Remove Mesopotamia from requirements for Roman Empire and replace it with Egypt

[Mindel]

The current land requirements for forming the Roman Empire are rather nonsensical. Historically, Mesopotamia was only held by the Roman Empire for a few years under Trajan, and quickly given up by Hadrian, because its location made it indefensible for the Romans. Rome was, above all, a Mediterranean empire; the sea was the glue holding the empire together. The lack of a water route from the Mediterranean to Mesopotamia is precisely what made it impossible to resupply the region (militarily or otherwise).

For the same reasons, Egypt was the bread basket of the entire empire. It would have been impossible to feed the Roman population without regular grain transports going from the Nile to the rest of the Mediterranean. Yet the only required province is Cairo; not even Alexandria is on the list.

So I would propose to remove Mesopotamia from the list of required provinces for Rome, and replace it with the Nile Delta (including Alexandria and going down to Ushmunayn/Minya) instead.

Personally, I would also remove the two required provinces in Britain and replace them with more of Carthage. It's worth emphasizing that Rome was a Mediterranean power.

 

[Romanix90]

I would actually lower the requirement. Basically just control the land that Romans did under emperor Justinian and you can restore it. Also it would be cool to add events like do you want to transfer your capital to Rome or want to stay in Constantinople and the second event would be like do you want to remain Greek or resurect Roman culture.

 

[Mindel]

I would actually lower the requirement. Basically just control the land that Romans did under emperor Justinian and you can restore it. Also it would be cool to add events like do you want to transfer your capital to Rome or want to stay in Constantinople and the second event would be like do you want to remain Greek or resurect Roman culture.

There are decent arguments for letting Rome form earlier. But I think the reason why PDX set the requirements so high is because they're trying to make Rome a reward for "winning the game", so to speak.

This allows them to give the Roman Empire powerful national ideas without having to worry about game balance (which the player has already destroyed by this point). They wouldn't be able to do this for a minimalist Rome without disrupting that same balance.

In any event, I'm just running with PDX's position for now and trying to adjust the requirements to be more sensible.

 

[Mindel]

Here's a map of Roman trade routes:

Britain is largely peripheral to the main network and didn't become part of the empire until decades after Augustus. Even if it were conquered by Picts overnight, trade in the rest of the empire would be undisturbed. So I would remove York and London from the list of required provinces.

I would replace them with the main Roman trading centers in North Africa. These are Caesarea, Leptis, and Cyrene, corresponding roughly to the EU4 provinces of Mitija, Tripoli, and Benghazi (Carthage is already required). It conveniently turns out that all three are already centers of trade in 1444. If we're holding with the idea of maximalist formation requirements for Rome, then controlling all Mediterranean trade should be a key part of it.

I would also remove Fez (in Morocco) from the list of requirements. This province is not a major trade center, so it's really neither here nor there.

 

[Romanix90]

There are decent arguments for letting Rome form earlier. But I think the reason why PDX set the requirements so high is because they're trying to make Rome a reward for "winning the game", so to speak.

This allows them to give the Roman Empire powerful national ideas without having to worry about game balance (which the player has already destroyed by this point). They wouldn't be able to do this for a minimalist Rome without disrupting that same balance.

In any event, I'm just running with PDX's position for now and trying to adjust the requirements to be more sensible.

Fair points you made here but i still think that border of emperor Justinian should be enough to restore Rome. My argument here's you're not going to restore ancient borders of the Roman empire but recent ones. And greatest extend Rome had in recent history was under emperor Justinian. I found once argument that Rome should be restorable under Basil 2 since his Roman empire also had sizeable borders. Now my opinion on this is mixed. On one hand i think it's to early, on the other it could work if player controls Rome with Southern Italy and Sicily, Balkans and Anatolia along with Antioch. Again i'm not advocating this option.

 

[Mindel]

Fair points you made here but i still think that border of emperor Justinian should be enough to restore Rome. My argument here's you're not going to restore ancient borders of the Roman empire but recent ones. And greatest extend Rome had in recent history was under emperor Justinian. I found once argument that Rome should be restorable under Basil 2 since his Roman empire also had sizeable borders. Now my opinion on this is mixed. On one hand i think it's to early, on the other it could work if player controls Rome with Southern Italy and Sicily, Balkans and Anatolia along with Antioch. Again i'm not advocating this option.

