Rome in the new DeI

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

In Mac Wars, will be possible to make Marian reforms avaliables?

Its not even remotely close to the right time period if I am remembering correctly

Macedonian Wars (214-148 BC)
Marian reforms 107 BC

[felipe88]

One or two years up or down.....

[historian1789]

marian reforms during the macedonian wars would be anachronistic
we are still in the polybian reform era!

[VanRW]

marian reforms during the macedonian wars would be anachronistic
we are still in the polybian reform era!

Would be a fun submod, I have to admit. Even if it's not historically accurate, could set it at like max imperium, turn 300 and give the player some variation late....but with that being said, it's a lot of work to add that. But I'd certainly play it!

[Dago Red]

I'm not an expert on early Roman manipular armies, but I thought it was settled that Camillian hastati carried the hasta/hastae or spear. If so, the question is not about historical accuracy regarding DeI's Camillian depictions, but on the year in which they became obsolete. Yes?

DeI, run by sinister baby eaters or not, has a responsibility to the community -- nay to themselves -- to depict things as historically accurate as possible. A mod of this caliber is more than the sum of its parts (and those parts were influenced by many other people with many years of work from other scholars and other mods long before anyone started work on DeI), and it can in turn influence not just other mods, but living, breathing people and how they think about history for many years to come. So there's an obligation to get it right. No pressure.

Then again, if the Polybian reforms are just a decade or so off (isn't it something like that from the new start date?) I don't see what the big deal is... especially if the Camillian Hastati really did carry spears.

[Damocles]

I'm not an expert on early Roman manipular armies, but I thought it was settled that Camillian hastati carried the hasta/hastae or spear. If so, the question is not about historical accuracy regarding DeI's Camillian depictions, but on the year in which they became obsolete. Yes?

DeI, run by sinister baby eaters or not, has a responsibility to the community -- nay to themselves -- to depict things as historically accurate as possible. A mod of this caliber is more than the sum of its parts (and those parts were influenced by many other people with many years of work from other scholars and other mods long before anyone started work on DeI), and it can in turn influence not just other mods, but living, breathing people and how they think about history for many years to come. So there's an obligation to get it right. No pressure.

Then again, if the Polybian reforms are just a decade or so off (isn't it something like that from the new start date?) I don't see what the big deal is... especially if the Camillian Hastati really did carry spears.

They were rendered obsolete at some point between 315 BC and 290 BC. The Romans were firmly entrenched in the manipular system by the time of the Phyrric War (280 BC-275 BC).

The game starts in 268 BC.

There's no question about the historical accuracy of it. It is the way it is, for the reason that August gave. It was like that when the current devs took over the mod, and it remains the way it is because it's a nice looking unit card/unit and low on their priorities to fix.

I'm fine with that as an explanation.

[geala]

We should please stop overestimating a so-called "historical accuracy" for a period about which there is indeed not that much knowledge. "Camillian hastati with spears" - who settled it? There never exactly was a "Camillian reform" or a "Polybian reform". Polybius (who should of course actually be named Polybios also in English, same as all the other poor mistreated latinized Greeks) was a general of the Achaean league, what exactly did he reform? He wrote about the Roman army of his days, in the middle of the 2nd c. BC, to give some knowledge to his fellow Greeks about the new super-power. Camillus was a person of the early 4th c. BC, several times consular tribune and allegedly dictator, on whom a semi-legendary reform was concentrated by later Roman historians which probably took a lot of time during the whole 4th c. BC.

Dresden gave a comprehensive answer to the problem in this thread in post #8: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...lybian-reforms! It could not be better summed up.

[Dago Red]

We should please stop overestimating a so-called "historical accuracy" for a period about which there is indeed not that much knowledge. "Camillian hastati with spears" - who settled it?

Realism, historical accuracy, and/or authenticity, must all be balanced (somewhat) with gameplay. We lack a lot of knowledge, but shouldn't ignore what we do have, even if its only educated theories. I have no idea who settled the Camillian hastati question, but reports say it is settled. Would you argue that the name hastati was originally due to them carrying the hasta? This is a well known naming convention that applied across many cultures and still does. So, even in the absence of all other evidence it's a good theory they began as infantry who used the hasta as their main identifying weapon. Identifying this has a primary spear makes even more sense, knowing that somewhere back in the mists of time, early Romans fought much like hoplites for a while.

There never exactly was a "Camillian reform" or a "Polybian reform"

Of course, but that's what we call them so that everyone knows what we're talking about.

Dresden gave a comprehensive answer to the problem in this thread in post #8: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...lybian-reforms! It could not be better summed up.

