nothing 'special' - simply 'better' (represented by experience). Yes, they are used as an Advanced (sometimes Rear) guard and used to guard the camp, etc, but that's because they are simply the handy picked body. They are 'elite' simply by service, nothing else. Many terms such as these are over-used and with modern connotations. They also aren't mentioned when the 'larger' legions are in play - for good reason.
    I think you are taking a very narrow reading of what Polybius said. He doesn't really describe their equipment at all. Most likely in pitched battles, but not necessarily, they would have been equipped the same. But if they were performing specialized tasks, it is logical and sensible they would have also used different tools to accomplish their tasks.

    To say they aren't mentioned when the larger legion comes into play is an odd observation. We don't have much evidence of them at all. Are you saying you would be opposed to having a unit named Extraordinarii which would be slightly stronger in game than the typical Socii units even if their equipment was the same and they had unit caps?

    The full text of Polybius on the Extraordinary:
    These are called the extraordinary, or selected troops. The whole infantry of the allies is usually the same in number with that of the Romans; but the cavalry three times as many. Among these, about a third part of the cavalry, and a fifth part of the infantry, are set apart as extraordinaries. The rest are then divided by the prefects into two equal bodies; one of which is called the right, and the other the left wing. When all things are thus prepared, the tribunes direct both the Romans and the allies to encamp.

    As soon as the encampment is completed, the tribunes, having assembled together' all the persons, both free men and slaves, that are in the army, administer to every one of them apart the following oath: "That they will not steal any thing from the camp; and even if they find any thing that they will bring it to the tribunes." TWO companies are then selected from the principes and the hastati of each legion; to whose care is assigned the ground that lies before the tents of the tribunes. For as the Romans usually pass the whole time of day in this open space, they employ great care to keep it continually cleansed .and sprinkled. Of the remaining eighteen companies three are allotted to every tribune. For in every legion there are twenty companies of principes and hastati, as we have already mentioned, and six tribunes. The service which these three companies are obliged to perform in turn for the tribune to whom they are respectively assigned is to fix hi! tent, to make the ground around it plain and level, and to cover his baggage, if it be necessary, with a fence. It is their duty likewise to place a double guard near him for his security' This guard consists of four soldiers, two of whom are stationed before the tent, and two behind it, near to the horses. As three companies are thus allotted to every tribune, and as each company, without including the triarii and the light-armed troops, who are both exempted from this duty, contains more than a hundred men, this service falling to each company in turn upon every fourth day only, becomes very light and easy; and, while it ministers in all things that are necessary to the convenience of the tribunes, renders their office likewise more illustrious, and brings respect to their authority.


    So, again, we have a force of picked men performing a wide array of special functions. It's doubtful they would have had the same equipment at all times.

    AFAIK Caesar (Commentaries) only uses the word a single time - with no detail. The term seemingly has only one meaning ('those who go before the standards'); I have not yet seen a reference that says they were the youngest. And I meant 'spear-and light javelin armed', not actual auxilia. BTW - which troop types in the Roman legions provided the template for the auxilia when they were formed? The RSII representation is fairly good, although I'd prefer something along the lines of a 'spear-armed peltast' myself.
    I had an entire post on this subject somewhere. The word itself was in use long before Caesar and long after him. It's meaning is not always consistent. In the early stages of the Republic, the term meant the youngest members of the Hastati - those who fought in the very front (Livy).

    Caesar mentions them more than once. At Pharsalus:
    But in the case of his cavalry he retained his previous custom which we have explained above: since they were many times inferior in number, he gave orders that lightly equipped youths from among the first-rank men, with arms selected with a view to fleetness, should go into battle among the cavalry, so that by daily practice they might win experience in this kind of fighting also.
    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/..._Wars/3D*.html

    During the imeprial era:
    Lucius Valerius Cometius, veteran of the legio VIII Augusta has served with the arms of the antesignani. His heirs according to the will.

    That suggests that they had developed into something of a unique unit or were used distinctly to me.

