Rome: reflecting culture historical or arcadical fiction?

[JASGripen]

In short is EU: Rome dealing with culture as in EU III (not very much) or more like the rest of PI series of games? I have pre ordered the game without knowing, but I am concerned about the matter.

There are many gamers around at these forums (fora) which can tear most unhistorical storyline to shreds. I am not asking for an exact simulation of history, but more like hard coded historical realities, like those national traits in Armageddon, which still leaves room for ahistorical outcomes. I want the suspension of belief that this could be a game about the Ancient Roman time, nothing else. Will I get it?

 

[Pro]

In short is EU: Rome dealing with culture as in EU III (not very much) or more like the rest of PI series of games? I have pre ordered the game without knowing, but I am concerned about the matter.

There are many gamers around at these forums (fora) which can tear most unhistorical storyline to shreds. I am not asking for an exact simulation of history, but more like hard coded historical realities, like those national traits in Armageddon, which still leaves room for ahistorical outcomes. I want the suspension of belief that this could be a game about the Ancient Roman time, nothing else. Will I get it?

What other games by p-dox is culture more important in than EUIII? EUII and EU? I don't know about them but in vicky, CK and HOI2 culture is less important than in EUIII, possibly with the exeption of vicky. But in the last to it has no effect at all

 

[unmerged(7537)]

In short is EU: Rome dealing with culture as in EU III (not very much) or more like the rest of PI series of games? I have pre ordered the game without knowing, but I am concerned about the matter.

There are many gamers around at these forums (fora) which can tear most unhistorical storyline to shreds. I am not asking for an exact simulation of history, but more like hard coded historical realities, like those national traits in Armageddon, which still leaves room for ahistorical outcomes. I want the suspension of belief that this could be a game about the Ancient Roman time, nothing else. Will I get it?

Apart from HoI Amargeddon and a few popular mods, no Paradox titles actually have these sorts of "national traits" you speak of.

 

[JASGripen]

EU III got a lot less cultural weight compared with HoI2/DD/ARMA. My concern is that PI has taken a turn towards "light weight" gaming approach, compared with games which stresses on historical realities.

EU III is totally dedicated to non historical approach, check the AI for example, or on the micro level: the appearance of historical characters; a let down in my book. Don't take it wrong, I am a long time player of HoI/ EU II/ HoII, my issue is that I just want to know about the turn turned of EU: Rome.

 

[JASGripen]

Apart from HoI Amargeddon and a few popular mods, no Paradox titles actually have these sorts of "national traits" you speak of.

I would dare to say that the AI of HoI I through whole of HoI II series has a lot of national traits coded. But national traits is just one issue. In EU II I didn't get the suspension of belief i had in EU II for example; and there are many at these fora who agree with me in this. What I want to know is if EU III is representative for EU: Rome, in the historical aspects.

 

[Lord Boreal]

EU3 has national traits that allow the country to specialise in certain areas. for example you will always see Spain/Castille and Portugal with Quest for the New World, England with Bill of Rights, and France with Grand Army or the like. I expect EU:R will have similar things implemented to make it so that Rome is expansionist etc

 

[SirGrotius]

Have you had a chance to peruse the developer diaries? They should give you some more direction on your question.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=328259

 

[Alexander Seil]

I don't think the author of this thread is asking about "culture." He's asking whether the countries in Rome are "unique," the way countries are unique in Vicky and HoI2 (they are a lot more generic in EU3 and CK). Judging from the developer diaries and the AARs, I think that Rome is more on the Vicky/HoI2 side of the fence here.

 

[Secret Master]

How are countries "unique" in Vicky? Other than political parties and the issue of slavery all countries are the same except for their historical starting positions (which is also true in CK and EU3). Unless you are talking about immigration bonuses for being in the Americas? Or do you mean historical events?

 

[Alexander Seil]

Yeah, but the historical starting position in Vicky is a combination of many different factors. Beyond pure geography and techgroup, there's really not much to EU3's countries. Any Catholic country plays exactly the same. But Vicky's Spain and Prussia are two very different games, even in vanilla. The core differences are in the industrial structure and the population, neither of which is a concern in EU3.

 

[JASGripen]

On spot Alexander. It is the generic cultural approach of the AI I blame the most in EU III, but there are other things too. For me it is about suspension of belief, and that is a lot stronger - to me - in EU II and the HoI/HoI2 (DD/ARMA) series than in EU III.

So EU: Rome is more like EU III in this matter, or?

 

[Swamp Rat]

EU3 has national traits that allow the country to specialise in certain areas. for example you will always see Spain/Castille and Portugal with Quest for the New World, England with Bill of Rights, and France with Grand Army or the like. I expect EU:R will have similar things implemented to make it so that Rome is expansionist etc

While i agree with you on Castille and Portugal, i have never seen them wihtout having the Quest for the New World national idea, i must disagree with you on England. It seems they have a more wider approach for their first national idea. F.ex. the game im currently playing they had Quest for the New World as well.

