Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 231

Thread: [Research] Collection

  1. #161

    Default Re: [Campaign Framework] #2 Factions / Geography / Religions / Resources (217 BC)

    Sorry it took me so long to respond to this thread. I'm going to try and post some more info tomorrow such as a preliminary factions to subcultures list, and ethnic identities of factions. I've also started the DB editing to put the new subcultures into the game.

    Macedon does need an boost from its already weak position, and Athens and Sparta need to be cut down from declaring war. Tylis and other factions should not destroy Macedon at its starting date. Macedon really in the proper sense of RSII should face the Roman threat even more, and its first 20-30 turns should be an easy play because Macedon was fighting Rome at this period. Perhaps script the wars a little bit to really make it feel like the Roman-Macedonian Wars. Magnar did this in his mod with Carthage fighting Rome at 218 bc. The player must build his armies and then defeat Rome in the current wars.
    Well, Macedon will have a nice advantage over its Greek and Thracian neighbors. That's my goal for the balancing. But a lot of those things need to be tweaked once we move on to overhauling the AI diplomacy.

    Since it starts in 217, a lot of the major factions will be in the middle or about to start very serious wars. I'd rather avoid scripts as I feel they take away from the sandbox element of the game as well as the strategy. But certain events should be set up so they are likely to trigger in the campaigns early stages. I'm able to do some things with regions that allows us a great deal of flexibility in balancing without having to artificially force the AI to do things. We'll see how it goes.

    Three advantages that I can say I'd like to see Macedon have at the start compared to its immediate neighbors:
    1. Recruitment slots
    2. Upkeep costs for its troops
    3. Income. I plan to give Macedon access to mines (which will operate differently in my building scheme and have actual significance). It will be a valuable area to control as it was in real life.

    In other areas, I'm able to do very unique garrisons for regions which should allow us to boost major factions and help deal with the issue of smaller AI nations over running them as they are able to concentrate their forces (which larger factions are incapable of).

    I'd like to actually reduce the reliance on missions to guide the player and the AI, as well, but that's another thing we'll have to address when we get to it. It leads to some pretty ridiculous scenarios in vanilla.

    Another thing I'm glad to say this mod has embraced - realistic starting positions. As in, the actual sort of armies and recruitment options these factions would have had. You aren't going to be starting these campaigns with the same shell army as in vanilla or most starting positions. You will essentially be thrust into taking control of a faction as it stood in June of 217 (a pretty interesting time period that could almost be fairly described as an ancient world war, if people don't mind the hyperbole). So, Athens and Sparta aren't going to have the same forces to start with as Macedon in the name of some ridiculous sense of balance.

    but in this case, Rome can spawn out many armies - so even if you landed two or three armies - you would either result in phrryic victories, or you'd really have to put your skills to the test


    All of this has to be worked out with Hetairos when we move along (a reoccurring theme here, I know), but I'm also aiming to represent the different types of armies and population in various respects. Again, the flexibility I have from my unique regional chains will help a great deal here. All AI factions won't have the same standard number of recruitment slots, upkeep, movement points, garrisons etc.

    I'd like to move away from the arbitrary balancing of AI factions and try to represent the ancient world as closely as possible. I also want this to be a challenging and strategic experience for the player. The high level of specialization I can assign regions is something that will allow us to do that on what I feel will be a new level, to be honest.


    I'm confident that this system will greatly help Rome and some of the other major factions without relying on scripts to help the major AI factions cheat. It's just a matter of getting to that point in the development. That should come up after this initial campaign framework when I can devote my time to buildings.

    So, Marshall of France, a lot of your ideas are going to be implemented in some fashion. The concepts will be there.

    Sanjayraj

    Thanks for the contributions, but I'm personally against the idea of adding a Mauryan faction given the scope of the map. It's also a very debatable subject whether the Mauryans had any control over those territories still by 217 BC. I'll stress again that Hetairos makes these calls, but that's where I stand on the issue and I don't see it changing.

    The reasons are simple:
    1. The legitimate question of how long the Mauryan presence lasted in Afghanistan. Who was the Sophagasenus mentioned by Polybius? We will probably never no. Did Polybius screw up when he said that Antiochus was 'renewing' a prior agreed to treaty with him during his Eastern campaigns and really mean something else? We don't know. He could have been a local ruler, or the Mauryan version of a satrap. What we do know is that after Ashoka's death, the Mauryans declined. Afghanistan, a difficult area to control no matter when you look in history, had already been the site of revolts during his reign when the Indian super state was at its zenith. So, even if the Mauryans still exercised some form of control over the area, I suspect that it was, at best, nominal.

    2. The limitations of the map. Unless Hetairos wants to expand it further East, we would be representing a major empire with all of 2-3 regions on the periphery. That doesn't add to immersion, realism, or the strategy involved. I once had an Alexander mod for RTW1 that had a crazy map concept that included all of India and parts of China (with a Yuezhi faction and two Indian). I've always been fascinated by a large scope mod and the inclusion of India. I love that what-if scenario. I'm also a stickler for realism, and there are, unfortunately, limited resources to make all this work.

