Some Roman trait ideas

[Rex Basiliscus]

• Mango (an epithet; mercatores who were frauds or corrupt would get this cognomen in ancient Rome)
  
• leno (trait; a pimp - he would organize a brothel and buy slaves for prostitution; seen as an unhonourable profession)
• infames (trait - progressive from leno; a person doing an unhonourable profession and who had lost his good reputation)
  
• servus (trait; slave - I don't know how you feel about adding slave characters to the game; my idea is that they would have no career traits, no movement points, no ancillaries, no command, managment or influence bonuses) - divided into (some basic "professions" I picked):
  
  • gladiator
  • aurigai (chariot racer)
    
  • comoedus (actor)
  • homeristae (recitator)
    
  • pedisequi (bodyguard)
    
  • paedagogus (a slave "teacher" who would escort his master's sons to school, or sometimes even provide them in their early years some basic education)
    
  • grammatistes (teacher)
    
  • medicus (doctor)
    
  • tabulares (they would manage some corespodency in banking business)
    
  • apparitores (slaves working in administration)
    
• liberti (trait; freedmen - socialy they were under the free population of the empire - if they wanted to improve their status, they could enlist themselves for six years into the cohortes vigilum (firefighters) or navicularius (ship transport for supplying Rome) and they could get full citizenship after that; my idea here is to give them traits based on their work as slaves, for instance Ex-grammatistes and they would get some bonuses from that - but still their movement would be restricted - after they would get citizenship (another trait) they would be accepted as plebeians and have all the normal careers available, except they would still have Ex-servus, Ex-grammatistes and liberti trait, which would take away some of their influence, but perhaps make them popular with the people)
  
• peregrini (trait; the population of the provinces; they could get citizenship after serving 25 years in the army; I was thinking of including them if the culture traits (Celt, Iberian etc) would be worked on, so they would have this trait as well - a percentage of them would then join the legions for 25 years (military career) and after that they would get citizenship (another trait), which would allow them civic careers as well)

Sorry for my bad Latin Ofc the question is, if it would work?

[rory o'kane]

I have to say i completely reject most of these proposed ideas. We're dealing with aristocrats here, who by definition MUST be roman citizens. So the slave traits are out the window. With regards to the epithets, I fear that even if aristos did own such businesses, they would do so through several layers of middle-men, would not publicly acknowledge such dealings, and least of all tolerate such a blatantly slanderous nickname.
By the time these guys could get anywhere near commanding an army they must at least be equestrians, and therefore possess a wealth of 50,000 denarii to be eligible to join that order. Distantly they might have some ancestors who were freedmen or gallic/iberian/whatever nobility, but these traits really don't work in terms of their vibe. A common citizen merchant might be referred to as mango, but an aristocrat simply wouldn't take that kind of crap.

[Rex Basiliscus]

Haha
Well I'm more a Greek historian than Roman, so I guess you know what you're talking about. I just read about this (mind you, the liberti could get wealthier than senators on occasions, particulary in the principate and could rise to some prominent positions) and thought it a good idea.
But you're the Roman expert... I guess the ideas have to be accepted by you when it comes to Rome

[dvk901]

• Mango (an epithet; mercatores who were frauds or corrupt would get this cognomen in ancient Rome)
  
• leno (trait; a pimp - he would organize a brothel and buy slaves for prostitution; seen as an unhonourable profession)
• infames (trait - progressive from leno; a person doing an unhonourable profession and who had lost his good reputation)
  
• servus (trait; slave - I don't know how you feel about adding slave characters to the game; my idea is that they would have no career traits, no movement points, no ancillaries, no command, managment or influence bonuses) - divided into (some basic "professions" I picked):
  
  • gladiator
  • aurigai (chariot racer)
    
  • comoedus (actor)
  • homeristae (recitator)
    
  • pedisequi (bodyguard)
    
  • paedagogus (a slave "teacher" who would escort his master's sons to school, or sometimes even provide them in their early years some basic education)
    
  • grammatistes (teacher)
    
  • medicus (doctor)
    
  • tabulares (they would manage some corespodency in banking business)
    
  • apparitores (slaves working in administration)
    
• liberti (trait; freedmen - socialy they were under the free population of the empire - if they wanted to improve their status, they could enlist themselves for six years into the cohortes vigilum (firefighters) or navicularius (ship transport for supplying Rome) and they could get full citizenship after that; my idea here is to give them traits based on their work as slaves, for instance Ex-grammatistes and they would get some bonuses from that - but still their movement would be restricted - after they would get citizenship (another trait) they would be accepted as plebeians and have all the normal careers available, except they would still have Ex-servus, Ex-grammatistes and liberti trait, which would take away some of their influence, but perhaps make them popular with the people)
  
• peregrini (trait; the population of the provinces; they could get citizenship after serving 25 years in the army; I was thinking of including them if the culture traits (Celt, Iberian etc) would be worked on, so they would have this trait as well - a percentage of them would then join the legions for 25 years (military career) and after that they would get citizenship (another trait), which would allow them civic careers as well)

Sorry for my bad Latin Ofc the question is, if it would work?

