I did not talk about Hannibal at all. Rome lost a large amount of battles and quite a few of history's worst losses belongs to Rome. They did not win wars because they where particular good Soldiers but because they could replace their losses better than their enemies. The problem the enemies who faced Rome had is that you could defeat Rome in battle but they simply return with more knowledge than Before.
Petition against Trirems , trirems everywhere !
- Thread starter Cephei80
- Start date
-
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.
You didn't talk about Hannibal but the narrative that Rome won because of numbers only exists because of Hannibal. You can't explain the successes of Caesar, Sulla, Marius, etc. against vastly greater numbers with manpower. You just can't. There's zero historical basis for your claim. There's insufficient data. For most of the conflicts we simply don't know what numbers were involved, and for the conflicts where we do, Rome was outnumbered a good portion of the time. You're also ignoring that a lot of the time, Rome wasn't able to replace its losses, particularly in the early and late Empire periods.
Edit: If you count allies then maybe you can make a numbers argument since Rome rarely fought on its own during this period, but then your claim is analogous to claiming Cortez defeated the Aztecs because of superior numbers of Spaniards!
Last edited:
actually rome did won many wars because of its numbers and replacing troops capability , when gaules pillaged rome the romans just kept spawning new legions , when the samnites defeated a whole consular army when pyrus defeated them over and over , when carthage destroyed their navies on early encounters and at drepana and the battles that did follow drepana + storms , romans simply kept spawning new fleets and armies . but carthage did that aswell on both sea and land , like when romans landed on tunis on first ar or in iberia on second war or during the mercenaries war . both powers showed great ability at spawning new armies but rome had a slight advantage on land , carthage never showed struggle at replacing its navy on sea even after loosing 70% of battles of the first war .
One piece of success is not the sole explanation for it. Essentially your argument is the fact that Rome raised new armies while at war means they won because of manpower, when literally everyone they fought did the same thing. That's how war works.
The fact that there will be naval warfare sounds pretty good to me. And I kind of think that Paradox just want to lay a foundation for further expansion on in DLCs and patches.
Further from agreeing from a gameplay perspective it just wrong for all cultures to get the same one type of boat. There should at least be some basic differenciation between the basic culture groups.
Just two words "Boii Trirems"...
The horor....
Just two words "Boii Trirems"...
The horor....
There is a confirmed difference graphically between different culture groups (at least barbarian vs greek and roman) which is nice at least. No idea about if the name changes, but going on the dev diary I don't think so.
Other units have flavor names such as Rome Heavy infantry is named principes and greek Archers are named slingers so that may or may not be the case for ships. Obviously there is no difference based on unit name, differences come from which traditions you have.
Just played imperator universalis eu4 mod and the ship flavor is pretty good. I am sure that we can have something like this easily. Pleaseeeeeeeeee Johan!
The grand strategy games of paradox for lots of people are a sandbox of alternative history, so please don't kill the narrative for those who want to build up a thallasocrasy!
The grand strategy games of paradox for lots of people are a sandbox of alternative history, so please don't kill the narrative for those who want to build up a thallasocrasy!
Seeing as the main ship of war type for the era was the quinquereme/penteres, it's silly to have trireme as the main ship type. I'm all for just a name change, as the ships didn't change much once the Hellenistic states died off. It's pretty telling there wasn't much naval tech advancement, as the Battle of Actium, some two hundred-ish years after the beginning of the game, was still mostly quinqueremes with a few bigger ones mixed in.
The only division I could see would be two types of ships, heavies and lights, with biremes/triremes/quadriremes/lembi/whatever else you want to put in here being lights and anything bigger being heavies.
Mechanics wise, I'd give lighter ships higher speed, less health, less manpower requirements, less naval power, some sort of stealth or blockade running stat (perhaps just the higher speed would help this). Heavies would just be the opposite, lower speed, higher everything else.
The thing is, I don't see the point, as, unless they're going to add shallows and blockade running, the lighter ships will have no purpose other than pirate hunting.
The only division I could see would be two types of ships, heavies and lights, with biremes/triremes/quadriremes/lembi/whatever else you want to put in here being lights and anything bigger being heavies.
Mechanics wise, I'd give lighter ships higher speed, less health, less manpower requirements, less naval power, some sort of stealth or blockade running stat (perhaps just the higher speed would help this). Heavies would just be the opposite, lower speed, higher everything else.
The thing is, I don't see the point, as, unless they're going to add shallows and blockade running, the lighter ships will have no purpose other than pirate hunting.
no , we dont want only 1 type of ships if they just rename it . maybe penteres hexares and others have same role but they were other decisive kind of ships , like the rhodos version of birems that is actually a 2.5 , those were great pirates and blockade runners and skirmishes . there is also the roman birems aka light liburnes , those were used to beat the main fleet of egypte&anthony of heavy penteres in actium . octavian wouldnt have won that battle if he used same kind of ships , he used light ships to have a bonus . this is why i want at least a light and heavy ships .
It's also not totally a matter of how many rows of oars a ship had, but what was on the deck. Naval warfare during the period wasn't just some massive scrum between marines and ramming.
The problem is different roles were filled by the same size ships. Obviously it would be a bit granular to represent this in game (even though I would be fine with it, I could see how others wouldn't be), so I think it's an acceptable abstraction to make different "size" ships have different roles.
The problem is different roles were filled by the same size ships. Obviously it would be a bit granular to represent this in game (even though I would be fine with it, I could see how others wouldn't be), so I think it's an acceptable abstraction to make different "size" ships have different roles.