Rome has to be nerfed.

[MishaTX]

• You are strawmanning
• You have a teleological understanding of history

I don't think the word "teleological" means what you seem to think that it means. On the other hand, using polysyllabic words on the Internet is quite unusual these days, so I'll award points for that.

To clarify: I'm not in the slightest opposed to alternate history, as a matter of fact I'm quite fascinated by it and have spent possibly entirely too much time speculating about it in my life. I do not in the smallest amount see the outcome of history as we know it as a given, there are numerous, too many to count, points where things could have turned out entirely differently.

What I tend to do, when looking at any particular point in history, is ask myself "what were the conditions, be they geopolitical, cultural or any number of other factors at this point" and "in which ways could things, given all of what we know about the prerequisites, have turned out plausibly differently?"

For instance, in I:E, Epirus is a joke. This, I find, is a huge flaw. The Romans, for sure, didn't find the Epirote involvement in the Magna Graecian conflict a "joke" in any way. Epirus definitely needs a buff as it is.

Another example: The outcome of the First and Second Punic Wars were not by any means a "given." What would have happened if the Romans had lost either? Carthaginian dominance of the Mediterranean? Who knows. I think it likely but, at the very least, possible.

Hardly a "teleological" approach in any way but, again, kudos for slinging polysyllabics around. One doesn't get to see that very much in contemporary society where most discourse including words with more syllables than two seem to cause offense/injury/trauma etc.

My key word here is "plausible."

Rome losing the first or second Punic Wars? Plausible.

Some random Iberian tribe that none of us would have known of unless some Roman historian had scribbled a footnote about them suddenly rising to prominence and utterly blocking the expansionist ambitions of the nations as we know them in 303 BC, the game's start date, and going on to one-tag conquer the world?

I'm not going to use the word "impossible", because very few things are, but "implausible" seems to be quite adequate here.

You may feel otherwise, I respect that, you may very well feel that getting the Three Mountains achievement in EUIV is not in any way silly, you may also feel that the way history developed in the timeline we know was entirely governed by randomness, that any nation could have achieved what, say, Rome did, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion, much as I'm entitled to the opinion that the Moon is made of green cheese, but I have to say that I disagree.

All of that being said, there clearly are issues with the way the AI behaves right now in I:E, the aforementioned issue of Epirus being completely toothless when clearly they were not or the term "Pyrrhic Victory" would not even exist to this day, most likely, I'm certainly not disagreeing there. But I don't think it's because Rome needs to be "nerfed", it's because some other nations need to be "buffed" and/or the AI needs to be reprogrammed to act in a more historically plausible way.

And with that I leave you, respectfully.

Cheerio.

 

[Dan the cynical barbarian]

This is a bit controversial since it is the main feature of Imperator Rome, but Rome is a bit too strong. I like to play in Very Easy (Sorry), but even then Rome is very dangerous (15% reduction in morale does nothing at all). And since everyone else is complaining how broken Rome is, it should be nerfed or have an easier way to compete with. Sure, it is supposed to be hegemonic in nature as it was in real life, but I can't play a normal game as a reforming Tribal nation in Iberia without Rome stomping to my doorstep and munching on every nation I border because they have 1 million men in Legions.

How I would nerf Rome is to make AI province loyalty reduced so provincial revolts are more common. I play with a mod that does this and Rome always has revolts when in vanilla if they conquer a territory it is instantly loyal.

Another way is to make the difficulties redone. As I said, Very Easy is useless against Rome. Maybe make AI revolts more common or make AI less likely to expand extensively like they are FlorryWorry in an EU4 campaign with only marines.

Finally, nerf legions. They are too strong and for Rome, it is free to expand because it is in an Italic culture group in a place with lots of Italic nations. Maybe reduce cultural legions or make them only be able to have capital legions instead.

Sorry if this doesn't belong here, it is basically a rant to nerf Rome because they are too strong.

It does not, i can beat them fairly easy with Carthage early on and if needed mid-game. The easiest way to do it is simple to ally with Etruscans and beat Rome earlier on

 

[Dan the cynical barbarian]

oh god give me a revised Sphere of Influence mechanic like in Victoria 2 please.

That i full hearted agree

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

I don't think the word "teleological" means what you seem to think that it means. On the other hand, using polysyllabic words on the Internet is quite unusual these days, so I'll award points for that.

