Something I've noticed after putting a good 70 hours into Imperator is how similar distribution of pop types is across the classical world, speaking specifically about slaves. In Rome and Greece, slavery was historically the basis of production, and the viability of Roman westward expansion into tribal lands depended heavily on the recruitment of mass slave gangs on latifundium. (see P.A. Brunt, Social Conflicts in the Roman Empire, for sources and more on this topic). And generally Rome's viability as an empire depended heavily on large slave estates controlled by the aristocracy, compared to Greece where, permitting some variation among city-states, slavery was generally done on smaller plots owned by individual citizens of no special rank besides their relative wealth and office compared to non-citizens.
Now this distinction between Roman and Greek slavery is something minor that I don't think needs representation in the game and can be chalked up to abstractions and headcanon.
The most pressing ahistorical element of the game relating to pops and production is that it presents slavery as the ubiquitous standard method of production for all of the Hellenistic World and the Near East. This was not true at all -- even in the most Hellenized regions of the lands conquered by Alexander (Pergamum notably excluded, which saw a full embrasure of Greek style slavery, but had the precedent of many Greek colonies there). Near Eastern societies relied largely, in some places almost exclusively, on castes of peasants that worked on land ruled by aristocratic dynasties large and small. Slavery was marginal, and remained marginal even after the Levant, Anatolia and Egypt came under Roman control. The Lagid dynasty in Egypt relied especially on the leasing of land to Egyptian peasantry. The slaves captured by Rome in the eastern wars were sent to Italy or the western provinces where the latifundium and the slaves working them were the main source of agricultural production. In the east, before the Diadochi, through their rule, and into Roman rule, slavery remained marginal and neither the Hellenic or Roman empires attempted to institute it on any scale, since the existing model worked well enough and provided them with a lucrative tax base, disrupting it would cause serious conflict since it would mean replacing the established local aristocratic land rights with Roman private ownership of agricultural land, not to mention it would mean instituting slavery onto an underclass it was alien to and who probably would not like the change very much. There were also significant variations between the agricultural labor systems of the various eastern societies, but like the distinction between Roman and Greek slavery, that's not something that seems especially important to represent in-game. (see William L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity for sources and more information)
Now why does any of this matter for people who aren't massive nerds that just want to see more accuracy? Well, first of all, a greater variety between the different societies modeled in the game is something we all want anyway, and it would be very nice to see those differences organically addressed through base gameplay features like the types of pops and the role of pops in managing and expanding your state. This is a lot more fun than variety that is only cosmetics and unique mission trees. One of the advantages Rome had over other powers was that its reliance on mass slavery freed up a lot of manpower for freemen to go fight in wars, wars which brought in more slaves and more land for slaves to work on. This was especially relevant for westward expansion, since Gallia and Iberia were made up of tribes without the kind of social stratification that would allow for them to be integrated wholesale under Roman rule with an existing tax base and organization of production (a wholesale integration without fundamental changes in society that was indeed possible during eastern expansion). This differentiation between western and eastern expansion is why the western empire was so thoroughly Latinized in language and culture while in the Near East and Egypt it remained a largely administrative language and culture outside of distinct Roman colonies. In gameplay terms, the Roman ability to field far more soldiers doesn't need to be represented by only statistical buffs, when the pop system provides the basis for simulating the real reasons underlying Rome's potential for mass mobilization.
Overall though, I don't think it's Rome that needs to be changed much in the game, since the entire game's mechanics seem to be centered around Rome's model to begin with. What's needed is a remodeling of the eastern side of the map to reflect their unique social composition and its limitations. Sure, Rome is the main character of the game, but 1. differentiating the other major powers in a fundamental way makes Rome more unique instead of distinguished mostly by being the titular nation 2. we all know that Paradox players enjoy playing less represented nations just as much as the big names. As opposed to cosmetic changes and unique mission trees, differentiation in underlying mechanics allows for more a more meaningful variety between playthroughs, making the game more fun and extending its life by keeping players interested in seeing how a different nation works from the inside, which is a much more compelling reason to sink in an extra hundred hours than just wanting to use sprites in a different uniform to paint the map under a different flag.
What are my specific recommendations? I have no experience with game design so I don't want to sound ridiculous or make unrealistic suggestions, and I'll leave the details of that to people who know what they're talking about. I'll provide some suggestions anyway and people can tell me how silly they are, if they'd break the game, etc.