Don't argue it with me. I'm not taking any side on this issue. The people you need to convince are the developers. Go argue it with them.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I agree that any Christian empire that succeeded in restoring Justinian borders would be undeniably a legitimate successor to the Roman Empire, but i also understand the gameplay element of making this a hard tag to form.

This was the size of the Roman Empire at the time it was historically formed.


These requirements are definitely more than enough to form Rome, it still involves beating Spain, France, the Ottomans and Mamelukes and slugging through the AE cesspool of Italy and the HRE to form it, so it's equally hard to form, and you have already broken the game balance by the time you formed it several times over anyway.

The current requirements are just more unnecessary time-consuming grinding that only serves to stop you from seeing the tier-1 and tier-2 models.

 

[Romanix90]

I agree that any Christian empire that succeeded in restoring Justinian borders would be undeniably a legitimate successor to the Roman Empire, but i also understand the gameplay element of making this a hard tag to form.

This was the size of the Roman Empire at the time it was historically formed.
View attachment 806825

These requirements are definitely more than enough to form Rome, it still involves beating Spain, France, the Ottomans and Mamelukes and slugging through the AE cesspool of Italy and the HRE to form it, so it's equally hard to form, and you have already broken the game balance by the time you formed it several times over anyway.

The current requirements are just more unnecessary time-consuming grinding that only serves to stop you from seeing the tier-1 and tier-2 models.

What do you think about Basil 2 and his borders to restore Rome? I once run across the thread suggesting borders under the emperor Basil 2 be all that is required to restore Rome.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

What do you think about Basil 2 and his borders to restore Rome? I once run across the thread suggesting borders under the emperor Basil 2 be all that is required to restore Rome.

Makes sense but seems a bit too easy to achieve, i could even see the AI pulling it off.

 

[Romanix90]

Makes sense but seems a bit too easy to achieve, i could even see the AI pulling it off.

I do agree with you. I don't think it's bad thing since you can pretty much restore Mongol empire and crush everything in your path. Their NI are super powerfull and their government gives you more. Idk honestly. Perhaps it would be great idea to lower the requirement. Just like you said : you have to go against Ottomans, Mamluks, Austria, Spain, France and bunch of other nations. At the same time you have to watch for AE. So perhaps it would make sense to do it. Idk. I wish there was some sort of poll or something.

 

[Mindel]

For reference, here are the current requirements to form Rome:

As you can see, almost nothing of Egypt or North Africa is needed, while a few bits of England and half of Mesopotamia are required.

Historically, it was Rome's defeat of Carthage that put it into the ranks of great powers, by giving it undisputed supremacy over the western Mediterranean. You don't really see that dominance on this map.

 

[Mindel]

According to Strabo's Geographika:

In regard to knowledge, just as in the southern portion the limit of the inhabitable world was fixed by going 3,000 stadia beyond Meroë (not considered the most accurate limit, but nearly exact), it is sufficient to take nothing farther beyond Prettanike, or a little more, perhaps 4,000. There would be no political advantage to know about such places and their inhabitants, especially if they live in such islands that they are unable to harass or benefit us because of their isolation. The Romans could have held Prettanike but were disdainful, seeing that there was nothing to fear from them (for they do not have the strength to cross over to us), and there is no particular benefit to possessing them. It seems that more is derived now from levying them than tribute could provide, removing the military expenses of guarding the island and collecting tribute, which would be even more unprofitable in regard to other places around that island.

 

[Mindel]

I'm disappointed this change hasn't been made for the upcoming patch.

 

[Korsjan Rīkis]

I'm disappointed this change hasn't been made for the upcoming patch.

It will most likely be changed with the ME update.

 

[Styria]

If they were gonna flavorize it, they should take those large swathes of required land and make them missions.

Maybe first off, there could be some requirements for specific minors. It was in vogue at the time around the start of the game for Italians to insist that *someone* unite the various Italian states, as they were at the mercy of mercenaries and outside states meddling in their affairs and focusing on "maintaining a balance of power" in the region, even if that went against the best interests of the Italians in general. Niccolo Machiavelli's Prince was dedicated to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, and contains such a plea, and suggestion that Lorenzo himself could be such a leader.

