Rome II

[gotnill]

Rome II Suggestions *Updated*

I am refining the original post to make it easier and add some changes I thought of. Please provide any feedback you wish.

General feel of the game should be EU4 in the way that you are mysterious hand leading civilizations through time.

Map should consist of provinces assigned to states like Vic 2. In the beginning game there should be many uncivilized provinces just like the original Rome with pockets of civilizations or organized tribes that you can play as.

Main Pillars of Game

Factions, Population, & Leaders

Population

· Each Province has 3 types of populations citizens freemen and slaves

· Each population provides a bonus and should maintain a balance to prevent uprisings

· Citizens produce extra research

· Freemen improve bonuses to trade resources

· Slaves provide a tax bonus and building speed

· If you have too many slaves a slave revolt could happen, too many freemen and they desire more democratic representations, too many citizens and they push for aristocratic society.

Army

· Manpower for each population pool

· Each type of population produces different types of units, Slaves produce skirmishers freemen bulk of legions and footmen, citizens create elite land units or cavalry

· Certain military reforms should allow freemen to also serve as cavalry later in game

· You gain manpower from expending a population unit so you see the physical effect on your nation when you are at war.

· Loyalty would be implemented allowing leaders to try and become dictators or start civil war.

· Loyalty should be gained while at war and reduced while at peace

· Mercenaries units should be very expensive but do not cost men however very quick to gain loyalty to army

Provinces

· Shows population

· Can have buildings that improve bonuses for resources income or research

· Have population limit which can be improved by buildings

· Each province has a culture and religion

· Multiple provinces grouped into states


Culture

· EU4 style culture with many small ones in a group that can combine into one

· Defined only by the culture of citizens and can be changed one of two ways, killing all previous citizens of state and promoting “loyal” freemen to replace them, or actively converting citizens to your culture which takes longer but doesn’t cost population

Religion

· Applies to all populations

· 3 types of religions, unorganized paganism, organized paganism, monotheistic

· Converted by combining Nations faith with new faith into syncretic faith, it replaces all new religion and removes malus.

o If original faith stronger than new faith it merges with the original faith slowly takes over and coverts over time passively

o If original faith weaker than new faith, i.e. original is roman new is Christianity, then risk Christianity to spread and take over

· Can also convert passively if religions equal or kill population into submission

Colonization

· Un-colonized space will have barbarians inhabiting along w a culture and religion assigned to province

· Different policies can define if you assimilate barbarian population kill them or enslave them

· Each province you colonize affects all other uncolonized lands of the same culture, if you peacefully assimilate it lowers however if you slaughter them they grow more unified.

· Once an uncolonized culture reaches maximum unification the remaining uncolonized provinces with populations form a nation that automatically declares war on you. This nation does not disappear once it is defeated and should gain massive boosts should it defeat you.

· After populations are dealt with you can send populations from nearby provinces to colonize.

· You can build buildings to increase population limit to speed up colonization

Factions

· Each nation with senate unlocks factions

· 5 types, military, civics, religious, diplomatic and populist

· Influence of each faction dictates events decisions and diplomatic options

· Each faction should have their own government form they will enforce onto your nation should they grow too powerful, with the 4 majors having advantages that balance negatives while populist government resembles anarchy and should be avoided at all costs

· Factions gain influence through many ways some player can control other they cannot.

· Every time major decision is made influence should shift with populist growing stronger and having no easy method to get rid of populist members

Leaders

· Very similar to Stellaris where each leader has traits and bonuses they should also be associated w factions

· Can be assigned to states as governors, increases faction influence,

· Can be assigned to armies and navies and faction gains influence based on their success

o I suggest tying it to manpower losses and casualties inflicted so players wanting to reduce faction influence will have to sacrifice many men to do so.

· Can be assigned to technology research as advisor also gains influence

· Each type of faction should also boost loyalty for men, civic factions should get boosts for mercenary units, military for normal units with certain traits boosting or lowering.

