Rome in the new DeI

[AncientMind]

First of all let me compliment the mod team that have done such an amazing job with Rome II bringing it back to life. Now to address the issue i have with the mod. Even with earlier versions of DeI i have had one gripe with the mod, and that is with the faction of Rome. I understand that you wish to depict ancient history in a faithful and correct way BUT having Rome face off against Pyrhus with hastati still wielding spear's instead of swords is i thin incorrect. If i remember correctly the romans adopted the sword after the defeat they suffered by the Sabine italic tribes of Italia. By the time Epirus invades they have switched to sword based infantry. Sorry for the gripe but i think it should be addressed

[popovic]

I believe those units are there mostly to make the roster more interesting. I doubt they will change it.

P.S. You could mod it out yourself. Just set the turn for reforms at turn 1, and if you want it for human player as well set the imperium to 1 as well.

[geala]

Rome II DeI is in many aspects not historically correct and it has to be or should be "uncorrect" because it is a game with certain restrictions. One idea of TW games is of developing and getting new units over time, to feel some achievement and change. It's done very well in DeI. If you started with the so-called Polybian legionaries (there was of course never such a term in antiquity) you could not have the great pleasure to get them in the game after some time and struggle with the mystical so-called Camillian units.

As far as I'm aware of, nobody knows for sure when the structure and manner of fighting we see in the later 3rd c. BC came into use. I'm of your opinion that it was (perhaps long) before the fights with Pyrrhus but in our state of insecurity it is also valid to start with spear armed hastati for example.

[felipe88]

Hi, i´ve a question about Rome and the ¿People of rome?. Which is the relation between classes in society and units. I suppose that equites are 1st/2nd class and aor are foreign, but legionary and hastati which are?, and auxiliary?

[Dresden]

Early Roman units mostly use 2nd/1st class. Legionaries use 3rd. Non Italian AOR etc units use 4th.

[gornoviceanu]

I have a small complaint about the Rome faction, no idea if it's intended, but the AI declares war in some illogical ways. For example, I start a campaign as Syracuse and instantly declare war to Epirus and Etruria to secure the friendship of Rome. On the diplomatic map, I have Rome as green (not to light, not too bright ) but they declare war on me after several turns regardless. They don't want non aggression pact or trade, they just ignore me and declare war when they kick Pyrus out of Tarentum, even if they continue to war in mainland Greece.

If this is the trade off to make Rome more aggressive then I welcome it and hope it stays this way, but maybe it can be fine tuned?

[Rosbjerg]

I have a small complaint about the Rome faction, no idea if it's intended, but the AI declares war in some illogical ways. For example, I start a campaign as Syracuse and instantly declare war to Epirus and Etruria to secure the friendship of Rome. On the diplomatic map, I have Rome as green (not to light, not too bright ) but they declare war on me after several turns regardless. They don't want non aggression pact or trade, they just ignore me and declare war when they kick Pyrus out of Tarentum, even if they continue to war in mainland Greece.

If this is the trade off to make Rome more aggressive then I welcome it and hope it stays this way, but maybe it can be fine tuned?

Dresden have explained a few times, that Rome is the most devious faction in the entire game - to simulate that Rome will (and did) turn on any ally and friend if they found it to be feasible.

[felipe88]

Thanks.

[felipe88]

One question about praetorian. In marian reform they are just bodyguard, we can´t recruit them like a normal unit. But in imperial reform, can i recruit them like normal unit?. I ask that because in Honga i see that they have a cap for recruit.
And about port garrison, the marines come with a ship? (i know that sound silly, but there arent too much space for land, specially into the town).

[Dresden]

You can recruit a limited amount in Latium only. And yes naval garrisons are ships for the most part, there may be some land units.

[felipe88]

Thanks Dresden for your valuable help. Do you, or other DeI members, make some mod for atila,or age of charlemagne?

[Damocles]

First of all let me compliment the mod team that have done such an amazing job with Rome II bringing it back to life. Now to address the issue i have with the mod. Even with earlier versions of DeI i have had one gripe with the mod, and that is with the faction of Rome. I understand that you wish to depict ancient history in a faithful and correct way BUT having Rome face off against Pyrhus with hastati still wielding spear's instead of swords is i thin incorrect. If i remember correctly the romans adopted the sword after the defeat they suffered by the Sabine italic tribes of Italia. By the time Epirus invades they have switched to sword based infantry. Sorry for the gripe but i think it should be addressed

This has always annoyed me about DeI as well.