We're saying the same things and in total agreement, beyond this hasta business. There are no firm lines in the timeline unless someone clearly wrote it down, "On this day, we this" which is the exception to the rule. All the more why I don't care that the game starts with Camillian era units, even if it's more broadly agreed that the so-called Polybian reforms were already in place by the game's start date.

Anyone else losing their minds over this, consider this well:
If you look at a photo of yourself as a kid in 1980, you're not going to see much of anything from the year 1980. Sure, you're holding Yoda, an action figure your mom just bought you from a film that just came out, but the diapers you're wearing are a brand that's been around since 1963 and nothing has changed but the way they make the elastic. You're on a shag carpet from 1971, the mouldings and millwork along the walls were done in 1898 and the TV on the 17th century table is from 1959. Also, you pooped yourself.

[geala]

... I have no idea who settled the Camillian hastati question, but reports say it is settled. Would you argue that the name hastati was originally due to them carrying the hasta? This is a well known naming convention that applied across many cultures and still does. So, even in the absence of all other evidence it's a good theory they began as infantry who used the hasta as their main identifying weapon. Identifying this has a primary spear makes even more sense, knowing that somewhere back in the mists of time, early Romans fought much like hoplites for a while.

I cited Livy in the other thread who speaks of hastati with hasta and gaesa. So yes, I concur. But nothing is settled because you can also argue with some decency that Livy et al. did not know exactly about what they wrote so long after the events.

Of course, but that's what we call them so that everyone knows what we're talking about.

My rant started mainly because it was spoken of that the Polybian reforms were only a few years off. As if there was a known date. Historically this makes no sense. Gamewise it is correct of course.

My point generally is, nobody should try to force the team to do things when different possibilities exist and by and large the game is in between. I think you see it similarly.

[Sonny WiFiHr]

Is this thread about history or gameplay?
If it is about history then we must "remove" player to have - documentary.
It will be funny to have - NEXT 1000 TURN.

[KAM 2150]

No, the mod starts in 280 BC.

[Dago Red]

No, the mod starts in 280 BC.

And so I direct back to my example about a photo taken in 1980. Nothing changes 100% overnight, certainly not a massive military in antiquity. So, I'm good with it!

[Sonny WiFiHr]

No, the mod starts in 280 BC.

You guys . This is good one

[Damocles]

No, the mod starts in 280 BC.

Weird. The last time I started a game with DeI enabled, which was only a week or two ago, it showed them as owning all of Magna Graecia, which if the mod started in 280 BC, they wouldn't, yet. I didn't play it out though, I was just checking the startpos.

[Falco]

Submod requested for the OP http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...5#post15285605

[KAM 2150]

Do you have 1.2 version?

[geala]

In my current Epirus campaign I started with Tarentum/Brundisium and Apollonia and in 280 BC, so Rome did not own all of south Italy. It's the perfect starting point, anything is open. More or less.

[Tenerife_Boy]

You will enjoy the Epirus campaign. I bested it in 162 turns. I challenge you

It's funny because you don't have to go all the way to the Persian territories as you have to with the Successors kingdoms so you will see and have deferential troops to deal with.

[geala]

You will enjoy the Epirus campaign. I bested it in 162 turns. I challenge you

It's funny because you don't have to go all the way to the Persian territories as you have to with the Successors kingdoms so you will see and have deferential troops to deal with.

You'll win. Definitely. Because I never play a campaign to achieve the goals. I expand in directions when opportunities open up and I'm mostly defensive.

The Epirus campaign is fun, the only big disadvantage is that you have to crush Rome early on. I cannot envision an Epirus campaign with a strong Rome at your northern border. Because I would like to experience the ugly Romans as a strong foe, I plan my next campaign as Macedon, after the release of the Hellenic overhaul. I'm curious because I really sucked as Macedon lately. It was so much easier to play as Epirus.

[popovic]

I wated to stay clear of this thread, as it is causing some controversy, but since a lot of people are kinda excited about this, I`ll chime in with my opinion.

I, personally, consider myself a history buff. Also, I generally care a lot about historicity in games I play (providing they are based on historical events etc.)

However, for this particular thing, I don`t care. I just don`t don`t care at all...

Yes, it is ahistorical to have hastati with spears in 280. BC (to the best of my knowledge). However, even when playing normally, you get your "regular" hastati etc. in like 40 turns or so. That is really not that much, and if anything, it adds some flavor to the gameplay IMO.

IMO, it should stay as it is. If anyone wants to change it, there are several ways they can mod it out, some of them even very easy to do. So, if you don`t like it people, just make a submod. IMO.