    Brutus was far inferior in number of ships, but Caesar had assigned to his fleet the bravest men, front-line men and centurions, picked from all the legions, who had demanded this charge for themselves. They had prepared iron claws and grapplings and had furnished themselves with a great number of javelins, looped darts, and other weapons. - Caesar 1.57
    http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/..._Wars/1B*.html

    Some other quotes:

    M. Terentii Varronis Saturae Menippeae 22. 552, 25 et 555, 8:
    quem secuntur cum rotundis velites leves parmis, antesignani quadratis multisignibus tecti
    ...because the light velites were cut to pieces(? while equipped) with round parmae, the antesignani (well) protected by multifigured square ones...
    Festus, 238:
    Parmulis pugnare milites soliti sunt. Quarum usum sustulit C. Marius, datis in vicem earum Bruttianis
    'Soldiers used to fight with small bucklers. The use of which C. Marius has abolished, with Bruttians given in their place'
    Festus, 26:
    Bruttianae parmae dicebantur scuta quibus Bruttiani sunt usi.
    'Bruttian bucklers were the shields called that the Bruttians used to use.'

    Caesar also had the practice of intermixing picked infantry with his cavalry in Gaul (which he had adopted from the Germans, if I'm not mistaken, though it had been a tactic much longer). This would be a continued practice.

    My original post on the subject of the Roman army:
    I have some stuff to add to what you recently posted regarding the Republican and Marian units.

    Given the start date on the eve of the 2nd Punic War:
    1. It is highly likely that the gladius was already in use at this time as the main weapon of the Roman infantry. Polybius contradicts himself on this, but archaeological finds indicate that it was in use by the Romans in the First Punic War.

    2. On the Socii Extraordinarii Pedites-You classify them as 'scouts,' but I don't believe this is an apt description. Polybius is basically the only source we have on their existence period, but he describes a picked body of infantry that were posted where the Romans were most vulnerable to attack. If they expected or thought a rear attack was a risk, they'd post them in the rear. When on the march, they were typically described as being in the front. When in camp, they were closer to the walls. I believe these were heavy infantry. Possibly the Socii version of the Triarii. It's possible the Romans simply picked the most fit of the allied soldiers. I would imagine it could have been done with political considerations in mind, as well. But I don't get the 'scout' description. Perhaps they were versatile and used in different capacities, but their positioning leads me to believe they were heavy infantry.

    3. On the Socii cavalry - there is a designation of 'light' and 'heavy' cavalry, but based on the Second Punic War, the Italians at this point don't seem to have employed light cavalry at all. Hence the success of the Numidians and the importance placed on their inclusion in the army as time went on. Polybius describes early Italian cavalry as being lightly armored, but having at some point (probably from Pyrrhus or perhaps interactions with the Greek colonies) they adopted more Greek style armor, equipment, and tactics. Again going back to archaeological finds, they probably were heavy infantry with Greek spears, buckler shields, and armor (scale, mail, and plate are all depicted at various times). The equites could afford to buy themselves better equipment.

    Light cavalry would have been a tactical innovation during the Second Punic War, I believe. The Romans did have Gallic allies who fought with them as well as Numidians and other allies who began to fill these niche roles.

    4. One other thing to add to the Marian reforms - increased movement points for the units. The logistical changes of the time period were probably the single biggest change while the others seem to have been the end result of a gradual professionalization of the army.


    Nice, job, I am particularly interested when, how and with what the velites and equites where replaced


    I thought I could provide some info here, though the rosters reflect some of the issues. On cavalry - the wealthier classes had basically invested themselves into their landed estates. I would think there was simply less interest in serving in the cavalry and they had probably only a small body of actual Romans. With the granting of citizenship rights to all the Italians, there was less desire for the higher classes that constituted the cavalry to serve. Italian allies had made up the bulk of the Roman cavalry in the first place.

    Auxilla mainly provided the bulk of the cavalry going forward.

    In terms of light troops, with the poorer classes having the land requirements waived to join the legions, light troops, too, came from auxilla. Mercenaries were already employed in this role in the 2nd century.

