its been brought up a few times and they say that they would bring up when they negotiate with ageod and also phil thibaut has said they are completly open on the project.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
its been brought up a few times and they say that they would bring up when they negotiate with ageod and also phil thibaut has said they are completly open on the project.
When I think what I'd do for a Rome expansion to make it more enjoyable, the first thing that comes to mind is obviously a complete reorganization of the map provinces (smaller ones and sea-focused), even if the map scope doesn't move eastwards.
Then, another important sphere of the game that needs a complete revamp is the military system; for what I've seen the main thing that counts in the military aspect is the number of troops of each nation tag: of course it matters, it wouldn't be realistic if it won't, but logistics, attrition and possibly terrain should have a lot to do with the chances of some country even thinking declaring war on another, even if it's forces are underscored 3:1 or 4:1.
But what I think could make the game more enjoyable is about the character system; why CK is so fun to play and Rome doesn't? The first thing is that is very tedious, and it takes a lot of effort for the player to fully know your realm. In CK you can easily know which is your ruler, your family members and your courtiers. After playing a single afternoon you can almost imagine that you live and know all of their lives, goals and miseries. Why this doesn't happen in Rome?
What I'd do to solve this would be something like this:
I don't know if I'm the only one, but I find it difficult and tedious to access the characters screen in the bar above; when I do that it's difficult to get the big picture of your court; you must scroll down through men, women, children. And of course there are filters, but it's still somewhat tedious to check.
I think the CK system of small portraits down the characters screen would be absolutely useful for this purpose. Plus, I go a step beyond: since there are political parties in republics, tribal factions and heir supporters (by order of loyalty), wouldn't be useful to have various small portraits of the people supporting each faction?
Big countries like Rome could have this bar extended twice so they all fit in, and why not, in the right edge of the characters screen it'd be nice to have a couple of icons to filter men/women-children or employed/unemployed showing up in that mini-characters ledger.
Ah, and a minor thing could be to have dead-spouse/brides visible like in CK. It's a very minor feature, but I like to give some honour to the unfortunately gone brides.
o
Then, another important sphere of the game that needs a complete revamp is the military system; for what I've seen the main thing that counts in the military aspect is the number of troops of each nation tag: of course it matters, it wouldn't be realistic if it won't, but logistics, attrition and possibly terrain should have a lot to do with the chances of some country even thinking declaring war on another, even if it's forces are underscored 3:1 or 4:1.
But what I think could make the game more enjoyable is about the character system; why CK is so fun to play and Rome doesn't? The first thing is that is very tedious, and it takes a lot of effort for the player to fully know your realm. In CK you can easily know which is your ruler, your family members and your courtiers. After playing a single afternoon you can almost imagine that you live and know all of their lives, goals and miseries. Why this doesn't happen in Rome?
What I'd do to solve this would be something like this:
I don't know if I'm the only one, but I find it difficult and tedious to access the characters screen in the bar above; when I do that it's difficult to get the big picture of your court; you must scroll down through men, women, children. And of course there are filters, but it's still somewhat tedious to check.
I think the CK system of small portraits down the characters screen would be absolutely useful for this purpose. Plus, I go a step beyond: since there are political parties in republics, tribal factions and heir supporters (by order of loyalty), wouldn't be useful to have various small portraits of the people supporting each faction?
Big countries like Rome could have this bar extended twice so they all fit in, and why not, in the right edge of the characters screen it'd be nice to have a couple of icons to filter men/women-children or employed/unemployed showing up in that mini-characters ledger.
Ah, and a minor thing could be to have dead-spouse/brides visible like in CK. It's a very minor feature, but I like to give some honour to the unfortunately gone brides.
o
Do you have any links? I would absolutely spray my pants if Paradox took on a GI-like project, though was secretly hoping they would lay off the time period long enough for me to finish 'Dawn of the West', then use that as a base
Well I’ve only just started playing Rome so I have to be general in my comments , but as a longstanding fan of these games as a whole, I can tell you that my preference would be for the game to start early in Alexanders conquest (the earlier the better), with enough choice left to somewhat manipulate how it pans out, and where certain allegiances lie etc.
If you’re making a game advertised about Alexander the great, then you need enough gameplay with him it, to make it a worthwhile selling point.
I am however very excited to hear that his conquests might be modeled in a paradox game! I am also a big fan of more fragile empires in this time period, that is one of the drawing points of CK to me, fighting the internal as well as external battles, with unexpected nations cropping up. I'll hopefully have something more specific to say at a later date.
