REQUEST: Tech levels be made "mid-way" instead of at 0

[Strager]

Was wondering if it would be possible to have the tech levels start off at some number higher than zero to give modders the chance to adapt the exisiting system, rather than re-write it entirely.

For example: The lowest tech level in the original game should be 10 or 20 -- leaving levels 0-10 or 0-20 empty, and if a mod decided to start at an earlier timeframe they would have that cushion to work with.

It wouldn't require much effort at this point by the coders, wouldn't require any gameplay changes, and would make for some much more interesting mods

 

[Markusw7]

I doubt that would happen

 

[Carewolf2]

Not only that, but it would give Paradox an opportunity to differentiate less developed nations by tech levels instead of giving them silly handicaps like they did in EU2, Vicky and EU3.

 

[Nikolai]

A good idea, if PI choose to use the EU tech model. But we don't know if they will do that yet.

 

[Rommel22]

I agree a different tech system should be implemented or the one from EUIII heavily modified for this game.

Technologically there wasn't much change in this period, as far as militarily, the only things that changed were tactics, the way troops were deployed, recruited and trained. As far as the weapons, they remained unchanged, swords, spears, bows and arrows, slings and stones, shield, they remained the same for centuries, until the collapse of the Roman empire.

I am not sure what tech development is going to affect here. I would hate for the tech tree to include the development of tactics or new swords, this would not follow history. Tactics were developed by commanders in the field, like Hannibal or Scipio Africanus. Same thing for weapons, those did not change, one side maybe used the other sides weapons as Hannibal's mercenaries did after the battle of Lake Trasimene. They took all the weapons, armor and equipment of the Romans and used it them selfs.

Anyway, I hope to see this era represented accurately.

 

[Bismark776]

Well actually, weapons and armaments spread from one culture to another and were adapted along the way. The romans took their legionary shortswords and shields from the spanish, as well as some of their early ship designs from the carthaginians. Also, tactics and organization changed significantly throughout the period. Look at the difference between roman tactics in the republican and imperial eras. If you think that the romans just ignored military training and the lessons learned by their predecessors then you really don't know the romans. I think there should definetly be some kind of development throughout the period.

 

[Rommel22]

Well actually, weapons and armaments spread from one culture to another and were adapted along the way. The romans took their legionary shortswords and shields from the spanish, as well as some of their early ship designs from the carthaginians. Also, tactics and organization changed significantly throughout the period. Look at the difference between roman tactics in the republican and imperial eras. If you think that the romans just ignored military training and the lessons learned by their predecessors then you really don't know the romans. I think there should definetly be some kind of development throughout the period.

Right as I stated, but none of this was achieved through 'research'. Tactics where changed and adopted through out the years. During the Roman times there was no such thing as a Chief of Staff to study war and learn from past campaigns as there is today. So the tactics learned by Scipio Africanus died with him.

All one has to do is look at Roman legions after the 2nd Punic War and how they faired against others. They performed rather poorly, suffering many defeats and reverses even after the 2nd Punic War, during the 3rd War and thereafter.

Even in the 3rd Punic War the Romans performed rather poorly, the war took 3 years to complete when the Senate and others though it would be over in a year. The Romans suffered many set back and very heavy casualties trying to take Carthage and during its 3 year siege.

During the Imperial time, only thanks to Army Reforms implemented by the Emperor (who's name escapes me) did the Roman way of fighting change. But that was a reform, not because of years of study of warfare.

Same thing applies to Carthage, Hannibal perfected his tactics, but never were they repeated or used by anyone else during those times, they died with him. The weapons remained the same still.

The Greeks still fought in the traditional phalanx since before Alexander and until their subjugation by the Romans, using the same weapons, shield, and tactics.

So there really was no research or study of warfare back then as we have today.

 

[Bismark776]

I agree on the research bit but there should be development that is not necessarily fueled by conventional "research". A system of doctrines and armaments, predominantly made available through contact, trade, warfare, and events, is what I would prefer.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I doubt that would happen

They did it for CK.