-
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.
- Status
/Signed.
But please, use the ideas of the mods, Reing of the ancients and epigoni.
ROTA pop system of limiting pop to civ and actual pop is great!
Plus I think more CITY managment (building effects) would be nice.
And please try (know that´s hard) to simulate the era goverments.
- There were two consuls
- Dictatorship is not a monarchy and most of the time lasted few years
- Try not giving a single task (utility) to one pop. Example:
Citizens: Rome 1, only research / idea: research a lot, medium manpower, little tax (as slaves will tax for them)
freemen: Rome 1 manpower / idea: research very few, good manpower, little tax (aqs they have few assets)
slaves: Rome 1 tax /idea: tax a lot, manpower a little (for special middle east despotic monarchies), research none, increase Revolt risk.
Goverment can have an effects on these habilities:
Republics: citizens research 100%, despotic monarchies 75% for example
And there can be bonus or penalties acording to the percentage of pop in the province:
Slaves, if they are more than 40% revolt risk is increased by +1% per 5% above 40%, despotic monarchies decreased this penalty by 2%
Republic: citizen manpower +20% (in greece, carthage and rome, the citizens were recruited to form the core of the army, later on with marius (rome) non landed freemen were allowed to join the legions,
Some ideas...
But please, use the ideas of the mods, Reing of the ancients and epigoni.
ROTA pop system of limiting pop to civ and actual pop is great!
Plus I think more CITY managment (building effects) would be nice.
And please try (know that´s hard) to simulate the era goverments.
- There were two consuls
- Dictatorship is not a monarchy and most of the time lasted few years
- Try not giving a single task (utility) to one pop. Example:
Citizens: Rome 1, only research / idea: research a lot, medium manpower, little tax (as slaves will tax for them)
freemen: Rome 1 manpower / idea: research very few, good manpower, little tax (aqs they have few assets)
slaves: Rome 1 tax /idea: tax a lot, manpower a little (for special middle east despotic monarchies), research none, increase Revolt risk.
Goverment can have an effects on these habilities:
Republics: citizens research 100%, despotic monarchies 75% for example
And there can be bonus or penalties acording to the percentage of pop in the province:
Slaves, if they are more than 40% revolt risk is increased by +1% per 5% above 40%, despotic monarchies decreased this penalty by 2%
Republic: citizen manpower +20% (in greece, carthage and rome, the citizens were recruited to form the core of the army, later on with marius (rome) non landed freemen were allowed to join the legions,
Some ideas...
Rome 2 is way overdue already. Give us the ancient world with the high polish of CK2 and Victoria 2.
What I would REALLY love to see is the game concept pushed back 3,000 years or so and moved slightly east. I want to be able to unify Egypt or play any of the other regional major or minor powers. I want Nubian city-states, Palestinian confederations, the Hittite Empire, etc. Lots of trade between Punt, Nubia, Egypt, and points east; Egyptian mining expeditions into the Sinai; etc.
Yes, I would definitely buy it, here are my suggestions:
1) Options for alliances through inter-dynastic marriages like in Crusader Kings (this was a big part of the alliance system that the Diadochi rulers developed)
2) A more expansive map like Epigoni Mod or even Magna Terra Mod (maybe all the way to China is not quite necessary, but to India would be good)
3) More interesting faces for the different cultures (i.e. different faces for Indians, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Arabs, Nubians, etc.)
4) Make it harder for the big nations to swallow up the small ones (i.e. by making the big nations more unstable and easier for them to fall apart when provinces declare independence, it could be set up so that if one region declares independence then it encourages other regions to also declare independence at the same time esp. if the nation is at war. Because right now when a region declares independence they are usually easily re-conquered )
5) Make Rome stronger when played by the AI, because at the moment they rarely threaten much outside of Italy and yet the game is named after Rome. Also make Parthia stronger, they rarely pose much challenge to the Seleucids.
6) Make it more likely for the big nations to clash against each other, because at the moment the big AI nations usually just gobble up the small nations and never really clash against each other that much. It is rare for the AI to engage in epic super power struggles like the Punic Wars.
