Roman strategy thread

[Aqualung71]

As the outgoing Emperor, I would like to add my perspective to the wisdom imparted by the Emperor Modo, in order to assist the Emperor-Elect:

Workers: I agree with Emperor Modo's general statement about the efficient use of Workers, though I respectfully point out that sometimes short-term objectives in specific cities such as quick population or production growth will sway the Emperor in favour of using multiple Workers on a single tile, as occurred under my reign.

Armies: The Galleys are awaiting further Legionaries to be upgraded and shipped southwards. As the Senate has probably come to understand, Emperor Modo and I disagree about the degree of military strength required to attack the core of Carthage. I would advise waiting until our Legionary Army plus 6 to 8 support units are available, though I believe Emperor Modo would counsel a lesser number. The new Emperor must decide on this issue.

Spearmen builds: I agree with Emperor Modo. The Spearman builds in question were mainly because they were new builds this turn that I left up to the new Emperor, or were in remote ex-Celtic towns that could not build Garrisons. Though I do admit that the Spearman build in Segusio should preferably be a Garrison, and I apologise for this minor lapse. I do counsel additional Garrison builds for the north of the Empire.

Citizens: Upon reflection, I agree with Emperor Modo that we don't have enough Citizens being built. There are currently 2 on their way to founding new towns, and a couple more should probably be on the build queues.

Future Townsites: For what it's worth, my intention was to found towns using the existing 2 Citizens at Aquileia 774 and Beneventum 223.

I endorse wholeheartedly Emperor Modo's suggested townsites of Croton 22, Croton 69 and Padua 22, and suggest that another town be placed at Ancona 223. With these towns in place, there is probably insufficient room for an additional town between Rome/Pisae or Rome/Neapolis.

[Aqualung71]

I again ask you senators.....who amongst you, after reading the arguments here, would counsel an immediate re-declaration of war against the Celts?

[Daddy-O]

Redeclaring war on the Celts is not an option at this time. We are bound by the Treaty of 305BC, and our honor as a nation. This treaty can be profitable to us as we trade with the Celts and concentrate on the conquest of Carthage.

*Paging Senator Aqualung71 to the Senate Floor*

I think you should answer that.

[Aqualung71]

Senator skrobism, thank you for your attention to this matter. Unfortunately however, you have not really addressed the core issue. The honour of Rome is a separate matter to military strategy.

I for one, believe that Rome is not bound by any treaties made with barbarian races. If it suits Rome to invade the Celts, then Rome should invade the Celts. We can hope for no such respect from these people, and we should offer them none until they are under our control and have learned the wisdom of being part of the Roman Empire.

So I pose the question again.....regardless of any peace treaty currently in place, does it suit Rome to re-declare war on the Celts?

[ormuzd]

I think we should concentrate on the cripping of Carthage. Once we complete the task we should try to make peace and get rest of the islands or conquer them and make peace.
After this we can turn our attention north and destroy the Celts. So, I think we should not declare war immidiately but wait until we have the power to destroy the Celts.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

I would concur with Senator Ormuzd

[Aqualung71]

Well that makes 4 votes for "no" and none for "yes", though Modo the Accused may well have assumed the role of Fascist party whip and be organising the numbers as I write

I suggest this issue be clearly identified in the next poll by the incumbent Emperor Conius

[snoopy369]

Hmm, Fascist party. That leads to an interesting question: In Rome, what would a "Fascist" party entail? Certainly not the same meaning that it takes now, that of a militarist police state with left-leaning economic policies (or something like that, I've always been of the opinion that Fascist is a word with less than perfect definition due to its overuse as a "bad" word).

The Fasces, which was a common symbol of Roman legions, is in fact where Fascism comes from. So would Modo be defined as the leader of the party that defends the viewpoint of the Legions, while Aqualung is the leader of the party who defends the supreme rule of the Emperor / Dictator? That could lead to some interesting Coup possibilities

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The Fasces, which was a common symbol of Roman legions, is in fact where Fascism comes from. So would Modo be defined as the leader of the party that defends the viewpoint of the Legions, while Aqualung is the leader of the party who defends the supreme rule of the Emperor / Dictator? That could lead to some interesting Coup possibilities

Yes, we could probably call Modo the Leader of the Faeces Party.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
Well that makes 4 votes for "no" and none for "yes", though Modo the Accused may well have assumed the role of Fascist party whip and be organising the numbers as I write

You are wrong. Your "cunning" peace treaty gave us two cities deep in Celtic territory. Cities that are open to attack by the barbarians and, it seems, will remain so for some time. If we were to go back to war, we'd have to abandon the cities, for we have no means of reinforcing them fast enough. And, whomever lives in those cities, they are now Roman Citizens and I am against depriving them of a place to live.

By the way, I see you now resort to making jokes. No rational argument left, eh?

[jagjef]

Atleast thos cities are not building troups to be used against Rome.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Modo44

You are wrong. Your "cunning" peace treaty gave us two cities deep in Celtic territory. Cities that are open to attack by the barbarians and, it seems, will remain so for some time. If we were to go back to war, we'd have to abandon the cities, for we have no means of reinforcing them fast enough. And, whomever lives in those cities, they are now Roman Citizens and I am against depriving them of a place to live.

By the way, I see you now resort to making jokes. No rational argument left, eh?

You are speaking more and more irrationally, poor man. you quoted that I said "4 for yes, none for no", called me wrong and then rambled on about cunning peace treaties

Nevertheless, I think you will recall that in one of my responses I acknowledged that those 2 towns are probably of little value in the short term and are open to aggressive action by other civilisations.

However, I believe Senator jagjef summed up the most pertinent point here quite nicely:

Atleast thos cities are not building troups to be used against Rome.

[EDIT: And the joke was only necessary because you've presented no rational argument to which I need respond seriously]

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Modo44

You are wrong. Your "cunning" peace treaty gave us two cities deep in Celtic territory. Cities that are open to attack by the barbarians and, it seems, will remain so for some time. If we were to go back to war, we'd have to abandon the cities, for we have no means of reinforcing them fast enough. And, whomever lives in those cities, they are now Roman Citizens and I am against depriving them of a place to live.

By the way, I see you now resort to making jokes. No rational argument left, eh?

I agree that these people are now Roman Citizens and in this means we MUST be looking at their welfare and safety

What plans do you have for this Emperor Conious

Senators Aqualung, McMeadows and Jagjef, you are the current Consuls, have you looked at this matter?

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
You are speaking more and more irrationally, poor man. you quoted that I said "4 for yes, none for no", called me wrong and then rambled on about cunning peace treaties

You were wrong in your assumption that I would entice anyone to vote in favor of going right back to war with the Celts. I never intended to do that that and never did.

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Modo44

You were wrong in your assumption that I would entice anyone to vote in favor of going right back to war with the Celts. I never intended to do that that and never did.

Oh. So....does this mean you agree that we shouldn't be fighting the Celts at this time, a mere few turns after you wanted to consign all memory of their race to the pages of Heroditus?