Im not sure what your point even is, are you just concerned Rome wont be the only focus of this game and will have to share?
The Case for, Eventually, China
- Thread starter icedt729
- Start date
-
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.
We actually have no idea about this, as no one outside of Paradox (and maybe some beta testers) has played the game, and no one has tried expanding this map with this instance of the engine yet. We know CK2 slowed down when they added India, and we also know CK2 performance is much better now than it was immediately after adding India. Everything else is supposition.
China in 303 BC was split up into many factions fighting each other. There was no Chinese Empire in this point, so there would be no huge empire which would imbalance multiplayer.
My point was that making the argument that what should be included in the game should be based on what's relevant to Rome is not a good argument for not including China. There are already big chunks of the map that had less relevance to Rome than China would. Cutting areas like Arabia, India, Scandinavia, North Eastern Europe, and the steppes would all improve the game's performance with minimal effect on Rome if this was your chief concern. Since India is only really relevant with Maurya, they could easily be represented as an off map power like China is in CK2. An emergent China power could also be included as an off map power if you went that route with India. Again, basically nothing would be lost while playing as Rome.What are you talking about? The Cimbri and Teutones invaded Italy in 101 BC. Trade between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean is more common in this time period and easily accessible than trade between Rome and China. The Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa and traded with Britain. The Celts traded amber, lumber, tin, from the Germany, Baltics, Brittain and Scandinavia to buyers in the Mediterranean. All of this was happening BEFORE Augustus Caesar conquered Gaul. The first alleged instance of direct contact between China and Rome would have occurred during the reign of augustus, when the "Seres" sent envoys, though that may not even be true, because the Chinese records insist that Gan Ying was the first envoy to even reach mesopotamia in 97 a.d. You really are underestimating the accomplishments of Celtic civilization and Phoenician civilization if you think that China had more interactions with Italy than Northern Europe did. Europe is a much smaller place than you think. It takes less time to go from Rome to northern Germany than from Rome to Cteisiphon
Arguably the waring states of China should be included before you add any of the other areas back in if historical relevance directly to Rome is your main concern for what to include on the map. This has nothing to do with what has relevance to Gauls, Celts, Pertians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, etc. Just Rome, the namesake of the game.
Gotta say, it's a little disappointing that we keep having to rehash the same arguments over and over because new people come in and post without reading even the first page of replies.
and your point is just plain wrong. Scandinavia is more relevant to the Rome than China is. The Cimbri and Teutones migrated from modern day Denmark and fought the roman empire around 100 b.c. Augustus Caesar when conquering Gaul also landed armies in brittain. Rome fought against Mithridates IV, whose empire at its largest extent not only controlled most of Anatolia but large swathes of the coast of the Pontic steppes. IF you actually take a look at the map of imperator, you will realize how very little of northern europe, the baltics, and the steppes are actually included. The areas included are only those that have any relevance to Rome.
I have prepared this map, which roughly documents the full extent of any playable area with Imperator. Notice how barely any of the Baltics, Steppes, or Scandinavia are included? It because those parts not included have zero relevance to rome. Jutland, Crimea, Britain, actually have relevance to Rome within this time period. Your argument is simply not based off reality.
To use a similar arguments of yours, couldn't we just make the tribes spawn off-screen? As it is the regions is gamey, unhistorical and unnecessary to represent most of this period, so why not just make some invading tribes spawn around the turn of the 2nd century BCE? I mean you are willing to say that the silk road can be represented without having China, then this single event and the amble road can be represented without having the region actually playble.and your point is just plain wrong. Scandinavia is more relevant to the Rome than China is. The Cimbri and Teutones migrated from modern day Denmark and fought the roman empire around 100 b.c. Augustus Caesar when conquering Gaul also landed armies in brittain. Rome fought against Mithridates IV, whose empire at its largest extent not only controlled most of Anatolia but large swathes of the coast of the Pontic steppes. IF you actually take a look at the map of imperator, you will realize how very little of northern europe, the baltics, and the steppes are actually included. The areas included are only those that have any relevance to Rome.