To clarify: I'm not in the slightest opposed to alternate history, as a matter of fact I'm quite fascinated by it and have spent possibly entirely too much time speculating about it in my life. I do not in the smallest amount see the outcome of history as we know it as a given, there are numerous, too many to count, points where things could have turned out entirely differently.

What I tend to do, when looking at any particular point in history, is ask myself "what were the conditions, be they geopolitical, cultural or any number of other factors at this point" and "in which ways could things, given all of what we know about the prerequisites, have turned out plausibly differently?"

For instance, in I:E, Epirus is a joke. This, I find, is a huge flaw. The Romans, for sure, didn't find the Epirote involvement in the Magna Graecian conflict a "joke" in any way. Epirus definitely needs a buff as it is.

Another example: The outcome of the First and Second Punic Wars were not by any means a "given." What would have happened if the Romans had lost either? Carthaginian dominance of the Mediterranean? Who knows. I think it likely but, at the very least, possible.

Hardly a "teleological" approach in any way but, again, kudos for slinging polysyllabics around. One doesn't get to see that very much in contemporary society where most discourse including words with more syllables than two seem to cause offense/injury/trauma etc.

My key word here is "plausible."

Rome losing the first or second Punic Wars? Plausible.

Some random Iberian tribe that none of us would have known of unless some Roman historian had scribbled a footnote about them suddenly rising to prominence and utterly blocking the expansionist ambitions of the nations as we know them in 303 BC, the game's start date, and going on to one-tag conquer the world?

I'm not going to use the word "impossible", because very few things are, but "implausible" seems to be quite adequate here.

You may feel otherwise, I respect that, you may very well feel that getting the Three Mountains achievement in EUIV is not in any way silly, you may also feel that the way history developed in the timeline we know was entirely governed by randomness, that any nation could have achieved what, say, Rome did, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion, much as I'm entitled to the opinion that the Moon is made of green cheese, but I have to say that I disagree.

All of that being said, there clearly are issues with the way the AI behaves right now in I:E, the aforementioned issue of Epirus being completely toothless when clearly they were not or the term "Pyrrhic Victory" would not even exist to this day, most likely, I'm certainly not disagreeing there. But I don't think it's because Rome needs to be "nerfed", it's because some other nations need to be "buffed" or the AI needs to be reprogrammed to act in a more historically plausible way.

And with that I leave you, respectfully.

Cheerio.

I am glad that you acknowledge that you are strawmanning.

 

[Feowen]

I agree, Rome needs to be nerfed.

Too many people are talking about "historical" reasons. Give me a break, this is a video game not a simulator. It isn't "fun" to get flattened by Rome as Carthage when you outnumber them 5 to 1, you use the discipline omen, have all military techs, etc and they cut through your armies like they're butter.

I can't figure out how their armies are so unbelievably strong when I have done everything in my power short of cheat to match them.

I've ever tried shanking them at the beginning of the game as a strat by going way over my diplo limit and allying Etruria and Samnium to try and isolate them, then try and take Latium in a quick and dirty war with mercs and levies. Same result, Rome not only destroys my mercs and levies with no difficulty, but manages to win so decisively that they're in a better position than if I just leave them alone.

If Rome is unstoppable... this game isn't fun.

If they're an endgame boss, they should be beatable.

And if I have to endure a "get good" reply... does anyone actually want people to play this game? lol I've spent the last week trying to play as anyone besides Rome, but eventually, Rome comes along and ruins the game. I'm starting to reach my limit.

 

[MachopPower69]

I agree, Rome needs to be nerfed.

Too many people are talking about "historical" reasons. Give me a break, this is a video game not a simulator. It isn't "fun" to get flattened by Rome as Carthage when you outnumber them 5 to 1, you use the discipline omen, have all military techs, etc and they cut through your armies like they're butter.

I can't figure out how their armies are so unbelievably strong when I have done everything in my power short of cheat to match them.

I've ever tried shanking them at the beginning of the game as a strat by going way over my diplo limit and allying Etruria and Samnium to try and isolate them, then try and take Latium in a quick and dirty war with mercs and levies. Same result, Rome not only destroys my mercs and levies with no difficulty, but manages to win so decisively that they're in a better position than if I just leave them alone.

If Rome is unstoppable... this game isn't fun.

If they're an endgame boss, they should be beatable.

And if I have to endure a "get good" reply... does anyone actually want people to play this game? lol I've spent the last week trying to play as anyone besides Rome, but eventually, Rome comes along and ruins the game. I'm starting to reach my limit.

