Has anyone ever seen the AI Rome reach the middle east? What about destroying all of Carthage?

[klopkr]

Sort of like the coalition system in CK2? The "Gaulic Coalition against Roman Aggression" if the perceived threat levels are at a certain point. A baseline of 50 to 100 aggression would cause smaller tribes to flock to one another. Though under this circumstance I'd say if Rome does win against this coalition they should be granted special AE and Warscore reductions for winning. This could be ultra over the top.

I wrote a long post about this before Imperator was released that even got replies from the devs. My suggestion was that powerful rulers of one cultural group can proclaim themselves hegemon. I expanded that if a culture group felt pressure from another culture group they might select the largest powers around them regardless of culture to be their hegemon creating a rift between those who want to unite under their own cultural hegemon and fight back or those who will accept the foreign hegemon. Maybe in places like spain you'll see these tribes split between roman and carthegenian supporters. Where as in gaul the split is between those supporting rome coming in and those against it.

I don't know exactly how i'd do it at the moment but some awareness by tribes of the local super powers and an alignment options would be nice.

 

[Roelath]

I wrote a long post about this before Imperator was released that even got replies from the devs. My suggestion was that powerful rulers of one cultural group can proclaim themselves hegemon. I expanded that if a culture group felt pressure from another culture group they might select the largest powers around them regardless of culture to be their hegemon creating a rift between those who want to unite under their own cultural hegemon and fight back or those who will accept the foreign hegemon. Maybe in places like spain you'll see these tribes split between roman and carthegenian supporters. Where as in gaul the split is between those supporting rome coming in and those against it.

I don't know exactly how i'd do it at the moment but some awareness by tribes of the local super powers and an alignment options would be nice.

That's probably preferable. I couldn't think of a way to imitate the tribes supporting the Romans beyond players increasing relations but, even that is impossible while maintaining the same level of conquest with the current system. Maybe it could be part of the mission system that triggers whether they do or don't support similar to the congress.

 

[imperial.]

Ok you're not wrong. I mean I figure if it did happen someone would have one by chance though.

Does anyone have a story of rome actually controlling carthage?

Last few times i played (Some time last year) Rome constantly invaded Carthage with ships and Carthage was basically useless every time. Carthage always had very strong units against Iberians though. Then Rome had a civil War and collapsed, another time Rome was conquered by other Italians but i think all that was because of me.

 

[imperial.]

This, exactly this in almost EVERY playthough Ive had. I wish PDX scripted or coded Rome and Carthage so they would atleast clash at some point.

I agree, i believe ROME and Carthage AI should be scripted and Events should give them a certain push like ''take etc'. Otherwise Rome will just Plough Germania and Carthage will plough Iberia everyday.

I think it should be at least scripted at the beginning. Rome Defeats Carthage : True -> Annex all Carthage Territory and Gain Events for Greece.
Carthage Defeats Rome : True -> Annex all Roman Territory and Gain Events for Iberia.

 

[imperial.]

Also i totally understand PDX wanting to focus on The Diadochi, at some point it would be great to address the elephant in the Room and That's Scripted Punic Wars and a focus towards what would other wise be the deciding event of the Era, who would be the Super Power, Rome or Carthage? In my opinion the game should not start without a definitive answer, Rome of Carthage? who lives.

 

[klopkr]

Last few times i played (Some time last year) Rome constantly invaded Carthage with ships and Carthage was basically useless every time. Carthage always had very strong units against Iberians though. Then Rome had a civil War and collapsed, another time Rome was conquered by other Italians but i think all that was because of me.

Thanks for the reply. This is exactly what I wanted to hear about. If you have any screen shots i'd love to see.

I know people hate railroading but if there was a 'cathago delenda est' event that consistently pitted the two until one or the other doesn't exist with a little opt out for players I think it would bring around much more historical results and a better representation of the stakes in the western mediterranean at the time.

I feel like I want to either see carthage control Italy or Rome control spain and north africa in 80% of my games. I see it in maybe 10% instead.

EDIT: Also not to be rude but forum etiquette is to try and only post one comment at a time. You can use the edit feature to add more info or quotes to your comment over time.

 

[curtadams]

I think railroading by event is a bad idea for a number of reasons - it makes the game much more repetitive and less replayable; it can drive AI players into (more) unfavorable wars ; and it takes the nuance out of diplomacy.

