I am confuse

[Lord Lorkan]

I am playing As Rome, But I am confuse on who I am playing as. I am playing as the Country? like in EU4? A character like in CK or a family? Both?
Should support only one family or I am just playing as a character that become the consul or main ruler?

 

[cristofolmc]

Youre playing as the nation. But instead of being just names like in EU4, they are actual charactes with traits, personalities, agendas, families etc more like in ck3. But youre not any in particular. Although you, as the nation, play as its leader so you have an interest on the leader. But your survival doesnt depend on the survival of that leader like in ck3

 

[IsaacCAT]

You are playing as the nation.

Important Families will go along with you but you can support all or some, depending on the situation. Do not get too much emotionally involved with any of them.

 

[Arheo]

You are the governing body of your nation. You may shape how your nation is able to perform, as well as the form of government you steer towards, but ultimately, as the government, you are responsible for the actions taken to your people and by your people.

In many aspects (especially foreign affairs) this can feel like playing your nation, but has a slightly different perspective when handling internal politics and turmoil.

This is why I stand firmly to one side of the debate on whether civil wars should be a game-ending threat. As government, you are responsible for safeguarding against the threat of rebellion and insurrection. If your government falls, so too do you.

 

[Lord Lorkan]

You are the governing body of your nation. You may shape how your nation is able to perform, as well as the form of government you steer towards, but ultimately, as the government, you are responsible for the actions taken to your people and by your people.

In many aspects (especially foreign affairs) this can feel like playing your nation, but has a slightly different perspective when handling internal politics and turmoil.

This is why I stand firmly to one side of the debate on whether civil wars should be a game-ending threat. As government, you are responsible for safeguarding against the threat of rebellion and insurrection. If your government falls, so too do you.

I see, Ty! for the explanation. Loving the new dlc and free update keep the great work!

 

[cristofolmc]

This is why I stand firmly to one side of the debate on whether civil wars should be a game-ending threat. As government, you are responsible for safeguarding against the threat of rebellion and insurrection. If your government falls, so too do you.

I used to be on that same boat. 4 patches later, 4 patches later without having a single civil war, you realise internal striffe, civil wars etc are really just a punishment for playing badly. If you play good, you will be fine (and I understand why, you dont want to punish players with and end game for playing correctly and being good at the game). Which of course it has no correlation with real life, where good rulers and good peaceful times still had to face civil wars, wars with pretenders, etc.

So what Ive found this does is effectively erase that side of the game. And I sorely miss it. But I just cant find it. Its just so easy to get rid of unloyalty that I just havent had a civil war in many patches. I might have had one but I dont remember. Ive been close several time, but you have so much time to fix it that ive always been able to come out of it safe.

And as I said its a side of the game I really miss and enjoy. I wish you could bring it without me fearing it means the end of my campaign. Or maybe a compromise with different types of civil war, rebelions, and dynastic wars I dont know.

But this is off topic, sorry. Lets focus on trade first

 

[IsaacCAT]

You are the governing body of your nation. You may shape how your nation is able to perform, as well as the form of government you steer towards, but ultimately, as the government, you are responsible for the actions taken to your people and by your people.

In many aspects (especially foreign affairs) this can feel like playing your nation, but has a slightly different perspective when handling internal politics and turmoil.

This is why I stand firmly to one side of the debate on whether civil wars should be a game-ending threat. As government, you are responsible for safeguarding against the threat of rebellion and insurrection. If your government falls, so too do you.

Interesting distinction.

If we are the government but not the nation, I understand that government reform is possible but not revolutions. However, some missions allow for coups or civil wars to obtain government reform (death to the tyrants). It seems as if revolutions are frown up on. This is at least reactionary and negates an historical force for change.

I would like to see in the future more player approved revolutions like the aforementioned mission of Syracuse that do not end in game over.

 

[Shogun96]

You are the governing body of your nation. You may shape how your nation is able to perform, as well as the form of government you steer towards, but ultimately, as the government, you are responsible for the actions taken to your people and by your people.

In many aspects (especially foreign affairs) this can feel like playing your nation, but has a slightly different perspective when handling internal politics and turmoil.

This is why I stand firmly to one side of the debate on whether civil wars should be a game-ending threat. As government, you are responsible for safeguarding against the threat of rebellion and insurrection. If your government falls, so too do you.

I really appreciate knowing that devs have a clear understanding of what they want the game to be, gives me hope that they are confident in which direction to take the game.