Now legally, I guess there could only be one Roman Emperor, even if the Greeks had inconveniently continued to manage an imperial "Rhomanian" state in the East. So any state wishing to follow the Roman path will have prove they have guts. I don't think this should necessarily be a requirement for x number of provinces; I think that if you take Roma, you should be able to declare yourself Rome. This way, rather than being an end-goal, it becomes a campaign in and of itself.

So you take Roma, and click the decision to become The Roman Empire, right? No. I think you should only switch to a "Rome" tag at first, with further requirement of being a "Romance" culture. I think the German cultures should have their focus on the Holy Roman Empire, so giving the Italian states that aren't invested in the HRE a goal or mission path would be more more interesting. I wouldn't limit it by religion, though; I would even go so far as suggest that there be the ability to "reintroduce" a Roman/Hellenistic flavored religion, but people should be free to pursue a Muslim Rome if they desire. Orthodox states should also have more of a focus on restoring Byzantium first, which I feel should have to follow its existing mission tree up to the conquest of Italy in order to tag-switch. The papacy should also be permitted to try to restore Rome, perhaps replacing the weird "Kingdom of God" stuff with a "Roman Catholic Empire" instead. I dunno.

I would say that, in addition to the usual malus for owning Roma, there should also be a constant conquest causus belli on you: most of Europe would not be terribly amused by an audacious upstart claiming to be the successor to Rome, especially when a lot of political and religious legitimacy depends on it. So, I think the Holy Roman Emperor, and any Kingdom or Empire rank Catholic nations should have an interest in destroying you given the chance. This causus belli should last until you achieve Empire rank maybe, at which point only Byzantium and the Holy Roman Empire/Emperor should have a rivalry related causus belli.

With all that out of the way, the rest of the required provinces should be attached to missions. I feel like it should be somewhat historically flavored, so perhaps uniting Italy first, following the initial expansion of Rome. Next, a Punic War themed set, aiming for Sardinia/Sicily/Corsica, then "Carthage" itself next and a foothold in Hispania. Next might be a Greek campaign if some sort, mimicking the Mithridatic wars and seeking to "reincorporate" the East. Followed by a "Gallic Wars" inspired set, aiming for Gallia Cisalpina, Switzerland, Gallia Transalpina, all the way to the Rhine and Belgium, and maybe a set to polish off Hispania. And maybe a set to push into Anatolia, the Caucuses, and another for Egypt. Then a set for Britain, one for the German frontier, with the final aim of dismantling the HRE altogether. And after the restoration of the Empires borders, maybe some bonus objectives for Persia and Hungary/Dacia.

All in all that would be a pretty deep campaign, and would make restoring Rome more interesting, anyway. Overall, it's probably not a super balanced or well-thought-out idea, but at least a mission tree would be nice either way.

 

[PurpulaPhoenixum53]

If we discuss changing the requirements to forming Rome, I feel like the requirements should be different for different nations. For example, the Eastern Romans (Byzantium) should have an easier time forming Rome, since they would be reinforcing their Roman legacy (they should also have alternate paths if they wish to move away from the past and embrace a more Hellenic heritage); while the Holy "Roman" Emperor should merely have to unify the HRE and conquer the entirety of Italy and either France or North Africa. The requirements should be dynamic to highlight how some might claim the mantel in different ways.

Beyond that I agree that in the generic decision, Egypt should be replacing the entirety of Mesopotamia. However, forming Rome should grant perma claims on the Mesopotomian region.

 

[Styria]

they should also have alternate paths if they wish to move away from the past and embrace a more Hellenic heritage

What do you think about removing Byzantium as the Greek cultural union, and replacing it with Greece? This way, a Byzantine Empire that wants to embrace its Hellenic heritage could reform into Greece, while pursuing its Roman heritage would allow it to reform Rome instead.

 

[Jihem]

What do you think about removing Byzantium as the Greek cultural union, and replacing it with Greece? This way, a Byzantine Empire that wants to embrace its Hellenic heritage could reform into Greece, while pursuing its Roman heritage would allow it to reform Rome instead.

Excellent idea, and this Greek way would imply for example to spawn through Persia and India, in the footsteps of Alexander the Great, and even to go further in accordance with the ambitions of the European powers of the XVIIth-XVIIIth century

In this way, Byzantium could be included in future Middle East DLC

 

[Flammifleure]

In times of a quick simple change, I completely agree with the original poster -- require the conquest of Egypt instead of Mashriq/Mesopotamia.