I think a better approach is to change the incentives. The actual great ancient powers were relatively prone to fight each other, and one of the big driving factors was that the smaller states on their dinner plates often made alliances with other great powers, so in order to expand they *had* to fight each other. That's largely what happened in the runup to the 2nd Punic war, with Rome allying with or guaranteeing endangered Iberic powers and Carthage making deals with the Gauls. So just give a big bonus to allying with states threatened by other great powers and the resulting alliances webs will mean great powers end up at war with each other in the normal process of expansion.

 

[imperial.]

I think railroading by event is a bad idea for a number of reasons - it makes the game much more repetitive and less replayable; it can drive AI players into (more) unfavorable wars ; and it takes the nuance out of diplomacy.

I think a better approach is to change the incentives. The actual great ancient powers were relatively prone to fight each other, and one of the big driving factors was that the smaller states on their dinner plates often made alliances with other great powers, so in order to expand they *had* to fight each other. That's largely what happened in the runup to the 2nd Punic war, with Rome allying with or guaranteeing endangered Iberic powers and Carthage making deals with the Gauls. So just give a big bonus to allying with states threatened by other great powers and the resulting alliances webs will mean great powers end up at war with each other in the normal process of expansion.

We should also not underestimate Greek City states role such as Macedon in the Carthage VS Rome conflict. More to the Point, I think the main complaints being brought up is exactly what you claim otherwise, and that is repetitive and less replay ability with Both Rome and Carthage essentially steamrolling everything. My suggestion is to change that with every game being different who Wins the Punic war? Carthage OR Rome, and my suggestion also ensures that the game can allow for the territories to be taken over. Then what happens next is up to them.

Also your suggestion destroys nuance, and replay-ability making by attempting to attach such a mechanic you are proposing the whole game would pretty much make Super powers even more over powered because weaker states will never win smaller wars without larger ones intervening and halting progression.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I know people hate railroading but if there was a 'cathago delenda est' event that consistently pitted the two until one or the other doesn't exist with a little opt out for players I think it would bring around much more historical results and a better representation of the stakes in the western mediterranean at the time.

The Punic War DLC missions for Rome and Carthage already do that.

I feel like I want to either see carthage control Italy or Rome control spain and north africa in 80% of my games. I see it in maybe 10% instead.

That's because they can't take all oocupied land in a peace deal due to warscore restrictions.
Having any forced war event would not change that AT ALL.

 

[klopkr]

The Punic War DLC missions for Rome and Carthage already do that.


That's because they can't take all oocupied land in a peace deal due to warscore restrictions.
Having any forced war event would not change that AT ALL.

No that's just a few war events. Not a constant looping war event until the other nation is gone. Eventually the two just stop fighting without a push.

Having said that you're not wrong. I'd give them a special CB that lets them take all the land in a geographic region. So the first punic war would take all their land in the mediterranean islands, the second would take all the land in spain and gaul, and the third would take all the land in africa.

 

[Malivamar]

I wrote a long post about this before Imperator was released that even got replies from the devs. My suggestion was that powerful rulers of one cultural group can proclaim themselves hegemon. I expanded that if a culture group felt pressure from another culture group they might select the largest powers around them regardless of culture to be their hegemon creating a rift between those who want to unite under their own cultural hegemon and fight back or those who will accept the foreign hegemon. Maybe in places like spain you'll see these tribes split between roman and carthegenian supporters. Where as in gaul the split is between those supporting rome coming in and those against it.

I don't know exactly how i'd do it at the moment but some awareness by tribes of the local super powers and an alignment options would be nice.

Maybe you should post this suggestion again in the forum just in case they forgot about it, I can easily see this being made into either a free-update rework or a dlc. And it would massively improve the game if it works as planned

 

[Talib123]

I think the problem with carthage being too strong could be very easily solved if the numidians get the important backstabbing role they deserve

 

[Imperial Commissar]

I think railroading by event is a bad idea for a number of reasons - it makes the game much more repetitive and less replayable; it can drive AI players into (more) unfavorable wars ; and it takes the nuance out of diplomacy.

I think a better approach is to change the incentives. The actual great ancient powers were relatively prone to fight each other, and one of the big driving factors was that the smaller states on their dinner plates often made alliances with other great powers, so in order to expand they *had* to fight each other. That's largely what happened in the runup to the 2nd Punic war, with Rome allying with or guaranteeing endangered Iberic powers and Carthage making deals with the Gauls. So just give a big bonus to allying with states threatened by other great powers and the resulting alliances webs will mean great powers end up at war with each other in the normal process of expansion.