    So, if Hetairos wants to expands his future map concept to the east (when/if we get the hoped for tools to edit it), I'd be open to the idea of a representation of the Mauryans.

    The map concept does currently include the Indus area, though, so maybe that is far enough. So, with tools, and that map, it may be a more realistic option.
    Last edited by ABH2; August 12, 2014 at 10:52 PM.


  2. #162

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    Quote Originally Posted by ABH2 View Post
    ..................
    I'm sorry it's taken a while to get back to you; but I was firstly busy elsewhere; and then wanted to go back and check sources:

    Extraordinarii:

    I would still maintain, and the sources support (whatever role they are described as performing), that the extraordinarii are simply, and only, a 'picked' sub-set of the cavalry and infantry of the allies, who themselves seem to armed and armoured in the same way as the Romans. There is no need for 'special units', especially as players (unless you introduce this) do not disband their armies at the end of each campaign season. The 'most experienced' (hence 'elite') of those unit types can simply be considered the extraordinarii.


    Campanian Cavalry:

    Thanks for the explicit reference, for it ties it down nicely. The 1,000 cavalry mentioned then, and only then are not only just after all the early troubles with the Campanians, but also a whole 100 years before the timeframe of RSII and, I assume, the AAW Mod. Thereafter the only likely specific allusion is perhaps to a unit of Campanians (300) being part of the normal Socii contingent - and nothing at all to suggest that they are any 'heavier' or differently armed to the rest of the cavalry - light horses, spear and shield (and probably sword) - very used to dismounting to fight. Probably best described as 'Medium Cavalry'.


    Antesignanii:

    Thanks heaps for uncovering for me why many people have a firm belief in the battlefield connotations of this description. As you rightly detail (and I have now been able to review many - and note that I use the Roberts translation in the main as it seems nicer to read), Livy does indeed sprinkle his History with what seems like the term.

    I would note, firstly, therefore, that we should remember that Livy is writing well after the time of Caesar and the Civil Wars, when, we believe, antesignanii seems to refer to a troop-type and not any apparent position on the battlefield. All the places we find a similar term in the Histories, however, describes 'troops' in the time of the manipular legion. That said, many of those references could indeed be to the velites, but translators are often not specific, nor is the meaning clear.

    Where the standards are is also, it seems, under a lot of interpretation - given that all the maniples/centuries have their own - excepting the velites. So whether it's the main body of the hastati, or the velites, or the "front-rankers", or "front-lines", or the "advance guard", or the "light(er) troops", is not entirely sure.

    I would like to ask that a little read of Josephus (who may well hold the clue) III 87-120 be conducted and then see if you come to a similar conclusion to my own. Bearing also in mind that the Roman legions would spend well over 95% of their time marching as opposed to fighting battles, and then seeing who is 'in front of the standards'.
    "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'.

  3. #163

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    There is no need for 'special units', especially as players (unless you introduce this) do not disband their armies at the end of each campaign season.
    There's no real 'right' answer on it was my only real point on the Extraordinarii. When I hear picked, I wonder if they weren't basically the Triarii of the Socii. Their precise purpose is obviously obscure from the info we have.

    On that note, we haven't gotten to that point as a mod, but my goal actually is to make the Roman units cheap to recruit, but with higher upkeep to encourage disbandment (at least for the human player). I also want going to war to be an actual economic burden. I'd like to see more of the strategy put back into this game.

    Thanks for the explicit reference, for it ties it down nicely. The 1,000 cavalry mentioned then, and only then are not only just after all the early troubles with the Campanians, but also a whole 100 years before the timeframe of RSII and, I assume, the AAW Mod. Thereafter the only likely specific allusion is perhaps to a unit of Campanians (300) being part of the normal Socii contingent - and nothing at all to suggest that they are any 'heavier' or differently armed to the rest of the cavalry - light horses, spear and shield (and probably sword) - very used to dismounting to fight. Probably best described as 'Medium Cavalry'.
    I agree on the armament and even how they would have been arranged. As I said, I have issues/disagreements with the unit roster. I'd prefer to just have, at most, an experience or slight buff to cavalry recruited in the region itself rather than a separate unit to create artificial and fake diversity.

    I would like to ask that a little read of Josephus (who may well hold the clue) III 87-120 be conducted and then see if you come to a similar conclusion to my own. Bearing also in mind that the Roman legions would spend well over 95% of their time marching as opposed to fighting battles, and then seeing who is 'in front of the standards'.
    While I'm not sure I would so quickly discount what Livy states, this is even more ambiguous than the extraordinarii to me. At the point of Caesar, I don't think they were a distinct unit as much as they were a designation in the army. More like a rank. For instance, a PFC tanker vs a PFC infantrymen. There's MOS (job), and ranks and other distinctions. I do think the term refers more towards younger soldiers, though I've seen some interpret it as the 'elites' by this point. I don't think Caesar or anyone else would have taken their top heavy infantry and equipped them lighter to fight alongside cavalry. Just my own opinion.

