Rome mod?

[binTravkin]

Has anyone ever tried to create an ancient Rome mod from CK and is it even possible?

In EU2 there are 2 such scenarios IIRC and I wonder why people here don't have the same affliction to ancient Rome..

CK engine fits much better to model ancient Rome and it's federalistic structure, I can even see Etrusks as a conglomerate of bishoprics (the League of 12 cities) with one Archbishop as the main figure..

Regarding the bishop thing - is it possible to create a kingdom tier bishopric or is it hardcoded to be duch at max?

Papal States do not count as they have a bit different relation to election and they have some global effects which are unique.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

Of course it's possible to make king-level archbishoprics. They are just called archbishoprics, when they are not the Pope. Like archbishopric of England or Germany.

Making Rome mod would be quite a challenge, because of all the character research required. I mean, it's possible to find information about part of the nobility of 11th century, but information about nobility of 1st century is a wee bit tougher.

 

[gigau]

Of course it's possible to make king-level archbishoprics. They are just called archbishoprics, when they are not the Pope. Like archbishopric of England or Germany.

How do yo do that ?

 

[Nikolai]

You need to have more than one king title, and then grant one of those not your primary title to the bishop.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

How do yo do that ?

As a simple exercise, start 1066 as Germany. Find yourself a vassal archibishop - like Romagna in betas. Give this archbishop a king title, like King of Italy. *poof*, you have archbishopric of Italy.

 

[binTravkin]

Making Rome mod would be quite a challenge, because of all the character research required. I mean, it's possible to find information about part of the nobility of 11th century, but information about nobility of 1st century is a wee bit tougher.

I think noone would actually do that even if a Rome mod was created (I was thinking about more ancient Rome, hence my remark about Etruscs, where most of the figures are legendary and probably even mythological, like Romulus, therefore most of the people around would be either fantasy or random-generated courtiers), also the reason why I thought about it was that CK has apparently the best (till now) engine to model ancient Rome.

I even think that with little alterations it would be better for EU2 timeframe than the EU2 engine itself.
The games are different, of course in terms of marriage and research, but what fits for most of the times between the history is the vassal system.
Even now US can be viewed as elective-succesion country consisting of vassal States which are republics themselves.

 

[Ayeshteni]

I even think that with little alterations it would be better for EU2 timeframe than the EU2 engine itself.
The games are different, of course in terms of marriage and research, but what fits for most of the times between the history is the vassal system.
Even now US can be viewed as elective-succesion country consisting of vassal States which are republics themselves.

A CK engined Eu2, with ROTW what indeed be the dogs bo**ocks (i.e. very, very good). The only problem would be the determinist argument. In CK I like it non-deterministic, Eu2 without historical events would NOT be good. so a CKEU hybrid wouldnt really work for me (over EU2 that is) but it would be very interesting to try out.

A pre-1066 CK would be absolutely fantastic. Scandinavia would be pagan and broken down, England could have several Saxon Kingdoms. And of course the Merovingians and the rise of Charlemagne hmmm nice.

Ayeshteni

 

[binTravkin]

The only problem would be the determinist argument. In CK I like it non-deterministic, Eu2 without historical events would NOT be good. so a CKEU hybrid wouldnt really work for me (over EU2 that is)

But if the CKEU hybrid only has the vassal system and some other minor things from CK?
I think that wouldn't disable determinism as the most anti-deterministic factor in CK is clearly the dynasties, marriages etc., the fact that you mainly work with people not countries as an entities.

It would allow much more deepness and realism into the structure of countries of EU2 timeframe..

 

[Ayeshteni]

But if the CKEU hybrid only has the vassal system and some other minor things from CK?
I think that wouldn't disable determinism as the most anti-deterministic factor in CK is clearly the dynasties, marriages etc., the fact that you mainly work with people not countries as an entities.

It would allow much more deepness and realism into the structure of countries of EU2 timeframe..

hmm, but then you are placing limits on what the games can do.
The vassal system of CK is good but there is nothing historical about it. How can France get its role of Kings? You couldnt unless you place stringent limits or over-rides on the CK system.

The event engine is superior to the EU engine, so getting rid of it would be unfortunate. Unfortunately with the CK syatem of vassages, dynasties etc the EU event system in this CKEU hybrid would be ludicrous.

I fear you would get the worst aspects of both games rather than the best as the best aspects are those that really are not compatable with each other.

for example: the best aspects of CK (arguablly) are the dynastic aspect and the event engine designed specifically for it. The best aspects of CK are on another level - that of the state, its relation with other states, foreign affairs and colonisation.

If you could layer the hybrid and the event engines to both aspects, then there is a possibilty but I couldnt see who it would be done. I cant see a historic event system a.k.a EU2 and a character event system ala CK working in harmony.

Ayeshteni

 

[unmerged(21621)]

kind of off topic but has anyone ever played Rome: Total War? I'm sure the tactical battles are great but i'm wondering how the grand strategy empire-building portion is.

 

[unmerged(26983)]

kind of off topic but has anyone ever played Rome: Total War? I'm sure the tactical battles are great but i'm wondering how the grand strategy empire-building portion is.

It's not as good as Medievel on the grand strategic level.

