wynandmeyering said:
1. The senators have much more money than Rome: some have 19000 vs. Rome's 40. Clearly there needs to be a perfect balance between the treasury of Rome and that of senators.
I can't find Johan or King's quote, but somewhere around here either of them pointed out that Wealth and gold in the government's treasury are two totally different things. Each "dollar" of wealth is off by orders of magnitude of each "dollar" of government gold.
2. The skills of Roman senators are too narrow to each other. A senator has to start with say: 1 - 5 in natural ability and then through governing provinces, war, diplomacy etc. gain the 6 - 10.
3. The units also need far more distinction: veteran units, green etc.
4.Tax income need to be organized: if you want a senator to become wealthy by assigning him to a wealthy province, so that he can steal, you need a list that shows trade etc. it is difficult to assign the senators to the wealthiest provinces. Also get rid of the corruption index: the user must be allowed to SET the level of corruption he wants his senator to be. If that senator becomes too greedy, he must risk being charged by corruption.
Well, you're not really playing the individual characters. You're the
Grey Eminence running the country, through whoever happens to be in charge at the moment (king, consul, whoever).
5. What use is Rome if you control all the senators. Divide Rome into factions, your faction fighting for positions in the senate. Each position in the senate needs to have advantages. If you control censorship, you can decide where to attack, if you control Rome, you are be able to assign your own faction senators, to the senate. The player has too much control of Rome, he needs to fight for Rome, for power, for privileges. He needs a challenge, a goal and a reward if his faction completes it successfully.
It sounds like you want to play something closer to Crusader Kings, where character is more important than playing the country in question. Besides, who said you control all the factions? Play the demo and then go back through the game logs. You will see all kinds of character events firing for characters in your own country that you have no control over at all.
He needs to be able to bribe senators and assassinate others.
There are a number of intrigue missions that you can perform, including assassinations. In fact, I've been known to assassinate ambitious generals whom I feared would try to overthrow the government. There are consequences, however...
6. Rome had many generals turning against Rome with armies. A lot more intrigue is needed, the senators are too loyal.
You should take a look at the
AARs . There is at least one civil war started by a disloyal general in King's Macedonia AAR, not to mention the others (in mine, I managed to not suffer this problem). I also think others have seen civil wars striking other factions during their time playing the demo.
7. Probably the worst concept that is holding the game back is the colonization only if a certain level of advancement has been reach. Rome was free to attack anyone, to expand at any pace. The challenge will be to get a balance between expansion and control.
I think the current colonization system is balanced as it is. Those who really want to paint the map with their country's color can do so, but the people and the infrastructure (civilization rating) have to come from somewhere. The demo is fairly short, so not a lot of colonization gets done. If you go read the AARs I mentioned earlier, you might get a better sense of just how much colonization can take place.
