Res Publica: A Quest of Ancient Rome
- Thread starter Telamon
- Start date
- Original Historic
The are several things that are currently making me not vote for Plan CeC are leaving our injured without guards and breaking up a cohort in order to reassign the men which seems like the kind of thing that could cause confusion. If we just detached the second cohort and had them take all of the injured to join Rufus while we marched straight towards Sertorius that would seem simpler. Similarly I doubt that the tribal elders will care if we enslave our prisoners of war, that was simply the done thing at the time not just for the Romans but for everyone going back to before the greeks.
- Location
- United States
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Plan Celeritas et Clementia
- Location
- The Philippines
Hm. Did Roman cohorts usually switch around injured soldiers?
No they did consolidate when enough people got killed but moving around people like that will just confuse everyone. Especially the pay master since traditionally veterans cohorts got more pay. I mean it should hopefully not effect too much but it will still cause som administrative issues.
- Location
- USA
[X] Plan Moving Forward
I don't want us reshuffling cohorts right now
I don't want us reshuffling cohorts right now
- Location
- Europe
I think your mistake lies in thinking that this isn't a military vote when every single vote while we're on campaign is a military vote. Even when we spent time wooing the Pentri nobility, we did so in order to strengthen our military position by weakening the support for Gemino.
Now, in regards to us being inconsiderate of our diplomatic relations, I'm going to have to disagree. That we're willing to be just to the Samnites who submit to our rule doesn't mean that we have to pardon a bunch of rebels that were more than aware of what they got themselves into when they signed up with Gemino, a sworn and repeated enemy of Rome. Selling them into slavery might not be mercy but it certainly isn't cruelty either, at least not for the times. It's not going to damage our relations with the remaining Samnites but pardoning won't be popular with the legionaires, particularly the cohorts that suffered severe losses in order to defeat them. Selling them into slavery is a just and proportionate punishment for their crime of rebellion.
I'll also note that calling the rebels that we've just sacrificed 300 good Romans to defeat "farmers" is a gross mischaracterization of the situation. We're not selling farmers to slavery, we're selling defeated rebels. We're not abandoning Bovianum either, we just spent months pacifying the area in order to secure it so we could link up with Sertorius again. That was pretty much the whole point.
[X] Plan Moving Forward
Last edited:
Cetashwayo
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
- Location
- Across the Horizon
You just don't really want people who previously rebelled and have some level of expertise in the subject go back home and rebel again. I doubt they'll see our munificence forever, because not every Roman is us and they're going to be predisposed not to like us anyways. Gemino doesn't surrender to us because he likes us, he dies saying he wished we were a Samnite. But that's different from actually liking us, and I doubt those that actively took up arms to heavily against Rome will act that way.
They'll also poison the well of our efforts because by letting them go back home we will allow them to spread anti-Roman feeling among their friends and countrymen. If there was any great love for them among the Pentri elders, sure, but I don't see concrete evidence this will hurt our position among the Pentri that much.
They'll also poison the well of our efforts because by letting them go back home we will allow them to spread anti-Roman feeling among their friends and countrymen. If there was any great love for them among the Pentri elders, sure, but I don't see concrete evidence this will hurt our position among the Pentri that much.
Last edited:
- Location
- Central Europe
What I meant with a 'military vote' is when we choose how to engage an enemy, a better term might be 'combat vote'. For example last turn when we had to choose how to finish the rebels in this region. In such votes I'm most of the times opposed to write-ins, because I feel the QM will have thought his options (and their accompanying battle roll modifiers) through.
This is a diplomacy vote, there are no rolls or modifiers here. Only narrative and how fast we can get down to Nola. In both cases CnC, with its write-ins, is superior to MF in my opinion.
Most of his surviving force, and especially most of those whom surrendered or who we managed to capture, will have been those 500+ peasants recently levied from the western towns. I have repeatedly stated in this thread, that those people only joined him because we abandoned them.
- Location
- Europe
I'm not really seeing why write-ins are supposedly superior to the standard options nor why you believe there'll be no rolls or modifiers. There's been several diplomatic options that required rolls and where we did get modifiers based on our preparations and choices. I'm not really seeing how what you're calling narrative is different from the rest of the quest. Was the battle this update not a part of the narrative?