 

[Grosshaus]

If the thread is about a modification, then it should be at the modifications subforum. Thread moved.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

kind of off topic but has anyone ever played Rome: Total War? I'm sure the tactical battles are great but i'm wondering how the grand strategy empire-building portion is.

I like rome: total war

That's what paradox needs, the ability to command your armies... it is worth the 4GB.

But back to your "Ancient" Rome mod, I think it is like with all paradox's games, no negative numbers. The earliest you could play would be 1CE. If I were you, I'd go for more what someone else sugested, push the date back to Charlemagne's time... it would be easier.

 

[Quift]

I like rome: total war

That's what paradox needs, the ability to command your armies... it is worth the 4GB.

But back to your "Ancient" Rome mod, I think it is like with all paradox's games, no negative numbers. The earliest you could play would be 1CE. If I were you, I'd go for more what someone else sugested, push the date back to Charlemagne's time... it would be easier.

Yeah, there are actually a lot of primary historical sources from the BC era complaining about the BC-AD changeover. Apparantly everyone had to buy a new watch and most pagans in general refused to change, resulting in a lot of people continiung with the negative numbers all the way up til the 3 centuary. Altough many believe that this was a mere marketing stunt from the churchs side to make people feel more on the positive side, there were many practical issues aswell. Particularly the stone gravers thought a positive system would be better since it reduced the problem of filling in engraved years in overdue building projects.

 

[unmerged(5707)]

But back to your "Ancient" Rome mod, I think it is like with all paradox's games, no negative numbers. The earliest you could play would be 1CE. If I were you, I'd go for more what someone else sugested, push the date back to Charlemagne's time... it would be easier.

Alternatively, one could use the Roman dating from the founding of the city, ie Year 1= 7xx BC (not sure what the exact date is? 753BC?) That would push it out of the 'negative' numbering problem, but be problematic for moving into the Christian era.

 

[binTravkin]

Alternatively, one could use the Roman dating from the founding of the city, ie Year 1= 7xx BC (not sure what the exact date is? 753BC?) That would push it out of the 'negative' numbering problem, but be problematic for moving into the Christian era.

Exactly, the Rome mod must have roman dating as should Ancient Greece and Muslim mods.

 

[unmerged(48800)]

Other problem is diplomacy, because for catholics is not the same to deal with orthodox than to muslims...

Catholic should be tread as LATIN or ROMAN
Orthodox as GREEK
Pagans as BARBARIAN (celts and germans)
Muslim as PERSIAN
Jew could be another one... like PHOENICIAN (carthage and phenicia)

But remember that religion issues where not as important than those of middle ages, so it will be better set up as a MAYOR CULTURAL group, where you could be gallic or iberian but Latin (romanized) the same with greek, persian and barbarians... It will not fix 100% but will be more accurate... and that will explain why all romanized or hellenized lands had so different cultures...

And with this system Roman Cultural lands will thread Greek as almost equals... where persians and barbarian will be treat as ¨land to be conquest¨.

 

[unmerged(48800)]

Other adaptatins could be:
Piety must be transformed to some kind of ¨imperial points¨, and Crusader trait to ¨General¨or ¨Conquistador¨

In Republic period the Vatican could be The Senate (only having Rome), which can judge character as Traitor (excomunicated), and The Pope controller will be the Senate controller, all changing piety to imperial points, also the Pope (which title could be First Senator or Consul, will have the title of Emperor and any character could take Rome and destroy the republic system be Reclaming the emperor title and grab it from the Senate.

The titles also must change... (as republics in middle ages)
King to Consul
Duchy to Governor
Count to Magistrate

better ideas?

 

[unmerged(45754)]

Probably should use Roman names for the ranks, such as Aedile, etc.

 

[unmerged(48800)]

Yes using Latin titles will be more accurate... but the CK system can´t represent the complex Roman form of goverment with all the assamblies and titles, many of elective and temporal nature. But i´m agree that a good adaptation can be made...

Here some Roman (republican) titles:

CONSULS (2): chief civil and military magistrates; invested with imperium (consular imperium was considered maius ("greater") than that of praetors); convened senate and curiate and centuriate assemblies.

PRAETORS (2-8): had imperium; main functions (1) military commands (governors) (2) administered civil law at Rome.

AEDILES (2): plebian (plebian only) and curule (plebian or patrician); in charge of religious festivals, public games, temples, upkeep of city, regulation of marketplaces, grain supply.

QUAESTORS (2-40): financial officers and administrative assistants (civil and military); in charge of state treasury at Rome; in field, served as quartermasters and seconds- in-command.


TRIBUNES (2-10): charged with protection of lives and property of plebians; their persons were inviolable (sacrosanct); had power of veto (Lat. "I forbid") over elections, laws, decrees of the senate, and the acts of all other magistrates (except dictator); convened tribal assembly and elicited plebiscites, which after 287 B.C. (lex Hortensia) had force of law.


CENSORS (2): elected every 5 years to conduct census, enroll new citizens, review roll of senate; controlled public morals and supervised leasing of public contracts; in protocol ranked below praetors and above aediles, but in practice, the pinnacle of a senatorial career (ex- consuls only) -- enormous prestige and influence (auctoritas).

DICTATOR (1): in times of military emergency appointed by consuls; dictator appointed a Master of the Horse to lead cavalry; tenure limited to 6 months or duration of crisis, whichever was shorter; not subject to veto.