Civ: Dominate Romans (late Rome)

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

 

 

A lot of fantastic information and visual references in this one. Great find and very helpful. 

 

It's clear to me that the Dominate Romans should have some kind of difference between "Border Troops" and "Royal Troops," perhaps with 2 different barracks. Possibly, Border Troops could be made of mainline classes of soldiers, while the Royal Troops are the counter-classes of troops, or vice versa (thinking like the Atlanteans in AOM). I do something like this already with the Imperial (Principate) romans in DE.

Another thing could be making their territory borders more porous. So, their buildings could possibly having a +10 to 20% greater territory range, but a much less (-50%) territory strength, so that enemy borders push back harder against Roman expansion. 

Some kind of bonus to Outposts, like upgrading to Watchtowers could be interesting. They would lose the Army Camp and Siege Walls of the Republican and Imperial/Principate Romans, but by upgrading Outposts to Watchtowers, they can project power and cut off trade routes that way. You could have an additional upgrade, "Fortified Watchtower", that adds a palisade around it, with greater health and hack armor. 

And while "Greek Fire" is still a couple hundred years past the the time period, a Greek Fire Ship would be a nice addition to their Naval roster. With the Dominate Romans and Gothic civs, we could introduce Transport Boats that are super cheap, but are low health and have no attack, just a large garrison space. 

Wonder could be The Hippodrome. 

We can introduce "ruined" versions of a bunch of Republican/Principate era structures and Ancient Greek structures for scenarios, campaigns, and skirmish maps. These can be ruins on the map that you can exploit. A great one would be a toppled Colossus of Rhodes, a "Christianized" ruined Parthenon, etc.

Temples -> Orthodox Churches.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

A lot of fantastic information and visual references in this one. Great find and very helpful. 

 

It's clear to me that the Dominate Romans should have some kind of difference between "Border Troops" and "Royal Troops," perhaps with 2 different barracks. Possibly, Border Troops could be made of mainline classes of soldiers, while the Royal Troops are the counter-classes of troops, or vice versa (thinking like the Atlanteans in AOM). I do something like this already with the Imperial (Principate) romans in DE.

Another thing could be making their territory borders more porous. So, their buildings could possibly having a +10 to 20% greater territory range, but a much less (-50%) territory strength, so that enemy borders push back harder against Roman expansion. 

Some kind of bonus to Outposts, like upgrading to Watchtowers could be interesting. They would lose the Army Camp and Siege Walls of the Republican and Imperial/Principate Romans, but by upgrading Outposts to Watchtowers, they can project power and cut off trade routes that way. You could have an additional upgrade, "Fortified Watchtower", that adds a palisade around it, with greater health and hack armor. 

And while "Greek Fire" is still a couple hundred years past the the time period, a Greek Fire Ship would be a nice addition to their Naval roster. With the Dominate Romans and Gothic civs, we could introduce Transport Boats that are super cheap, but are low health and have no attack, just a large garrison space. 

Wonder could be The Hippodrome. 

We can introduce "ruined" versions of a bunch of Republican/Principate era structures and Ancient Greek structures for scenarios, campaigns, and skirmish maps. These can be ruins on the map that you can exploit. A great one would be a toppled Colossus of Rhodes, a "Christianized" ruined Parthenon, etc.

Temples -> Orthodox Churches.

Reused is better word. It makes sense in several buildings.

I have several concept arts saved.

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Another thing could be making their territory borders more porous. So, their buildings could possibly having a +10 to 20% greater territory range, but a much less (-50%) territory strength, so that enemy borders push back harder against Roman expansion

In the previous video, the tactics of Rome's enemies are lightning/ blitzkrieg attacks with small, very damaging groups, including powerful cavalry.

 

One flaw of the Western Empire was that they couldn't repair buildings after so many attacks.

That happened in Dacia, the infrastructure was badly damaged.

It would be nice to have a penalty to repair.

Another defect was that the Roman borders were very large.

In Persia and in Balkans-Danube, to name the places.

Edited Friday at 19:30 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 11/12/2024 at 11:07 PM, Lion.Kanzen said:

An explanation of why the Romans changed their weapons.

Also a summary of all the Roman adaptations.

And an explanation of the Roman and medieval periods in terms of weapons.

It's in Spanish unfortunately but it explains each late weapon.

In short, each weapon is made to combat cavalry raids.

 

I need to find one or more videos that explain this in English.

[Lion.Kanzen]

First big Churches (temples)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Saint_Simeon_Stylites

475 AD

Visually I like this one.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Vitale,_Rome

This one is simpler and earlier.

 

 401 AD

Edited Friday at 20:51 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Some kind of bonus to Outposts, like upgrading to Watchtowers could be interesting. They would lose the Army Camp and Siege Walls of the Republican and Imperial/Principate Romans, but by upgrading Outposts to Watchtowers, they can project power and cut off trade routes that way. You could have an additional upgrade, "Fortified Watchtower", that adds a palisade around it, with greater health and hack armor. 

I was thinking of a fortified barracks.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

6 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I was thinking of a fortified barracks.

Perhaps a Fortified Watchtower could train some Border Troops. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 minute ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Perhaps a Fortified Watchtower could train some Border Troops. 

Sounds good.

It gives me the idea of creating a militia men to defend the crops.

 

But could it be done with low loyalty?

 

Like:

Bagaudae (also spelled bacaudae) were groups of peasant insurgents in the western parts of the later Roman Empire, who arose during the Crisis of the Third Century and persisted until the very end of the Western Empire, particularly in the less-Romanised areas of Gallia and Hispania. They were affected by the depredations of the late Roman state, wealthy landowners, and clerics.[1]

 

The invasions, military anarchy, and disorders of the third century provided a chaotic and ongoing degradation of the regional power structure within a declining Empire. During the chaos, the bagaudae achieved some temporary and scattered successes under the leadership of members of the underclass as well as former members of local ruling elites.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagaudae

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Sounds good.

