Second start scenario

I like it.

474 seems alright to me

If you were to simulate the Punic Wars wouldnt you would have to include Africa and Iberia ?

You could also consider other interesting events such as these ones:
- Carthaginian Invasion of Sicily (defeated by Gelo)
- Ducetius the Sicel
- Rise of Dionysius II
- Samnite Wars
- Pyrrhic War

I think it's an awesome idea, but that's just me...

TBH, after that HD setback and the other issues still to adress in Imperium, i think your last concern should be another start date ATM, but what do i know, i gladly accept your great work no matter how you think its done best.

Well if it saves you work later on to already define a second starting date so do it
Personally I think you should implement a second one to add more flavour and I totally agree with your proposals. Around the events of the Punic Wars it would be intersting to play.
But consider: If you want to create a totally different atmosphere from the original game then start on another historical event

No objections here. Its a great date to pick especially if you are expanding to Africa and Iberia.

Descartes said:

Starting in 490 AUC, you mean?

Click to expand...

Yes. Sorry, I failed to specify - I think 490 is perfect. It's different enough from the vanilla normal start date, and gives an extremely different political situation to your 245 start date. It almost gives the player two completely different games in one.

Just want to pop in and say that 490 AVC / 264 BC is an excellent starting date -- most probably the single best possible starting date for Rome.

By the start of the 1. Punic war there is a lot of tension between Carthage and Rome and that gives a totally different challenge to the player, and therefore i think it's a great proposal!

Descartes said:

Aah, it's good to hear you saying that.


Not just tension.

Click to expand...

Descartes. I think that the best starting date is 300 bc. By this date the diadochi were stable and fully legitimased as inheritants of alexander's empire. in the balkan a balance was established beetwen the macdonia, epirus, greek states and illyrian kingdom. rome was still conlcuding its italic campaigns and the southern magnia grecia has more time to affront the roman coming onslaught. would be more fun for the seleucids to reafirm the boundaries of their empire as well as carthage was starting to think expansion on iberia. to the actual map of imperium i think 300 bc is the obvious starting date. its not to diverse from 474 auc but gives 20 extra vital years to consolidate in order to fully play and enjoy epirus, macedonia, rome, carthage , egypt etc. thats what rome vanilla lacks by starting at 474 i think
ps we would really appreciate a better rapresentation of illyria. dyrrhachium the importance of which caused the peloponesian war, or apollonia should have their own provinces i think their impact in the mediterranean world of third century bc was great. they were the battleground due to thir income beteween macedonia, illyria and epirus for almost a century uninterruplty.
thanks

Agim I Muzaka said:

Descartes. I think that the best starting date is 300 bc. By this date the diadochi were stable and fully legitimased as inheritants of alexander's empire. in the balkan a balance was established beetwen the macdonia, epirus, greek states and illyrian kingdom. rome was still conlcuding its italic campaigns and the southern magnia grecia has more time to affront the roman coming onslaught. would be more fun for the seleucids to reafirm the boundaries of their empire as well as carthage was starting to think expansion on iberia. to the actual map of imperium i think 300 bc is the obvious starting date. its not to diverse from 474 auc but gives 20 extra vital years to consolidate in order to fully play and enjoy epirus, macedonia, rome, carthage , egypt etc. thats what rome vanilla lacks by starting at 474 i think
ps we would really appreciate a better rapresentation of illyria. dyrrhachium the importance of which caused the peloponesian war, or apollonia should have their own provinces i think their impact in the mediterranean world of third century bc was great. they were the battleground due to thir income beteween macedonia, illyria and epirus for almost a century uninterruplty.
thanks

Click to expand...

by we of course i mean we illyrians ( albanians)

Descartes said:

I beg to differ. 36 years later (in 490 AUC), I'd say the Diadochi were just as legitimised, and the political balance in Illyria still acceptable from a gameplay perspective.

Click to expand...

oh i completely agree. ny 264 bc illyria was starting to achieve its prime time in the balkans eclipsing epirus and challenging macedonia but thats the point if we dont have a window pirrys of epir career can not be simulated. ptoleme consolidation in egypt cannot be played as well. the magna grecia is not gonna even exist by 264 bc. carthage would not have space to manouver and the greek city states were quite nil by that time in term of their previous splendor and real political power. dardanians would get some playing fun because in 216 208 and 201bc they almost overrun all of their macdonia with their 22000 strong campain of 208 bc. however my vote was for someweher 300 bc anyway i judge the outcome would still be good. just take into consideration the question of dyrrachium ( epidamnos) province it was a city by 264 bc when you plan to start with 40-45000 and a theatre 7500 seats. plus apollonia founded in 588 bc by this time had a thetra with 9000 seats you can calculate their economic and political power. the province of taulanti could be split in taulanti interior and dyrracium seaside province. at 280 king monun of illyria qonquered dyrrachium again. plus by 264 scodra was starting to become the biggest illyrian city. as well epir could be divided in molosia ( ambrakia) south and phoinike north. the manpower, polpulation and economic value of epir in the time of symachia was enormous in balkans. hopefully this sugestions would reflect in your new scenario. thanks and keep doing your work.