@Simon_Jester if there is a problem the centurions will inform us about it and we would have had the decision to do something about it. The centurions job is to see to the soldiers and keep discipline and order. They also inform their commanding officer of any problem that they think said officer need to solve or give a order about. In the past and even now centurions or NCO's handle their units and see to there needs.
Res Publica: A Quest of Ancient Rome
- Thread starter Telamon
- Start date
- Original Historic
The Temple of Delphi had a rift in it which spewed noxious fumes which gave us another interpretation
4) The oracle was a stoner constantly tripping ball due to said noxious fumes.
I repeat a phrase from the text quoted: Under NONE of these circumstances would any remotely sane person even consider crossing the Pythia.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
See, I'm not actually a moron, and I do actually know that.
I'm not sure whether you read my plan, or just glanced at it and decided 'lol too long, must be micromanagement.'
Some decisions can safely be delegated to a centurion, who is somewhere between a senior noncom (in terms of experience) and a company-grade officer (in terms of the normal scope of his duties).
Other decisions can't, precisely because they are not decisions to be made by company-grade officers.
None of the issues I address in Celeritas et Clementia have anything to do with the kind of internal problems we could reasonably expect any one of our dozens of centurions to sort out for us. 'How to handle the prisoners' is explicitly our decision. If we want anything to be done or not done to them, we're going to have to order it ourselves. That includes, say, marking the prisoners with an ear-notch, or giving them a message to take home.
If we're actively better off not doing those things, by all means don't vote to do those things... But we can't vote "not-those-things" and expect a competent centurion to do it for us. Which means it's not micromanagement if we're going to step in and tell people to do it. That is exactly when a good manager steps in, when a decision needs to be made that is outside the normal purview of their subordinates.
Similarly, how we go about handling the prisoners is a far-reaching decision. it bears on future occupation policy and political subjects. It bears on our long-term reputation as a Roman politician, and the legion's reputation as an institution, and the Samnites' willingness to surrender rather than fighting to the death.
...
Similiar issues arise with the care of the wounded. No one centurion can handle that issue, except perhaps by ordering his own leaky/wounded command to post a guard on the other wounded, and ignore our orders in the process.
...
The thing is, this isn't about "see to the soldiers and keep discipline and order."
This is about issues that have to do with local politics and occupation policy (sell the prisoners or release them?)...
And a broad-strokes question about the disposition of our men from multiple cohorts: Do we keep the wounded with us or leave them in Bovianum, and if we leave them, do we leave a guard force?
And those are the purview of the commanding officer. We don't get to delegate those decisions; we can make them or decide they're not worth making, but we can't ignore them.
- Location
- England
[X] Plan Celeritas et Clementia
The wounded aren't going to be of any help in Nola and by leaving them in Bovianum with a small guard of men we can show the Samnites we're still protecting them. It also gives us warning in the unlikely case Tercerian decides to do something rash.
The wounded aren't going to be of any help in Nola and by leaving them in Bovianum with a small guard of men we can show the Samnites we're still protecting them. It also gives us warning in the unlikely case Tercerian decides to do something rash.
[X] Plan Moving Forward
I prefer this one to be honest.
I prefer this one to be honest.
@Simon_Jester
see we are not going to agree about these. I am a former military medic who went to university and now works as a paramedic( I know ironic) . I am telling you these not because I am trying to make myself look better or trying to insult you in anyway. I am a firm believe of KISS. You are involving us in stuff that should be taken care of by the centurions in the backround.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Okay. Do you believe this to be a problem with my plan in regards to the treatment of the prisoners, in regards to the shuffling of men between the cohorts, or both?
The prisoners should not matter to us as a Roman. They are prisoners of a defeated army. Letting them go hurts us with the legion and leaves a trained force that fought us to fight us another day. Selling them into slavery is the only way they live and the legion gets gold. Since we are sellling them the legion will get to them to the slavers safe because hurting them or doing anything else to them hurts the value of them. Also cutting them can lead to infection and still kill them. Also I am reminded about the saying of never give a order you cannot enforce. Who to say someone who just lost there brother or best friend will not seek revenge while marking them.