Well, I'm not quite as blunt as Rory. However, most of these would be 'difficult', within the framework of the game, to implement. It would involve creating a whole new class of character, and I fear it would have little value in the long run. As 'Ancillaries', however, these could be useful....very useful. The liberti and peregrini thing is interesting...thinking on that one.

[chris10]

Well, I'm not quite as blunt as Rory. However, most of these would be 'difficult', within the framework of the game, to implement. It would involve creating a whole new class of character, and I fear it would have little value in the long run. As 'Ancillaries', however, these could be useful....very useful. The liberti and peregrini thing is interesting...thinking on that one.

btw just a quick question...regarding traits..is there actual a limit of bonuses the engine recognizes and ignores a possible surplus ?...
example...all combined traits would give +10 troop morale but the general is already a 10 star which has +10 troop morale anyway...
so would the engine only take into account +10 morale or would it really consider +20 troop morale ?

[dvk901]

btw just a quick question...regarding traits..is there actual a limit of bonuses the engine recognizes and ignores a possible surplus ?...
example...all combined traits would give +10 troop morale but the general is already a 10 star which has +10 troop morale anyway...
so would the engine only take into account +10 morale or would it really consider +20 troop morale ?

I may be wrong, but I don't know that command stars give morale? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[chris10]

I may be wrong, but I don't know that command stars give morale? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

now you confusing me...I think I remember that each star give +1 morale otherwise the command stars would be useless, wouldnt they?

EDIT found it
CA official statement

CA

10/5/2004 11:21
JeromeGrasdyke CA
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 76 Re: CA: what do command stars do?
----------------------------------------------------------

It currently affects both morale and combat ability - we tried it for a while with just morale, but it ended up being not enough of a bonus. The combat calculations have changed so much from Rome to Medieval as to be unrecogniseable, so it's no longer easy to equate stars to experience.

As a rule of thumb it's one point of attack per command rank, up to a maximum of 10, and this can become negative for very bad generals. This combat bonus is applied to all troops under his command on the battlefield. Experience is one point of attack and one point of defense per chevron, plus a morale bonus as well.

The general's command also controls his radius-of-effect, which is set to 30 m + 5 m * command + 2 m * influence. This is used to award morale bonusses to nearby units (in addition to the combat bonus), and when testing which units are affected it tests the distance between the actual general's position and the centre-point of the unit being considered.

Hopefully that answers your question.

that answers my qustion and brings up a new question...
why having a whole bunch of traits giving +1 morale when this seriously cheapens the feature of high skilled Generals...an old ladd with various trais giving +10 morale will do the trick too
In my actual Roman Campaign I have various older Generals/Governours with combined traits giving +10 morale without having a single command star...that does not sound right...
No wonder that Roman Players are invincible no matter what cause the bonuses are thrown at them from all directions

[dvk901]

now you confusing me...I think I remember that each star give +1 morale otherwise the command stars would be useless, wouldnt they?

EDIT found it
CA official statement

CA

10/5/2004 11:21
JeromeGrasdyke CA
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 76 Re: CA: what do command stars do?
----------------------------------------------------------

It currently affects both morale and combat ability - we tried it for a while with just morale, but it ended up being not enough of a bonus. The combat calculations have changed so much from Rome to Medieval as to be unrecogniseable, so it's no longer easy to equate stars to experience.

As a rule of thumb it's one point of attack per command rank, up to a maximum of 10, and this can become negative for very bad generals. This combat bonus is applied to all troops under his command on the battlefield. Experience is one point of attack and one point of defense per chevron, plus a morale bonus as well.

The general's command also controls his radius-of-effect, which is set to 30 m + 5 m * command + 2 m * influence. This is used to award morale bonusses to nearby units (in addition to the combat bonus), and when testing which units are affected it tests the distance between the actual general's position and the centre-point of the unit being considered.

Hopefully that answers your question.

that answers my qustion and brings up a new question...
why having a whole bunch of traits giving +1 morale when this seriously cheapens the feature of high skilled Generals...an old ladd with various trais giving +10 morale will do the trick too
In my actual Roman Campaign I have various older Generals/Governours with combined traits giving +10 morale without having a single command star...that does not sound right...
No wonder that Roman Players are invincible no matter what cause the bonuses are thrown at them from all directions

Good to know...especially as I am redoing the traits and bonuses.

