Rome has to be nerfed.

[Saladin87]

Rome just Mongol Empire's its way to conquest. It's a wonder how the unrest in conquered provinces are too weak for revolts and how revolts are squashed like bugs in an elephant stampede.

Well I can agree to that, revolts are nothing but a mosquito bite in my experience. Sometimes I even prefer inducing a civil war just because it gives you a nice +30 loyalty on all character and an instant reload of the province loyalty . I'd like to see revolts actually mean something and feel reluctant to let one happen.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Well I can agree to that, revolts are nothing but a mosquito bite in my experience. Sometimes I even prefer inducing a civil war just because it gives you a nice +30 loyalty on all character and an instant reload of the province loyalty . I'd like to see revolts actually mean something and feel reluctant to let one happen.

See this suggestion here about this regard:

Rebellions rework

REBELLIONS OF CULTURES Instead of the current provincial rebellion system, I would suggest a new one based on pop culture. I would totally remove provinces loyalty, because I think the current system linked to the provinces is unrealistic, boring...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Karalis123]

I think that the main problem with Rome is that Italy in general has too many pops. Also, despite there were big improves with 2.0, the capacity of AI to decide where to expand isn’t still enough, as Rome many times prefer to expand in the uncivilised territories of the north instead of challenging Carthage or Macedonia.

 

[We Who Are About 2 Die]

before 2.0 everyone was like "oh Rome needs a buff, they die too much, makes them more aggressive"
and now they are what everyone wanted and I see dozens of "pls nerf Rome" posts.
They´re good as is. If you play next to them you should realize it´s gonna be hard

This is a bit of a simplification of the argument. Pre 2.0 Rome would expand north into nowhere. Then sit and do nothing. Now Rome expands unrealistically and then sits and does nothing.

Pre 2.0 Rome would consolidate Italy and fight the Gauls and even push into Germania. But generally would not fight the obvious (Carthage). Post 2.0 Rome still doesn't fight the obvious. The issue is that Rome ai and frankly ai in general do not have rhythm or reason in their expansion. What we are seeing is the failure/limitations of the mission script system. The handing out of mass claims that cause Rome to speed through unification and into Greece, does not do service to the political or economic factors that drive expansion. It is an artificial guide rail that leads to janky conclusions for the ai.

 

[Avernite]

This is a bit of a simplification of the argument. Pre 2.0 Rome would expand north into nowhere. Then sit and do nothing. Now Rome expands unrealistically and then sits and does nothing.

Pre 2.0 Rome would consolidate Italy and fight the Gauls and even push into Germania. But generally would not fight the obvious (Carthage). Post 2.0 Rome still doesn't fight the obvious. The issue is that Rome ai and frankly ai in general do not have rhythm or reason in their expansion. What we are seeing is the failure/limitations of the mission script system. The handing out of mass claims that cause Rome to speed through unification and into Greece, does not do service to the political or economic factors that drive expansion. It is an artificial guide rail that leads to janky conclusions for the ai.

To be fair, it's not an AI issue. As human I do the exact same thing (but with more focus on Greece, less on Gauls). Carthage is a tough nut to crack, the Greeks fall like flies, and if you integrate 1-2 Greek cultures including Macedonian...

 

[Bovrick]

On the flip side, I've started as a Migratory Tribe a few times and dipped into Italy for some sacking at the start of each of those games. Every time (even without getting Rome itself) it has led to the Etruscans installing a Tarquin.

 

[Daft]

On the flip side, I've started as a Migratory Tribe a few times and dipped into Italy for some sacking at the start of each of those games. Every time (even without getting Rome itself) it has led to the Etruscans installing a Tarquin.

Can migratory tribes (or tribes in general) siege down forts?

 

[Bovrick]

Can migratory tribes (or tribes in general) siege down forts?

Sure, why wouldn't they?

 

[Torugu]

Can migratory tribes (or tribes in general) siege down forts?

Why wouldn't they?

