We can also determine the strength of their roster whilst examining the rosters of their neighbours: Sassanids, Copts, Alans, Ostrogoths and eventually the Caliphate.

I think they need to be strong in the early game, and weak in the late game. Strong enough to handle the Sassanids but not too strong for the OGs and Alans. Then in the mid to late game their upper-tier units should be weaker than their neighbours' since that's when they began to crumble.

Yes, their army should probably be stronger cavalry, but more numerous and poorer-quality infantry.
And their general stance should be more defensive than expansionist, don't you think?

They're tricky to balance, put it that way. Hence my belief this area of the map shouldn't have too many regions. I imagine the roster should stick to this rough outline, unless we decide to include the Heraclian reforms.

Perhaps some of these units should be more AoR based than normally recruitable. Eastern Archers, for example.

Vanilla Roster:
Peasants
Orthodox Priest
Limitanei
Comitatenses
Legio Lanciarii
Plumbatarii
Comitatenses First Cohort

Archers
Eastern Archers
Carriage Ballistae
Ballistae
Scorpions
Repeating Ballistae
Onagers
Heavy Onagers

Equites Auxilia
Dromedarii
Scholae Palatinae
Equites Catafractarii
Equites Clibinarii
Hippo-toxotai

Biremes
Triremes
Quinquiremes

Imperial Household Bodyguard

About Belisarius, the main character of the ERE reconquista, I think we should find some way to ensure he comes into Imperial service at some point late in the 510's or early on in the 520's, and that he spawns/ comes of age in Constantinople. He began his career in the bodyguard of Justin I, who paid and muscled his way to emperor in 518, and presumably stayed round the capital at that time to consolidate his position. It is also noted that Procopius joined Belisarius' retinue as his adsessor (legal adviser) in 527, and accompanied Belisarius on most of his campaigns, but if it's too complicated to reenact that in-game maybe it's better to just spawn him in Belisarius' retinue from the start, like you would with a Tutor or an Aged Retainer.

Since Belisarius won't be of age until a few years into the game, making Procopius attach to his retinue will be tricky. But we can make Procopius an available retinue, and Belisarius part of the family tree.

Well, its alternate history. I don't think it would kill us if we already had Belisarius as a family member. After all, thats what RTW did.

Nah, it's not hard. We just have to keep the family tree simple for the most part, or the game starts to choke and members don't show up.

I read somewhere that the Byzantine Army was the most professional and powerful force in the Known World in that time frame. Sure, it got beaten- mostly a generalship thing- but the troops themselves were excellent.

They really did have it all- powerful and solid infantry, fleet and hard-hitting cavalry, excellent artillery, Horse Archers, and specialized troops. Their navy was also world-class, with fire-throwing artillery and all.

Still, in game mechanics, we need to balance that out otherwise the ERE will romp and stomp all over the map.

Not most powerful, just best organized (from my readings). They could recruit men and get them up in quality faster than anyone else. I'll explain further when I return from school.

Basically the book I was reading was about the Byzantines 800+ (out of out time frame, but in the same event, Arabs vs Byzzies) where on paper the Romans should have won, but they lost do to a lack of quality leadership. I would expand further, but the book I am talking about seems to have started playing hide-and-seek....

[This message has been edited by Punic Hoplite (edited 10-07-2011 @ 04:56 PM).]

I thought vanilla did quite well. They weren't exceptional troops for the most part, but they were slightly stronger than many of their equals - but their cost was higher too.

They were one of the few nations who had a professional army. Most "barbarians" had a more levy based army, with only a minor part real soldiers.

By this time, especially in the eastern empire, the romans had still decent infantry, but the main focus was on heavy cavalry. The romans had to defend their large borders, and contrary to earlier ideas about the barbarian migrations, they usually faced multiple smaller incursions. Heavy infantry loses it's purpose outside open full frontal battle fields. Light infantry, archers and cavalry are far more suited by that.

And of course we could include many kinds of AoR units, like Goths in de balkan, arabs in Palestina/syria, horse archers in armenia.

AoR units are possibly best discussed in the AoR/Merc discussion, since they really will apply for the most part to anyone.

At present it sounds like we're fairly happy with the vanilla army, really. Unless someone has ideas for new units.