, but as a longstanding fan of these games as a whole, I can tell you that my preference would be for the game to start early in Alexanders conquest (the earlier the better), with enough choice left to somewhat manipulate how it pans out, and where certain allegiances lie etc. If you’re making a game advertised about Alexander the great, then you need enough gameplay with him it, to make it a worthwhile selling point.
I am however very excited to hear that his conquests might be modeled in a paradox game! I am also a big fan of more fragile empires in this time period, that is one of the drawing points of CK to me, fighting the internal as well as external battles, with unexpected nations cropping up. I'll hopefully have something more specific to say at a later date.
I think that's a good idea. The drawback is that the AI will likely have a tough time recreating an historical outcome. On the other hand, that's what different start dates are for.
It is nice to have an expasion with alexander but the priority must be Rome and their wars Italy against latins and samnites, expand the world map to India must be followed by rework of Italic peninsula, sicily, more tribes and make at least one nation with every barbaric cultures, and make rework the greek colonies on black sea
I really do wonder how they would portray the Diadoch Wars, the closest we come with that from any Paradox game is CK, and even if Rome borrows elements from CK it isn't really the same thing. While there seldom were more than two sides in a conflict, just putting it as a civil war is now, 2 sides who together completely gobble up the whole kingdom, wouldn't fit either. Would we simply have Antipater against Perdiccas, regardless of the impact Antigonus or Ptolemy had even in the first war? How could a secession and subsequent rise like the one of Seleucus be depicted?
I am a great fan of the Diadochi period, and while I would like to see it in game I wonder if it just isn't a bit too hard to portray well without a complete reenhancement of the game.
I am a great fan of the Diadochi period, and while I would like to see it in game I wonder if it just isn't a bit too hard to portray well without a complete reenhancement of the game.
Just in a nutshell..
How about EU3, Rome - Wars of the Diadochi expansion???
Including a rump portion of the Maurya Empire, Baktria and the Eastern regions of the Seleukid Empire..
I agree that if this is going to be the case, much more attention needs to be given to most of the map in general. Gaul, Germania and Hispania could be greatly improved, in northern Europe though Britannia needs the most attention.. Italy, the Alps and Pannonia could be given some more depth, same could be said for Mauritania, Numidian and Carthaginian North Africa. A couple of provinces to make Sicily interesting, and maybe Cyrpus could be splt into 2 provinces? However, in order to do this era justice, much work is required to fix the Adriatic, the Balkans, Greece proper, the Ionian coast, Anatolia, the black sea coast-lands, the Armenian hinterlands, Colchis, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Judea, Egypt, Mesopotamia/Elymais and the eastern expansion must be done properly..
Something along the lines of what the RIMP has done, that is a good start... More depth and accuracy is definitely required.
How about EU3, Rome - Wars of the Diadochi expansion???
Including a rump portion of the Maurya Empire, Baktria and the Eastern regions of the Seleukid Empire..
I agree that if this is going to be the case, much more attention needs to be given to most of the map in general. Gaul, Germania and Hispania could be greatly improved, in northern Europe though Britannia needs the most attention.. Italy, the Alps and Pannonia could be given some more depth, same could be said for Mauritania, Numidian and Carthaginian North Africa. A couple of provinces to make Sicily interesting, and maybe Cyrpus could be splt into 2 provinces? However, in order to do this era justice, much work is required to fix the Adriatic, the Balkans, Greece proper, the Ionian coast, Anatolia, the black sea coast-lands, the Armenian hinterlands, Colchis, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Judea, Egypt, Mesopotamia/Elymais and the eastern expansion must be done properly..
Something along the lines of what the RIMP has done, that is a good start... More depth and accuracy is definitely required.
Last edited:
I've mentioned this in the voting thread, but for the sake of completeness I'll re-type it here.
An Alexander expansion would be fantastic for this game, IMHO. Those who are unsure about it, think about some of the game changes that would need to be made to make such a concept possible:
I reckon it'd be a lot of fun, personally. Especially if things don't go entirely to history - there's a lot of room for big changes to the course of history at this point. Alexander might be crushed, or he might opt to sign a peace with Darius without taking the entire empire; Alexander might have a legal heir before his death, or his successors might occupy different lands; Rome might be destroyed by the Samnites, and Carthage takes over the rest of the western Mediterranean, etc etc. Many of the game mechanic changes mentioned could also extend to other empires, too: they could encourage the fall of the yellow blob at later start dates, while making it harder for the player to maintain a huge empire and possibly even setting the scene for a Roman Empire-based expansion in the future.
Of course, it might not be all good. I'd be very disappointed if Paradox just set the world up as it was at 334BC without any mechanics for actually pushing the game forward, leaving the Persian empire to be just a bigger, more unstoppable Seleucid empire of today...