    I also have some issues with the Antesignani unit. I'm aware it's been included in the past, but the term is vague, had different meanings, and it's never clear in any source I've seen that it was in fact a distinct unit type. It seems to have typically denoted the frontline soldiers. Ceasar seems to use the term in this way as he describes taking these young men and giving them lighter equipment so they could fight with his outmanned cavalry forces. That would suggest it was atypical, and that they were typically more heavily armored. He also states he did this to give them fighting experience which again suggests simply younger members of the legions.

    This was also another way Caesar and later Romans began to address their lack of cavalry (intermixing with light infantry). Caesar seems to have adopted it after seeing the effectivess of his German troops.

    The term had different meanings at different times, but I really question whether it was a separate entity equipped in a lighter fashion. I think the term simply kept a relatively similar meaning to as when used by Livy to refer to members of the maniples who fought in the front ranks at any given moment. So, again, probably the younger soldiers.
    [though not always the youngest it seems, hard to say]

    I would actually like to see a real representation of the mixed cavalry/light infantry units started (at least for the Romans) by Caesar. They would actually use the pilum as their main weapon and fight with the cavalry.
    So, there is more than a strong case that at some point that the term had a unique distinction in the military.

    Based on the eivdence-younger or front line troops who were picked out for details. Really, the only evidence of them being anything else suggests they were actually somewhat elite, though this is contradicted elsewhere. Later writers, however, refer to them as distinct units. The term certainly evolved.


  12. #92

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    I appreciate the feedback. It's good to have these sorts of discussions. ..................


    I think you are taking a very narrow reading of what Polybius said. He doesn't really describe their equipment at all. Most likely in pitched battles, but not necessarily, they would have been equipped the same. But if they were performing specialized tasks, it is logical and sensible they would have also used different tools to accomplish their tasks.

    Well, I hope it's not narrow and I will happily present views (and, see below)


    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    To say they aren't mentioned when the larger legion comes into play is an odd observation. We don't have much evidence of them at all. Are you saying you would be opposed to having a unit named Extraordinarii which would be slightly stronger in game than the typical Socii units even if their equipment was the same and they had unit caps?

    We do have the evidence that the extraordinarii seem to be only a feature of the 2+2 legion Consular army and the strong suggestion that the 'standard' Consular Army was normally enhanced with a number of additional Socii infantry that matches the numbers ascribed to the extraordinarii and therefore suggests, as indeed corroborated in the text, that they were added as a standard additional (infantry at least, given the paucity of cavalry).


    The reason that they do not seem a feature of the times when the enhanced legions come into play, is most likely due to the military appreciation that such a small force is insufficient to the tasks (it is in time of 'extremis') - and whole legion(s) would be empolyed on the duty (like the pair left in camp at Cannae).


    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    The full text of Polybius on the Extraordinary:
    These are called the extraordinary, or selected troops. The whole infantry of the allies is usually the same in number with that of the Romans; but the cavalry three times as many. Among these, about a third part of the cavalry, and a fifth part of the infantry, are set apart as extraordinaries. The rest are then divided by the prefects into two equal bodies; one of which is called the right, and the other the left wing. When all things are thus prepared, the tribunes direct both the Romans and the allies to encamp.


    As soon as the encampment is completed, the tribunes, having assembled together' all the persons, both free men and slaves, that are in the army, administer to every one of them apart the following oath: "That they will not steal any thing from the camp; and even if they find any thing that they will bring it to the tribunes." TWO companies are then selected from the principes and the hastati of each legion; to whose care is assigned the ground that lies before the tents of the tribunes. For as the Romans usually pass the whole time of day in this open space, they employ great care to keep it continually cleansed .and sprinkled. Of the remaining eighteen companies three are allotted to every tribune. For in every legion there are twenty companies of principes and hastati, as we have already mentioned, and six tribunes. The service which these three companies are obliged to perform in turn for the tribune to whom they are respectively assigned is to fix hi! tent, to make the ground around it plain and level, and to cover his baggage, if it be necessary, with a fence. It is their duty likewise to place a double guard near him for his security' This guard consists of four soldiers, two of whom are stationed before the tent, and two behind it, near to the horses. As three companies are thus allotted to every tribune, and as each company, without including the triarii and the light-armed troops, who are both exempted from this duty, contains more than a hundred men, this service falling to each company in turn upon every fourth day only, becomes very light and easy; and, while it ministers in all things that are necessary to the convenience of the tribunes, renders their office likewise more illustrious, and brings respect to their authority."