    So, I don't think they were a distinct unit in this time frame, but I do think they were soldiers who could be picked out for special tasks/details (again, just like the modern military - roles down hill, and the younger soldiers are tasked out to do grunt work). I just think Caesar, a rather inovative general, used them in a particular role, and that same role probably would have been filled in the future if not necessarily by a distinct unit called antesignani. Caesar also used Germans in a similar role.

    I'll take a look at the source you suggested, but keep in mind that I don't make the final calls on these units and I didn't design the unit roster in question. I can only argue my point and hope its adopted. I'm still not sure on the 'right' way to depict something like this, and based on the source material we have, I'm not sure there is a right way. The game is poor at reflecting certain realities. Among them is the fact that equipment was interchangeable.


  4. #164

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    The numbers quoted for the extraordinarii could be related to the similar numbers of the triarii, but their use certainly leans much more strongly to the future 'cohort' idea and that they could then fight as a consular army in miniature. A '10-century' equivalent cohort from each Socii legion, commanded by a prefect. In addition, keeping all the triarii of the Socii to guard the camp (which happens on occasion) removes them from the battlefield - which seems counter-productive)

    Specifying that as the extra for the enhanced Consular Armies then makes even more sense.

    When it comes to the antesignanii - do look at that portion of Bella Judea, it could prove interesting. Even more so when you may wish to satisfy the desires of players to have a 'spear-armed' unit after the demise of the triarii and before the appearance of the late auxilia. For taking away from the 'heavy' legionary the 'heavy' javelin and giving those men a spear and 'light' javelins (ie the arms of the velites and triarii combined) may certainly explain the 'light(er) armed troops'.

    As I noted before - which troop type in the Roman panoply represents the model for the late auxilia - do we really believe the Romans just made them up?

    Just my suggestion......FWIW
    "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'.

  5. #165

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Navies and Siege equiqment

    This is a suitable place to ask (as the stickied Research thread is locked) - as it's a young thread.

    A lot of the 'research' posted is actually just a massive collection of everything that can be found on the web - and therefore written by a whole host of modern authors and containing a great deal that is speculative, not proven and, quite possibly, wrong.

    Is there to be a method of processing? Is there going to be any 'search for the original'? How 'authentic' do you want this?

    Certainly words like 'Praetorian Fleets' rather concern me - when naval forces were mostly considered on a par with 'auxiliary'.
    "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'.

  6. #166

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    As I noted before - which troop type in the Roman panoply represents the model for the late auxilia - do we really believe the Romans just made them up?
    Well, did the idea need a lot of inventing or innovation? The model had already been in use. It was similar to how the people who made up the auxilla had already been fighting (spears the most common weapon, cheap javelins). It was used by barbarian tribes, the Greeks, and perhaps even the early Romans themselves. I've always just figured the Romans had spear armed auxilla because it was cheaper, it complimented their main force of heavy infantry, and it would have been pretty similar to how those people had been use to fighting.

    Even the concept of using a light armed force to fight with cavalry was in use by the Greeks by the 4th century and used heavily by Alexander and the Successors. So, really, the ideas wouldn't have required much more than being familiar with the history of warfare up until that point.

    Something else I missed/didn't notice in your previous post:
    I would note, firstly, therefore, that we should remember that Livy is writing well after the time of Caesar and the Civil Wars, when, we believe, antesignanii seems to refer to a troop-type and not any apparent position on the battlefield.
    Maybe I'm not reading this right, but what about the references from Caesar's Civil Wars (even with other authors)?

    Livy also didn't seem to use the term to refer to a distinct troop type, but literally just those who fought ahead of the standards, as that is the literal meaning of the word. It's definition is very dependent on the context its used in the sources as this argument shows, yet seemed to have evolved over time.

    I would like to ask that a little read of Josephus (who may well hold the clue) III 87-120 be conducted and then see if you come to a similar conclusion to my own. Bearing also in mind that the Roman legions would spend well over 95% of their time marching as opposed to fighting battles, and then seeing who is 'in front of the standards'.
    So, I've found two translations of the particular text you are referring to.