I don't know how feasible that would be but maybe the game could benefit from a HOI4-like "historical AI" option, presumably based on the mission system, for the historically-inclined such as myself. If only for the first century or so of the game, to kind of set the scene and pave the way for a more or less historic-ish timeline overall. As it is certain events that happened in real life are very unlikely or even next to impossible in the game - like the Parni taking over Parthia and eating away at the Seleucids. And boy is it disappointing to conquer your way through Greece, Egypt and Asia Minor as Rome, reach the Fertile Crescent and it's still all just Hellenic Macedonians all the way to Bactria and India.

You could always untick that option and let the AI do its thing.

 

[Limak]

Never seen it.
As described Rome heads north while Carthage is in Spain, never seen a AI driven Punic War.
Carthage is just way too strong, the Numidians really need to become more powerful and being able to balance Carthage in North Africa while the Hispanic tribes should be able to put up a fight in coalition against any foreign intrusion.

In the East the Antigonid are way too stable and so are the Seleucids.

Massive conquests are still way too expensive in terms of war cost. We need to be able to make significant gains within a single war to speed up the process and have less but more resolutive wars. Rome destroyed Cathage in 3 wars. It took me at least 10 wars to achieve that in the current system.

 

[Abirami aka Pete]

I think railroading by event is a bad idea for a number of reasons - it makes the game much more repetitive and less replayable; it can drive AI players into (more) unfavorable wars ; and it takes the nuance out of diplomacy.

I think a better approach is to change the incentives. The actual great ancient powers were relatively prone to fight each other, and one of the big driving factors was that the smaller states on their dinner plates often made alliances with other great powers, so in order to expand they *had* to fight each other. That's largely what happened in the runup to the 2nd Punic war, with Rome allying with or guaranteeing endangered Iberic powers and Carthage making deals with the Gauls. So just give a big bonus to allying with states threatened by other great powers and the resulting alliances webs will mean great powers end up at war with each other in the normal process of expansion.

I totally agree with this. I think economic incentives are too weak or misplaced (have a bunch of slaves to tax), whereas they played a much more important role historically. To address the lack of competition between great powers, we need to revamp how trade and prosperity work. With Rome and Carthage in mind I have written about this in the suggestions: have a read if you're interested, and if you agree vote it up! Would be lovely to see some this implemented:

Strategy without conflict? Introduce a little of (trade) geopolitics in Imperator Rome

Unlike in other Paradox games, there’s almost no conflict in Imperator Rome, which makes really hard the emergence of strategy. Why would you clash with other powers, other than "painting the map" in their direction? I suggest trade as a good...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Splorghley]

I don't know how feasible that would be but maybe the game could benefit from a HOI4-like "historical AI" option, presumably based on the mission system, for the historically-inclined such as myself. If only for the first century or so of the game, to kind of set the scene and pave the way for a more or less historic-ish timeline overall. As it is certain events that happened in real life are very unlikely or even next to impossible in the game - like the Parni taking over Parthia and eating away at the Seleucids. And boy is it disappointing to conquer your way through Greece, Egypt and Asia Minor as Rome, reach the Fertile Crescent and it's still all just Hellenic Macedonians all the way to Bactria and India.

You could always untick that option and let the AI do its thing.

I strongly agree with this suggestion, and would much prefer it to an attempt to railroad history through deus ex machina events / decisions / missions that bypass ordinary game mechanics.

 

[sr999]

I think railroading by event is a bad idea for a number of reasons - it makes the game much more repetitive and less replayable; it can drive AI players into (more) unfavorable wars ; and it takes the nuance out of diplomacy.

I think a better approach is to change the incentives. The actual great ancient powers were relatively prone to fight each other, and one of the big driving factors was that the smaller states on their dinner plates often made alliances with other great powers, so in order to expand they *had* to fight each other. That's largely what happened in the runup to the 2nd Punic war, with Rome allying with or guaranteeing endangered Iberic powers and Carthage making deals with the Gauls. So just give a big bonus to allying with states threatened by other great powers and the resulting alliances webs will mean great powers end up at war with each other in the normal process of expansion.

You're absolutely spot on. In fact I just made a specific suggestion at https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/simpl-ish-solution-to-the-problem-of-great-powers-avoiding-each-other.1439143/.

I apologize for stealing your thunder: in mitigation I only just noticed the second page of this thread, so I wasn't aware you'd already identified the same problem! Sorry.