I do also like the idea of an easier formation which then facilitates the conquest of the rest of Europe. However I think the Empire is supposed to represent the dreams of all European conquerors to reclaim the glory of Rome combined with Renaissance obsession with all things classical. It's not just an Italian ambition or Byzantine resurgence.

Formation

So I would suggest that the overhualed formation mechanics require complete control of Italy as the core of the Empire, plus one other major "province" like Gallia, Hispania, Asia (Anatolia) or Aegypta, and then several core cities -- Constantinople obviously, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Tunis (Carthage) and Lyon (Lugdunum).

Then once formed you get permanent claims over all of the Empire's historical provinces and missions to reconquer them.

The Empire should only be formable by either a. Christian naitons with capital in Euorpe or b. nations with a European culture group with capital in Europe. The current system of letting pagans form it makes no sense, since none of the current pagan denominations have any ties to the Empire.

Also, the Turks already see themselves as the Roman Empire, whether the Ottomans or the formable Rum nation, though I would approve of their missions and maybe perks being expanded to account for them taking the "Kayser-i Rum" title seriously. I'm not sure about other Muslims -- if there is evidence for some sort of desire to return to Rome in Alexandria or Tunis, I'd be okay with it, but I feel the Muslim formable should rather revolve around trying to rebuild the united Caliphate. Rome is more of a Christian/European dream.

Also, I'd be down with Byzanttium having a different path to forming the Empire -- namely replicating Justinian's conquests.

I agree that all Christian theocracies should have some uniquely flavoured alternative to the Roman Empire, but I'm not sure what it should be called. The HRE was the continuation/successor to the Roman Empire, and the Pope saw himself as its actual head, with the Emperor more of a vassal -- a medieval pope actually referred to the Empire as fief (benefice) he'd bestowed on the Emperor, then had to backtrack when everyone freaked out at the over-reach. So historically I think a militaristic pope's aim would be to enforce such claims and be recognised as the secular as well as the spiritual head of the HRE with the Emperor serving as a kind of lieutenant.

Buffs

For perks, I think it definitely needs an overhaul. It's good, but it's not as good as I feel it should be in comparison with say Mongols or Mughals, and arguably even some other nations like France or Prussia. So what I would suggest is a couple of things.

- First, tolerated culture status for all Romance culture groups.

- Second, unique governments -- Imperium Romanum for monarchies, or Senatus Populusque Romanus for republics -- that give benefits comparable to other end-game tags.

- Third, possible overhual of the Roman ideas. Thoguh they might be fine in conjunction with the other benefits. I would like to see a "City of Marble" idea that reduces cost and time for upgrading monuments, though it could also work as a permanent modifier from a decision, or part of the Roman government types.

- Fourth, unique buff for every European region corresponding (roughly) to a Roman province. For some examples,
~ Italia restored: Diplo rep and maybe something else like Prestige and TF tolerance, this is default
~ Gallia Restored (France region): Morale
~ (Gallia) Belgica Restored (Low Countries region): Trade efficiency
~ Britannia Restored (Great Britain, or maybe just historical Britannia): Heavy ship combat ability

And a special one, Germania Pacified, for conquering all of Northern and Southern Germany, where you can choose between Discipline (representing Prussian militarism) or Goods Produced (representing German craftsmanship).

Culture

I think the return to Roman culture isn't actually that far-fetched. Europe was obsessed with all things classical -- it's called the "Renaissance" because it was supposed to be the rebirth of all things Roman (and Greek). But I think it needs to be handled differently.

So instead of automatically getting Roman culture, you get to take a decision after forming the Empire -- "Restore Roman Culture." That would convert Rome and all owned provinces of your culture group to Roman. Also, Roman needs to be changed form the worthless "Ancient" category, which oguht to be disbanded, to Latin culture group. If Paradox wanted to go crazy, they could have a chain of events where Romance and English cultures were converted back to Roman, but otherwise a modifier reducing cultural penalties for them would work.

Definitely, I think there should be events as your civilization resumes Roman practices -- togas, public baths, making sure everyone has a working knowledge of Latin, and so on.