    First translation
    2. But as Vespasian had a great mind to fall upon Galilee, he marched out of Ptolemais, having put his army into that order wherein the Romans used to march. He ordered those auxiliaries which were lightly armed, and the archers, to march first, that they might prevent any sudden insults from the enemy, and might search out the woods that looked suspiciously, and were capable of ambuscades. Next to these followed that part of the Romans which was completely armed, both footmen ,and horsemen. Next to these followed ten out of every hundred, carrying along with them their arms, and what was necessary to measure out a camp withal; and after them, such as were to make the road even and straight, and if it were any where rough and hard to be passed over, to plane it, and to cut down the woods that hindered their march, that the army might not be in distress, or tired with their march. Behind these he set such carriages of the army as belonged both to himself and to the other commanders, with a considerable number of their horsemen for their security. After these he marched himself, having with him a select body of footmen, and horsemen, and pikemen. After these came the peculiar cavalry of his own legion, for there were a hundred and twenty horsemen that peculiarly belonged to every legion. Next to these came the mules that carried the engines for sieges, and the other warlike machines of that nature. After these came the commanders of the cohorts and tribunes, having about them soldiers chosen out of the rest. Then came the ensigns encompassing the eagle, which is at the head of every Roman legion, the king, and the strongest of all birds, which seems to them a signal of dominion, and an omen that they shall conquer all against whom they march; these sacred ensigns are followed by the trumpeters. Then came the main army in their squadrons and battalions, with six men in depth, which were followed at last by a centurion, who, according to custom, observed the rest. As for the servants of every legion, they all followed the footmen, and led the baggage of the soldiers, which was borne by the mules and other beasts of burden. But behind all the legions carne the whole multitude of the mercenaries; and those that brought up the rear came last of all for the security of the whole army, being both footmen, and those in their armor also, with a great number of horsemen.

    Second translation
    Vespasian though, impatient to advance into Galilea himself, marched out to Ptolemais having deployed the army for marching according to the Roman custom. The light armed from the auxiliaries and the archers he sent out to march ahead, in order to repel the sudden assaults of the enemies and to clear suspected woods for ambushes. And a heavy armed force of Romans followed them, both foot and horse. Following these came ten men selected from each century carrying their own kit and the measuring instruments for the camp, and behind them the pioneers to remove the obstacles of the marching route, level the uneven parts of the ground and cut away impeding bushes, so the army would not have a tiresome and difficult march. Behind them he placed his own baggage and that of the commanders around him with a strong guard of horsemen. Behind them he rode himself with the picked troops of the infantry and cavalry and the javelineers. Behind him the organic cavalry force of the legion, for there are one hundred and twenty cavalrymen of their own for each legion. The mules carrying the siege towers and the other siege engines followed them. Behind them the generals and the commanders of cohorts with the tribunes with picked soldiers as an escort. Next the standards surrounding the eagle, that leads each Roman legion, because it is the king and the bravest of all birds: this they consider the symbol of power and a portent of victory over foes, whoever they might be. The trumpeters followed these sacred objects, and at thier rear the compact formation of six abreast. A centurion marched along according to custom to oversee the formation. The attendant's corps of each legion followed the infantrymen, leading the soldiers baggage on mules and beasts of burden. Behind all the legions the mercenary corps, both heavy armed infantrymen and a considerable number of cavalry followed these as rearguards for safety.

    Original text (in Greek)
    Ouespasianos de hoormèmenos autos embalein eis tèn Galilaian exelaunei tès Ptolemaidos diataxas tèn stratian hodeuein katha Rhoomaiois ethos. Tous men ge psilous toon epikouroon kai toxotas proagein ekeleusen, hoos anakoptoien tas exapinaious toon polemioon epidromas kai diereunooien tas hupoptous kai lochasthai dynamenas hylas, hois eipeto kai Rhoomaioon hoplitikè moipa, pezoi kai hippeis. Toutois aph'hekastès hehekatontarchias èkolouthoun deka tèn te heautoon skeuèn kai ta metra tès parembolès pherontes, kai met'autous hodopoioi ta te skolia tès leoophorou kateuthynein kai chthamaloun ta dysbata kai tas empodious hylas proanakoptein, hoos mè talaipooroito dysporoun ta strateuma. Katopin de toutoon tas te idias kai tas toon hyp' auton hègemonoon etaxen aposkeuas kai sychnous epi toutois pros asphaleian toon hippeoon. Meth'hous autos exèlaunen tous te epilektous toon pezoon kai hippeoon kai tous lonchophorous echoon. Heipetod'autooi to idion tou tagmatos hippikon, idioi gar hekastou tagmatos eikosi pros tois hekaton hippeis. Toutois d'èkolouthoun hoi tas helepoleis pherontes oreis kai ta loipa mèchanèmata. Meta toutous hègemones te kai speiroon eparchoi syn chiliarchois, epilektous peri sphas stratiootas echontes. Epeita hai sèmaiai periischousai ton aeton, hos pantos archei Rhoomaiois tagamtos, basileus te oioonoon hapantoon kai alkimootatos oon: ho dè kai tès hègemonias tekmèrion autois kai klèidoon, eph'hous an ioosin, tou kratèsein dokei. Tois de hierois èkolouthoun hoi salpinktai, kai katopin autoon hè phalanx to stiphos eis hex platynasa. Toutois pareipeto tis hekatontarchos ex ethous tèn taxin episkopoumenos. To d'oiketion hekastou tagmatos hapan tois pezois heipeto, tas aposkeuas toon stratiootoon epi tois oreusin kai tois hypozygiois agontes. Katopin de pantoon toon tagmatoon ho misthios ochlos, hois ouragoi pros asphaleian èkolouthoun pezoi te kai hoplitai kai toon hippeoon sychnoi.


