Rise and destruction of civilizations

[Calad]

As a every people know, the Romans were really cruel soldiers. They massacred, looted and burned like every others nation during that time. I feel that the game has failed on its basics if paradox ignores this reality and warfare is civilized like on eu2 and eu3. Like: "now I conquer some lesser nation and convert them to my religion. End of story, next borderfriend now". Remember also barbarians, they were not very creative people. Spreading own culture and diminishing others.

So is there any kind of large cultureconvert/destruction or unrealistic "Gauls colonized this province, there will be Gauls now to the end of game". I would really like to see viccy-riccys popsystem, but I dont belive on it.

 

[unmerged(67185)]

agree with the totaly kill of culture thing. even if it is cruel! why not Put It In and let it cost Stability to do that?

 

[lwarmonger]

As a every people know, the Romans were really cruel soldiers. They massacred, looted and burned like every others nation during that time. I feel that the game has failed on its basics if paradox ignores this reality and warfare is civilized like on eu2 and eu3. Like: "now I conquer some lesser nation and convert them to my religion. End of story, next borderfriend now". Remember also barbarians, they were not very creative people. Spreading own culture and diminishing others.

Actually Rome did a remarkably good job at both assimilation and proxy rule during the time of the Republic. It wasn't until well into the period of Empire that they were all ruled directly by the central government (we are talking early 4th century here).

Rome occasionally ruled with horrible cruelty (Greece is the most consistent example), but for the most part it was their ability to assimilate native people into their state system that enabled them to establish their empire at all.

 

[lordy80011]

As a every people know, the Romans were really cruel soldiers. They massacred, looted and burned like every others nation during that time. I feel that the game has failed on its basics if paradox ignores this reality and warfare is civilized like on eu2 and eu3. Like: "now I conquer some lesser nation and convert them to my religion. End of story, next borderfriend now". Remember also barbarians, they were not very creative people. Spreading own culture and diminishing others.

So is there any kind of large cultureconvert/destruction or unrealistic "Gauls colonized this province, there will be Gauls now to the end of game". I would really like to see viccy-riccys popsystem, but I dont belive on it.

Heheh -- war in the EU2 and EU3 time periods was anything but "civilized". There were plenty of instances of cruelty, massacres, looting, and burning throughout the time period.

 

[Snall]

Pax romana baby.

 

[Lord of Pain]

As a every people know, the Romans were really cruel soldiers. They massacred, looted and burned like every others nation during that time. I feel that the game has failed on its basics if paradox ignores this reality and warfare is civilized like on eu2 and eu3. Like: "now I conquer some lesser nation and convert them to my religion. End of story, next borderfriend now". Remember also barbarians, they were not very creative people. Spreading own culture and diminishing others.

So is there any kind of large cultureconvert/destruction or unrealistic "Gauls colonized this province, there will be Gauls now to the end of game". I would really like to see viccy-riccys popsystem, but I dont belive on it.

I think that it's probably implemented, it was in CK after all.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

This got me wondering how slavery will be modelled in the game. Will we be able to increase our country's slave population with former enemy troops? Will our armies raid enemy cities for new slaves?

 

[unmerged(49112)]

Actually Rome did a remarkably good job at both assimilation and proxy rule during the time of the Republic. It wasn't until well into the period of Empire that they were all ruled directly by the central government (we are talking early 4th century here).

Rome occasionally ruled with horrible cruelty (Greece is the most consistent example), but for the most part it was their ability to assimilate native people into their state system that enabled them to establish their empire at all.

Exactly, The main reason Rome was able to engorge most of Europe was because it almost always assimilated the cultures it conquered. Most of the roman technological advances weren't theirs at all, but merely adapted from other cultures.

 

[richtern]

The main reason that Rome was able to assimilate conquered peoples was b/c Rome never simply conquered them. They crushed any resistance to their rule so effectivley that the people they just conquered viewed Roman culture as clearly superior to there own and thus want to become Roman, they wanted to become the best...

 

[Dspencer]

Heheh -- war in the EU2 and EU3 time periods was anything but "civilized". There were plenty of instances of cruelty, massacres, looting, and burning throughout the time period.

Yes, but eu2 all but ignores what the spaniards did to spaniards(ie moors and jews) and native americans, and the inquisition in general(although i know papal states has an option to kill off some thousand of their own in vanilla), and i had to mod in an event for when the turks wiped out 50 000 people in constantinople.

Personally it seems that paradox avoids pointing out the insane intentional slaughter of people sometimes(HOI2 comes to mind), because they don't want the negative media attention that might come with it. However, there are a few events, like the moorish expulsion and the "light" inquisition events that have slipped through. Then again, if you were going to show the holocaust, would it be morally reprehensible if you didn't show the atrocities committed by the west, like the fire bombing of dresden or the raping and pillaging the americans did or the forced march of germans out of the czech republic?

 

[Totmes III]

We are the Romans. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

 

[yourworstnightm]

This got me wondering how slavery will be modelled in the game. Will we be able to increase our country's slave population with former enemy troops? Will our armies raid enemy cities for new slaves?

That would be neat, every city you capture mean a decrease of pop of various types in the occupied province, and a increase in slave pop in your capital. Hopefully it's implemented.

 

[Snall]

I just hope slave pop dosn't do anything BAD to your provinces until you have maybe 2 or 3 slaves per citizen.

 

[lwarmonger]

Yes, but eu2 all but ignores what the spaniards did to spaniards(ie moors and jews) and native americans, and the inquisition in general(although i know papal states has an option to kill off some thousand of their own in vanilla), and i had to mod in an event for when the turks wiped out 50 000 people in constantinople.