I think a greater variety of pops is obviously implied here. In the east, "Peasants" should replace slaves as the majority underclass, but not just in name. At the least, moving them around to different areas should decrease their happiness and lower province loyalty. They should have a higher ceiling of productivity than slaves, but one that resets and takes a long time to grow after they're moved around (representing local peasant infrastructure and specialization around a particular form of agriculture/industry). Slaves should still remain as a pop in the east, as they certainly did exist, but should be a much smaller sliver of the workforce. Increasing slavery pops should be possible and have tangible benefits, but should be difficult in places with large established classes of peasantry, and should still have a lower ultimate ceiling than Freemen as far as resource output and value (see below for Freeman changes) This would simulate the gap left by the absence of productive, specialized "middle classes", and also incentivize Roman players to conquer eastern provinces to get more value for the resources there due to less dependence on a slave class/a greater spread of freemen to draw manpower from, or alternatively they could attempt to establish a sizable peasant class, with the growing pains that would entail.
Freemen should have a greater role in production, with certain non-raw material resources requiring the presence of freemen to see their full potential realized. This would be cancelled out by having enough slave pops to fill those roles in production, which would allow more Freemen to be utilized as manpower. Basically building the historical pop relations into the game so that the Roman and Greek nations, by benefit of their large slave underclasses, have a greater manpower pool to draw from by freeing up their freemen for war, as well as having more flexibility in settling new lands because they can move slaves around in a way nations relying on peasantry can't.
A bit more out there as a recommendation, but I think governance of territories/regions in the eastern map could also be changed to represent the role of the local dynastic aristocratic claims to land in the east, as opposed to the quasi-meritocratic state bureaucracy of Rome granting governship to favored individuals. Maybe the character and dynastic system in the game which has some resemblance to CK2 could provide a basis for this, with eastern state's granting land to/interacting with local aristocrat dynasties instead of individual characters who relinquish the governed area upon death? The option could still exist to use the Roman/Hellenic system of granting governship, but displacing and dethroning the landed aristocracy of those territories should present serious challenges. This would be a great way to model the struggle of the Diadochi to balance Hellenic models of administration with local ones, choosing as appropriate between a model that allows for greater ultimate loyalty and central integration at the great risk of remaking the ancient order of things in the conquered lands, or choosing to integrate into the eastern systems of administration by keeping the landed dynasties happy and allowing for greater overall stability without as much flexibility.
So those are my thoughts, I hope this wasn't too long or tedious of a post, I'm not ever on this forum so if something this long and presumptuous doesn't match the usual standards of etiquette I apologize. I just love the game and am excited to see it grow, and since I know a little about the period wanted to share my thoughts.
Now this distinction between Roman and Greek slavery is something minor that I don't think needs representation in the game and can be chalked up to abstractions and headcanon.
The most pressing ahistorical element of the game relating to pops and production is that it presents slavery as the ubiquitous standard method of production for all of the Hellenistic World and the Near East. This was not true at all -- even in the most Hellenized regions of the lands conquered by Alexander (Pergamum notably excluded, which saw a full embrasure of Greek style slavery, but had the precedent of many Greek colonies there). Near Eastern societies relied largely, in some places almost exclusively, on castes of peasants that worked on land ruled by aristocratic dynasties large and small. Slavery was marginal, and remained marginal even after the Levant, Anatolia and Egypt came under Roman control. The Lagid dynasty in Egypt relied especially on the leasing of land to Egyptian peasantry. The slaves captured by Rome in the eastern wars were sent to Italy or the western provinces where the latifundium and the slaves working them were the main source of agricultural production. In the east, before the Diadochi, through their rule, and into Roman rule, slavery remained marginal and neither the Hellenic or Roman empires attempted to institute it on any scale, since the existing model worked well enough and provided them with a lucrative tax base, disrupting it would cause serious conflict since it would mean replacing the established local aristocratic land rights with Roman private ownership of agricultural land, not to mention it would mean instituting slavery onto an underclass it was alien to and who probably would not like the change very much. There were also significant variations between the agricultural labor systems of the various eastern societies, but like the distinction between Roman and Greek slavery, that's not something that seems especially important to represent in-game. (see William L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity for sources and more information)
Now why does any of this matter for people who aren't massive nerds that just want to see more accuracy? Well, first of all, a greater variety between the different societies modeled in the game is something we all want anyway, and it would be very nice to see those differences organically addressed through base gameplay features like the types of pops and the role of pops in managing and expanding your state. This is a lot more fun than variety that is only cosmetics and unique mission trees. One of the advantages Rome had over other powers was that its reliance on mass slavery freed up a lot of manpower for freemen to go fight in wars, wars which brought in more slaves and more land for slaves to work on. This was especially relevant for westward expansion, since Gallia and Iberia were made up of tribes without the kind of social stratification that would allow for them to be integrated wholesale under Roman rule with an existing tax base and organization of production (a wholesale integration without fundamental changes in society that was indeed possible during eastern expansion). This differentiation between western and eastern expansion is why the western empire was so thoroughly Latinized in language and culture while in the Near East and Egypt it remained a largely administrative language and culture outside of distinct Roman colonies. In gameplay terms, the Roman ability to field far more soldiers doesn't need to be represented by only statistical buffs, when the pop system provides the basis for simulating the real reasons underlying Rome's potential for mass mobilization.
Overall though, I don't think it's Rome that needs to be changed much in the game, since the entire game's mechanics seem to be centered around Rome's model to begin with. What's needed is a remodeling of the eastern side of the map to reflect their unique social composition and its limitations. Sure, Rome is the main character of the game, but 1. differentiating the other major powers in a fundamental way makes Rome more unique instead of distinguished mostly by being the titular nation 2. we all know that Paradox players enjoy playing less represented nations just as much as the big names. As opposed to cosmetic changes and unique mission trees, differentiation in underlying mechanics allows for more a more meaningful variety between playthroughs, making the game more fun and extending its life by keeping players interested in seeing how a different nation works from the inside, which is a much more compelling reason to sink in an extra hundred hours than just wanting to use sprites in a different uniform to paint the map under a different flag.
What are my specific recommendations? I have no experience with game design so I don't want to sound ridiculous or make unrealistic suggestions, and I'll leave the details of that to people who know what they're talking about. I'll provide some suggestions anyway and people can tell me how silly they are, if they'd break the game, etc.
I think a greater variety of pops is obviously implied here. In the east, "Peasants" should replace slaves as the majority underclass, but not just in name. At the least, moving them around to different areas should decrease their happiness and lower province loyalty. They should have a higher ceiling of productivity than slaves, but one that resets and takes a long time to grow after they're moved around (representing local peasant infrastructure and specialization around a particular form of agriculture/industry). Slaves should still remain as a pop in the east, as they certainly did exist, but should be a much smaller sliver of the workforce. Increasing slavery pops should be possible and have tangible benefits, but should be difficult in places with large established classes of peasantry, and should still have a lower ultimate ceiling than Freemen as far as resource output and value (see below for Freeman changes) This would simulate the gap left by the absence of productive, specialized "middle classes", and also incentivize Roman players to conquer eastern provinces to get more value for the resources there due to less dependence on a slave class/a greater spread of freemen to draw manpower from, or alternatively they could attempt to establish a sizable peasant class, with the growing pains that would entail.
Freemen should have a greater role in production, with certain non-raw material resources requiring the presence of freemen to see their full potential realized. This would be cancelled out by having enough slave pops to fill those roles in production, which would allow more Freemen to be utilized as manpower. Basically building the historical pop relations into the game so that the Roman and Greek nations, by benefit of their large slave underclasses, have a greater manpower pool to draw from by freeing up their freemen for war, as well as having more flexibility in settling new lands because they can move slaves around in a way nations relying on peasantry can't.
A bit more out there as a recommendation, but I think governance of territories/regions in the eastern map could also be changed to represent the role of the local dynastic aristocratic claims to land in the east, as opposed to the quasi-meritocratic state bureaucracy of Rome granting governship to favored individuals. Maybe the character and dynastic system in the game which has some resemblance to CK2 could provide a basis for this, with eastern state's granting land to/interacting with local aristocrat dynasties instead of individual characters who relinquish the governed area upon death? The option could still exist to use the Roman/Hellenic system of granting governship, but displacing and dethroning the landed aristocracy of those territories should present serious challenges. This would be a great way to model the struggle of the Diadochi to balance Hellenic models of administration with local ones, choosing as appropriate between a model that allows for greater ultimate loyalty and central integration at the great risk of remaking the ancient order of things in the conquered lands, or choosing to integrate into the eastern systems of administration by keeping the landed dynasties happy and allowing for greater overall stability without as much flexibility.
So those are my thoughts, I hope this wasn't too long or tedious of a post, I'm not ever on this forum so if something this long and presumptuous doesn't match the usual standards of etiquette I apologize. I just love the game and am excited to see it grow, and since I know a little about the period wanted to share my thoughts.
- 16
- 5