I don't think we've any idea what the composition of the surrendered troops is nor why the recent recruits joined him. We also don't know what kind of training they've gotten since joining, whether they've been radicalized while under the command of an implacable enemy of Rome or if they came to hate Rome enough simply by our 'neglect'. There are simply too many unknowns to risk it, not to mention the fact that our reputation with the legion might very well suffer as a result of such lenience towards people that've killed their brothers in arms. I know I'd be fairly miffed if people who'd killed my friends just got to walk away with a little cut in their ear.
- Location
- USA
I personally don't get the vibe that taking the vanilla options presented to us means tunneling to the exclusion of all else. As an example, trying to make speed to Nola doesn't mean we're force-marching our wounded or giving the middle finger to all the Samnites as we drive by. Atellus will still keep his eyes up as he moves with his forces through the area, and he's established a certain reputation and pattern of behavior that we should expect to persist, at least in the short-term.
I also freely admit I have some personal misgivings, as I alluded to in an earlier post, against micro-management. I think of our role as questers as guiding the general story, not its minute details which often happen adhoc, due to rolls, or what-have-you.
I also freely admit I have some personal misgivings, as I alluded to in an earlier post, against micro-management. I think of our role as questers as guiding the general story, not its minute details which often happen adhoc, due to rolls, or what-have-you.
Chaos Blade
Procrastinating Writer
- Location
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
[X] Plan Moving Forward
Changing my vote. Let's get this over with.
Changing my vote. Let's get this over with.
- Location
- Hawaii
[X] Plan Moving Forward
- Location
- Central Europe
There are some votes that are purely narrative. For example, I can't see a roll determine the outcome of picking the 'Slavery'-option in the [Prisoners]-vote.
In my experience those most radicalized are also those most likely to lie dead in the field and those of Geminios veterans who fled were probably skilled enough to escaped us on their Home Turf.
I'll admit though that I might be biased by my intention to shore up support in the western towns. These towns are in my opinion essential (or at least a big aid ) to keeping Bovanium save from Tercerian.
Deadly Snark
Tryhard As Fuck
[X] Plan Moving Forward
- Location
- USA
That all may be true, however the options as presented do give specific emphasis on what each of the choices intend.
While I doubt we will not tend to our wounded with any of the options presented, compared to some of the other options, returning to Bovianum is the one option that specifically emphasizes treating our wounded, such as Pompolussa who was noted to have been heavily wounded in the fighting. Considering the medicine and resources of the time I would think that every advantage and resource given could mean the difference between life and death for some of our men. Compared to out in the field, away from our direct supply lines, I believe Bovianum would be much better provisioned to helping save some of our troops.
I do not disagree with everyone who is voting against micromanagement, rather my disagreement is with the option in the vote to head straight towards Nola when right now I believe that our orders as given are relaxed enough that we can afford to stop by Bovianum to allow some of our men to receive better treatment as an extension of Sertorius asking for us to finish our business.
Claytonimor
WE WILL TAKE JERUSALEM
- Location
- Loudon, TN
[X] Plan Moving Forward
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Eh, this boils down to simple orders, but they're orders that HAVE to be given by the commander, because the decisions involved simply cannot be made by company-grade officers and Quintus Atellus is (in effect) the only field-grade officer present.
The actual orders reduce to something like:
"Fill out the other cohorts' casualties with able-bodied men from the Second, transfer the walking wounded to the Second. At daybreak, the Second marches back to Bovianum with the wounded. The rest of us are marching for Nola in the morning. Oh, and Tullus, I'll be coming over to where your boys are guarding the prisoners, I have a little speech to make to them, then we'll be notching their ears and sending them home with a message."
Now, the first two sentences, your plan drops- but I'm not sure that makes it a better plan. It means that we're taking everyone, including the wounded, with us to Nola. That's going to slow us down quite a bit, I would think.