7) Make it more possible to destroy a big nation in just 1 or 2 wars. Rome destroyed Carthage in just 3 wars, yet in the game it requires at least 5 or 6 wars.
1) Options for alliances through inter-dynastic marriages like in Crusader Kings (this was a big part of the alliance system that the Diadochi rulers developed)
2) A more expansive map like Epigoni Mod or even Magna Terra Mod (maybe all the way to China is not quite necessary, but to India would be good)
3) More interesting faces for the different cultures (i.e. different faces for Indians, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Arabs, Nubians, etc.)
4) Make it harder for the big nations to swallow up the small ones (i.e. by making the big nations more unstable and easier for them to fall apart when provinces declare independence, it could be set up so that if one region declares independence then it encourages other regions to also declare independence at the same time esp. if the nation is at war. Because right now when a region declares independence they are usually easily re-conquered )
5) Make Rome stronger when played by the AI, because at the moment they rarely threaten much outside of Italy and yet the game is named after Rome. Also make Parthia stronger, they rarely pose much challenge to the Seleucids.
6) Make it more likely for the big nations to clash against each other, because at the moment the big AI nations usually just gobble up the small nations and never really clash against each other that much. It is rare for the AI to engage in epic super power struggles like the Punic Wars.
7) Make it more possible to destroy a big nation in just 1 or 2 wars. Rome destroyed Carthage in just 3 wars, yet in the game it requires at least 5 or 6 wars.
Just thought of one more thing:
8) When a new ruler comes to power, relationship scores with other nations should be modified down by 10% for positive scores and modified up 10% for negative scores. So for example if the Seleucids have a +100 score with Pontus and a -50 score with Egypt, when Seleukos dies and Antiochus comes to power, the score with Pontus will decrease to +90 and the score with Egypt will increase to -45. This is because each ruler should have their own ambitions and realationships. Right now once an alliance is formed it is rarely ever broken which leads to 300 year teams being formed. It would be more interesting and realistic if alliance netwoks gradually change over time. So one decade Rome is allying with Carthage to fight the Greeks and then the next decade they are mortal enemies with Carthage....
8) When a new ruler comes to power, relationship scores with other nations should be modified down by 10% for positive scores and modified up 10% for negative scores. So for example if the Seleucids have a +100 score with Pontus and a -50 score with Egypt, when Seleukos dies and Antiochus comes to power, the score with Pontus will decrease to +90 and the score with Egypt will increase to -45. This is because each ruler should have their own ambitions and realationships. Right now once an alliance is formed it is rarely ever broken which leads to 300 year teams being formed. It would be more interesting and realistic if alliance netwoks gradually change over time. So one decade Rome is allying with Carthage to fight the Greeks and then the next decade they are mortal enemies with Carthage....
Great ideas Soter, I suppose your name makes you ideal for this project!
I'd like to add something I'd like to see:
You mentioned it being impossible to destroy Carthage in 3 wars, and I agree. I'd like to see provinces and gold decrease in warscore as TOTAL, complete, occupation lengthens. This is realistic, as it becomes more and more of a foregone conclusion that a nation will be stripped of many provinces when the winning nation is setting up governments and trade routes (not presented in-game) through the occupied provinces. You'd prevent total annexation of huge nations in one war with a skyrocket in war exhaustion after a few months of total occupation with no peace.
Could you justly call such a game "Rome" though?
And if starts 3,000 years earlier, but extends long enough to include the Hittites, never mind Rome, we're looking at a game that lasts well over a millennium. I don't know how you could keep a game that lasts long to stay reasonably on historical track.
A pre-Classical game is a promising idea but I think: A. it has logistical problems of its own eg often there was a fairly dominant power at the time, or maybe a few. It would be hard to have a balanced game with just a few top dogs and a bunch of smaller entities that would be bound to be gobbled up sooner or later. Grand strategy probably works best in a context of a certain amount pluricentricity among powers.) and B. this particular game series EU/Rome isn't the best vehicle for it .