    So, again, we have a force of picked men performing a wide array of special functions. It's doubtful they would have had the same equipment at all times.

    Now that is interesting - are you suggesting that the whole segment of text above refers to the extraordinarii? For I read it as only the bolded part referring to them. All after "The rest.." referring to the rest of the Socii legions and the part after "As soon...." is for the whole army. So I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you mean by "a wide array of special functions"?




    Antesignanii.....


    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    I had an entire post on this subject somewhere. The word itself was in use long before Caesar and long after him. It's meaning is not always consistent. In the early stages of the Republic, the term meant the youngest members of the Hastati - those who fought in the very front (Livy).

    Oh, I don't disagree that the word was used before and after Caesar - but I would very much appreciate the Livy reference, for as far as I am aware, the latin used is "antepilani", which is completely different.


    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    Caesar mentions them more than once. At Pharsalus:................


    That suggests that they had developed into something of a unique unit or were used distinctly to me.


    Brutus was far inferior in number of ships, but Caesar had assigned to his fleet the bravest men, front-line men and centurions, picked from all the legions, who had demanded this charge for themselves. ............

    My apologies - my Caesar translation leaves only the second alone (so not 'front-line men' however) - in the Pharsalus part it is transalted as 'advance guard' (which, I believe, is a much more accurate translation.


    As to having developed (I would go for always after the Marian reforms when I suspect the change took place) into a unique unit/troop type - then yes.


    .................


    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    So, there is more than a strong case that at some point that the term had a unique distinction in the military.


    Based on the eivdence-younger or front line troops who were picked out for details. Really, the only evidence of them being anything else suggests they were actually somewhat elite, though this is contradicted elsewhere. Later writers, however, refer to them as distinct units. The term certainly evolved.
    And I agree - the evolution being into the Lanciarii.....
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  13. #93

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Armies

    Just had a chance to read (fast) through all of this and notice a great deal of overlap with the other thread - perhaps they should be merged?

    Would note that I would certainly suggest a great simplification, for a lot of the research (cut and pasted from a great variety of sources) does not meld well with each other.

    Given the suggested 300 year time frame from the 2nd Punic War onwards, I would suggest ignoring all of the Servian/Camillan period for which there is only a single source and reference (and it's not detailed enough to result in what is shown); and thus simply having the Middle Republic/Polybian period; followed by the Marian Reforms/Late Republic and major Civil Wars; and finally the Augustan Reforms/Early Imperial period.

    Did like the throw-away, but much more likely, single line definition of what the antesignanii were!
    "RTW/RS VH campaign difficulty is bugged out (CA bug that never got fixed) and thus easier than Hard so play on that instead" - apple

    RSII 2.5/2.6 Tester and pesky irritant to the Team. Mucho praise for long suffering dvk'.

