Republican units' names.

[rory o'kane]

I've been playing with the latest Rome campaign set up, and the cohorts' names don't quite make sense.
I think they ought to be renamed, and my suggestions would be:
Roman Polybian Cohort
AND
Italian Polybian Cohort. Calling them "allied republican cohorts" just looks weird, and is completely false if you're fighting against them... I suggest the names be tweaked (in fact, Allied should be switched for Italian in all cases (Cohorts, Triarii, Velites, and Equites), really, because that's what they represent)... It's a minor niggle, but it makes more sense to name them in this fashion.

[Mulattothrasher]

Would 'Allied' work better because of the units recruited say, in Greece or other places?

[rory o'kane]

They represent Italians fighting alongside the Romans there, in the standard form of two ala for two consular legions - the Italians formed colonies just as the Romans did.

[Chernish]

"Allied" is habitual. War of 89 BC called "Allied War". In RSII no detailed division by the Latins, Allies and friends, and of federatoi, as in RTR7 or EB. So probably need to leave the allied forces. IMHO.

[rory o'kane]

To be honest, there's no need to get that picky - most books I've read tend to refer to the ala as Italians anyway. The main issue here is what happens in the early rebellions - because they aren't allied any more. Plus, "Allied Republican Cohort" and "Polybian Republican Cohort" is a bit of a misnomer - they're all republican units by default. If we leave the "Allied" thing in place, they still should be renamed "Allied Polybian Cohort" and "Roman Polybian Cohort" - which is actually a more accurate description of these units.

[dvk901]

I'm not particularly fond of the way this unit has been implemented overall as it is. I tried to change the name myself and got slapped down. I'll grant when you are fighting the unit it obviously isn't 'allied', but it is even LESS likely that it is 'Italian'. These men provided to the Romans by requirement of their alliance with Rome would've been from any of the client states in Italy, and most likely called by the name of the state from which they came. Since we can't do that, I think Allied is a much better term since at least it is generic.

I still have a big issue with this whole 'Italian colony' thing, and providing these units for recruitment in areas other than Italy, since I see absolutely no validity to the argument that Rome used 'Allied' client state units recruited, for example, in Spain or Gaul, or anywhere else. 'Roman' colonies provided soldiers for Roman Legions before and after the Reforms, so I really don't get the whole 'Allied' thing outside Italy. It would even be a greater issue for me to swallow 'Italian' units recruited outside Italy and have them be this unit, since in reality I think they should be the normal Roman unit drawn from Roman colonists.

I do agree, however, that Allied 'Polybian' Cohort would probably be more correct as it is the formation we are referring to, not the unit's composition.

[Ballacraine]

I'm not particularly fond of the way this unit has been implemented overall as it is. I tried to change the name myself and got slapped down. I'll grant when you are fighting the unit it obviously isn't 'allied', but it is even LESS likely that it is 'Italian'. These men provided to the Romans by requirement of their alliance with Rome would've been from any of the client states in Italy, and most likely called by the name of the state from which they came. Since we can't do that, I think Allied is a much better term since at least it is generic.

How about calling them Colonial Polybian Cohort?

Balla.

[rory o'kane]

And Roman Polybian Cohort as well, to ensure consistency and increase accuracy, as you noted above.

[Paedric]

Do you want me to change it?

[dvk901]

Well, that sounds a little 18th century British Empire too me.

But, as much as I hate to open this can of worms, perhaps for the sake of accuracy it should be discussed:

The 'Allied' units we put in the game are based on units that, by treaty with Rome, client states were required to provide to the Roman military whenever it was required. The key words here are 'allied' (therefore allies of the state, not THE state itself), and 'client-state' (by definition, a state allowed a degree of self-rule or independence by a larger dominant state). If we accept that this is in fact the relationship that existed at this time between the Romans and a number of regions in Italy, then it stands to reason that any troops you would be able to recruit in this region would only be available IF that region is a 'client state'. If you've 'annexed' the region, it may or may not provide you with anything, and would then be dependent on your building a normal barracks\colony system and 'Romanizing' the area in order to recruit anything.

What I'm saying then, is that Rome would have access to three different kinds of units; it's own units gained thru conquest, Romanization and colonization; allied units that are NOT client state units (like Celtic , Hispanic, Greek, etc.); and client state units that are allied by treaty and thru a client state relationship.
This would mean that all 'Allied Cohorts, Triarii, Veltiles, Equites' would only be recruitable in a 'client state' building, which would give you access to them much quicker than the normal barracks, BUT, at a considerable economic penalty (currently, 40%). If you annex the region...no allied troops. If it's a client state, no Roman barracks. If you grant citizenship to the area, THEN you can build the Roman barracks, and the client state units disappear.

Not a bad idea actually, since it would provide yet another 'type' of city with only a kind of 'helper' focus, and later on in your campaign could be converted to a 'Roman' region. Anyway, I think it would make this unit more 'plausible'. Thoughts?

[sithlord447]

Well, that sounds a little 18th century British Empire too me.

But, as much as I hate to open this can of worms, perhaps for the sake of accuracy it should be discussed:

The 'Allied' units we put in the game are based on units that, by treaty with Rome, client states were required to provide to the Roman military whenever it was required. The key words here are 'allied' (therefore allies of the state, not THE state itself), and 'client-state' (by definition, a state allowed a degree of self-rule or independence by a larger dominant state). If we accept that this is in fact the relationship that existed at this time between the Romans and a number of regions in Italy, then it stands to reason that any troops you would be able to recruit in this region would only be available IF that region is a 'client state'. If you've 'annexed' the region, it may or may not provide you with anything, and would then be dependent on your building a normal barracks\colony system and 'Romanizing' the area in order to recruit anything.

What I'm saying then, is that Rome would have access to three different kinds of units; it's own units gained thru conquest, Romanization and colonization; allied units that are NOT client state units (like Celtic , Hispanic, Greek, etc.); and client state units that are allied by treaty and thru a client state relationship.
This would mean that all 'Allied Cohorts, Triarii, Veltiles, Equites' would only be recruitable in a 'client state' building, which would give you access to them much quicker than the normal barracks, BUT, at a considerable economic penalty (currently, 40%). If you annex the region...no allied troops. If it's a client state, no Roman barracks. If you grant citizenship to the area, THEN you can build the Roman barracks, and the client state units disappear.

Not a bad idea actually, since it would provide yet another 'type' of city with only a kind of 'helper' focus, and later on in your campaign could be converted to a 'Roman' region. Anyway, I think it would make this unit more 'plausible'. Thoughts?

the only problem i have with this that right now to get real roman polybians you need a campus martinus which right now has a prerequisite of citizenship granted, which means until you get rid of the annex building you would not have any polybians to fight with at all, so you might aswell suffer the tax penalty to recurite some mid term ones

[-evil-]

I do like that idea dvk.

I think what Rory brought up was the fact that you are fighting Allied cohorts during the rebellion? Which isn't right since they would no longer be allied at that period. Even though the troops are named that at default. (haven't played the rome campaign)

Calling them "allied republican cohorts" just looks weird, and is completely false if you're fighting against them.

But that is what i guess he meant.

[Revan The Great]

I don't see any trouble with renaming the units

'Republican (or Roman) Polybian Cohort'
and
'Italian Polybian Cohort'

This is because overseas 'Allies' didn't provide soldiers that fought in the Roman style until the days of Caesar, I believe, so for all intents and purposes the white-shielded Roman units would all be Italian. This would also get around the 'Allied Polybian Cohorts that Aren't Really Allied'-problem when a rebellion happens.