Rome 2 would be very very welcome. I think EU: Rome is the best strategy game on the ancient Rome. And the Roman history is probably the most interesting topic in all of ancient history, being so global - most of Europe becomes united for the first time and for a long time - and the foundation of modern Western civilization. Which means - there is always room for novelty and improvement! 
The character system was a very good idea. And just perfect - there is no need to go into more depth. Many players sooner or later lose patience to deal with personal affairs (which repeat).
My suggestion would be to make more detail on barbarian countries, more historical events, things like that. And increase the map so that it includes eastern Europe and entire Parthia to the east. Parthia (later Persia) should be a very interesting country to play - it was the only real superpower beside Rome! (China too, but they were too far away...) Parthia shouldn't be just a marginal country. Rome and Parthia fought some of the largest battles of the time. Improvement of map graphics is probably possible too, now that a very nice map is being prepared for EU4. Fights against pirates, protecting trade routes, legion mutinies, barbarian betrayal, transition from the Republic to the Empire, and later on the Empire's history, the rise of Christianity, etc. I imagine it would be awesome to play Rome 2.
The character system was a very good idea. And just perfect - there is no need to go into more depth. Many players sooner or later lose patience to deal with personal affairs (which repeat).My suggestion would be to make more detail on barbarian countries, more historical events, things like that. And increase the map so that it includes eastern Europe and entire Parthia to the east. Parthia (later Persia) should be a very interesting country to play - it was the only real superpower beside Rome! (China too, but they were too far away...) Parthia shouldn't be just a marginal country. Rome and Parthia fought some of the largest battles of the time. Improvement of map graphics is probably possible too, now that a very nice map is being prepared for EU4. Fights against pirates, protecting trade routes, legion mutinies, barbarian betrayal, transition from the Republic to the Empire, and later on the Empire's history, the rise of Christianity, etc. I imagine it would be awesome to play Rome 2.
Last edited:
This is true. Starting so far back would, sadly, make things either too deterministic or too a-historical, and you know how Paradoxians love their non-plausibility.
Still, making it more classical, rather than Rome, centric in terms of the timeline would be nice. Starting with Philip II, or perhaps even earlier, might be fun.
Obviously...it would not be called "Rome."
But I like the idea of "EU: Near East" or "EU: Cradle of Civilization" or whatever one wishes to call it. And I disagree with your [A] and points.
Well, unless you spoon-fed events or deliberately contrived certain game mechanics to avoid it, what's to prevent a Sumerian king from gobbling up the whole map early on, and thus preventing the rise and very existence of this or that civilization? Or if you're playing a weak chieftain in extreme South West Asia, how are you going to stave off a growing Egypt?
I'd be interested in a game that had Hittites, Urattu, and the others that don't usually show up in games, if only for the novelty, but again, I'm not sure the best way to approach it.
Plus, the sorts of things you indicate that you want to do (like Egyptian mining in the Sinai, regional trade patterns) are so specific that is almost sounds more simulator than game.
I agree, the only way to prevent it, especially using an early start date circa 3000 BC (or even whenever there were only, say, 1-3 really dominant powers), would be to add in some game mechanic to penalize countries that expand outside of their historical area of strength in order to artificially hamstring them. Or have constant revolts or barbarian invasions-which would just make the game tedious like the pirates in EU III. And that would make it even easier for an already powerful nation, and even harder for a weaker one.
So, you're left with either a simulator where everything was pretty predictable and predetermined, or a bizarro world where the Persians, Assyrians, Hittites, et al, never rose because my Sumerian Empire annexed everyone east of the Mediterranean.
Last edited:
Why EU prefix though? Just ends up carrying alot of baggage imo. Calling Darkest Hour a "Hearts of Iron Game" doesn't do the game any disservice, nor does calling March of the Eagles a "Europa Universalis Game", but Ancient Rome is way too different from the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods imo. They'd better just reboot the "Rome" franchise with a new title I think.
Don't forget AGEOD's Alea Jacta Est and Birth of Rome games.
Check out the portrait they used for Spartacus and tell me this game is not awesome:
- Status