  14. #94

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    Now that is interesting - are you suggesting that the whole segment of text above refers to the extraordinarii? For I read it as only the bolded part referring to them. All after "The rest.." referring to the rest of the Socii legions and the part after "As soon...." is for the whole army. So I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you mean by "a wide array of special functions"?
    No, I quoted the wrong second paragraph:
    In breaking up the camp the following order is observed. When the first signal is made, the soldiers all take down the tents, and collect the baggage' No tent, however, is at any time either set up or taken down until those of the consul and the tribunes are first set up, or first removed. Upon the second signal the baggage is placed upon the beasts of burden; and at the third, the foremost of the troops begin their march, and the' whole camp is put in motion. In the van are usually placed the extraordinaries; and after these the right wing of the allies, which is followed by the baggage of both these bodies. Next to these marches the first of the Roman legions, with its baggage also behind it. The second legion follows; having behind it likewise both its own baggage, and tile baggage of the allies, who are in the rear; for the rear of all the march is closed with the left wing of the allies. The cavalry marches sometimes in the rear of the respective bodies to which it belongs; and sometimes on the flanks of the beasts that are loaded with the baggage; keeping them together in due order, and covering them from insult. When an attack is expected to be made upon the rear, the extraordinaries of the allies, instead of leading the van, are posted in the rear. In all the other parts the disposition remains the same. Of the two legions, and the two wings of the allies, those that are on one day foremost in tile march, on the following day are placed behind; that, by thus changing their rank alternately all the troops may obtain the same advantage in their turn, of arriving first at water and at forage. There is also another disposition which is used when any immediate danger threatens, and the march is made through an open country. At such times, the hastati, the principes, and the triarii, are ranged in three parallel lines, each behind the other, with the baggage of the hastati in the front. Behind the hastati is placed the baggage of the principes, who are followed likewise by that of the triarii; so that the baggage and the several bodies are mingled in alternate order. The march being thus disposed, the troops, as soon as an attack is made, turning either to the left or to the right, advance forwards from the baggage towards that side upon which the enemy appears. And thus, in a moment of time, and by one single movement, the whole army is formed at once in order of battle; except only that the' hastati are perhaps obliged to make an evolution; and the beasts of burden also, with all those that attend upon the baggage, being now thrown into the rear of all the troops, are covered by them from all danger.

    ...

    As I stated above, the number of the allied infantry is the same as that of the Roman legions, but from these the extraordinarii must be deducted; while that of the cavalry is double after deducting the third who serve as extraordinarii. In forming the camp, therefore, they proportionately increase the depth of the space assigned to the allied cavalry, in the endeavour to make their camp equal in length to that of the Romans.

    ...

    Behind the last tent of the tribunes on either side, and more or less at right angles to these tents, are the quarters of the cavalry picked out from the extraordinarii, and a certain number of volunteers serving to oblige the consuls.

    ...

    Back to back with these cavalry and fronting the agger and the rearward face of the whole camp are placed the rest of the pedites extraordinarii.


    From Livy, more ambiguous:
    The troops were formed up within their entrenchments, and picked cohorts were posted at the exits of the camp.

    ...

    The force with which the consuls had taken the field consisted of four legions and a large body of cavalry, in addition to 1000 picked Campanian troopers detailed for this war, whilst the contingents furnished by the allies and the Latin League formed an even larger army than the Roman army.

    Oh, I don't disagree that the word was used before and after Caesar - but I would very much appreciate the Livy reference, for as far as I am aware, the latin used is "antepilani", which is completely different.
    Livy makes multiple references, but always seems to use the term to refer to those who fought ahead of the standard. Livy 24.16:

    Ea demum uox ita animos accendit ut renouato clamore uelut alii repente facti tanta ui se in hostem intulerint, ut sustineri ultra non possent. primo antesignani Poenorum

    The translation on Perseus:
    First, those of the Carthaginians who stood before the standards; [p. 914]then the standards were thrown into disorder; and lastly, the whole line was compelled to give way.

    From book 23.29:
    Triplex stetit Romana acies; uelitum pars inter antesignanos locata, pars post signa accepta; equites cornua cinxere.

    Translation:
    The Roman line was in three divisions. Some of the light infantry were posted between the leading ranks of the legions

    Typically, Livy's references are meant to mean the Hastati, or anyone who fought ahead of the standards. He used the term literally.

    Another quote from Livy 30.32:
    “Instruit deinde primos hastatos, post eos principes; triariis postremam aciem clausit. Non cofertas autem cohortes ante sua quamquam signa instruebat, sed manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes, ut esse spatium, qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarent. […] Vias patentes inter manipulos antesignanorum velitibus – ea tunc levis armatura erat – complevit dato praecepto, ut ad impetum elephantorum aut post directos refuerent ordines aut in dextram laevamque discursu applicantes se antesignanis viam, qua inruerent in ancipitia tela, beluis darent.”

    Translation:
    He ordered then the hastati to the first ranks, followed by the principes. The triarii closed the formation in the back. The cohorts, whom stood the ensigns ahead, shall not close their ranks but shall leave spaces between it’s maniples, so that the elephants of the foes will not penetrate the ranks. […] The given places between the maniples are held by the antesignanorum velitibus – which is the light-armed formation – to lure the attacking elephants into the spaces, allowing to engage them from all directions.