    So, are we talking about the third sentence? And your suggestion is making the antesignani just legions with short spears (in game terms)?

    It would be perhaps possible to make a unit that could be upgraded to a lighter and a heavier version based on situation the player decides. But, I still don't think a heavy armed spear legionary would be an accurate depiction of what is described by any of the authors I've seen. I think that would be closer to a fantasy unit as the antesignani appeared, up until at least the time of Caesar, to refer to men who fought in the front of the legions. It may have evolved by the time of Caesar to be a certain designation of some kind of the army. A group that he decided to use for specialized tasks (some of which included being lightly armored, hence serving alongside the cavalry). I'd say no to spear armed legions, personally. Any Roman legionary by this period would have still had a gladius.


  7. #167
    The Wandering Storyteller's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I wash my hands of this weirdness!
    Posts
    4,509

    Default [Research] 217 bc: The starting foundation of the mod

    217 BC.

    The year is 217BC, and the Ancient world is in an tumble. Hannibal of Carthage is in Italy, rampaging and destroying the Roman Legions at The Battle of Lake Trasimene (June 21, 217 BC, April on the Julian calendar) while the Egyptains under Ptolemy IV using native Egyptian phalanxes, defeat the Selecuid Army in June 22, 217 BC, at the battle of Raphia. In Macedon, Phillip V defeats the Atoleian League, and destroys Thebes thus making Macedonian Power supreme. Rome suffers more defeats at the hand of Hannibal...., Quintus Fabious Maximus, one of the best Roman generals against Hannibal,finds his scorched earth tactics nulled by Hannibal's genius, and results in an large skimrish from which they win a '' victory'', but trouble lies in the Senate, and the question lies to whether now who will actually dominate the globe.

    Rome suffers, Carthage Victorious.

    Macedon establishes its power on the Greek Peninsula... showing it is not the declining power that it once was. The city of Thebes is gone.

    Ptolemy IV defeats the mighty Selecuid Army, and establishes the rule of the Ptolemies as an rival to the Selecuid Empire.

    Rome again suffers more defeats at the hands of Hannibal. The Second Punic war is at its height, and Hannibal is supreme on the Italian continent...

    This is quite an excellent period to choose from. It encompasses the stage set for 218 BC, where our powers will soon begin to emerge as strong factions fighting for power and land. Anyway now to events/characters:

    Scenarios:

    Second Punic War: Carthage vs Rome



    Cast

    Side of Carthage:

    Hannibal of Carthage - General, and member of the Barcid Family
    Hasdrubal† - Brother and General of Hannibal's army - Barcid Family
    Mago† - Cavarly Commander, brother and general of the army.- Barcid Family
    Hasdrubal Gisco†- General of an commanding Carthaginian army, however is not very good, and is soon defeated in 206 bc at the Battle of Illipa
    Syphax- King of the Massyeli
    Hanno the Elder† - name of several generals, but this one was a bad general of Hannibal
    Hasdrubal the Bald -unknown
    Hampsicora† - unknown
    Maharbal - Hannibal's main cavarly commander
    Philip V - King of Macedon, ruler of the Angtioned Dynasty

    Side of Rome:

    The Scipio Family

    Publius Cornelius Scipio† - General/Statesmen of the Roman army, member of Cornelia Gens, father to Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (the elder), and of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus. Defeated by Hannibal at the battle of the Po River, and witnessed the defeat of the battle of Trebia. Cornelia family
    Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus - son of Publius Conrelius Scipio, destroys Carthage in 146 bc. Serves as officer in Roman army.
    Tiberius Sempronius Longus† - General responsible for defeat at Battle of Trebia, 218 bc

    Other Statesmen/Generals
    Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator (ca. 280 BC – 203 BC) was a Roman politician and general, who was born in Rome around 280 BC and died in Rome in 203 BC. He was a Roman Consul five times (233 BC, 228 BC, 215 BC, 214 BC and 209 BC) and was twice appointed Dictator, in 221 and again in 217 BC
    Claudius Marcellus† Important Roman Counsul, fought the Gauls, has been elected at least five times. He besieged Sycrause in 214 bc and destroyed it 212 bc, with the death of Archemdies
    Lucius Aemilius Paulluscommanded the Roman army at Cannae and got defeated.
    Gaius Terentius Varro - defeated at Roman battle of Cannae
    Marcus Livius Salinator - fought in battle of Metaraus in 207 bc, Roman counsul and general
    Gaius Claudius Nero was a Romanconsul who fought in the Battle of the Metaurus (207 BC). He was member of the gens Claudia. He is not to be confused with the Roman Emperor Nero. In 207 BC, the thirteenth year of the war, he was elected consul with Marcus Livius Salinator, and with his colleague he led the army that defeated the Carthaginians at the river Metaurus, killing their commander, Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal.[
    Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus† - Famous for defeating an outnumbered Carthaginian army under the command of Hanno at the battle of Cissa in 218 bc, later dies at the Battle of the Upper Baetis in 211 BC
    Masinissa - king of Numida
    Marcus Minucius Rufus† - managed to hold against Hannibal, underated officer, managed to hold him back with his commanding skills, and was enemy of Fabius, though later saved his life, and was killed in the battle of Cannae
    Gnaeus Servilius Geminus