Town Hall
Tier 2 - Vigiles

Infantry
Tier 3 - Limitanei
Tier 3 - Legio Lanciarii
Tier 4 - Comitatenses
Tier 5 - Comitatus Praesentalis

Missile
Tier 3 - Desert Skirmishers (shared with Sassanids)
Tier 3 - Archers
Tier 4 - (1 Exp) Archers
Tier 4 - Eastern Archers

Cavalry
Tier 3 - Equites Auxilia
Tier 4 - Hippo-toxotai
Tier 4 - Equites Catafractarii
Tier 5 - Bucellarii (General's Bodyguard, composite bows and broadswords, a blend of Huns and Goths)
Tier 6 - Excubitors (the ultimate Byzantine hammer, heavy and shiny armour and powerful charge, expensive too - morale bonus?)

Siege
Tier 4 - Ballistae
Tier 5 - Onagers
Tier 5 - Scorpions
Tier 5 - Carriage Ballistae
Tier 6 - Heavy Onagers

Navy
Tier 3 - Liburnae
Tier 4 - Dromons
Tier 5 - Fire Ships

* * *

Comments, please, gents.

Looks good to me.

Thanks. The dromons actually represent a broad category of different Byzantine warships built in that oars-and-sail style, but for simplicity's sake I just grouped them all up into one unit, thinking that the liburnians and fire ships together should be more than enough...

Well done, GKA!

Happy to be of service.

So what do we use for the faction symbol?

For most of its history, the Byzantine Empire did not know or use heraldry in the West European sense. Various emblems were used in official occasions and for military purposes, such as banners or shields displaying various motifs such as the cross or the labarum. The use of the cross, and of images of Christ, the Virgin Mary and various saints is also attested on seals of officials, but these were personal rather than family emblems.
...

The imperial eagle continued to be used as a motif, and a variant, the double-headed eagle, is probably the most well-known Byzantine emblem.The latter's exact date of adoption is much debated; it has been associated by scholars with the Komnenoi, but is well-attested only in illuminated manuscripts of the Palaiologan period, after ca. 1327.

So i would suggest the vanilla symbol or the imperial eagle on a purple background.

Either works for me, really. I mean, the vanilla Chi-Ro is pretty good already, but if people think we should put a new face on the ERE with the imperial eagle, I'm totally fine with that too.

You guys?

I like the double-headed eagle motif. Sounds cool!

Perhaps change the colors though. Red seems too... Western

And what is wrong with having the Danish flag on the shield, pray tell?

I find the two headed eagle a bit... Hapsburgy, to be honest.

A normal eagle, maybe, but not one belonging to the (not) Holy (not) Roman (not an) Empire!

According to Wikipedia this was the actual East Roman eagle:
[SVG+XML, (341.09 KB)]


from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_heraldry

[This message has been edited by Seneca Monachus (edited 10-17-2011 @ 05:11 AM).]

I had no idea! You learn something new every day!

But going by the same article, it wasn't in use until half a millenium after our mod begins.

According to the most prevalent theory, the single-headed eagle was modified to double-headed by emperor Isaac I Komnenos (1057–1059) being influenced from local traditions about such a (mythical) beast (the haga) in his native Paphlagonia in Asia Minor.

It does also say that it was in use by the 10th century, which is a nice case of conflicting information. Got to love wiki. But the evidence is against its use in the 6th, nonetheless.

We can always use the standard Roman eagle, with a purple background, while WRE uses the standard Roman eagle with a red background...

Er, boring?

Didn't the HRE copy the Byzantine eagle, iirc? I say either the two-headed eagle or the Byzantine cross like in Med2.

Er, historically accurate?

But for flash, I do indeed like the Double-headed eagle. And we can tweak the history a bit- this is an alternate 500 AD, after all.

Er, thanks?

Very well then, are we agreed on the double-headed eagle for the ERE?

Oi! People!

I mean, erm, guys? The ERE symbol...

I already said I liked it...

And we all know Terikel's go-ahead alone counts for ten votes.

Alright then, double-headed eagle it is.

We done? As for faction titles, do we do the same ones as with the WRE?