    Here we have a reference to Velites who are given the designation.

    Another interpreation, which I can't find (can't tell which battle he is referring to) on them being picked force from the younger men:
    2) The infantry accompanying the cavalry are not velites - they are drawn from 'young men out of all the legions' for speed, strength and lightness of build - admittedly good light infantry qualities, but the men are designated as 'iuvenes' (young men) not as 'velites'. Some of them are thus quite likely to have been hastati. These men are picked specifically to ride with the cavalry into battle (and dismount to do their thing just before the clash occurs).

    http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=980.5;wap2

    And I agree - the evolution being into the Lanciarii....
    Which would have been at the tail end or after the game time frame. I'm more concerned with what the term meant for the Marian period and after. In the case of Caesar, it's hard to say what sort of equipment they would have had. But given that they were operating with the cavalry, you would assume they were lightly armed. The Greeks and Germans both had a tradition of employing their light infantry intermixed with cavalry. Light infantry that tended to be equipped with javelins (which could double as short spears) and swords.


  15. #95

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Armies

    To be honest, we have sort of taken a step back from the unit rosters. We are a small team, frankly, and Hetairos has been swamped with work related to the art pack release. But I tend to agree. I hope to tweak the rosters posted, but the final call goes with Hetairos.

    Tedric - I'd like to here your opinions on the campaign framework. Particularly, my proposed factional/diplomatic choices. I enjoy the discussion:
    Proposed changes to factions in Balkans
    -Macedon loses Pulpudeva.
    -Tylis is shifted to Pulpudeva
    -Odryssians stay put
    -Byzantium is in the place of Tylis
    -Aetolians for Larissa
    -Epirus client state of Macedon
    -Delmatae controlled Delminium. Should be flipped with Daorsi (who aren't perfectly situated, but this would make more sense). Ardiaei/Daorsi allied with Rome. Delminium hostile.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Interesting map that highlights what I was going into above. The Thracians are situated fine currently (or Odryssians). Tylis was located somewhere to the east of the Haemus Mountains. They weren't a coastal/trading people.

    Another that puts Tylis right where Pulpeveda would be:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Map of Macedon:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


  16. #96
    Hetairos's Avatar Roma Surrectum II
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Serdika
    Posts
    1,511

    Icon5 [Campaign Framework] #2 Factions / Geography / Religions / Resources (217 BC)



    Done: #1 Cultures / Sub-Cultures / Faction Groups
    Cultures | Sub-Cultures | Confederations (217 BC)

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    RENAMED
    SPLIT
    NEW

    Barbarian
    • Aquitanian - Aquitanian Confederation
    • Baltic
    • Belgic - Belgic Confederation
    • Britonnic - Britonnic Confederation
    • Celtiberian - Celtiberian Confederation
    • Celtic - Celtic Confederation
    • Cisalpine
    • Dacian - Dacian Confederation
    • Eastern Barbarian
    • Gallic - Gallic Confederation
    • Gaelic - Gaelic Confederation
    • Germanic - Germanic Confederation
    • Iberian - Iberian Confederation
    • Illyrian - Illyrian Confederation
    • Lusitanian - Lusitanian Confederation
    • Pannonian - Pannonian Confederation
    • Pictish - Pictish Confederation
    • Sakan - Sakan Horde
    • Sarmatian - Sarmatian Horde
    • Scythian - Scythian Horde
    • Thracian - Thracian Confederation
    • Transalpine
    • Turdetanian - Turdetanian Confederation

    Eastern
    • African
    • Arabian
    • Armenian
    • Berber
    • Caucasian - Caucasian Confederation
    • Eastern
    • Parthian
    • Punic

    Greek
    • Hellenic - Hellenic League
    • Hellenic Colonial
    • Hellenistic
    • Pontic - Pontic League
    • Ptolemaic

    Roman
    • Etruscan - Etruscan League
    • Italian - Italian League
    • Latin

    Playable Faction Groups | Playable Factions (217 BC)