· Leaders should be able to be used as governors generals and researchers with one common set of skills

· Starting skill and desirable traits are based on the amount of citizens you have and if you are below optimum amount you will get leaders with malus traits like corruption or uninspirational

Technology

· 4 types of technology one for each faction

· Very similar to CK2 tech where points are gained and spent on multiple branches of one technology type.

· Each technology type should have 3 branches

For military the three branches would be

· soldier improvement morale, tactics, weapons used,

· General Strategy and improvement of supply, marching speed, and siege efficiency

· Naval combat

Civics

· Trade increases, can unlock trade deals or certain client states, ie tributaries

· City improvements, aqueducts, forts, coliseums.

· Colonization and settlement establishments




Religion

· Building unlocks and ability to evoke omens

· Establishing and bonuses to syncretic faiths

· Increased religious bonuses for true believers and bonuses for converting others


Diplomacy

· Better laws within nation, states men to citizen, slave to states men

· Gaining Casus Belli against other nations and increasing client state cap

· Unlocking different government types or faction bonuses


Corruption

· Gained based on states with no governor or leaders w certain traits

· Greater corruption grows the less income you make and stronger populist faction influence grows

· Can be lowered by giving populist more control reducing size or instituting costly decisions

· Tech should help reduce corruption to allow you to handle more land, buildings as well


If you read all this I thank you if you have any suggestions or want clarification on anything please let me know.

 

[Jlop985]

I'm not a fan of the empty provinces. There was not a huge tech imbalance like with the Spanish in the New World. The Romans had to fight hard for their conquests. Colonization should come after conquering a province, creating a loyal population to facilitate control of the province.

 

[gotnill]

I'm not a fan of the empty provinces. There was not a huge tech imbalance like with the Spanish in the New World. The Romans had to fight hard for their conquests. Colonization should come after conquering a province, creating a loyal population to facilitate control of the province.

While I see your point about the lack of tech imbalances the reason I suggest leaving them uncolonized is that they won't necessarily be empty there will still be population to contend with also if they create a nation for each province that becomes very taxing on the game's resources. I did a major edit to make things easier and I did change colonization a bit. I'd love for you to look and see if what I have now is more agreeable.

 

[NoodleNaught]

I haven't read your entire post, however if mercenaries are expensive that would result in few mercenaries being used. Mercenaries formed the backbone of all armies in the period, so we would be getting back to the same wrongful representation shown in the original.

 

[gotnill]

I haven't read your entire post, however if mercenaries are expensive that would result in few mercenaries being used. Mercenaries formed the backbone of all armies in the period, so we would be getting back to the same wrongful representation shown in the original.

While certainly mercenaries were very common back then and were a part of large nation's armies they mainly played auxiliary roles or support roles for the Roman's and Greeks they weren't the backbone and while Carthage was a nation who used mercenaries quite extensively they would be given national idea policy or decisions that allow them to support more mercenaries, I didn't include that because it would fall under balancing which paradox would have to do once they have semblance of the game they want to make. I do want to see mercenaries used in majorities of armies but we must discourage heavy use like we see in EU4 as they aren't tied to population.

 

[Kliwarrior]

Population definitely need a big reworks.
Almost every classic civilization had
- aristocracy , empowered by traditon and big land wealth
- merchant class , more or less powerfull, sometimes the true ruling class (e.g. athens)
Mid-low class city dweller. Actually for them citizenship could mean "almost no real rights" , see roman plebs in early ages
Farmers, lot of farmers everywhere except big cities.
Slaves

This should be combined with the status of the conquered lands.
Most italic populations haven't Roman citizenship until the Social War , sicily was a province, so not included for many years in the Res Publica, Carthage had colonies and actually a sort of protectorate upon the hiberic tribes. Something similar to a protectorate was also the macedonian kingdom toward the other greek cities..

Actually Rome 2 should include a lot of elementare of Vic , and EU , to model that timeframe

 

[Choombi]

Personally, I want it to be a brand new Historical Grand strategy title, independent from EU, and on the same scale as it. and generally more similar to CK, I don't want to play as Rome, I want to play specifically as Ceasar who have you.