Funny how they say IR is realistic, yet HOI4 is based on WW2 and Germany can remove Hitler and recreate the Holy Roman Empire if it would.

 

[Feowen]

Some irony after my post, I may have beaten the Romans finally. Only took like 7 restarts... Took Latium and Capua and they expanded into Samnium and Apulia... and have their subjects sadly... but I'd like to hope that they're a tad crippled.

Was so angry at Romans I set their rights to 'slaves' and burned Rome to the ground.

 

[MachopPower69]

Some irony after my post, I may have beaten the Romans finally. Only took like 7 restarts... Took Latium and Capua and they expanded into Samnium and Apulia... and have their subjects sadly... but I'd like to hope that they're a tad crippled.

Was so angry at Romans I set their rights to 'slaves' and burned Rome to the ground.

While Nero played the flute?

 

[Kainser]

I agree, Rome needs to be nerfed.

Too many people are talking about "historical" reasons. Give me a break, this is a video game not a simulator. It isn't "fun" to get flattened by Rome as Carthage when you outnumber them 5 to 1, you use the discipline omen, have all military techs, etc and they cut through your armies like they're butter.

I'm sorry and I realize that you will see this as a "get good" comment but you must genuinely be doing something incredibly wrong at this point. Assuming that you aren't being hyperbolic then I'm not really sure what to say, maybe upload your save file so we can see what situation you are in?

Rome gets some buffs but not nearly enough to do what you describe.

 

[Leinad965]

I like current Rome strength, when play as big nations like Carthage. But I don't like, how Epirus does not work in current situation.

 

[Feowen]

I'm sorry and I realize that you will see this as a "get good" comment but you must genuinely be doing something incredibly wrong at this point. Assuming that you aren't being hyperbolic then I'm not really sure what to say, maybe upload your save file so we can see what situation you are in?

Rome gets some buffs but not nearly enough to do what you describe.

I'm going to chalk it up to Carthaginian levies = bad and Roman levies = god tier.

As my second post shows, I did eventually crack the Rome nut, it involved waiting out what I had assumed was a lost war a lot longer than I probably felt comfortable with, but eventually Rome's manpower tanked to nothing against my merc armies and victory was assured.

I'm still a tad concerned about their overall power, but yes, some of the hyperbole was written at the height of frustration last night at so many attempts to break them early going south.

The current game now has Rome confined to 4 provinces and some disloyal feudatories and a border gore Italy I'm slowly carving up.

 

[Herennius]

Much to the pleasure of Carthage and Gallia (me) Rome can be beaten - by itself...

Their civil war is going on for more than 25years now (first pic is not exactly the beginning, it had been going for a some time already probably) and no end is in sight, as the Yellow Rome seems to have the edge in land battles, but Red Rome holds the navy. The civil war happened probably as result of technological advance, as the Reds are lead by Dictators, while team yellow plays for the Republic.

This game is BTW played with a mod disabling the AI province loyalty boost in case of rebellions, but I think this had, if at all, only an indirect effect on this civil war. My other impression is that if an AI has trouble with it, it is the Seleukid Empire. The suffer most from provincial rebellions and their empire has gotten a bit (they still have 200+ territories and some vassals) fractured now.

 

[Rhaegar1]

Tbh. I'm kinda ok with Rome being what it is from a challenge perspective. That being said I feel they could tone down the absurd hyperaggrasive attitude. When you have an alliance and +200 relations I feel it is wildly idiotic that they would still declare war on you because for some reasone they relaly want that one province in illyria that you own.

 

[Nostalgium]

Tbh. I'm kinda ok with Rome being what it is from a challenge perspective. That being said I feel they could tone down the absurd hyperaggrasive attitude. When you have an alliance and +200 relations I feel it is wildly idiotic that they would still declare war on you because for some reasone they relaly want that one province in illyria that you own.

The only instance I've had of an AI (yes, even Rome!) breaking an alliance with me at great relations have been the blink-and-you-miss-it call to arms message thing and an extremely frustrating bug that breaks all your alliances if you call your allies into multiple wars then peace out of one of them. Neither of these things warn you that your alliance is broken, which also comes with a huge two-way opinion malus that makes them very eager to murder you.

 

[Ecclesiasdeez__nutz]

I don't think the word "teleological" means what you seem to think that it means. On the other hand, using polysyllabic words on the Internet is quite unusual these days, so I'll award points for that.