As for the cohorts you are suppose to be able to put a soldier with any cohort and for them to work just as fine in any unit. From my personal experience in the army it does not work like that. Units even at diminished strength most units will work better than a bunch of guys put together. The cohorts we have now are men who most likely enlisted together, trained together and have know each other for a while. They can work as a unit and know how everyone else works. Putting them into another unit will cause friction and the need to work our corrdination issues. Also there will be the normal rivalries, fights and problems with putting a bunch of men together who don't know each other well. We have done well with that by taking care of there concerns with Rufus. But we have to do it all over agian with the new cohorts. Also the e'spirit decour and rivalry that exist between cohorts exist still today. So moving them around while the cohorts May send the wrong message and hurt morale. It like you are on the yankee cohort and you know they are the best cohort than you get assigned to the Boston cohort you are not going to like it. Maybe that is a bad analogy but it should convey the right message.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
One problem with "Keep it simple, the centurions will tell us if there's a problem" in a quest is that we don't actually get to make a decision every time that, in real life, our character would get feedback on the results of our decision.
In real life, if "the wounded are slowing down the column, we should leave them at Bovianum" is exactly the kind of thing one of the centurions would bring to our attention some time on the first day of the march. But in game, that's not likely to happen. We vote "march to Nola," the game fades to black, and Telamon rolls some dice and our next update probably happens when we meet Sertorius at Nola.
We don't get to play out making the decision "do we leave men to guard the wounded in Bovianum, and if so how many." And that really isn't a decision that just gets quietly made below Atellus's level by his capable centurions, because they can't just randomly decide "okay, your century will leave the column to guard the wounded."
At the same time, you do raise some valid points and I'd like to address them, @Nurgle .
On the other hand, this is going to be a bigger deal with the way my plan handles leaving men in Bovianum to protect the wounded. The rump left over of the Second Cohort risks being swamped by walking wounded from the other cohorts who feel no particular attachment to its command structure.
So, maybe we could change the plan to address this? Would you be comfortable with the idea of including in your plan something that allows for guarding the wounded in Bovianum, without breaking up the unit structure at the (equivalent of the) company level?
Because I could switch to something like:
[] Temporarily detach four centuries from the Second Cohort, one to reinforce each of the other four cohorts that fought in the battle. Send what remains of the Second Cohort to Bovianum to guard the wounded.
Now, this still breaks up the command structure at the cohort level, but keeps units intact at the century level, which would be less of a problem for morale, I would think. So it arguably would be better than my original plan for my original plan's purpose, even if I didn't change anything else.
How do you feel about this? Would you consider it to be an improvement over my first plan, or at least less-bad?
In real life, if "the wounded are slowing down the column, we should leave them at Bovianum" is exactly the kind of thing one of the centurions would bring to our attention some time on the first day of the march. But in game, that's not likely to happen. We vote "march to Nola," the game fades to black, and Telamon rolls some dice and our next update probably happens when we meet Sertorius at Nola.
We don't get to play out making the decision "do we leave men to guard the wounded in Bovianum, and if so how many." And that really isn't a decision that just gets quietly made below Atellus's level by his capable centurions, because they can't just randomly decide "okay, your century will leave the column to guard the wounded."
At the same time, you do raise some valid points and I'd like to address them, @Nurgle .
Honestly, I'm not advocating letting them go because of the prisoners "mattering to us," I'm advocating it because I expect it to have a positive public relations effect on the area as a whole. If you can convince me I'm wrong about that, I'm going to be reconsidering my decision.
See, I don't think there are likely to be many diehards in the group that surrendered to us. These are the guys who, knowing there was a high risk that we'd sell them into slavery, decided they'd rather be Roman slaves than die fighting us.
Realistically, if we sell them into slavery a lot of them will end up in a mine or something, and get worked to death in a matter of a few years, Notching their ear isn't SAFE but it's safer for them than selling them into slavery. So I don't feel this argument is very compelling in context. Worrying about an infection from a cut for guys who are about to be sold to a Roman slave trader with a reputation for fighting the legions... is a bit like telling soldiers who just got back from a trench under enemy artillery bombardment not to smoke cigarettes. Strictly true, but kind of a bad joke in practice.
Now that is a fair point.
Okay. Now, I'm not AS worried about this for the cohorts we're taking to Nola, because we're basically just bringing in men from the Second Cohort to bring those units up to strength. I'd expect this to be an improvement, but I suppose it might not.
On the other hand, this is going to be a bigger deal with the way my plan handles leaving men in Bovianum to protect the wounded. The rump left over of the Second Cohort risks being swamped by walking wounded from the other cohorts who feel no particular attachment to its command structure.
So, maybe we could change the plan to address this? Would you be comfortable with the idea of including in your plan something that allows for guarding the wounded in Bovianum, without breaking up the unit structure at the (equivalent of the) company level?
Because I could switch to something like:
[] Temporarily detach four centuries from the Second Cohort, one to reinforce each of the other four cohorts that fought in the battle. Send what remains of the Second Cohort to Bovianum to guard the wounded.
Now, this still breaks up the command structure at the cohort level, but keeps units intact at the century level, which would be less of a problem for morale, I would think. So it arguably would be better than my original plan for my original plan's purpose, even if I didn't change anything else.
How do you feel about this? Would you consider it to be an improvement over my first plan, or at least less-bad?
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
So.
I'm considering changing the write-in for identifying a guard force for the wounded from the recent battle, so that it doesn't involve reassigning men around from unit to unit, just moving the units themselves. Everyone stays with their century; we just reallocate some of the (eighty-man-less-casualties) centuries to reinforce the cohorts that actually go into battle, while leaving a reduced Second Cohort behind that consists entirely of Second Cohort soldiers.
My new proposed way to handle the guarding of the wounded is to cut out:
-[] Reassign able-bodied men from the Second Cohort to fill out the other cohorts' ranks. Transfer walking wounded who cannot keep pace or fight effectively to the Second, in like number.
-[] Send Pompolussa, what remains of the Second Cohort, Himatus and his men back to Bovianum along with all the wounded, to ensure the supply train stays secured. Task them with keeping an ear out for Tercerian in case he tries to attack Bovianum or attempts to aid the rebels in Nola by attacking your cohorts from the rear.
and replace it with:
[] Temporarily detach four centuries from the Second Cohort, one to reinforce each of the other four cohorts that fought in the battle. Send what remains of the Second Cohort to Bovianum to guard the wounded.
Do any of you care? Does this strike you as less bad, or in any way likely to affect your decisions?
- Location
- United States
[X] Plan Moving Forward
I just don't see how letting these prisoners go will have a positive effect on relations. Pro-Roman Barbarians in the area are going to be horrified because they suddenly have to deal with pissed off anti-Roman Barbarians who have just been loosed upon them. Romans are going to be pissed because the Roman tradition of selling people for loot has been violated.
Anti-Roman Barbarians will sort of chuckle because even if they wanted to live good, decent, honest lives they won't be able to because they're branded. No self-respecting Roman or Pro-Roman Barbarian is ever going to hire one of them over a pro-Roman Barbarian (who doesn't have a very distinctive brand). By branding them we've given them just enough mercy to cause trouble but not enough mercy to actually allow them to be absorbed into the Res Publica. They're all going to go back to being rebels either out of necessity or because frankly they just don't like Romans.
I just don't see how letting these prisoners go will have a positive effect on relations. Pro-Roman Barbarians in the area are going to be horrified because they suddenly have to deal with pissed off anti-Roman Barbarians who have just been loosed upon them. Romans are going to be pissed because the Roman tradition of selling people for loot has been violated.