 

[Jlop985]

I would do away with the faction system. I would have senators have an influence rating, and improving a senator's opinion would sway part of the senate towards cooperation. The more influential the senator, the greater part of the senate that senator could sway. The individual senators would have their own priorities.Perhaps the senators could split into two factions, the populares and the optimates.

 

[NoodleNaught]

I would do away with the faction system. I would have senators have an influence rating, and improving a senator's opinion would sway part of the senate towards cooperation. The more influential the senator, the greater part of the senate that senator could sway. The individual senators would have their own priorities.Perhaps the senators could split into two factions, the populares and the optimates.

Or if the senate (Or governing body of whatever nation your playing) is made up of actual characters instead of ghosts. You could have each senator support a position that broadly represents this leaning, and then senators who broadly support similar positions are lumped into the same faction. Then those factions could support or oppose different policies based on the internal influence of it's members. A characters governing position could be determined by things like the traits they posses, their families positions, where they have holdings, what would damage their rivals etc... Then use your personal influence to move them to other positions. The strongest faction rules, and the nation has to move at least broadly in their direction or become unstable. Other notable but less powerful factions should also be respected, as repeatedly acting against their wishes will push them towards a more radicalised position. (Note I think there should only be perhaps 30-60 "senators" or major influencers as such to make manageability possible, and to reduce processor stress etc..)

For Example: A roman senator with holdings in eastern Sicily (With the rest of Sicily outside of roman control), a collection of militant traits, and several relatives who are generals without lands (I.E. In a good position to gain in a war) would support invasion of faction X (In this case Carthage). Because his heaviest leaning is militant expansionism he would be in the "expansionist" faction (Factions should probably be semi organic). Because he's the only member of this faction it would support whatever policies he has (In this case invasion of Carthage).

The policies and whatnot don't have to be super deep, and only their top 5 or something should actually affect their behavior. None the less I'm of the mind set for Rome 2 to be a little more politically directed.

 

[gotnill]

For Example: A roman senator with holdings in eastern Sicily (With the rest of Sicily outside of roman control), a collection of militant traits, and several relatives who are generals without lands (I.E. In a good position to gain in a war) would support invasion of faction X (In this case Carthage). Because his heaviest leaning is militant expansionism he would be in the "expansionist" faction (Factions should probably be semi organic). Because he's the only member of this faction it would support whatever policies he has (In this case invasion of Carthage).

The policies and whatnot don't have to be super deep, and only their top 5 or something should actually affect their behavior. None the less I'm of the mind set for Rome 2 to be a little more politically directed.

While I would love for senators to be actual characters I feel having that many individual people w their own goals would make it impossible for the player to really have any influence and they would feel like they are herding cats or the player would make decisions that would affect 10 characters positively but would hurt 20 and keeping track would be tedious. Also the simulation of senators and their family members would be too much for a game focusing you playing as nation and not person. I feel a good compromise would be having a "ghost" senate but have actual characters that could influence it. You have Scipio giving his famous speeches in the senate halls which would boost the military faction heavily until you achieve his goal of defeating Carthage.

This could lead to instead of herding 100 senators to get a policy you would influence Scipio and maybe around 20 "influential characters". If you want a free boost to military support against Carthage let Scipio give his speeches if you want to employ peace w them you may have to find ways to console Scipio or sabotage him like the senate did w Cesar sending him to Gaul hoping he would fail and having him flip the table on them and lead civil war.

 

[gotnill]

Personally, I want it to be a brand new Historical Grand strategy title, independent from EU, and on the same scale as it. and generally more similar to CK, I don't want to play as Rome, I want to play specifically as Ceasar who have you.

While I do disagree with you on that and have personally tried to design a game more CK 2 based, the ideas I had weren't good in my honest opinion but if you are interested you can check it out https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/rome-2-suggestions.848700/.