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    RENAMED
    SPLIT
    NEW

    Prologue

    • Roma

    Grand Campaign
    1. Roma (playable Roman gens coming soon)
    2. Carthago (playable Carthaginian gens coming soon)
    3. Anatolítai (playable factions coming soon)
    4. Dákoi - Illyrioí - Thrákes (playable factions coming soon)
    5. Diádokhoi (playable factions coming soon)
    6. Germanoí (playable factions coming soon)
    7. Héllênes (playable factions coming soon)
    8. Íbêroi (playable factions coming soon)
    9. Kéltoi (playable factions coming soon)
    10. Sarmátai - Skýthoi (playable factions coming soon)
    11. Eléutheroí (playable factions coming soon)

    Hannibal at the Gates
    • Carthago: The Mediterranean Uprising
    • Roma: The Mediterranean Hegemony
    • Syracusae: The Stronghold of Magna Graecia
    • Lusitani: The Masters of Guerilla Warfare
    • Arevaci: The Adept Statesmen

    Caesar in Gaul
    • Roma: The Paragon of Civilization
    • Arverni: The Champions of Gaul
    • Suebi: The Invaders from Germania
    • Nervii: The Bravest o the Belgae

    IMPORTANT: Due to UI limitations we are only allowed to add 9 Faction Groups (+ Rome and Carthage) and 11 Factions per Faction Group! To be seen below:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    3.) Authentic Ancient World: Extended Map Project

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	world_map_RSII_source_map.jpg 
Views:	296 
Size:	1.08 MB 
ID:	311852

    4.) Provinces | Regions | Settlements | Factions | Religions

    coming soon

    5.) Provinces | Regions | Resources | Wonders

    coming soon



    Ignore, for now


    4.) Ethnics Map for AoR System (217 BC)

    Someone, paint me a map with the present ethnics at 217 BC:

    This is 272 BC (and to mention aside the ethnics / cultures assigned to the factions in vanilla are oftentimes not comprehensive or simply wrong).
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Now once we have the list fixed with what sub-cultures / ethnics we want in our game (217 BC and onwards!!!). I need someone to paint me two maps with 1.) a first draw of the present culture / cultures within the regions and 2.) a first draw with the present sub-cultures (one or more?) within the regions. Remember you can use the map below and simply use Paint for doing so:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    This will lie the foundation of our AoR / Recruitment / Ethnics / Population game design which will be a bit different than other overhauls. Unfortunately there is no time for big explanations now.
    Last edited by Hetairos; August 22, 2014 at 06:15 AM.

  17. #97
    Thomahawk2k's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Near Gouda, Duchy of Holland
    Posts
    105

    Icon14 Re: [Campaign Framework] #1 Cultures / Sub-Cultures

    I agree to all, one little thing, I would recall successors to diadochi. Since I guess it would be more accurate, bactrians aren't really successors, but they are still diadochi.

    EDIT: and maybe carthiginian to punic

    EDIT2: Changed situation, still partly valid
    Last edited by Thomahawk2k; August 05, 2014 at 12:00 PM.

  18. #98
    Hetairos's Avatar Roma Surrectum II
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Serdika
    Posts
    1,511

    Default Re: [Campaign Framework] #1 Cultures / Sub-Cultures

    As a side note Diadochi does mean Successors in Greek. Don't worry in game they will all called diadochi, this is only for the database now. The text files will be in native language. So Successors in game will be shown as Diadokhoi or Diadochoi.

    EDIT: Changed carthaginian to punic.
    Last edited by Hetairos; August 05, 2014 at 12:09 PM.

  19. #99
    Thomahawk2k's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Near Gouda, Duchy of Holland
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: [Campaign Framework] #1 Cultures / Sub-Cultures / Factions

    Ok, where are the nomads? Or do those count as eastern barbarian?

  20. #100
    Hetairos's Avatar Roma Surrectum II
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Serdika
    Posts
    1,511

    Default Re: [Campaign Framework] #1 Cultures / Sub-Cultures / Factions (217 BC)

    I've split nomads into Sarmatian and Scythian.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •