Also those are a lot of start dates in a very short period of time. And none at all during imperial rome.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I doubt that PDS will make more than one or two start dates for EUR's successor. They already said that it was proven to be a waste of time and resources as extremely few people play these.
.png){kind=avatar}
In Eu4 perhaps but in ck2 it is a lot more spread out.
And it's their own fault, the system they have in eu4 with ideagroups and monarch points doesn't exactly cater well to starting at a later date.
I do however agree that we will likely not see more than two start dates. They may however fill in more over time in DLC.
Rome II should be focused on city management. Plots, intrigues and politics at the Forum Romanum, hidden sects in the catacombs, charriot races in the Circus Maximus ... that was missing in Rome I,
Intrigues are a must.
Ancient Rome isn't fun without intrigues.
Also, I'd like to see a specific feature, which is probably unrealistic to have in these types of games, and is most likely not something most people would want to see.
Controllable armies in battles.
No, nothing as fancy as Total War. Not even 3D models of units. Just a 2D map, and squares representing units and formations.
Army positioning would look something like this:
You would be able to select those squares (not individual soldiers) and move them wherever you want. You could create any formation you dare imagine. This would be especially fun in player vs player conflicts.
Also:
Again, I assume most of you people wouldn't want this. It's just my pet dream.
Ancient Rome isn't fun without intrigues.
Also, I'd like to see a specific feature, which is probably unrealistic to have in these types of games, and is most likely not something most people would want to see.
Controllable armies in battles.
No, nothing as fancy as Total War. Not even 3D models of units. Just a 2D map, and squares representing units and formations.
Army positioning would look something like this:
You would be able to select those squares (not individual soldiers) and move them wherever you want. You could create any formation you dare imagine. This would be especially fun in player vs player conflicts.
Also:
Again, I assume most of you people wouldn't want this. It's just my pet dream.
I disagree that wargame elements have a place. As far as I'm concerned its better to keep these to a minimum and focus on the big picture, kind of like most Paradox games have to date done.
But intrigues could definietly be interesting if done well. But the question then is how close the game will need to go to CK2? Its hard to have intrigues without characters to interact with.
But intrigues could definietly be interesting if done well. But the question then is how close the game will need to go to CK2? Its hard to have intrigues without characters to interact with.
I'd say that the senate system from EU:Rome is a good basis to start on. Aside from that the defining design choice from CK is in my mind that you play a family. In this game I'd say you should play a state and can choose to pursue a stable government here or when someone in the government tries to establish a dictatorship you can choose to support them or the loyalists.
As a starting date I'd still say after the death of Alexander but not immidiately but after a few years. I'd say around 310 BC. That would mean that succesors like the Seleucids and ptolemaios are allready well established to establish their dynasty and states but we can also choose lysimachos, Cassander and most importantly Antichonus one eyes which at that point in time could just as well have ended up dominating the middle east for the next few years. Meanwhile Rome is still a clear underdog but with a decent start position if they can overcome their neighbours and Carthage, India is not yet fully conquored by the Maurya empire and China is in the middle of the warring states period. I'm fully with just picking this one starting date for the base game. Later DLC could add a few earlier starting dates.
Last edited:
To be honest I don't even remember the senate system from EU: Rome, its that long since I played.
And even then I mostly played the Greeks with very little interest in Rome.But in regards to what we should play I can see several different alternatives. Playing a state may be the most obvious since that's the way that all Paradox GSG, with the exception of Crusader Kings, have done it. But then again, many peoples and prominent families rose well within a new political framework, be it Greek, Persian or Roman. Now I'm not personally sure if I support being a state where prominent families plays a role or being a family within a state and with a possibility to make it between states. If we're going for cross-over potential with Crusader Kings games then I absolutely think that families should be at the center. Even if the ancient world is naturally very different from the medieval one. With the ancient world being more, if my opinion, tribal, than the class-based world of the Middle Ages.
As for starting date I think that a pre-Alexander start date would be the best. Both because it would allow more different outcomes to Alexander's conquests and also because while Rome may be an underdog in the grand picture, Italy is has few Powers that can challenge Rome by 310 BC. Your big point is of course that Persia would have fallen and the Hellenistic world would be in place by 310 BC. Yet personally I would be more intrigued to create that kind of world and see how it comes out rather than it being done before me. Besides I think it would be interesting to try and take Philip or Alexander to the west or lead the other Alexander who went to conquer in the west. Thus I feel that I shouldsupport and earlier bookmark than 310 BC.
To be honest I don't even remember the senate system from EU: Rome, its that long since I played.
But in regards to what we should play I can see several different alternatives. Playing a state may be the most obvious since that's the way that all Paradox GSG, with the exception of Crusader Kings, have done it. But then again, many peoples and prominent families rose well within a new political framework, be it Greek, Persian or Roman. Now I'm not personally sure if I support being a state where prominent families plays a role or being a family within a state and with a possibility to make it between states. If we're going for cross-over potential with Crusader Kings games then I absolutely think that families should be at the center. Even if the ancient world is naturally very different from the medieval one. With the ancient world being more, if my opinion, tribal, than the class-based world of the Middle Ages.
As for starting date I think that a pre-Alexander start date would be the best. Both because it would allow more different outcomes to Alexander's conquests and also because while Rome may be an underdog in the grand picture, Italy is has few Powers that can challenge Rome by 310 BC. Your big point is of course that Persia would have fallen and the Hellenistic world would be in place by 310 BC. Yet personally I would be more intrigued to create that kind of world and see how it comes out rather than it being done before me. Besides I think it would be interesting to try and take Philip or Alexander to the west or lead the other Alexander who went to conquer in the west. Thus I feel that I shouldsupport and earlier bookmark than 310 BC.
I can understand both your reasoning but don't agree. with respect to family or state I have not much to add aside from the fact that in my opinion in this ages States where more important then in a feudalistic society and therefore in my opinion the focus should lie with the state.
With respect to starting date starting earlier is in my mind problematic. Even though I'd really hate if the game would geographically again be as focussed on Rome as in EU:R the Rise of Rome is the most iconic example of empire building in this age. By starting even earlier then 310 BC it will be tough to create a game where Rome would often enough recreate their real world rise without coding in some really unsubtle stuff in the GSG sandbox. I wouldn't like that too much, nor would I like a big AI Rome being too much of a unicorn. I'd say that the Rise of Alexander would make an excellent DLC adding that start date but for the core game I think the succesor state's squabling is instrumental in the rise of both Roman and Parthian empires, making the base game have a different starting date will make i a too often occurence to have a unified macedonian or persian empire in my mind. 310 BC sets in place many of the important players in the world that Rome had to overcome in real life and gives you the ability to try it for yourself or take a completely different nation and see if you can get your alternative ending. The warring states period in China is just icing on the cake in that it is a decent starting date for that part of the world as well.
It doesn't need to work like CK2 where everyone is a Feudal Lord. You can be a family which tries to get its family members into army (they control part of the state's army), governorship (gives control of pieces of land), and political positions where each unlocks some control of the state.
Well, such is the theory. No guarantee it would work well in practice, or how hard it would be to develop something like this.
While I wouldn't say having tactical content would be a good idea. As I said before in this or another thread, we should at least have some controls on our armies. Dispositions they take against enemies. Things like delay, Search and Destroy, etc... That should be coupled with a much more province rich Mediterranean basin. Rome 1 suffered from key areas like Greece having far too few provinces to represent their political landscapes and wars.
I would agree as well that the AI is not likely to build large empires naturally. Even the current Rome which starts with a powerful Roman state is hit or miss whether they ever expand much.
I would however think that the AI should receive at least some scripting/events to encourage their rise. Especially if the player is playing a nation remote from them in the early game. Having the historical majors appear reliably isn't a bad thing. It gives something to the later game then a bunch of weak separate states unable to offer more then a speed bump to the player.
Just a personal wish of mine.
I'd be more than happy to see a bit more control at least over armies and battles, if my wishes are too outlandish.
I think major families should be in-game but I think the *player* should control a state rather than a family. There a few strong reasons for this- for one, both Rome and Carthage had dual heads of state, two consuls and two sufetes, each elected for one-year terms. If you're playing as the state, EU style, this isn't a problem, but if you're playing as an individual, CK2 style, who exactly is in the top spot? And how do you deal with the annual rotating in and out of office constantly disrupting the player's efforts?