Anti-Roman Barbarians will sort of chuckle because even if they wanted to live good, decent, honest lives they won't be able to because they're branded. No self-respecting Roman or Pro-Roman Barbarian is ever going to hire one of them over a pro-Roman Barbarian (who doesn't have a very distinctive brand). By branding them we've given them just enough mercy to cause trouble but not enough mercy to actually allow them to be absorbed into the Res Publica. They're all going to go back to being rebels either out of necessity or because frankly they just don't like Romans.
Last edited:
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Temporarily setting that issue aside- and I'm not expecting anyone to change their minds on it, I just want to discuss something separate-
Can we come up with some kind of consensus in favor of leaving a guard on the wounded, while trying NOT to leave a guard so large that it severely weakens the force we take to Nola?
Can we come up with some kind of consensus in favor of leaving a guard on the wounded, while trying NOT to leave a guard so large that it severely weakens the force we take to Nola?
- Location
- NY
Leaving a guard on the wounded seems to make sense in all sorts of ways. One, and most obviously, it keeps an able-bodied force of legionaries around to crack heads with. Two, once the more lightly wounded get back up on their feet, they need a command structure over them to keep them in line and not rattling around the city causing trouble.
@Simon_Jester ok I am against leaving the wounded in Bovianum and for bringing them with us for a lot of reasons. The people most likely to be able to treat and care for them the best is going to be with the legion. Since traditionally the surgeon or barber is going to be with the command staff. Infection will have already started to take effect before we leave the battlefield and set up camp for the night, let alone get to Bovianum. That leaving a force behind is a bad idea since e have orders to bring our cohorts with us after we crush the rebel's. Also leaving a force leads behind leads to some logistic issues. Who is going to feed the wounded. Who is going to guard the supply lines for the force we left behind. Who is going to make sure that the men don't run wild. There is a large hostile force that outnumbers them significantly in valley, also they like to kill Romans. We also do not know how long the siege will last and I personally think it is best to the legion together.
- Location
- USA
Yeah that seems less bad to me, although I don't think I'd jump plans because I've grown to favor selling the men to slavery. I'd be willing to us the offer reasonable ransom from the other plan, but I'm not gonna vote split.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
This means we'll be bringing a long train of wounded with us in wagons or carrying them on stretchers, for days. I find it very hard to believe they'll be better off under those conditions than they would in our camp at Bovianum. The more days in the open we carry them around without rest under more favorable conditions, the worse off they're going to be.
Furthermore, this will slow us down considerably, because dealing with the wounded will take additional time and limit the pace at which we can move.
I don't think Sertorius is going to get huffy over a couple of centuries left behind. I suspect a full cohort would bother him, but that's because it's one tenth of the legion. Two centuries is more like 3%.
The group we'd be leaving behind is much smaller than the overall legion, and our supply line runs through exactly the territory farther from Tercerian's base of operation. With the defeat of Gemino, a relatively small force could guard the caravans, and one caravan that sufficed to feed our half of the legion would probably suffice to leave the garrison I have in mind, plus the hospital patients, for something like a month.
Honestly, if Tercerian leaves the valley (which he hasn't done at any point so far)... We're in trouble whether he overruns a few centuries of Romans or not. Our entire plan to return quickly to Nola is based on the assumption that Tercerian won't make trouble in our rear- that with the knowledge of Gemino's defeat and the Pentri and Hirpini siding with Rome, Tercerian's men will be too demoralized, disorganized, and desertion-prone for him to consider offensive operations.
Moreover, at least with "Celeritas et Clementia," we'd have a force in place that would have some idea whether or not Tercerian was stepping up his activity, and that would convince the Pentri we aren't just abandoning them to Tercerian's mercy.
Under "Moving Forward,", we're running blind on that front.
I do not think we are going to change each other minds and should just call it a good day. So good day sir!
Pathetic King
"I Speak To The Audient Void."
- Location
- Colorado
[X] Plan Celeritas et Clementia