[rory o'kane]

As ancillaries, a lot of these make sense, but as personality traits of aristocrats, they don't. So, I agree with DVK.

[rory o'kane]

Wait, stop, the meaning of "plebeian" simply infers that their ancestors weren't all patrician aristocrats going AGES back - i.e. at some point in the family's history, the first man from their family to enter the senate had been a "novus homo" or "new man" that worked his way into the senate from humble origins. Even though this could have been generations before, the family was still classed as "plebeian", but a plebeian Equestrian or Senator was still an aristocrat. It's the rank that matters here (as these guys would HAVE to be at least Equestrians to become tribunes anyway), not the ancestry. Of course, the patricians would sneer at the plebeians, but the older, more established plebeian families still enjoyed relatively similar priviledge, by virtue of being equestrians or senators.

[Rex Basiliscus]

What about those plebeians that aren't senators? Whose ancestors were never a part of the senate?

[rory o'kane]

They aren't relevant, as all senior gubernatorial and military posts were filled by members of the Senate. The equestrians could be either one of the five narrow-striped tribunes of a legion (posts that were more educational than actual ranks with the authority to command troops), or, after that, the tribune in charge of an auxiliary cohort or ala. It was all part of a career ladder (the cursus honorum) that meant that with time, equestrians could (assuming they met the property requirements, and were met with the approval of the emperor) move up into the senate over generations, but this was rather difficult (on top of the 250,000-denarius property requirement, they had to be elected to the Senate by running for Quaestor, of which 20 were elected each year (and becoming quaestor automatically elevated one to the senate) or sworn in by the emperor. The emperors rarely used this power (which they had as the Emperor technically held the post of Censor, and so could admit or kick out members of the Senate as he chose), so as not to have any more than 600 members of a senate sitting at any one time, though occasionally a civil war would so deplete the ranks of the senate, that members of the Order were admitted en-masse. This happened after the Year of the Four Emperors, for example).
Becoming an equestrian if you were a Roman citizen was simply a case of having the property requirement (100,000 denarii), but unless you were living near Rome, odds are you wouldn't get any office at all, though you were allowed by law to claim equestrian status (and so wear a narrow purple stripe on your toga and have a gold ring to signify your status). The way to gain office was to be admitted to the Order of Equestrians by the Emperor, and having done so, you could then go on to hold any of the public offices for reserved for Equestrians. So, in the Imperial period, the "equestrian class" was really split in two - you had wealthy provincials who had the status, and the largely Italian (for purely geographical reasons) Order of Equestrians who had both the status (either as a result of being admitted by the Emperor, or inheriting membership from their father), and the ability to run for office.

So yeah, climbing the cursus honorum (the Roman career ladder) was possible, but difficult, and usually happened over generations. Vespasian is a good example of a rare meteoric rise to power. His grandfather was a Centurion in Pompey's army at Pharsalus, his father a became an equestrian tax-farmer, and then married into a Senatorial family, and Vespasian then ran for minor equestrian offices before becoming a member of the Senate by being elected Quaestor, and from there, he worked his way up the ladder of careers, becoming aedile on his second attempt, then Praetor, then Legate of Legio II Augusta under Claudius (thanks to the influence of Narcissus, the Emperor's freedman secretary). Under Nero he was put in charge of putting down the Jewish revolt, and then when the Year of the Four Emperors came, he swore allegiance to first Galba, then Otho, but when Vitellius deposed Otho, he was hailed as Emperor by the Legions in Egypt, Syria, Judea, Asia Minor, and those on the Danube as well, after which his legates, commanding legions from the Danube and their auxiliaries, marched on Italy and defeated Vitellius' army, resulting in him being declared Emperor.

Now, using Vespasian as an example: we couldn't have his grandfather as an actual general, because he was a lowly centurion, who never gained any important social rank. His father gained Equestrian status, so, you could have him "adopted" into the family (he did after all marry a woman whose brother was a senator), and he would then be a general/family member (giving him plebeian traits, as well as perhaps making it difficult to gain ranks because of his lowly origins), and Vespasian likewise. Am I making sense? If not, I'll try to clarify things.

[Rex Basiliscus]

Yes, I understand your point of view.

However, I think you misunderstood me... I really meant the characters ingame that aren't yet magistrates, senators or have any function of administration or political office. I meant the characters that really only have just their professions to gain influence... like the negotiatores and mercatores, but don't have any political functions like quaestor, procurator etc - the average population. Thus, I don't see why it would be controversial to use mango or any of my other suggestions.