And the last two sentences are reduced to "Oh, and Tullus, get ready to hand over the prisoners; we'll be selling them off to the slavers at the first opportunity." But again, this doesn't really make the plan more complicated than "get ready to notch their ears and let them go after I give them a message to take home to their villages."
NOTE: I am aware that you switched plan votes later, after this post I am now replying to. Nevertheless... I owe you replies. You made some good points.
And in all fairness, you're right, it totally does. Anyone who considers pacifying the western towns by marching through them at this time to be a higher priority than "get to Nola about some days earlier" should totally vote for your plan.
Me, I consider speed to be a higher priority than thoroughness, thus my incentive to choose, well, celeritas.
Uhhhhh...
Complication. Some of our wounded will almost certainly take more than a few days to recover to the point of being fit to march, let alone fit to fight. In Bovianum, or rather the camp near Bovianum, we're going to have to leave behind some kind of 'field hospital' to tend to those of our men who were seriously injured but likely to fully recover given proper medical care- say, because they have a broken leg somehow.
Also to take care of those who will live, but who cannot fight for themselves, such as amputees. We can't get a guy who's just had his arm cut off all the way back to Rome in a timely fashion without risking him being bushwhacked, or without allocating several able-bodied men to guard him at a time when those men are desperately needed fighting the Samnites.
And this field hospital will almost certainly have to be in Bovianum (or rather, the nearby camp), and will have to be guarded by a sufficient force of legionnaires that bandits operating in platoon strength can't casually wipe the place out. Which means leaving at least a couple of centuries worth of men.
At which point we need something like my plan to shrink the Second Cohort down to a rump organization while transferring in walking wounded to fill out the ranks with people who won't be very helpful in the fighting at Nola.
Yeah, see, I figured you were expecting someone to guard the wounded, probably the Sixth and Second Cohorts or what's left of them.
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
...Would MORE people be voting for my plan if it just said "Let the captives go, and march to Nola," while leaving no provision for guarding the wounded?
I'm beginning to think they would, and I'm not sure I understand that. The bulk of the 'micromanagement' in Celeritas et Clementia comes from wanting to leave a guard force in Bovianum to tend the wounded, while also getting as many soldiers as possible to Nola despite that constraint.
If we don't do that, either we're bringing the wounded with us and slowing ourselves down, or we're leaving the wounded unguarded. I can't decide which is worse.
The only thing that might cause problems would be transferring men into the Seventh if they're a 'veteran' cohort, and in that case, well, we just gave some of the men from the Second a raise! They're not likely to whine about it, I'd hope.
Think about it. Even if it were working out to our advantage in this campaign, which on the whole it isn't, we've got fifty or sixty years of active political life to think about, and it looks like a lot of the Samnites will be Roman citizens for much of that time. They will be participating in Roman politics. How do you feel about the prospect of us having a -1 malus to our attempts to persuade Samnites to do things for the rest of our lives? I for one do not like that idea.
We could always rotate people back later when the wounded have recovered and things go back to normal.
Most of the 'micromanagement' of soldiers in Celeritas et Clementia comes from the fact that, well, we have wounded who can't march and won't be able to fight at Nola, and we need to guard them in a secure location. At the same time, we want to maximize the force we take to Nola; I begrudge every able-bodied man we leave behind, and every gap in the ranks of the cohorts we take with us.
The plan for the captives basically reduces to "well, we don't have time to imprison them or ransom them or anything, so let's do something simple, quick and dirty to make sure that the local villages at least KNOW we're planning to come back and squash Tercerian, and also make sure that the villagers know damn well that if they oppose us again they will NOT be let off with a slap on the wrist.
it takes a paragraph or so to explain, admittedly, but is that so bad?
I mean, it's not like letting the prisoners go is slower than selling them into slavery. The only clear difference is that Celeritas et Clementia shuffles men between cohorts to maximize our strength at Nola (which I'm willing to give up given how many people seem to be aginst it), and that it specifically designates a certain body of men (probably a few hundred) to guard the wounded in Bovianum, rather than trying to get the wounded to Nola or leaving them unguarded in Bovianum.