An Alexander expansion would be fantastic for this game, IMHO. Those who are unsure about it, think about some of the game changes that would need to be made to make such a concept possible:
- Philip secured most of Greece for his empire, both by war and by treaty. This would necessitate some kind of 'diplo-annex' feature; or, at the very least, an expanded system of vassalage.
- What I'd like to see: when you conquer or annex another country, you choose whether to incorporate them into your empire directly or leave them as vassals/client kingdoms/etc. As the former, you obviously have direct control over them and would thus gain more money through direct tax; as the latter, they would supply a small amount of money but generate auxiliary troops for you at your request. I think this would be a great way to represent the Greek allies of Alexander, as well as the Italic allies of Rome up until the Socii Wars. The way I envision this working is that directly-controlled provinces have your country's own colour, while vassal provinces become a darker shade of your colour. - Similarly, Philip and Alexander both formed alliances and treaties with the barbaroi to the north of Macedonia. This would indicate the possibility for an expanded barbarian system that Johan has already expressed an interest in.
- I see this working as 'barbarians' basically being 'mini-countries' that have few/no characters, but at times can pack up and form a horde, possibly pushing other barbarians to do the same. 'Civilised' (ie, urbanised) countries can form limited diplomatic relations with these countries, which may lead them to settle and become civilised countries themselves (like several Gallic tribes were by the 1st century BCE). - Alexander conquered a lot of cities without having to besiege every single one he came across. Hell, Egypt fell with barely a fight at all.
- I like DarthJF's suggestion for the National Unity type system, though I'm not sure it should trigger an automatic collapse. IMHO, it would work really well if it was based off proximity of an enemy army, and/or the death of your ruler (and even then not be 100% certain). For example, Alexander defeats Darius in several key battles and Persia's unity falls below a certain threshold. Nearby cities fall to Alexander without problem, though a few (eg Tyre, etc) stay loyal. Alexander wins another huge battle, forcing Persia's unity even lower - they are close to breaking point. Darius is then assassinated and his empire splinters.
- You could actually apply the same principle to Alexander's own empire. I imagine Macedonia's war exhaustion would have been through the roof, which may have caused a drop in unity and, coupled with an heir-less death, results in a splintered kingdom.
- I actually like this idea more than the current Stability system...hmm... - Alexander died without an heir; in EUR, this is usually overcome just by having an heir chosen out of one of the country's prominent characters - or, at worst, a civil war. The Diadochoi wars were a heck of a lot more complicated than just a simple civil war: land constantly shifted, alliances were constantly formed and broken. Heck, peace was frequently followed by another war well before an arbitrary 5-year truce period...
- Some kind of mechanic would need to be introduced allowing prominent individuals to take control of regions, not just governors. It's also need a more dynamic diplomatic system, too. - Rome itself would be busy with the Samnite Wars, and be embroiled in a whole heap of internal struggles between patricians and plebeians. Sounds like a lot of fun to me.
I reckon it'd be a lot of fun, personally. Especially if things don't go entirely to history - there's a lot of room for big changes to the course of history at this point. Alexander might be crushed, or he might opt to sign a peace with Darius without taking the entire empire; Alexander might have a legal heir before his death, or his successors might occupy different lands; Rome might be destroyed by the Samnites, and Carthage takes over the rest of the western Mediterranean, etc etc. Many of the game mechanic changes mentioned could also extend to other empires, too: they could encourage the fall of the yellow blob at later start dates, while making it harder for the player to maintain a huge empire and possibly even setting the scene for a Roman Empire-based expansion in the future.
Of course, it might not be all good. I'd be very disappointed if Paradox just set the world up as it was at 334BC without any mechanics for actually pushing the game forward, leaving the Persian empire to be just a bigger, more unstoppable Seleucid empire of today...
This might not be the right place for the idea, but I posted this in the mod forum and really think it could work with Rome:
"So, in-game redesignation of provinces into regions [a la the Theatre system in HoI3] would be a feature request for a new expansion...?"
"So, in-game redesignation of provinces into regions [a la the Theatre system in HoI3] would be a feature request for a new expansion...?"
+1......I totally agree.....the possibilities for Rome would be wide open for future expansions.....this is where it needs to begin.....its time to bring EU Rome to glory.....its time to turn her into a masterpiece
Autosave feature
Relations shown in the lower left corner when clicking on a country like in EU3
Culture shown in the lower left corner when clicking on a country like in EU3
Also culture should make more sense, Irish should be part of the "Iberian" group.