It gives me the idea of creating a militia men to defend the crops.

 

But could it be done with low loyalty?

 

Like:

Bagaudae (also spelled bacaudae) were groups of peasant insurgents in the western parts of the later Roman Empire, who arose during the Crisis of the Third Century and persisted until the very end of the Western Empire, particularly in the less-Romanised areas of Gallia and Hispania. They were affected by the depredations of the late Roman state, wealthy landowners, and clerics.[1]

 

The invasions, military anarchy, and disorders of the third century provided a chaotic and ongoing degradation of the regional power structure within a declining Empire. During the chaos, the bagaudae achieved some temporary and scattered successes under the leadership of members of the underclass as well as former members of local ruling elites.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagaudae

 

 

is not merely that slaves and servants are thieves and runaways, wine-bibbers and gluttons – the rich are much worse (iv. 3); it is their harshness and greed that drive the poor to join the bagaudae and flee for shelter to the barbarian invaders (v. 5 and 6).

[Lion.Kanzen]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/650121.pdf

Peasant Revolts in Late Roman Gaul and Spain - JSTOR

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/650121.pdf

Peasant Revolts in Late Roman Gaul and Spain - JSTOR

 

The name probably means "fighters" (troops) in Gaulish. C. E. V. Nixon assesses the Bagaudae, from the official imperial point of view, as "bands of bandits who roamed the countryside plundering and pillaging". J. C. S. Léon interprets the more complete documentation and identifies the bagaudae as impoverished local free peasants, reinforced by bandits, runaway slaves and deserters from the legions, who tried to resist the ruthless labor exploitation of the late Roman period. the manorial and military systems of the proto-feudal colonus, and all kinds of punitive laws and exactions in the marginal areas of the Empire.

In the 5th century, Bagaudae were initially observed in the Loire Valley and Brittany, around 409-417 AD, fighting against various armies sent against them by the last seriously effective western Roman general, Flavius Aëtius. Aëtius used federates such as the Alans under his king Goar to try to suppress a Bacaudic revolt in Armorica. St. Germanus took pity on the Bagaudae, but they later revolted again under a leader named Tibatto. They are also mentioned at about the same time in the province of Macedonia, the only time they arise in the Eastern Empire, which may be related to economic difficulties under Arcadius.

https://academia-lab.com/enciclopedia/bagaudae/

It would also be good if the bagaudae were mercenaries in favor barbarian armies

[Lion.Kanzen]

Option B with Bagaudae

https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Militia_(Age_of_Mythology)

The same as Poseidon's militias.

Infantry. Appear when Poseidon's buildings are destroyed to defend his town.

In-game description

 

The Militia is an infantry unit in Age of Mythology that is unique to Poseidon. Militia cannot be trained; they can only be generated when a Poseidon worshiper's building is destroyed. Different buildings generate different numbers of Militia.

[Lion.Kanzen]

This is new.

It looks like a hybrid helmet.

It looks like the Niederbieber type + burg castle.

 

Edited Friday at 23:42 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

By the way...

Gallic Empire...

Nobody in the RTS brought out that faction.

[Lion.Kanzen]

24 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

 

 

Barrack-Fortress

 

-Ripensis ...I am interested in using that troop as marines.

 

More bigger walls.

Edited Saturday at 00:43 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

Diocesan Structure.

In the later organization of the Roman Empire, the increasingly subdivided provinces were administratively associated in a larger unit, the diocese (Latin dioecesis, from the Greek term διοίκησις, meaning "administration").[2]

 

Christianity was given legal status in 313 with the Edict of Milan. Churches began to organize themselves into dioceses based on the civil dioceses, not on the larger regional imperial districts

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_diocese

 

Support unit the Vicar.

The vicars had no military powers. Troops stationed in the dioceses fell under the command of a comes rei militaris, who was directly under the control of the magister militum and was in charge of the duces who had the military command of individual provinces.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarius

-------

All those terms from the Middle Ages and Roman Catholicism are civil, This is Clement's influence to copy Roman administrative systems and use them for the church.

-----

Spanish wiki:

The vicar was appointed directly by the emperor from among the senators who had reached the rank of consul and, therefore, received the treatment of eminentissimus vir.

 

Under him were the governors of the new provinces of the Lower Empire, who could be of praetorian or consular rank.

 

His powers were exclusively civilian, since the command of the troops stationed in his diocese corresponded since Constantine I to a doge in the case of frontier troops or to a comes if the garrison was part of a maneuvering army.

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario_(Antigua_Roma)

Edited Saturday at 01:03 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

One of the decisions to replace the pilums was that the plumbata was effective against cavalry.

Edited Saturday at 01:26 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

5 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

 

One of the decisions to replace the pilums was that the plumbata was effective against cavalry.

It looks interesting.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Lancea pugnatoria

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Heavy plumbata.

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

 

Mithraism.

I do not agree that Christianity has adopted anything.It's more that they have common roots and common concepts.

Edited 11 hours ago by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

 

Mithraism.

I do not agree that Christianity has adopted anything.It's more that they have common roots and common concepts.

I like that it debunks certain popular myths like the connection to Jesus.

Jesus was not born in December, Jesus was supposed to be born in September or maybe in the spring around Easter.

Then I will deal with the subject of Christianity since it is not easy.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

The healer of Mithra should have an aura for roman soldiers.