You do have hope of getting a game like that Johan mentioned that he wants Rome II to be more character focused and he may make it to the extent of CK Rome. However if Johan does become the "internal champion" Paradox requires that would mean someone would need to replace him on EU4, which is unlikely, He can do both like Hendrik also unlikely, or we wait until EU4 reaches the end of its life cycle or at least get to its last year like CK2 is currently at which will take time. I'm sure if Paradox makes it it will be great whichever way they go.

 

[gotnill]

This should be combined with the status of the conquered lands.
Most italic populations haven't Roman citizenship until the Social War , sicily was a province, so not included for many years in the Res Publica, Carthage had colonies and actually a sort of protectorate upon the hiberic tribes. Something similar to a protectorate was also the macedonian kingdom toward the other greek cities..

Actually Rome 2 should include a lot of elementare of Vic , and EU , to model that timeframe

While I think the 3 layer population I suggested is enough to keep game simple yet fun I do admit the idea of a middle ground which could capture the lands conquered but not integrated. I would want something different in EU4 where you had to integrate or core the lands to some extent before moving on to prevent overextension. I would prefer something more fluid to where there isn't a direct penalty for taking lands, however I can agree one may be needed for balance purposes which is what overextension is for. and more of unlocking bonuses and would love a more fluid movement in the diplomatic relations between nations. I think it would be cool to go from allying nation to protecting them to lording over them to making them part of lands but semi autonomous to fully integrated all without having to war them or break your treaty. This would give lots of more ways to interact w many smaller barbarian nations and can provide a sort of proxy battle ground for larger nations like Rome and Assyrians did w Armenia

 

[Choombi]

While I do disagree with you on that and have personally tried to design a game more CK 2 based, the ideas I had weren't good in my honest opinion but if you are interested you can check it out https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/rome-2-suggestions.848700/.

You do have hope of getting a game like that Johan mentioned that he wants Rome II to be more character focused and he may make it to the extent of CK Rome. However if Johan does become the "internal champion" Paradox requires that would mean someone would need to replace him on EU4, which is unlikely, He can do both like Hendrik also unlikely, or we wait until EU4 reaches the end of its life cycle or at least get to its last year like CK2 is currently at which will take time. I'm sure if Paradox makes it it will be great whichever way they go.

This has been the most polite disagreement reply I've ever recieved.
Whether the potential Rome game will be more CK like or EU like, we will most probably have to wait until either CK or EU reach their final major patch.
Also, I personally don't want a "CK: Rome", I want a brand new title, with 9 DLC's and content packs and everything.

 

[NoodleNaught]

While I would love for senators to be actual characters I feel having that many individual people w their own goals would make it impossible for the player to really have any influence and they would feel like they are herding cats or the player would make decisions that would affect 10 characters positively but would hurt 20 and keeping track would be tedious. Also the simulation of senators and their family members would be too much for a game focusing you playing as nation and not person. I feel a good compromise would be having a "ghost" senate but have actual characters that could influence it. You have Scipio giving his famous speeches in the senate halls which would boost the military faction heavily until you achieve his goal of defeating Carthage.

This could lead to instead of herding 100 senators to get a policy you would influence Scipio and maybe around 20 "influential characters". If you want a free boost to military support against Carthage let Scipio give his speeches if you want to employ peace w them you may have to find ways to console Scipio or sabotage him like the senate did w Cesar sending him to Gaul hoping he would fail and having him flip the table on them and lead civil war.

When I was making those comments I had it of the mind to have no more then 50 (And probably many fewer then that) senators. I'd like to keep it to major family heads or something to that effect. So i completely agree with you having lots would be tedious.

However the politics turns out; I'd hope it's consistent across the board for all nations though not necessarily identical, but with equal depth. The current setup where basically a couple governments actually have stuff to them and 90% are mindless "my way everyone be damned" is very uninteresting.

 

[gotnill]

However the politics turns out; I'd hope it's consistent across the board for all nations though not necessarily identical, but with equal depth. The current setup where basically a couple governments actually have stuff to them and 90% are mindless "my way everyone be damned" is very uninteresting.