Then if the game runs very far into the imperial era, the constant dynastic turnover, often to relative unknowns coming up out of the army, becomes a serious problem for the player too.
Totally agree with this, this game in my mind should be about 'herding cats' not about playing one of the 'cats' like in ck2. Keeping a state strong and keeping all the unruly characters and parties within the state in line would make for an interesting game.
I would imagine that the thing of shifts in the political top would be more of a feature than a bug, and let's not get to cozy between state and family, and add to the competitive nature of ancient elites. Just because the state is doing well or not does not mean the same is true for the family, and it would actually also be an incentive to establish a tyranny or monarchy as to ensure that your own family can run the show and don't need to share the stage with everyone else. Nor have others much up your plans.
And if we're looking at it from that perspective then a family-focus could give us the kind of vicious infighting among the nobles that the Greeks called "stasis" and brought down the Roman Republic, and kind of undermined the Roman Empire.
As for dynastic turn over, I would imagine thta your family will need to work to get around being exterminated and then come back to fight for the throne again? See the Phokas family's relation with the Imperial office as an example how it could play out with a powerful family with influence and wealth being eager to get back to the throne (even if it wasn't during Antiquity). Or the Punic Barcas who established their own empire in Iberia. Not to mention the various provincial families who rose to heights after being initially conquered by Rome. Various dynasts with royal ambitions in the Hellenistic Age, most successful of whom were the Attalids, and so on. A focus on a family would not really be such a problem as much as a different flavor.
The problem with this approach is that it only works for the Diadochi and Iran-influenced monarchies. In republican or aristocratic models your character might, over the course of their whole lifetime, serve as a junior army officer for a year or two, then manage temple renovations for a year, then run the census for a year, then hold a priesthood for a year, then hold an army command for a year and finally retire to the Senate where they're one of 300 voters. Even the Barcids were only army commanders and had no control over law, the economy, elections, or even foreign policy outside of Spain.
I'm not sure that I really see the problem. There were many people in both Rome and Athens, the most known ancient states with elective officials, who held high officer numerous times during their life time. And lets not forget that politics won't be everything in a family-focused game. If you're not holding office you'll be building alliances with other groups, gathering informal influence, managing and increasing your estates and generally advancing your family's power base. Not to mention that given that you play as a family you are likely to also have a chance to use relatives in office to bend things your way.
In regards to Barcids, they ruled well in their personal empire in Spain, and from that power base they could well in time have tried to challenge Carthage and impose monarchic ambitions on that state.
I agree, we allready have a game about playing a family. What we don't have is a game where you play a state consisting of multiple factions and families competing. Keeping the state stable should be a fun challenge. For example the influence, wealth and power succesfull generals or goverours can reap from certain postings should increase during the game (like conquoring macedonia posed no problem for Rome but later on the rewards Sulla and Ceasar managed to reap from their campaigns posed major problems because of the absurd amounts of wealth the managed to acquire). Which means that eventually a succesfull military campaign may come back and bite you in your hiny because the general used on this campaign became to powerfull and triest to establish a dictatorship leading to a civil war in your empire where you have to choose to support the republic or the would be dictator.
That's the kind of gameplay I'd like and the kind of interanl dynamics that could make this game interesting also in mid and late game. It might even cause you to back a weak character for certain postings even if that means you are getting a disantvantage in a war because he's just a shit general or gouvernor.
This problem would work equally well in a monarchy where a monarch may get in trouble because a general is too succesfull.
The issue I see with this is that while the suggestion for a family-based game would be close to CK2 this lies very close to V2 as that game has various competing factions that you try to keep from tearing the country appart and still go forward, even if economics is the main "thing" of that game.
And to be honst, if we are playing a country then what harm, aside from our pride, is there in letting an ambitious general do his coup and take over? We still keep control over the country and can easily engineer another general to conduct a coup if the first general bring unwanted changes. Just like we can in V2 simply move armies out of the rebels' path and let desirable rebels take over the country if we so want. Thus the whole part of rebellious generals becomes either at worst a speed bumb or nothing to worry about as far as the gaming aspect is concerned as it don't interfere more with our plans than we want it to do.
- Status