Relations shown in the lower left corner when clicking on a country like in EU3
Culture shown in the lower left corner when clicking on a country like in EU3
Also culture should make more sense, Irish should be part of the "Iberian" group.
Last edited:
Wholeheartedly agree. It's very irritating getting one province from a region and having to assign a governor to it, even though there's a ready and capable region and governor right next to it.
Also, some more thoughts that have been rattling around in the ol' grey matter:
- What were the causes for Alexander's war? Think about it: he had inherited a large, professional army that would have cost a bundle to disband and re-settle, so sending them off to war makes a measure of sense. But leading them personally into the largest empire of the time strikes me as being suicidal - clearly, Alexander had a huge ambition and even greater confidence in his own ability (and that of his troops).
- What I'm getting at here is that a ruler with less ability (well, confidence at least) would not have even entertained the idea of such a campaign. Could this be a way of tying a country's expansionist tendencies to the ruler's stats and/or traits? At the moment, countries all expand because they can, regardless of whether the ruler is Content with no ambitions, or whether the senate is controlled by passive Mercantilists. I think it'd be cool if this was something that the AI took into consideration when deciding on war. - During this time period, we see both the Macedonian army and the Roman army go through some massive changes in how they work. Alexander's predecessor Philip reforms the classic hoplite into the professional Macedonian phalangite (pezhetairoi, 'foot companions'); Rome similarly moves away from a hoplite-esque military formation to the more recognisable manipular style (IIRC adopted due to failures in battle with the Samnites) at around the same period.
-This would be a great opportunity to introduce new units or, at the very least, a set of military inventions that shapes each culture's armies. - As Alexander made his conquests through Persia, he began recruiting Persian troops and training them in the Macedonian style of warfare. It's possible to do this in EU3 with mercenaries being available in occupied territory, so I think it'd be very plausible to introduce this ability to EUR.
- Alexander's army mutinies when he tries to go too far into India, I wonder if this would be represented in any way?
Edit: also! Export a modifier for the peace value of provinces. As it is at the moment, the only things really affecting how a country values its provinces when negotiating a peace is that province's population and civilisation values. Culture, religion, stability, distance from capital - all of these things have absolutely no bearing on how much a province is worth in terms of warscore. At least, they didn't when I conducted a bunch of tests a couple of patches ago (2.1? I don't remember). It'd be great to be able to assign this to static modifiers
Last edited:
Oh, and another thing: local army modifiers. We have country modifiers and local province modifiers, but there's nothing for a local (friendly) army. For example, it'd be great for provinces with certain buildings or resources to lend armies a bonus; likewise, it'd be awesome for generals to give bonuses to the army they command. I can think of a few examples off the top of my head:
- Forts and/or Stone resources could give defending armies a strong defensive bonus if they're situated in that province.
- A charismatic general (cough, Alexander) could give the army he commands a bit of a morale boost.
- A general with a poor victory record could give the army a morale penalty.
While on the subject of armies and local modifiers, what about having 'supporting' characters tag along with armies? For example, an army could have several different 'ranks':
Thoughts?
- Forts and/or Stone resources could give defending armies a strong defensive bonus if they're situated in that province.
- A charismatic general (cough, Alexander) could give the army he commands a bit of a morale boost.
- A general with a poor victory record could give the army a morale penalty.
While on the subject of armies and local modifiers, what about having 'supporting' characters tag along with armies? For example, an army could have several different 'ranks':
- General. For Rome, this would default to (one of) the consul(s), or an emergency dictator should they need one. Otherwise, a Praetor could be placed in charge of the army but have a limit as to how many men he could effectively lead before he starts to get a penalty (later on you could pass laws allowing legates with proconsular/propraetorian imperium to give you a wider pool of commanders). Monarchies would be a lot more flexible, though.
- Up to X number of sub-commanders. For Rome, this would include military tribunes (who were historically able to lead a legion while under the command of a consul/proconsul/praetor/propraetor), while monarchies would have some kind of similar position. Their martial skill would lend itself to the army's discipline/organisation.
- Up of Y number of logistics officers. For Rome, this would include military quaestors (who controlled things like supplies and later payment of troops). Their finesse skill would lend itself to the local province's supply limit.
Thoughts?
I like this idea. Maybe if a General's popularity falls below a certain limit, his army suffers an effect similar to attrition and a small fraction of the army abandons the General monthly and either; returns to the manpower pool to be recruited again at some point, is lost for good or (if you wanted to go hardcore) joins a neighboring nation's manpower pool. We could call this "Discontent" rather than "Attrition".
Just an idea.
How about just refusing to enter enemy territory until a certain requirement ('return to Babylon') was met?