I think if "influential characters" are used right and done from the beginning we can keep the depth for all types of nations. While I agree a single barbarian tribe would be pointless to have a senate and would be boring to have the player have complete control this is where influential people can still interact w the nation. Instead of Scipio speaking to the senate you have him speaking to the people, the end result would be the same a military "mission" to attack your neighbor you still feel like your people have a personality and desires and it pushes you to a senate as you civilize as it would create a buffer between you and your people. If a barbarian leader shut down a young general's battlecries he would lose a lot of face to his nation and face severe unrest however if there was a senate he would only lose diplomatic face. That's the rough idea I have of the senate.

Smaller nations could have like a faction system as well because they still had classes like clergy nobility and what not too so each way every nation can have flavor.

 

[gotnill]

This has been the most polite disagreement reply I've ever recieved.
Whether the potential Rome game will be more CK like or EU like, we will most probably have to wait until either CK or EU reach their final major patch.
Also, I personally don't want a "CK: Rome", I want a brand new title, with 9 DLC's and content packs and everything.

Thanks! I don't really find it productive to be nasty and argumentative especially since we are just suggesting ideas. When I said CK Rome i didn't mean expansion I just meant a Rome game in same vein of CK2 like how original was EU Rome I agree it should be its own base game.

Also in regards to how long we will wait due to lots of little clues I probably am reading way too much into I believe Rome II will be the next game made and it will be worked on or announced after CK2 finishes which should be by end of 2017. We will find out at the paradox business stream as they will go over if they are expanding their studio or their publishing firm and we can draw more clues to over analyze from that.

 

[Jlop985]

Or if the senate (Or governing body of whatever nation your playing) is made up of actual characters instead of ghosts. You could have each senator support a position that broadly represents this leaning, and then senators who broadly support similar positions are lumped into the same faction. Then those factions could support or oppose different policies based on the internal influence of it's members. A characters governing position could be determined by things like the traits they posses, their families positions, where they have holdings, what would damage their rivals etc... Then use your personal influence to move them to other positions. The strongest faction rules, and the nation has to move at least broadly in their direction or become unstable. Other notable but less powerful factions should also be respected, as repeatedly acting against their wishes will push them towards a more radicalised position.

For Example: A roman senator with holdings in eastern Sicily (With the rest of Sicily outside of roman control), a collection of militant traits, and several relatives who are generals without lands (I.E. In a good position to gain in a war) would support invasion of faction X (In this case Carthage). Because his heaviest leaning is militant expansionism he would be in the "expansionist" faction (Factions should probably be semi organic). Because he's the only member of this faction it would support whatever policies he has (In this case invasion of Carthage).

The policies and whatnot don't have to be super deep, and only their top 5 or something should actually affect their behavior. None the less I'm of the mind set for Rome 2 to be a little more politically directed.

When we have computers that can process 500 individual senators for just one country without slowdown, then that would be a great idea. We need a way to represent the senate that modern hardware can support.

 

[NoodleNaught]

When we have computers that can process 500 individual senators for just one country without slowdown, then that would be a great idea. We need a way to represent the senate that modern hardware can support.

I completely agree, that's why I clarified myself in this second post below. I changed my original post too now (At the time of this post) for clarity.

When I was making those comments I had it of the mind to have no more then 50 (And probably many fewer then that) senators. I'd like to keep it to major family heads or something to that effect. So i completely agree with you having lots would be tedious.

However the politics turns out; I'd hope it's consistent across the board for all nations though not necessarily identical, but with equal depth. The current setup where basically a couple governments actually have stuff to them and 90% are mindless "my way everyone be damned" is very uninteresting.

 

[NoodleNaught]

Army

· Manpower for each population pool

· Each type of population produces different types of units, Slaves produce skirmishers freemen bulk of legions and footmen, citizens create elite land units or cavalry

There would need to some policies allowing using different groups for different purposes. Citizens just being best doesn't really make sense, and slaves being just skirmishers (or low tier) troops doesn't apply everywhere. But I overall agree with the sentiment of it. (I also understand your just throwing ideas at the wall as it were).

 

[loup99]

This thread should probably be merged with the other with the same name: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/rome-ii.905208/