I understand though that it is highly unlikely in RSII that a character (even a plebeian) wouldn't get to at least quaestor and thus becoming a magistrate... making any of such previous professions as unhonourable. So basically, the class of citizens I think of, isn't really represented in RSII Romans. The kind that is struggling to rise to any political function. The kind that in their lifetime never rises through the ranks, or cursus honorum.

Shish... I am spent Have been reading about Spartans and hellenistic military for the whole morning

[rory o'kane]

But don't you see -how would you go about representing them? You can't have them as some sort of general-type unit because you had to be an equestrian or senator to perform any sort of military command duty... You might as well try and represent every single citizen in the game, which would be completely infeasible and undesirable. The whole point of the characters in RTW is that they're important people who are ostensibly making the decisions and running the show...

[Rex Basiliscus]

Yes I know. That's why I said that that type of characters isn't represented ingame, which is a shame... if only there weren't limitations of the game engine.

[rory o'kane]

But then you'd have to represent every citizen in the empire minus the couple of thousand equestrians and senators - which, if you take same ratio as the real Roman Empire (approximately 10% of the population) would mean that you'd have to have 2,400 characters in a huge city... Do you not see the problem? Frankly, I really don't care about the average Joe Roman citizen unless he's done something particularly heroic or important.

[Rex Basiliscus]

No, no I meant the traits as plebeian-only. As you said, you'd have to be at least an equestrian to lead an army. This makes plebeians ingame unhistorical in that aspect. Wouldn't they too need some sort of a special general-type unit?

What I meant with engine limitations, is the limitations of really the whole game RTW. In order to make all this possible a totally different game would have to be made. R2TW... Something that combines more different aspects of playing... even more so than Napoleon or Shogun2... but at the same time keep it simple enough, so that a turn doesn't last a couple of hours
I mean everyone can dream that R2TW is going to be their best game ever... if they release it.

EDIT: I think we have completely drifted from the point of this thread lol It's pretty useless arguing about this haha

[rory o'kane]

You can have plebeian equestrians and senators, but they would simply have "plebeian" as a trait (to reflect that their ancestry wasn't confined to one of the patrician families). But as for your basic pleb, then no, they have no place in game.

[dvk901]

The Roman cast system was pretty complicated and 'rooted' in history and tradition, but of course, like all systems, it still respected money and power....no matter who had it. It was power, for example, that got the Plebs represented in the first place. It was wealth that got some of them involved in the upper levels of Roman society. The distinction 'blurred' in the later empire, but during this time period, it was quite in force.

As Rory says, the basic Plebeian was simply a resident of Rome....the common folk with no power. The Plebeians who later gained power were either politically powerful (obviously, because of their huge public backing), or economically powerful (merchants, people who made a ton of money doing whatever). For that reason the traits of Plebeians would be and is problematic....because they are in fact a 'two class' Class in themselves. We can only represent the one class (the politically or economically powerful one) in the game. I already had to fix the issue where RTW confuses our intentions by allowing a Patrician, for example, to adopt a Plebeian....and he remains a Plebeian. That just didn't happen, so I had to really rework that whole thing in the traits to make it so that Plebeians would switch UP in the class structure, but Patricians and Equestrians never DOWN.

I really liked these two:

liberti (trait; freedmen - socialy they were under the free population of the empire - if they wanted to improve their status, they could enlist themselves for six years into the cohortes vigilum (firefighters) or navicularius (ship transport for supplying Rome) and they could get full citizenship after that; my idea here is to give them traits based on their work as slaves, for instance Ex-grammatistes and they would get some bonuses from that - but still their movement would be restricted - after they would get citizenship (another trait) they would be accepted as plebeians and have all the normal careers available, except they would still have Ex-servus, Ex-grammatistes and liberti trait, which would take away some of their influence, but perhaps make them popular with the people)
peregrini (trait; the population of the provinces; they could get citizenship after serving 25 years in the army; I was thinking of including them if the culture traits (Celt, Iberian etc) would be worked on, so they would have this trait as well - a percentage of them would then join the legions for 25 years (military career) and after that they would get citizenship (another trait), which would allow them civic careers as well)

But unfortunately this is really mid-empire stuff long after Augustus....so out of time frame, I think.

[rory o'kane]

Not just that, but you couldn't be any kind of senior official without citizenship, so neither of these traits work. The general/family members by their very nature, must be citizens from the very get-go. Perhaps with Man of the Hour and Adoption stuff you could have traits like "former peregrinus/former libertus/ex centurion" - to represent someone marrying up in status - but not your new heirs coming of age or recruited governors. Traits that reference their ancestry are fine, but anything other than that is just not realistic when dealing with the most powerful couple of thousand people in an empire of some 60-70 million people.