AND THEN, following the full revival of Roman culture, you get a choice to either integrate your Christian flavour of choice into the Imperial administration -- Caesaro-papism for the win -- OR revive the old pagan customs. If you stick with Christian, I would say you get some sort of additional perks. This is already super long, so i won't go into it, but I think the fallout with the Papacy for conquering Rome needs a serious overhaul for all countries, not just a reformed Empire.

Reviving Classical Paganism
"Not since Julian the Apostate has the idea been seriously entertained..."

An option for fun and for a different roleplaying experience, once you have embraced Roman culture. Converting to Classical religion should have some serious penalties, but also some benefits. Initially, I'd imagine it being similar to the Protestant conversions, but harsher. So like

- -4 stability. Maybe Christian zealots automatically spawn.

- Damaged relations with everyone:
~ -100 with all Christian nations
~ -200 with Christian theocracies
~ -50 with Christian subjects
~ -50 with Muslim and Jewish nations (they're not keen on polytheism either)

And maybe a permanent malus with the Papal State, assuming they pop up again in Germany.

Benefits, on the other hand, could be

- Capital region auto-converts

- Establishes Centers of Reformation in the following provinces: Rome, Athens, Ephesus, maybe Alexandria; either as soon as you acquire them or once pagan-themed monuments have been upgraded. Centers of Reformation target all Christian and Muslim provinces, though maybe only within the Empire.

- Missionary zeal

- Influx of money from seizing church lands, probably a reduction in clergy power/land. (Also, clergy would be renamed to priesthood and probably should have special privileges, though I haven't looked at what other pagan denoms have available)

- Possible relationship boost with other pagan nations.

There could possibly be an event at some point when you have the choice of tolerating Christians, attempting to convert them, or outright persecuting them. A similar event could also happen for Muslims. Jews, though -- the Empire was pretty tolerant of them as an ancient religion, and I think it would be fun if the revived Empire became a haven for Jewish from less tolerant Christian countries.

Speaking of monuments, I suggest several new monuments, allowing you to rebuild/restore the statue of Zeus/Jupiter at Olympia, the Colosseum and pagan temples in Rome, the statue of Helios/Sol (Colossus) at Rhodes, the temple of Artemis/Diana in Ephesus, the Great Library in Alexandria.

Suggested mechanics are similar to Norse and Hinduism, with the following seven gods with suggested benefits.

~ Jupiter ~ Mars ~ Mercury ~ Minerva ~ Vesta ~ Venus ~ Vulcan

- Jupiter ~ Prestige, +1 Admin power, -Liberty desire ~ King of the gods, improves governing ability

- Mars ~ Morale, Land Shock, Land Fire ~ God of war, so obv. military benefits

- Mercury ~ Trade Efficiency, trade power ~ Kind of hard, Mercury is associated with both trade and science, so tech boost would also fit

- Minerva ~ Discipline, Idea cost reduction ~ Minerva/Athena was the goddess of military strategy, but also linked to philosophy

- Vesta ~ Missionary strength, tolerance of TF ~ Association with virginity and family to me suggests that her cult would be also for syncretization with Christianity, especially Christianity

- Venus ~ Improve relations, less unrest, development cost ~ Goddess of love and sex, leading to a freer, happier life for citizens and visiting diplomats, and increased fertility makes it easier to boost development

- Vulcan ~ Building cost reduction and build time ~ The divine smith helps you buld things. Maybe also cheaper and faster soldier recruitment

Interpretatio graeca
And I think that since it's tied to the Roman Empire, the gods should use the Roman names. However, it would be neat if Greek culture countries could restore the relgiion as well while using the Greek names (Zeus, Ares, Hermes, Athena, Hestia, Aphrodite, Hephaestus).

 

[Mindel]

If we discuss changing the requirements to forming Rome, I feel like the requirements should be different for different nations. For example, the Eastern Romans (Byzantium) should have an easier time forming Rome, since they would be reinforcing their Roman legacy (they should also have alternate paths if they wish to move away from the past and embrace a more Hellenic heritage); while the Holy "Roman" Emperor should merely have to unify the HRE and conquer the entirety of Italy and either France or North Africa. The requirements should be dynamic to highlight how some might claim the mantel in different ways.

I think part of the reason why the requirements are uniform is to save developer time from having to work out what would amount to customized Roman branches in mission trees for individual nations. This is why I'm restricting the proposal to something simple which can be changed in less than 15 minutes.