    Belligerents:

    Roman Republic
    Aetolian League
    Pergamon
    Numidia

    Carthage
    Syracuse
    Macedon
    Other Greek states

    Major Battles:
    The Battle of Lake Trasminie
    The Battle of Raphia
    The Siege of Thebes in summer 217 BC




    Battle list of units for Raphia

    Ptolemic Side:

    Lagid army of Ptolemy IV:

    Right Wing.
    Tarentines
    Hetairoi plus Ptolemy
    African Elephant
    Thureophoroi

    Centre.
    Mercenary Hoplites
    Line Phalangites
    Machimoi, Levy Phalangites
    Galatians Warriors

    Left Wing.
    Peltasts
    Slingers
    Archers
    Xystophoroi
    Greek Cavalry
    African Elephant

    Seleucid army of Antiochus III.

    Right Wing.
    Dahae Horse Archers
    Hetairoi and Antiochus III
    Indian Elephants

    Centre.
    assorted levy
    Thorakitai
    Argyraspids
    Chalkaspids- Golden Shields, image shown below

    15no Thureophoroi

    Left Wing.
    Thracians warriors
    Tarentines
    Xystophoroi
    Armoured Indian Elephant

    Battle list of armies for the Battle of Lake Trasminie

    Roman Side:


    • raordinarii: 1 officer stand, 2 units of 8 cavalry, 2 units of 12 velites, 2 units of 24 hastati.
    • Legion 1 (deployed in triplex acies): 1 officer stand, 2 units of 12 velites, 2 units of 24 hastati, 2 units of 24 principes, 2 units of 12 triarii.
    • Legion 2 (deployed in column): 1 officer stand, 2 units of 12 velites, 2 units of 24 hastati, 2 units of 24 principes, 2 units of 12 triarii.
    • Legion 3 (Trebia remnants, deployed in column): 1 officer stand, 2 units of 12 velites, 2 units of 24 hastati, 2 units of 24 principes, 2 units of 12 triarii.
    • Roman cavalry (deployed in column): 1 officer stand(Flaminius), 2 units of 8 cavalry.
    • Allied cavalry (deployed in column): 1 officer stand, 4 units of 8 cavalry.Libyan Phalanx 1: 1 officer stand, 3 units of 24 Libyan spearmen, 2 units of 16 Libyan javelinmen



    Carthaginain Side


    • Libyan Phalanx 1: 1 officer stand, 3 units of 24 Libyan spearmen, 2 units of 16 Balearic slingers, 1 unit of 16 Numidian javelinmen.
    • Libyan Phalanx 2: 1 officer stand, 3 units of 24 Libyan spearmen, 2 units of 16 Libyan javelinmen.
    • Spanish infantry: 1 officer stand, 4 units of 36 Spanish scutarii, 2 units of 24 Spanish Caetrati.
    • Gauls 1: 1 officer stand, 4 units of 44 Gallic warband, 2 units of 12 Gallic cavalry, 1 unit of 16 Gallic cavalry.
    • Gauls 2: 1 officer stand, 2 units of 44 Gallic warband, 2 units of 12 Gallic cavalry.
    • Spanish cavalry: 1 officer stand, 4 units of 12 Spanish cavalry.
    • Numidians: 1 officer stand, 4 units of 12 Numidian cavalry.




    Major Wars:

    Social War(220-217bc) set between Macedon and the Atoliean league
    Second Punic War 218–201 BC
    Fourth Syrian War(219-217bc)

    Revolts:

    After Raphia, there was an period of revolts to due to high taxation, corruption, and nationalist resentment. This paragraph explains its much better

    The Ptolemaic kingdom would continue to weaken over the following years, suffering from economic problems and rebellion. Nationalist sentiment had developed among the native Egyptians who had fought at Raphia. Confident and well-trained, they broke from Ptolemy in what is known as the Egyptian Revolt, establishing their own kingdom in Upper Egypt which the Ptolemies finally reconquered around 185 BC..

    It will begin somewhat 210 bc.