To clarify: I'm not in the slightest opposed to alternate history, as a matter of fact I'm quite fascinated by it and have spent possibly entirely too much time speculating about it in my life. I do not in the smallest amount see the outcome of history as we know it as a given, there are numerous, too many to count, points where things could have turned out entirely differently.

What I tend to do, when looking at any particular point in history, is ask myself "what were the conditions, be they geopolitical, cultural or any number of other factors at this point" and "in which ways could things, given all of what we know about the prerequisites, have turned out plausibly differently?"

For instance, in I:E, Epirus is a joke. This, I find, is a huge flaw. The Romans, for sure, didn't find the Epirote involvement in the Magna Graecian conflict a "joke" in any way. Epirus definitely needs a buff as it is.

Another example: The outcome of the First and Second Punic Wars were not by any means a "given." What would have happened if the Romans had lost either? Carthaginian dominance of the Mediterranean? Who knows. I think it likely but, at the very least, possible.

Hardly a "teleological" approach in any way but, again, kudos for slinging polysyllabics around. One doesn't get to see that very much in contemporary society where most discourse including words with more syllables than two seem to cause offense/injury/trauma etc.

My key word here is "plausible."

Rome losing the first or second Punic Wars? Plausible.

Some random Iberian tribe that none of us would have known of unless some Roman historian had scribbled a footnote about them suddenly rising to prominence and utterly blocking the expansionist ambitions of the nations as we know them in 303 BC, the game's start date, and going on to one-tag conquer the world?

I'm not going to use the word "impossible", because very few things are, but "implausible" seems to be quite adequate here.

You may feel otherwise, I respect that, you may very well feel that getting the Three Mountains achievement in EUIV is not in any way silly, you may also feel that the way history developed in the timeline we know was entirely governed by randomness, that any nation could have achieved what, say, Rome did, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion, much as I'm entitled to the opinion that the Moon is made of green cheese, but I have to say that I disagree.

All of that being said, there clearly are issues with the way the AI behaves right now in I:E, the aforementioned issue of Epirus being completely toothless when clearly they were not or the term "Pyrrhic Victory" would not even exist to this day, most likely, I'm certainly not disagreeing there. But I don't think it's because Rome needs to be "nerfed", it's because some other nations need to be "buffed" and/or the AI needs to be reprogrammed to act in a more historically plausible way.

And with that I leave you, respectfully.

Cheerio.

Some random Italic tribe that none of us would have known of unless some Greek historian had scribbled a footnote about them suddenly rising to prominence and utterly blocking the expansionist ambitions of the nations as we know them in 323 BC, the year of Alexander's death, and going on to one-tag conquer the world?

I'm not going to use the word "impossible", because very few things are, but "implausible" seems to be quite adequate here.

 

[Rhaegar1]

The only instance I've had of an AI (yes, even Rome!) breaking an alliance with me at great relations have been the blink-and-you-miss-it call to arms message thing and an extremely frustrating bug that breaks all your alliances if you call your allies into multiple wars then peace out of one of them. Neither of these things warn you that your alliance is broken, which also comes with a huge two-way opinion malus that makes them very eager to murder you.

I most certainly had my alliance broken without a call to arms in this way because there was no relation malus. I guess it is fitting for me being an unwashed barbarian sniping that Illyrian coastal province Rome seemed Hellbend on getting themselves but I really felt we where buddies.

 

[Nostalgium]

180 seems to be the magic number. Seleukeos just broke off our beautiful friendship in my current Armenia campaign. Our relations were dancing around 180 and the "Alliance about to break" modifier popped up every time our relations dipped into the 170s. The final time they did, the notification was only up for a few ticks before they broke it up, so I couldn't repair the relations.

 

[Furleppe]

Maybe some kind of "major country strenght slider", similar to Hearts of Iron 4, could work as a solution? Game would be balanced around "normal" setting on a slider but players could also decide themselves if they want weaker or stronger Rome.

 

[We Who Are About 2 Die]

Tbh. I'm kinda ok with Rome being what it is from a challenge perspective. That being said I feel they could tone down the absurd hyperaggrasive attitude. When you have an alliance and +200 relations I feel it is wildly idiotic that they would still declare war on you because for some reasone they relaly want that one province in illyria that you own.

Run into that problem often, not even confined to Rome. Playing as Armenia allied with Pontus and played as Dacia allied with Odrysia, in both cases the allies turned on me after centuries of alliance and positive relations.

 

[hubert_humphrey]

I just want Rome to fuck off West instead of East.