-
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.
There wasn't enough meat in the original. That topic was done by the fourth or fifth post really...richtern said:
Maybe not 
I think (hope) that grey provinces are simply not 'civilized' enought to represent any entity you can interact through diplomacy or trade. Hopefuly they'll have some population & military (so they won't be easy pickings) and when they reach certain level of 'civilization' they'll form a new 'country' (through 'revolt')
What do you think about such an idea?
I think (hope) that grey provinces are simply not 'civilized' enought to represent any entity you can interact through diplomacy or trade. Hopefuly they'll have some population & military (so they won't be easy pickings) and when they reach certain level of 'civilization' they'll form a new 'country' (through 'revolt')
What do you think about such an idea?
Swamp Rat said:
Actually, if you read the site more carefully (and click on some of the links) - I spent several hours today reading on it since there was a lot that I hadn't thought about before - you'll find that a proven decent from Muhammed, Karl 'the great' Sachsenschlächter, or Edward Longschanks (for example), though in some cases possible, is largely irrelevant, because if anyone in Europe who is alive today decended from them then there is a high likelyhood that nearly everyone in Europe decended from them. The likelyhood of you not decending from a particular historical person becomes less and less the farther back you go. In fact (and the site describes this in great detail) there must exist a most recent common ancester of all western europeans who lived in very recent times, much later than this game takes place (the site suggests a possible timeframe of 1000 -1200 years ago). The most serious implication of this is that everyone who lived before this mrca and successfully passed on his genes is the direct ancester of everyone alive today.
Therefore, everyone alive at the time of this game who isn't a dead-end is your direct ancester, on all sides of all conflicts: winner, loser, king, peasant, slave.
It kind of puts the whole scenario in a new perspective, for me at least.
Keraunos said:
That sounds like a good idea - thought I'm still uneasy about the seemingly arbitrary demotion of many tribes below the civilization level of the Suebi or other playable barbarians.
I think the grey areas most likely represent "petty" tribes, so much below the playable ones in population and sophistication that they won't be able to compete. I can imagine there being (random or player-triggered) events allowing a rebel tribe to join your empire non-violently, as well as a possible forceful merger, or a new tribe emerging (which would then be playable). As long as these minor tribes are modelled in a reasonable way I'll be happy.
I hope you're not talking about political correctness which would make each country 'civilized'... In game terms, one could probably describe level of civilization (thus - if I'm correct - creating 'country') as 'ability to start war with long term political goal'.Ceolfisc said:
I think that level of population is irrelevant here. Only 'sophistication' count. And I can't imagine allowing to join one's country non-violently, as you describe it. I can't remember such case with 'uncivilized' country. The only way I can imagine their 'joining' is through blood. Actually, lot of it, as they tended to beCeolfisc said:
I hope that we won't be able to expand into this 'wilderness' easily, and 'barbarians' will present a significant threat to any civilized neighbours. After all, Roman subjugation of Cisalpina and Iberia weren't cakewalks, but long and difficult struggles with many withdrawals.
Keraunos said:
Me and political correctness? :rofl: I started this thread didn't I...
My problem is the following: if they're going to raise certain barbarian tribes to playable status and leave others unplayable, there has got to be some reason for this. Are these barbarians in some way inferior to the playable ones? If so, fine. But, why is this so? Other, non-playable Germanic and Celtic tribes have the same language, worship the same gods, and have the same steel as their playable counterparts. The only possible difference I see is population size and the "civilization" it brings. Nevertheless, it should be possible to reason with these minor tribes, who likely would enjoy the safety and civilization offerd by one of these major tribes.
In case you don't know what I'm talking about, my nightmare scenario is a situation like in the total war games, where the non-playable cities and factions are completely mindless monsters whom you are forced to exterminate for gameplay reasons. I like to think of paradox games as more of a sand-box simulation and less of a "game" which forces players to take an unrealistic strategy or course of action.
That said, of course blood is going to be shed more often than not... I'm just saying it shouldn't be impossible to make peace or negotiate with a neighboring tribe.
So I could go around a claim, according to that article, to be a legitimate descendant of the Prophet Mohommad....Ceolfisc said:
Jinnai said:
Right - but it wouldn't mean anything, as this fact likely makes close to zero difference to your genome and doesn't make you more important than anyone else. (At best you might be proud of yourself).
To be more exact though, what you can say is that if anyone is a legitimate descendant of the Prophet (or of anyone else who lived that long ago), then it must follow that (nearly) everyone alive is his descendant as well. This is a simple mathematically necessity that follows from the impossibility of sufficient inbreeding to isolate a segment of the population over a longer period of time (in the absence of absolute geographic isolation).
Obviously in his home cultural area his genes would have spread the fastest, after 20 or so generations probably the entire Muslim world would have been descended from him.
By the way though, contrary to the logic behind the paternal dynastic system (used in CK for instance) in which a line is passed on from father to son, a maternal link actually transfers more genes than a paternal one (due to mothers always passing on the much larger X chromosome to their children).
Oops, I almost cited myself
Inferiority of non-playable tribes now lies in their division. Arverni/Aedui (as we see them in Ceasar's times) were able to conduct coherent, focused policy. I think model of developing tribes will be handled through 'hordes' when certain level of civilization (and population as well) is reached, some will emigrate and will either fight or settle. Excellent idea.
), but they won't be spawning in such quantities, and defeating them won't require so much micromanagement.
Most importantly, any successful rebels willll form another civilized country soon. That's biggest advantage of all Paradox games: quickly swich some mindless revolters into own entity, with clearly defined goals, strategy etc. It reminds me how funny it was to play as 'REB' in EU2 and then swich to one of the countries...