Maybe an idea to Hellenize them ("Greekify" to those who do not understand the word Hellenize).

well i found this:

Basileus (βασιλεύς): the Greek word for "sovereign" which originally referred to any king in the Greek-speaking areas of the Roman Empire. It also referred to the emperors of Persia. Heraclius adopted it to replace the old Latin title of Augustus (Greek form Augoustos) in 629, and it became the Greek word for "emperor."

We could do basileus, but its used after the timeframe of this mod. The ERE uses still emperor as you can see above.

For the heir we can do:

Despotēs (δεσπότης) – "Lord": This title was used by the emperors themselves since the time of Justinian I, and was an honorific address for the sons of reigning emperors.

More titles

[This message has been edited by Seneca Monachus (edited 10-22-2011 @ 08:15 AM).]

Basileus is good.

Despotes brings up unwanted connotations and references.

Sometimes I think our mod ought to be set in the 600s.

Basileus works, although I'm happy with the (historically accurate) Augustus and Caesar.

But if we set it in 600, then we miss the Western Romans completely, unless we make some major changes to about 150 years of history. Whereas now, we only change about 50 years.

A lot can happen in a hundred years.

I know. But a great deal of what we seem to be putting in would be much better suited to the seventh century... or the eighth, in some cases.

The WRE could easily have become a client state of the ERE in the form of the Exarchate of Ravenna for a while, or somesuch. I'm not advocating a change, just musing.

On a note for the Double-Headed Eagle, you guys do know what it represents, right?

One head represents the Roman Empire, the other the Church. I'm not sure whether or not it had a strong link to the Catholic Church specifically, or to the Church in general. If it was a symbol usually of the Catholic Church during our time period, then it would definitely not be the best symbol for the Byzantines, since they refused to recognize the Pope.

There was no Catholic Church per se in those days. There was just the worship of Jesus- though there were several branchs already- the Coptic Church (patriarch in Alexandria), The Orthodox (patriarch based in Antioch), and the Catholic (patriarch/pope in Rome), and formerly there was also the Arians (who believed God the Father, God the Son, and God the Ghost were three separate entities, though the Arians were bloodily purged as heretics and disappeared by the time of our game).

So the double-headed Eagle- which was a later Byzantine eagle, was indeed a Byzantine symbol and thus worthy of onsideration here.

According to wiki at least, the eagle had no relation to the Church when used by the Byzantines.

Hell, ahistorical as it is, let's use it. These things can always be changed at a later date. As is, actually starting the mod might be nice.

Yes. Patience only has so much of a limited influence.

Ok. I did say I didn't know if the double headed eagle was connected to the Catholic Church, but its beside the point. I guess it would work. However, it may be confusing, since it sounds as though a lot of groups have used it as their emblems over the years. The Czars used the double headed eagle. And, apparently, so did the Hapsburgs. So, it may be confusing. But it is probably usable.

We could give the Byzantines the strong roster it appears they deserved, as long as we balance it out with the Caliphate and Sassanids.

Well, I'd like to think everyone deserves a fairly even roster. Not much point putting a faction in otherwise.

I agree, but it sounds like the Byzantines had a very strong army, just a lack of leadership when it counted. When they had guys like Basil the Bulgarslayer, or Belisarius, they were very well off. Take them away and put them up against strong leadership in the Caliphate, and they have the crap beaten out of them. So what we should do is give them quite a strong roster, but balance it by giving the Caliphate exactly what they need to balance their power, so they don't just collapse. Same for the Sassanids, so that if they aren't destroyed outright by the Arabs, they will still be able to fight.

It's a balancing act. We do also have to remember that the Arabs aren't the only opponent the Byzantines face. If we make them too strong, they'll steamroll everything on the other side.

I'm not saying make them too strong. I'm just saying that they need a stronger roster to show how strong their army was.

But this is all pretty unimportant. What we should do is give the ERE limited resources to work with. Obviously, they are going to have a strong roster and a lot of powerful buildings, so we need to limit the players resources so that they don't just overpower everything straight off.

Well, yes, but then again in RTW troops generally matter more than the generals.

I'm not talking about generals, I'm talking about stuff that can be traded, as a source of income. If the ERE can't get enough troops to expand, it won't expand. So we just have to make it difficult for it to extend its power.