You can play almost any other faction, in any TW game, and have plenty of boring spear units. But we can't faithful recreate an early manipular Roman army. Why? Whoever made the decision on this, simply made the wrong call, and they have too much ego to take it back.

I guarantee that most players prefer a historically accurate Roman roster to an inaccurate one.

Rome II DeI is in many aspects not historically correct and it has to be or should be "uncorrect" because it is a game with certain restrictions. One idea of TW games is of developing and getting new units over time, to feel some achievement and change. It's done very well in DeI. If you started with the so-called Polybian legionaries (there was of course never such a term in antiquity) you could not have the great pleasure to get them in the game after some time and struggle with the mystical so-called Camillian units.

As far as I'm aware of, nobody knows for sure when the structure and manner of fighting we see in the later 3rd c. BC came into use. I'm of your opinion that it was (perhaps long) before the fights with Pyrrhus but in our state of insecurity it is also valid to start with spear armed hastati for example.

People do know for sure.

It's quite established among mainstream historians that Rome adopted the maniple system, with its similarly armed hastati and principe, in the waning years of the 4th century. Sometime between 315 BC and 290 BC, after the Second Samnite Wars.

The peculiar nature of the Roman maniple formation vs the Greek hoplites was well attested to during the Phyrric War of 280-275 BC.

Which means that having hastati still using spears by the start of DeI, (which, IIRC, starts just after the Phyrric War) to be stupid. There's no reason for it. I'd much rather play the first forty turns of the game with an accurate Roman army, than an arbitrarily tweaked one. Especially an army that's been so famously studied and iconic.

It's mostly just ego keeping them the way they are. I remember when this issue cropped up, people were bending over backwards to claim that hastati really were armed with spears cause 'hastati' means spearman. When the truth is, for several generations, it had just been a catch-all name for young soldiers and might even have referred to a javelin rather than a spear.

In any case, you can believe what you want is better for gameplay, but please don't try to confuse people by making up historical facts, when even wikipedia is quite clear. There is no debate, anywhere in the historical or academic community, about what weapons hastati were armed with, except in this forum, and whatever weird reasons of ego the mod devs have for perpetuating it.

[KAM 2150]

It's mostly just ego keeping them the way they are.
(...)and whatever weird reasons of ego the mod devs have for perpetuating it.

You missed the part about eating babies.

[Damocles]

You missed the part about eating babies.

KAM we don't eat them we just feed on their life force, you need to read the new "How to be a DeI dev" manual revised edition.

These two responses are a perfect example of the 'ego' in question. I'm not trying to insult you. But to respond to any kind of criticism by taking it up a notch as if I were accusing you of 'eating babies', is just a perfect example of the kind of behavior I was referring to. The sheer dismissiveness of these responses, even when confronted with valid evidence and the opinion of several players, is palpable.

Kam: For a guy that goes into such detail on every other unit he makes, and goes at pains to describe it, it continues to boggle me that you remain so stubborn on hastati.

But just out of curiosity, because I keep hearing different opinions. What is the truth?

Are hastati armed with spears because you really believe they were armed with spears? Or are they armed with spears because you think it makes for better gameplay?

If you want to make my 'ego' comment seem silly, then by all means, actually engage with the question. Otherwise, continue to act dismissive or exaggerate criticism, to make it seem more outlandish than it really is.

[Damocles]

Perhaps the most damning critique of having spear-armed hastati, besides being ahistorical nonsense, is that it isn't even good for gameplay.

All of Rome's enemies and neighbors are fielded low-tier spear infantry as well.

What made Rome unique, and adds to the flavor of the early period, is that they were fielding short-sword armed infantry with javelins. That sets them apart from the starting hoplite factions.

Rome is not facing any cavalry heavy armies at start. They're facing hoplite heavy armies.

The hastati was intended to counter the hoplite, which it did brilliantly.

So again, it's both nonsensical historically and bad for gameplay. It's not fun to fight as the early Romans, and it's not fun to fight against them, because there's no satisfying challenge of trying to tackle an actual Roman maniple army with hoplites.

It boggles the mind why in a mod with such meticulous attention to detail, this remains glaringly unaddressed.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Perhaps the most damning critique of having spear-armed hastati, besides being ahistorical nonsense, is that it isn't even good for gameplay.

All of Rome's enemies and neighbors are fielded low-tier spear infantry as well.

What made Rome unique, and adds to the flavor of the early period, is that they were fielding short-sword armed infantry with javelins. That sets them apart from the starting hoplite factions.

Rome is not facing any cavalry heavy armies at start. They're facing hoplite heavy armies.

The hastati was intended to counter the hoplite, which it did brilliantly.

So again, it's both nonsensical historically and bad for gameplay. It's not fun to fight as the early Romans, and it's not fun to fight against them, because there's no satisfying challenge of trying to tackle an actual Roman maniple army with hoplites.

It boggles the mind why in a mod with such meticulous attention to detail, this remains glaringly unaddressed.

I just can't understand the problem.

1)You could mod it out yourself very easily with PFM by changing their weapons. Feel free to ask for any help.
2)Just wait for a few turns to research the first upgrades. It'll not take long.
3)Mod the turn reforms will be available,it's just a 1 sec. edit.

Cheers.

[geala]

For people so astonishingly sure about the mid-early Roman army it baffles me a bit when you speak mainly about hoplites as enemies, f.e. in the fights with Pyrrhus. A bit weird. And that "wikipedia is quite clear" is not a mark of proof in itself. But anyway, as I also think that the Roman army of about 280 BC was not spear-centric, I will stay out of the discussion and let the team speak if they liked.

[Damocles]

For people so astonishingly sure about the mid-early Roman army it baffles me a bit when you speak mainly about hoplites as enemies, f.e. in the fights with Pyrrhus. A bit weird. And that "wikipedia is quite clear" is not a mark of proof in itself. But anyway, as I also think that the Roman army of about 280 BC was not spear-centric, I will stay out of the discussion and let the team speak if they liked.

Early Rome is surrounded by factions that primarily rely on the hoplite or similar troops, from every direction, except the Gauls. Or the 'Greek method of warfare' if you prefer. I can't remember DeI's exact faction setup, but I'm just thinking in my mind, of who Rome actually fought in the 3rd century BC.

Pyrrhus used many Greek/'Italian'/Syracusan mercenaries, to go with the pike and elephants.

And it just shows your ignorance, that in 2017, you're dismissing wikipedia.

Here's a newsflash: The wikipedia editor community has a ton of Roman diehards who are interested in and involved in the articles. They're not perfect, but it's a fantastic resource for finding the lowest common denominator of mainstream, fundamentally agreed on facts. That you would dismiss it, just suggests to me that you haven't done much if any scholarly research in the last ten years, so as to know the relative worth of various sources. Wikipedia is just fine, when it comes to certain topics (the accuracy of which often determined by the size of the community involved in adding to and editing it). I would have no problem with a student citing it, for something basic and foundational.

The composition of the early Roman maniple army is one such fact. It isn't even a debate. It's just a basic fact. It's not a controversial opinion, and there isn't competing theories.

My reference to wikipedia wasn't to suggest it was the arbiter of all that is true, but anything that makes it onto there, where Rome is concerned, given the legion of people fanatically interested in the subject (which far outstrips other ancient/medieval/historical communities online), is basically the bar of common sense.

You can pick up any other relevant book or source, and find out the same information as to how the manipular army was equipped.

And as I've asked before, and /never/ had a response to: What book or source anywhere has ever suggested that hastati were primarily armed with spears? That's usually around the time people start claiming that hastati using spear is really a gameplay decision. But again. It's not even good gameplay.

"Sword" Hastati from begining brings one question.
Where would you stop?
Hellenic factions -easy meal (easy game). Now I usually don't go in Greece - High attrition (if you do not cheat with square). Cisalpina - High attrition (they have swords but i have Principes and 10000 every turn)
Rome should start with one region/city and in earlier period. BUT changing whole game for one faction?
I need 6 turns to wipe out Epirus + Etruria.
Principes are wonder boys even with spear , Triari will break anything, Hastati are cheap. Can't find any problem with spear Roman units it makes game just little harder and date at the bottom means nothing.
In first turn I just changed whole history of Rome/world - what is the point of history when we have time machine.

So is that it? Hastati are armed with spear, because giving them their historical weapons would allow Rome to expand too easily?

You can expand too easily with every faction in this game. But I would personally, rather fight against a Rome AI armed with accurate weapons, especially if it also made them more effective.

[Benjin]

Wikipedia is just fine, when it comes to certain topics (the accuracy of which often determined by the size of the community involved in adding to and editing it). I would have no problem with a student citing it, for something basic and foundational.

Wikipedia is a weak source of information as the person(s) writing for the pages on Wikipedia are usually unverified since it's open-source. As it is open-source, all of the pages are ever-changing. This limits its accountability / reliability. Also, it groups together multiple sources of varying categories (primary, secondary) of information and then summarises it. If there is no reference, then you must treat that entry with suspicion. This makes it a tertiary source of information, and you should always try to supplant tertiary with primary / secondary. For these reasons, as a student at university currently writing a dissertation, I would never cite "Wikipedia" as a source, otherwise I'd lose marks on my final grade - something I specifically cite could be gone in a week. Instead, you must find the Wiki's original source of information found at the bottom of the page - in the "References" section. Those are the true sources of information one must read or refer to when backing up their points.

[Damocles]

Wikipedia is a weak source of information as the person(s) writing for the pages on Wikipedia are usually unverified since it's open-source. As it is open-source, all of the pages are ever-changing. This limits its accountability / reliability. Also, it groups together multiple sources of varying categories (primary, secondary) of information and then summarises it. If there is no reference, then you must treat that entry with suspicion. This makes it a tertiary source of information, and you should always try to supplant tertiary with primary / secondary. For these reasons, as a student at university currently writing a dissertation, I would never cite "Wikipedia" as a source, otherwise I'd lose marks on my final grade - something I specifically cite could be gone in a week. Instead, you must find the Wiki's original source of information found at the bottom of the page - in the "References" section. Those are the true sources of information one must read or refer to when backing up their points.

I've already had the answer from the devs, re the hastati, that I came here for, and which was so kindly provided.

I'm only responding to this, on the basis of wikipedia, which isn't at all like it used to be, over ten years ago. It's become an extremely reliable source in areas of mainstream public interest, especially for historical or biographical details. There's nothing wrong with using it as an occasional reference, especially when dealing with extremely fundamental and basic topics.

Of course it's better to go to the original/primary sources. Or go pick up a book by Guy Halsall or Azor Gat. Especially if you're pursuing postgraduate studies. But let's say, hypothetically, you're teaching an introductory class on ancient history.

Would you really penalize a student, who writing an essay on the Emperor Julian, referring to a link such as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Strasbourg

Which is exceptionally detailed, and extremely well referenced, simply because they didn't refer to the original Ammianus?

If we're having a semi-informed discussion, then there's no harm in offhandedly referring to wikipedia, when dealing with issues that are so intrinsic and basic, as for there to not be a relevant or significant body of work debating it. If someone is really interested, (and I'm assuming most people here are enthusiastic amateurs), then a reference to wikipedia would help them more than any other study, and they could probably use that link to find more comprehensive sources.

Wikipedia is also often a far more relevant, detailed and updated source than the vast majority of Osprey books (and similar collections that get a lot of traction on modding forums). I'd rather have a student reference a well-curated wikipedia article (which I am completely capable of checking out) than some obscure Osprey book from 1993.

I think where you're mistaking me, is that you think I believe wikipedia is a valid source for any real debate or theoretical argument. I do not. But I do think it's a valid source for basic, fundamental information, that most of the academic community has roughly accepted as a baseline. (And in just about 99% of all cases, the wikipedia article also mentions any meaningful dissent or competing theories).

It's perfectly fine and perfectly relevant for the level of discussion we're having now.

We don't owe anyone answers at all to be totally honest. The fact that we engage with the community to the extent we do is rather remarkable if you look at the traffic we get here on the forums.

That's one way to look at it. To believe that engaging with the community or responding to its feedback at all, is some act of generosity and charity. Another way of looking at it, would be to feel pleased that people care enough about your project to try to engage on it, or provide feedback for it.

But you are right. You don't owe anyone any answers. You only owe them inasmuch as it's important for you to engage with the community. Many other projects, organizations and businesses, whether paid or volunteer, make similar cost-analysis. When people get the impression their feedback isn't wanted, or is held in disdain, they drift away. Happens all the time.

That said. It should also be worth noting, that my 'demand for answers', was completely satisfied by August's polite 1-2 sentence response. It seemed a lot more time and effort was spent mocking me, or else justifying the mockery.