I still doubt that negotiation with 'uncivs' will and should be possible. They were too divided and basicly you won't have anybody to negotiate with. Another argument: when there was no one too important to talk with, diplomacy often ment sharp sword, as can be seen in Roman campaigns in Cisalpina 225-222 BC
I understand why you tied it to population, as it forces greater level of sophistication. However, I was referring to diffrent regions (Black Sea, Upper Egypt) that objective conditions allowed more population without 'civilization'.Ceolfisc said:
Inferiority of non-playable tribes now lies in their division. Arverni/Aedui (as we see them in Ceasar's times) were able to conduct coherent, focused policy. I think model of developing tribes will be handled through 'hordes' when certain level of civilization (and population as well) is reached, some will emigrate and will either fight or settle. Excellent idea.
Those barbarians were really annoying in R:TW, but I think in EU:R it should be the opposite. Well, you'll still have to conquer them, or wait to civilize (and then conquerCeolfisc said:
), but they won't be spawning in such quantities, and defeating them won't require so much micromanagement. Most importantly, any successful rebels willll form another civilized country soon. That's biggest advantage of all Paradox games: quickly swich some mindless revolters into own entity, with clearly defined goals, strategy etc. It reminds me how funny it was to play as 'REB' in EU2 and then swich to one of the countries...
I still doubt that negotiation with 'uncivs' will and should be possible. They were too divided and basicly you won't have anybody to negotiate with. Another argument: when there was no one too important to talk with, diplomacy often ment sharp sword, as can be seen in Roman campaigns in Cisalpina 225-222 BC
Hm i am a bit worried about this screenshot. Despite the late starting date it still has only one tribe in German Interior and none (it seems) in Britain and none in Central Europe. It seems that for those we have to rely on revolter tribes being pretty common.
Keraunos said:
Aha! Now that I understand your position, I agree completely. Clearly, tribes that are still little more than "cave men", or desert nomads without any kind of permanent agriculture or iron-smithing abilities, should not be playable - regardless of population, and especially if they are fragmented into uncontrollable family units with no overarching leadership.
I just hope whatever system they employ has a good and realistic feel. I would be most impressed with a system that treats grey provinces as minor powers that never quite made it - including ethnicity and culture, income related to size of tribe and richness of province and complete with their own unique characters (which in my opinion should be possible to interact with, even if they don't have the power to make binding decisions for the entire tribe/province).
In particular, there ought to be some incentive (of whatever kind) to not attack any and all grey provinces on the map and annex them one by one.
In Swamp Rat's screen shot (which doesn't say anything about those kind of incentives because it's a starting scenario) my fears are well illustrated: If a player started as any power with a grey boarder (which are most of them, but take for example the Suebi or the Roman Empire), then one should be able to expand indefinitely(!) without interacting at all with powers who can put up a real fight, and without gaining any badboy or having to balance any alliances.
Anyway, I'm probably just getting overly excited about the game, as this is going to be really seriously cool - definitely the coolest game in recent memory. We probably have nothing to worry about...
Well Germanic tribes aside this list really differs from what they "peddled" before beta. For example where the hell is Scythia and who the hell are Roxolani? What is this a Total War knockoff...never bothering to do a historical check?
Half Europe as well as Baltic, Ukraine, Bolgaria, Hungary regions are emty too. I really hope this is a joke....
Half Europe as well as Baltic, Ukraine, Bolgaria, Hungary regions are emty too. I really hope this is a joke....
The Macedon AAR makes it clear that grey provinces require significant effort to expand into.
As we can see in AAR, it's probably very difficult to subdue barbarians through force, so I doubt this will be an issueCeolfisc said:
Would be nice if such colonization give badboy, though
Looks like they even forgot some actual "kingdoms"/tribes which are actually mentioned to exist during that time frame, like e.g. Noricum or Illyria.Swamp Rat said:
It really sucks that so much of the map is greyed out.... really limits our playability choices, which smacks too much of a certain other series I won't mention.
I'd love to see a lot more Celtic tribes and Germanic tribes...
But OTOH, I'm absolutely -thrilled- that Pergamum is playable, as that was my favorite ancient city I visited when I toured Turkey this fall and they'll be my first AAR.
I'd love to see a lot more Celtic tribes and Germanic tribes...
But OTOH, I'm absolutely -thrilled- that Pergamum is playable, as that was my favorite ancient city I visited when I toured Turkey this fall and they'll be my first AAR.
I suppose the developers concentrated on the empires that were organized enemies of Rome during that timeframe.
And I think they have one or two playable Germanic tribes because otherwise too many players would be disappointed. But then I hope the game does not become too easy for these tribes. I mean can they easily take over the grey provinces?
And I think they have one or two playable Germanic tribes because otherwise too many players would be disappointed. But then I hope the game does not become too easy for these tribes. I mean can they easily take over the grey provinces?
Tambourmajor said:
Illyria is in. They've already been conquered in that start.
I don't see what the hyge problem is about lack of tribes. It's already better than RTW which had Britons, Gauls, Germans, and Rebels, and besides, tribes really don't work well in games designed for Mediterranean empires. From what I've seen, organized tribes, which are largely one-province and therefore quite easy to steamroll and annex, might even be easier to incorporate than grey provinces, and then be more developed once annexed.
L'Afrique said:
First off, one should be careful when comparing this game to RTW since that game is just about fighting battles and 'conquering the universe', whereas this one makes an earnest effort to reproduce the history of the world - and gives players the opportunity to experience and influence its development.
I hold paradox to a much higher standard and expect them to reproduce the world as accurately as possible.
You make a good point about organized tribes probably being easier to annex - I will immediately read this AAR.