    The setting for 218 BC:




    Location of Battles:

    Rahipa



    Lake Trasmine



    Political Families:
    Angtionid Dynasty
    Cornelia Gens
    Numidian Dynasty
    Selecuid Dynasty
    Ptomleic Dynasty
    Fabious Maximus Family
    Last edited by Hetairos; September 02, 2014 at 01:00 PM. Reason: rF





















































  8. #168
    bobbyr's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    418

    Default Re: 217 bc: The starting foundation of the mod

    Looks good, I appreciate the effort

    One notation though: It wasn't Scipio Africanus who destroyed Carthage in 146 BC, but Scipio Aemilianus, the son of Amemilius Paulus, who defeated Macedonia at Pydna




  9. #169
    The Wandering Storyteller's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I wash my hands of this weirdness!
    Posts
    4,509

    Default Re: 217 bc: The starting foundation of the mod

    That shall be corrected. Thanks for that





















































  10. #170
    bobbyr's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    418

    Default Re: 217 bc: The starting foundation of the mod

    No problem mate. Scipio Africanus defeated Hannibal at Zama to end the Second Punic War in favour of Rome, thus earning him the nickname Africanus.

    This mod will be great, I'm sure. Everything looks promising so far.




  11. #171
    Thomahawk2k's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Near Gouda, Duchy of Holland
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: [Campaign Framework] #2 Factions / Geography / Religions / Resources (217 BC)

    Ok, quick other subject, I have calculated how much factions we can add:
    2x gaul_massilia, pun_massilia by using rom_massilia in the HatG and CiG campaigns
    1x pun_ or gaul_allobreges by using one of them instead of two
    2x gaul_volcae, pun_volcae by using rom_volcae in HatG and CiG campaigns
    4x by using test factions2x by using rom_rome in the HatG and CiG campaigns (to be confirmed, maybe we get an issue with generals)
    1x by using rom_carthage in HatG (to be confirmed)
    1x by using rom_arverni in CiG (to be confirmed)
    10x by using other gallic and celtic rom_ version instead of gaul_
    1x by using rom_suebi instead of gaul_suebi (to be confirmed)
    1x by using rom_arevaci instead of pun_arevaci
    1x by using rom_lusitani instead of pun_lusitani
    5x by using rom_ versions of other iberian tribes in HatG
    4x by using rom_ versions of african nations in HatG
    1x by using rom_ version instead of pun_syracuse
    1x by using either gaul_ or pun_ version of the tarbelli
    1x by using prologue version of rome
    1x by either using punic or prologue version of the samnites
    1x by using rom_etruscans instead of pun_etruscans
    3x by using rom_ versions of liguria, insubres and veneti
    A total of 42 factions from which 5 are to be confirmed (but while typing this list I think I already found the solution if it is an issue)
    + nations/tribes which don't exist anymore in 217BC

    Seems enough for now. Possibly even if we may get our hands on the campaign map, thinking about Spain and Gaul already filled.
    Last edited by Thomahawk2k; August 19, 2014 at 08:27 AM. Reason: It wasn't properly organized <-- That

  12. #172
    Thomahawk2k's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Near Gouda, Duchy of Holland
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: [Campaign Framework] #2 Factions / Geography / Religions / Resources (217 BC)

    Sorry, I got pop-ups with virus links and other unwanted stuff and had to set an higher security level up. It seems this is a by-effect of this, I'll edit it to proper organization when I get back home.

  13. #173

    Default Re: [Campaign Framework] #2 Factions / Geography / Religions / Resources (217 BC)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hetairos View Post
    I finally was able to finish Italy! That is the current Map --> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehhb7wzogg...ld_map_AAW.png

    I am planning to do the Gauls, Celts, Britons and Celtiberians next. Than do Africa, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Balkans, Germania and finally all Eastern Areas.
    Looks freaking awesome, the only problem is how the GC map will be created (has there ever been an overhaul of the map in the Warscape Engine?). Though 4TPY campaigns will be able to feel not end up having a few factions conquer large parts of the world after 20 or so years.

  14. #174

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    - During the 'Middle Republic' (the Polybian period) we have 'centuries' of 60 heavy infantry supported by 20 light infantry/velites

    - During the 'Late Republic' we have references to 'light(er)-armed infantry' as part of the legions (and precious little mention of allies as infantry at all) along with allied and mercenary cavalry; as well as references to 'antesignanii'
    '
    - Antesignanii means, roughly translated, 'those (going) in front of the standards'. Yes, Livy, apparently, uses the word describing positions on battlefields - but the word (or enhancements) doesn't mention fighting or battles at all, only the context the word is used in

    - much 'later' we have references to lanciarii (carrying the lancea/light javelin?)as part of the legions and then archers (Vegetius)

    So, in all cases we have a mention of part of the legion (perhaps a quarter of each century) that are armed differently to the 'heavy infantry' component and can be considered 'lighter' (and perhaps we can ignore armour and shield in that definition). The introduction of the Late Auxilia at the time of Augustus seems to introduce the same equipment for both auxiliary infantry and cavalry (apart from the occasional archer unit it seems), the only difference being the actual horse. Each man has a flatter/wider oval shield, a longer sword, a spear/hasta and, certainly for the cavalry, a clutch of light javelins as well as armour (not really different to the legionary).