And trying to take the wounded with us to Nola would probably kill some of the worst cases, impaire recovery in others, and slow down our march considerably.
Whereas leaving the wounded unguarded in Bovianum would expose them to a great deal of risk from any small bandit groups still operational, or just plain from Samnites not liking them very much.
I'm beginning to think they would, and I'm not sure I understand that. The bulk of the 'micromanagement' in Celeritas et Clementia comes from wanting to leave a guard force in Bovianum to tend the wounded, while also getting as many soldiers as possible to Nola despite that constraint.
If we don't do that, either we're bringing the wounded with us and slowing ourselves down, or we're leaving the wounded unguarded. I can't decide which is worse.
I'm not at all sure that EITHER the Second OR the other cohorts we'd be transferring the men to would qualify for veterans' bonuses; the Second was at best "semi-green" when we marched to Bovianum, and I suspect that no cohort's pay has been upgraded since that time.
The only thing that might cause problems would be transferring men into the Seventh if they're a 'veteran' cohort, and in that case, well, we just gave some of the men from the Second a raise! They're not likely to whine about it, I'd hope.
Uh, Celeritas et Clementia does, in fact, leave our injured WITH guards. Namely, the remaining able-bodied men of the Second Cohort. While they took a pasting in the battle, they cannot possibly be so short of men that they won't have any left after being drawn on for replacements.
So, just to be clear, you'd rather we left a larger number of able-bodied men behind in Bovianum, instead of drawing on the Second to fill out the ranks of the others?
Hell, if that's the issue, we could make up that kind of relatively small change ourselves, out of pocket. It's worth it to dissolve "Enemy of the Samnites;" that trait is nothing but trouble for us in the long run.
Think about it. Even if it were working out to our advantage in this campaign, which on the whole it isn't, we've got fifty or sixty years of active political life to think about, and it looks like a lot of the Samnites will be Roman citizens for much of that time. They will be participating in Roman politics. How do you feel about the prospect of us having a -1 malus to our attempts to persuade Samnites to do things for the rest of our lives? I for one do not like that idea.
I mean, you're not wrong, but we've got a battle to fight in the near future. Having 200 more able-bodied men in the cohorts we have, even temporarily, is going to help considerably.
We could always rotate people back later when the wounded have recovered and things go back to normal.
The thing is, we HAVE wounded. We can't just ignore them and assume it's all going to work out somehow. That's not 'avoid micromanagement,' that's 'absentee boss.'
Most of the 'micromanagement' of soldiers in Celeritas et Clementia comes from the fact that, well, we have wounded who can't march and won't be able to fight at Nola, and we need to guard them in a secure location. At the same time, we want to maximize the force we take to Nola; I begrudge every able-bodied man we leave behind, and every gap in the ranks of the cohorts we take with us.
The plan for the captives basically reduces to "well, we don't have time to imprison them or ransom them or anything, so let's do something simple, quick and dirty to make sure that the local villages at least KNOW we're planning to come back and squash Tercerian, and also make sure that the villagers know damn well that if they oppose us again they will NOT be let off with a slap on the wrist.
it takes a paragraph or so to explain, admittedly, but is that so bad?
I'm not sure something as specific as "notch the captives' ears" or "transfer men between cohorts" wouldn't just get lost in the shuffle. If I weren't worried about that, I wouldn't have gone for the write-in.
How, exactly, is it more "over with" to pick "Going Forward" over "Celeritas et Clementia?"
I mean, it's not like letting the prisoners go is slower than selling them into slavery. The only clear difference is that Celeritas et Clementia shuffles men between cohorts to maximize our strength at Nola (which I'm willing to give up given how many people seem to be aginst it), and that it specifically designates a certain body of men (probably a few hundred) to guard the wounded in Bovianum, rather than trying to get the wounded to Nola or leaving them unguarded in Bovianum.
And trying to take the wounded with us to Nola would probably kill some of the worst cases, impaire recovery in others, and slow down our march considerably.
Whereas leaving the wounded unguarded in Bovianum would expose them to a great deal of risk from any small bandit groups still operational, or just plain from Samnites not liking them very much.
Last edited: