Cueball said:
So Chess is simplistic because there are only 64 squares and 32 pieces?
It would seem to me that relatively small geographic space and limited quantity of provinces suggests that the game is not about the tactical management of battles, and that they are secondary to the game mechanics. In other words the designers are not interested in making a "war game" about the Roman Empire.
the roman empire was founded by war, the entire beginning of its existance was war. Its Emperors were called imperators because their leaders were expected to be military generals. If you remove the tactical management of battles away from the game, you remove the basics of how she was founded. War is always secondary, but Rome is expected to expand, and there for forgetting it almost entirely is failing to represent the empire.
The best Paradox games have always been like this, in fact. The combat system in EU2 was intentionally simplistic, because the game was actually only in a very limited sense about war. For example, I have several times "won" EU2 in single player as Oman, and did this almost entirely through settlement and achieving economic dominance.
but eu2 did not heavily focus on representing one single nation in its starting state, that would later become the worlds most well known empire. This game is about Rome, the empire of Rome. it is expected of the player to war to create the empire.
[quoteThematically, most Paradox games are actually about economy and politics, and wars are intended to be used as a means of projecting economic and political interests through force. I think it is entirely appropriate to conceptualize a game about Rome, in terms of management of the empire, as opposed to its creation through conquest, in the light of the fact that many of the most successful Roman Emperors, Claudius and Hadrian, for example, achieved few military victories, but consolidated the empire as a political and economic entity.[/quote]
on the backs of the military conquest done by their earlier leaders. Your also choosing two VERY different characters at two VERY different times. Claudius is right after Caligula, a hated figure in Roman times. It is there for seen that Claudius is a better ruler than Caligula, who helped Rome find itself again after such a horrid emperor. He also expanded the empire as well as did many public works in Italy. He was an able administrator.
For Hadrian he is an emperor that tried to stem the tide of barbarian invasions and keep the empire together, of course he would be known for his policies than for his military action, he was one of the only later emperors to be of sound mind and head. Had he not built the Hadrian wall we probably wouldnt be talking about him though.
you can not consolidate the empire without first achieving the empire. Which is all too easy to do under the present province limit. I believe it should be as hard to maintain as it was for Hadrian, it makes sense.
Rome, though known for its exceptional military exploits, was actually triumph of the creation and management of its institutions and economy. One merely has to look at the maps to see that after its intitial expansions, it was actually geographically stable for long periods of its history. To make a game which focussed solely on the aquisition of territory, and the tactical nuance of those conflicts, would be to miss the point entirely.
Rome was stable because of its military prowess in battle, it simply could not be defeated by rivals in battle. Their tactics were sound, their training superb. The empire was run successfully because of its ability to administer extremely well, one helps the other. If we forget that those "tactical nuances" is what kept the barbarians back for so long, than the game misses the point entirely.
Your trying to think of an excuse for the province problem, but your still focusing on one point only, administration. The fact of the matter is, The Roman Empire was usually always in strife with itself. Most of its Emperors were assassinated, rebellions, wars and so on and so forth. Would the empire have survived had it not been adept at warfare? The game must represent her warring abilities.
Just go to wikipedia and look at the amount of fighting the Romans will be doing within just the short amount of time the game focuses on.
Then look at the provinces in the game, tell us then if what Rome went through to achieve its massive empire is truly portrayed in any close sense.