I know that lots of natives die in EU 2 games... generally the entire population. They try to rise up, but run right into my gonnes.

Personally it seems that paradox avoids pointing out the insane intentional slaughter of people sometimes(HOI2 comes to mind), because they don't want the negative media attention that might come with it. However, there are a few events, like the moorish expulsion and the "light" inquisition events that have slipped through. Then again, if you were going to show the holocaust, would it be morally reprehensible if you didn't show the atrocities committed by the west, like the fire bombing of dresden or the raping and pillaging the americans did or the forced march of germans out of the czech republic?

There are two reasons paradox doesn't do this. First of all, it restricts the market. Paradox is a European company, and they like being able to sell games to Germans. Reason why they don't use the swastika for the Nazis (that would get them axed from a lot of countries).

Second, how is it pertinent to the game? HOI 2 is a game about the military, industrial, and to a lesser extend political aspect of WWII. Most of what you described above had very little to do with the outcome of the war, hence not relevent.

And incidently, American and British troops were saints compared to their German, Japanese or Russian counterparts. Seriously... get a grip, and save your revisionist history for someplace else.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

As long as massacres add to gameplay, and is historical, they should be added. Can't see how the Holocoust could add to the gameplay in Hearts of Iron, or make the gameplay more interesting.
Massacres when conquering provinces/cities in Rome would be a different matter. It could make the province less able to raise against its conquerors, but in the same time make it a less profitable province to own. Choices to be made, improving gameplay!

 

[unmerged(7537)]

That would be neat, every city you capture mean a decrease of pop of various types in the occupied province, and a increase in slave pop in your capital. Hopefully it's implemented.

It also would simulate very well the problems Rome faced during its conquest spree: An ever increasing slave population, and a diminishing number of free men, to a point where the manpower available from free men could not support the citizen army of Rome any more.

 

[lordy80011]

Yes, but eu2 all but ignores what the spaniards did to spaniards(ie moors and jews) and native americans, and the inquisition in general(although i know papal states has an option to kill off some thousand of their own in vanilla), and i had to mod in an event for when the turks wiped out 50 000 people in constantinople.

Personally it seems that paradox avoids pointing out the insane intentional slaughter of people sometimes(HOI2 comes to mind), because they don't want the negative media attention that might come with it. However, there are a few events, like the moorish expulsion and the "light" inquisition events that have slipped through. Then again, if you were going to show the holocaust, would it be morally reprehensible if you didn't show the atrocities committed by the west, like the fire bombing of dresden or the raping and pillaging the americans did or the forced march of germans out of the czech republic?

Ix-nay on the h-word, my friend. That's a thread-locking topic!

But in terms of violence in battle, in Rome: Total War, there is the option to enslave or exterminate populations... this doesn't seem to have created very much controversy in the world at large... I think that do-gooders are more worried about the FPS games where your victims spew blood than they are about a game where you push a button and some numbers are decreased on the province screen. So I do not see any reason why these options shouldn't be included, but I'm satisfied with whatever decision the developers make. After all, to me, the population numbers shown in provinces in EU always seemed relatively abstract representations anyhow.

 

[unmerged(92421)]

Ix-nay on the h-word, my friend. That's a thread-locking topic!

But in terms of violence in battle, in Rome: Total War, there is the option to enslave or exterminate populations... this doesn't seem to have created very much controversy in the world at large... I think that do-gooders are more worried about the FPS games where your victims spew blood than they are about a game where you push a button and some numbers are decreased on the province screen. So I do not see any reason why these options shouldn't be included, but I'm satisfied with whatever decision the developers make. After all, to me, the population numbers shown in provinces in EU always seemed relatively abstract representations anyhow.

Thats because no one is offended by it.

And yes they've said in the previews tons of times that slaves are in (i'd think it quite weird if they weren't) and I don't see any reason why they'd not allow you to enslave cities or whatever.

 

[lwarmonger]

The main reason that Rome was able to assimilate conquered peoples was b/c Rome never simply conquered them. They crushed any resistance to their rule so effectivley that the people they just conquered viewed Roman culture as clearly superior to there own and thus want to become Roman, they wanted to become the best...

Which is why the Romans had to kill roughly half the men of military age in all of Gaul? Raze Carthage and Corinth to the ground?

Generally cities wanted to become Roman because the Roman general outside their walls would say "you got food for ten years huh? Well my army will be here for eleven."

 

[crazy canuck]

Which is why the Romans had to kill roughly half the men of military age in all of Gaul? Raze Carthage and Corinth to the ground?

Generally cities wanted to become Roman because the Roman general outside their walls would say "you got food for ten years huh? Well my army will be here for eleven."

You fundamentally misunderstand how the Romans expanded their empire. Ceasar was able to be successful in Gaul precisely because he was able to make so many local allies. His Cavalry and auxillaries were all made up of allied Gauls. The reason the Gauls did not immediately revolt again when Ceasar crossed the Rubicon or after his death was because the elites within the Gaulish tribes realized they had it good as a Roman province.

That the was the genius of Roman expansion - make it worthwhile for the local elites to accept Roman dominance.

BTW your reference to have the fighting men of Gaul is highly suspicious. One of the ancient sources does refer to over 1 million killed during the Gallic wars (although the first couple of years were spent fighting Germanic tribes crossing over the Rhine and the Gauls fighting together with the Romans to repulse them) but historians no doubt the numbers were as large as were reported.

Carthage was Razed because it was the one power that had ever seriously challenged Rome. Corinth was the exception to the the normal manner in which Rome conquered.

Also, think of how easily Rome assimulated the Selecudes, Macedonians and Egyptians. There was some trouble with Mithridates but even his son realized that rule under Rome was preferable.