Edit: Haha, Bovrick had the exact same reaction as I, just a fraction of a second faster

 

[Daft]

Sure, why wouldn't they?

Because they REALLY sucked at it IRL. Like bad. The Roman's misjudged the Huns at first because of this, and thought they'd just run around a bit causing mayhem while people could hide behind city walls, as with most barbarians.

Then the Huns started singing down cities. It was a bit of a stressful moment, I imagine.

 

[Daft]

Because they REALLY sucked at it IRL. Like bad. The Roman's misjudged the Huns at first because of this, and thought they'd just run around a bit causing mayhem while people could hide behind city walls, as with most barbarians.

Then they Huns started singing down cities. It was a bit of a stressful moment, I imagine.

While I do like the image of singing Huns subduing cities with songs, I obviously mean siegeing, but refuse to edit.

 

[Bovrick]

Because they REALLY sucked at it IRL. Like bad. The Roman's misjudged the Huns at first because of this, and thought they'd just run around a bit causing mayhem while people could hide behind city walls, as with most barbarians.

Then the Huns started singing down cities. It was a bit of a stressful moment, I imagine.

I mean migratory tribes are pretty much working with scrub units without Supply, so it isn't a guarantee and you need to time it right; but as long as you have the numbers you can siege. The start date isn't that long after Rome was sacked IRL by "tribes" anyway.

 

[Torugu]

Because they REALLY sucked at it IRL. Like bad. The Roman's misjudged the Huns at first because of this, and thought they'd just run around a bit causing mayhem while people could hide behind city walls, as with most barbarians.

Then the Huns started singing down cities. It was a bit of a stressful moment, I imagine.

I'm not sure that's an entirely realistic view of the period.

Tribal people like the Gauls, the Scythians and the Galatians don't appear to have had a problem looting fortified cities. On the other hand, Hannibal spend half a decade rampaging around the Italian countryside because he couldn't take Rome itself.

 

[Daft]

I'm not sure that's an entirely realistic view of the period.

Tribal people like the Gauls, the Scythians and the Galatians don't appear to have a problem looting fortified cities. On the other hand, Hannibal spend half a decade rampaging around the Italian countryside because he couldn't take Rome itself.

No, I wouldn't go as far as to say that they couldn't, just that they aren't very good at it, for a multitude of reasons. Engineering would be one. But also the sort of decentralized nature of how warring tribes worked. It doesn't sound like a very solid foundation for a drawn out siege, prone to internal power struggles during drawn out sieges for example.

I'm not really sure how many properly fortified and defended cities they actually looted? Interesting question to explore, to be sure.

The normal Roman reaction to an uprising was to rush the nearest troops to the scene to quickly quash it before it gained momentum, which, ironically, sometimes led to those troops becoming early victories for barbarians because of Roman lack of preparation.

 

[Daft]

So I'm saying "Nerf barbarian siege ability!"

No, but seriously though, this was just a spontaneous thought that popped up when reading through the thread. And to be clear, I'm just trying to explore the topic of barbarian siege ability, not arguing they couldn't. I didn't mean to drag the thread off-topic, sorry.

 

[Vohen]

While I do like the image of singing Huns subduing cities with songs, I obviously mean siegeing, but refuse to edit.

Ah yes, I too enjoyed "The Fall of Rome: The Musical".

 

[Daft]

Ah yes, I too enjoyed "The Fall of Rome: The Musical".

I think this should be explored in future DLCs to be honest.

 

[Torugu]

I think this should be explored in future DLCs to be honest.

Reminds me of the olden days in LOTR online (I think?) when minstrels would attack by playing their lute at the enemy.

 

[MachopPower69]

And since the start date is 450 AUC, Rome's empire formed in 727 AUC (27 BC). Seeing that Roman AI conquers half of the land in less than 100 years, it seems worrying ironically.

 

[Crosswire]

Just because Rome did well historically doesnt mean they should do so every single game. It's be like making it so that Germany automatically lost every hearts of iron game because they did so historically.