    I strongly suggest that the model for that troop-type is the 'missing link' - the antesignanii. Once the true psiloi-type of light infantry (the velite) is no longer considered useful and is no longer the youngest and least equipped soldier of the manipular legion, then there is still a role/need for a 'lighter' type, let alone use for some spear-armed troops (replacing the triarii) and possibly with lighter-javelins (like the velites used); both useful if you are to occasionally fight with and against cavalry. The Romans were not stupid!

    The points I therefore find in Josephus descriptions (as above, but also considering the marching detail) is that:

    - The legions march 6-abreast (if we like the 8-man contubernia, then 2 seem to be missing)

    - half of those are accounted for - as 10 men per century are detached (that's 60 men per cohort) to go forward behind the advance guard to mark out and prepare the next camping ground

    - that more troops (the other half?) are accompanying the general and officers and have spears and 'parma' shields (as opposed to scutum)

    - that the 'missing one-quarter' of the legions, it seems, all go ahead of the standards, which are all together in one place just before the marching body of the legions - who are therefore all behind them!

    Thus my suggestion - seeking possible links between all those elements - is that the antesignanii are a legionary troop-type bridging the gap between the velites/triarii of the Middle Republic and the lanciarii/archers of the Later Empire, always making up one-quarter of full strength legionary forces, armed with the standard hasta/spear of the triarii and auxilia and the light javelins/lancea of the velites and auxilia (certainly cavalry).

    As far as the game goes - I'm fairly confident of noting players comments over the last few years - and I think that a 'triarii replacement', armed similarly to an RSII spear-armed auxiliary, that bridges the 'gap' would be most well received. That I am certainly supporting such a theory from the available evidence is entirely contiguous!
    "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'.

  15. #175

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    hi

    May I ad, that Legio I Germanica had the Honour title of being Legio I Augusta during The Spanish campaing against the Cantabri, but was prolly stripped away by Agrippa for disgrace.
    They received the Title of Legio I Germanica in 14 AD

  16. #176

    Default Re: [Research] Roman Overhaul

    Quote Originally Posted by bruttus View Post
    hi

    May I ad, that Legio I Germanica had the Honour title of being Legio I Augusta during The Spanish campaing against the Cantabri, but was prolly stripped away by Agrippa for disgrace.
    They received the Title of Legio I Germanica in 14 AD
    A possibility, but both elements are suppositions - the legion disgraced by Agrippa is only identified as the Augustan by Dio (54.11.5) and could, in theory, be either I, II Augusta (which actually has the name and could therefore possibly have regained it subsequently), or possibly even XX (which seems to have had no other epithets at that time).

    The granting of Germanica to Legio I could have been a little earlier (under Drusus), or some time around 14-16AD under Germanicas (which does seem likely). Source - Keppie.
    "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'.

  17. #177
    Hetairos's Avatar Roma Surrectum II
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Serdika
    Posts
    1,511

    Default Re: [Campaign Framework] #2 Factions / Geography / Religions / Resources (217 BC)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dangerman View Post
    Looks freaking awesome, the only problem is how the GC map will be created (has there ever been an overhaul of the map in the Warscape Engine?). Though 4TPY campaigns will be able to feel not end up having a few factions conquer large parts of the world after 20 or so years.
    The Shogun II map has been redone 1x time. It was mainly done by splitting existing regions, but it also did add Korean territory. I consider CA being able to improve their mapping tool, instead of downgrading it? Not sure though. We dont even know if we will ever see it.

  18. #178
    The Wandering Storyteller's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I wash my hands of this weirdness!
    Posts
    4,509

    Default Re: 217 bc: The starting foundation of the mod

    Quote Originally Posted by bobbyr View Post
    No problem mate. Scipio Africanus defeated Hannibal at Zama to end the Second Punic War in favour of Rome, thus earning him the nickname Africanus.

    This mod will be great, I'm sure. Everything looks promising so far.
    Cheers for that mate. Oh it is, I like the way the mod's going and its looking great. We keep on working, we'll get there.





















































  19. #179
    The Wandering Storyteller's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I wash my hands of this weirdness!
    Posts
    4,509

    Default Re: [Campaign Framework] #2 Factions / Geography / Religions / Resources (217 BC)

    Quote Originally Posted by Hetairos View Post
    The Shogun II map has been redone 1x time. It was mainly done by splitting existing regions, but it also did add Korean territory. I consider CA being able to improve their mapping tool, instead of downgrading it? Not sure though. We dont even know if we will ever see it.
    I suggest making Uanime 2 a part of your team when CA releases TED. He might know how to do some stuff with it.

    @ABH2, I will reply to your post, and also did the 217 bc notes.





















































  20. #180

    Default Re: 217 bc: The starting foundation of the mod

    It's a good start and I appreciate the help on the research while I focus on other areas of the mod. As we get more info, this stuff can be organized and finalized so we can move on to the next phase.

    We are progressing nicely and once Hetairos comes back, I think we'll be able to jump into the startpos sooner than anticipated. Subcultures are all added in. As of now, there will be 11-13 new ones added. It's a pretty thorough breakdown.


Posting Permissions

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