The question concerning EU:Rome will be whether the government systems (or was they not also called National Ideas here?) combined with the resources and geographical starting positions will be enough to differentiate the various nations. I was a bit surprised that Carthage had the same government type than Rome in the game, because even though the two powers competed over being the first power in the Western Mediterranean their way of doing it and the way each nation was put together was very different. We will just have to wait and see if they will also play differently, the AAR doesnt really reveal enough to judge by.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Actually, Swamp Rat, I think you're wrong.

In the AAR, Carthage is a Military Republic, whereas Rome is an oligarchic republic (there's a screenshot somewhere), so their governments are different. We just don't know how different.

 

[Lord Boreal]

Carthage as a Military Republic? Hmmm if it were EU3 i would have them classed as Merchant Republic.

Interesting.

 

[unmerged(51416)]

Well, as for topic subject, that's my concern as well. I'd like to see more historical approach as well, but we'll see. As far as I can tell, things can go either way.

Positives:
-diffrent religions (bonuses religion-specific, hopefully can only give some factions advantages they had historically)
-diffrent governments
-deep starting positions research (look into Hannibal's dream - great many Roman historical characters, hopefully with proper traits)
-faction-specific units (hopefully limited to only this one faction)
-use of mercenaries
-starting position

Negatives:
-historical events highly unlikely, so even if something historically-plausible happened - it probably won't happen in-game (Antigonids on the throne of Macedonia after Keraunos's demise; testimony giving country to powerful neighbour etc.)
-lack of culture-specific buildings (at least in one of the screenshots we could see gallic forum)
-disasters of entire armies a'la Cannae/Kynoskephalae highly unlikely, as they probably 'unbalance the game' (at least in King's AAR horde half his army size managed to withdraw; same in some battles in Hannibal's AAR). Altogether it could be good, as some battles were fought to preserve one's forces. But far too many battles were really decisive...
-starting armies/navies composition/map position will probably be tied to country, not historical facts (as it will require too much work)
-national armies (non-mercenaries) will probably still compose of one unit type per class. Example: all HI will be principes (with same equipment and stats, excluding experience)

 

[Swamp Rat]

Actually, Swamp Rat, I think you're wrong.

In the AAR, Carthage is a Military Republic, whereas Rome is an oligarchic republic (there's a screenshot somewhere), so their governments are different. We just don't know how different.

Well my info on Rome being a military repbublic comes from one of the first dev diaries (maybe even the first one). And i think that the form military republic sounds like its specifically tailored for Rome. But anyway they might have choosen to change the government of Rome since then.

Still it would be weirder imo with Rome being an oligarchic republic and Carthage a military republic. That would be a complete switch between what is normally considered correct about both the national culture and the actual government systems of the two nations. Carthage was defined by Aristotle in his "Politics" to be an oligarchy (although with some modifications, but then again very few nations are defined as having a pure form of government by Aristotle). And while it is true that the Roman republic in effect was a rule by a small elite (the nobles, and not necessary the rich, though of course they mostly all were at this time), and aristocratic republic would have been appropriate. Still if anything the national characterstic of Rome would be militarism (alongside with pure conservatism) which would be why military republic seems fitting for Rome.

 

[unmerged(51416)]

Well my info on Rome being a military repbublic comes from one of the first dev diaries (maybe even the first one). And i think that the form military republic sounds like its specifically tailored for Rome. But anyway they might have choosen to change the government of Rome since then.

Still it would be weirder imo with Rome being an oligarchic republic and Carthage a military republic. That would be a complete switch between what is normally considered correct about both the national culture and the actual government systems of the two nations. Carthage was defined by Aristotle in his "Politics" to be an oligarchy (although with some modifications, but then again very few nations are defined as having a pure form of government by Aristotle). And while it is true that the Roman republic in effect was a rule by a small elite (the nobles, and not necessary the rich, though of course they mostly all were at this time), and aristocratic republic would have been appropriate. Still if anything the national characterstic of Rome would be militarism (alongside with pure conservatism) which would be why military republic seems fitting for Rome.

I agree completely

 

[Grubnessul]

Was Carthage a military republic on the starting date? Otherwise, they may have changed it?

 

[Alexander Seil]

Besides the historical issue of who was "really in charge" of Carthage (the short - we have no idea, really)...the title of the Carthaginian ruler in the AAR is "High General"

Now, go to Gamespot and check out the Images section - the title for the Roman guy in the latest batch of screens is "Consul," so Rome is in fact an oligarchic republic in the game.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Carthage as a Military Republic? Hmmm if it were EU3 i would have them classed as Merchant Republic.

Interesting.

I suppose Paradox made them a Military Republic due to the overwhelming influence of the Barcid family (and thus, military generals) over Carthago's affairs of state.

Still, I'd have preferred them to be a Merchant Republic, because IMO that's simply where Carthago's ambitions were.