I have prepared this map, which roughly documents the full extent of any playable area with Imperator. Notice how barely any of the Baltics, Steppes, or Scandinavia are included? It because those parts not included have zero relevance to rome. Jutland, Crimea, Britain, actually have relevance to Rome within this time period. Your argument is simply not based off reality.
It's the exact same thing, you have the Chinese conquest of the Tarim Basin and invasion of Bactria and their fight against the Xiongnu in Central on one side and the Cimbri invasion on the other. You also have the amber road on one side and the silk road on the other.
If you applied the arguments consistently, you would reach the conclusion that you can cut off Scandinavia, Germania and most of Britain without relevant changes in the Mediterranean.
Mechanically, these migrations are also included with random barbarians showing up off of wasteland and off-map areas. Even if am wrong about Scandinavia and North East Europe, does it matter for the overall point? Does that completely invalidate the point that India is less relevant to Rome than China is? What about Arabia and the Horn of Africa? You're zeroing in on specific parts of my comment and saying that it invalidates the whole discussion of everything I'm bringing up as a result. We simply cannot have a meaningful discussion if you do this. I maintain that large parts of the map already included in the game have less historical relevance to Rome than China does, therefore we should not limit ourselves to what parts of the map should be expanded on solely based on their historical significance to Rome.and your point is just plain wrong. Scandinavia is more relevant to the Rome than China is. The Cimbri and Teutones migrated from modern day Denmark and fought the roman empire around 100 b.c. Augustus Caesar when conquering Gaul also landed armies in brittain. Rome fought against Mithridates IV, whose empire at its largest extent not only controlled most of Anatolia but large swathes of the coast of the Pontic steppes. IF you actually take a look at the map of imperator, you will realize how very little of northern europe, the baltics, and the steppes are actually included. The areas included are only those that have any relevance to Rome.
I have prepared this map, which roughly documents the full extent of any playable area with Imperator. Notice how barely any of the Baltics, Steppes, or Scandinavia are included? It because those parts not included have zero relevance to rome. Jutland, Crimea, Britain, actually have relevance to Rome within this time period. Your argument is simply not based off reality.
and your point is just plain wrong. Scandinavia is more relevant to the Rome than China is. The Cimbri and Teutones migrated from modern day Denmark and fought the roman empire around 100 b.c. Augustus Caesar when conquering Gaul also landed armies in brittain. Rome fought against Mithridates IV, whose empire at its largest extent not only controlled most of Anatolia but large swathes of the coast of the Pontic steppes. IF you actually take a look at the map of imperator, you will realize how very little of northern europe, the baltics, and the steppes are actually included. The areas included are only those that have any relevance to Rome.
I have prepared this map, which roughly documents the full extent of any playable area with Imperator. Notice how barely any of the Baltics, Steppes, or Scandinavia are included? It because those parts not included have zero relevance to rome. Jutland, Crimea, Britain, actually have relevance to Rome within this time period. Your argument is simply not based off reality.
What did southern India or India at all do to rome?
You can't cut off Arabia or the horn of Africa without cutting off Egyptian sea access to the Indian Ocean, a thing which predates the start date by thousands of years.
The reason India is in I believe to be the Macedonian empire of Alexander/the selucids. While it hardly encompassed all of india, I imagine it wasn't too much work to add the rest of india, and a partial map of India would look weird Imo.
Seleucus Nicator, one of the Diadochi, fought a war against the Mauryan empire over control of the Indus valley. The peace terms of that war not only gave control of the Indus valley to the mauryan empire, but it concluded with a marriage alliance between Seleucus and Chandragupta Maurya. As a gift, Chandragupta gave Seleucus 500 War Elephants. Elephants are very good against cavalry because most horses are terrified of elephants. Seleucus used these War Elephants to supplement his army and it helped him establish his kingdom against the other diadochi. Rome obviously fought the Seleucid empire.
Last edited:
You could do that, but that would prevent a player from playing the Cimbri or Teutones in the war against Rome. The devs have said that they do not want to make more than one start date. It's far easier to allow players to play as Cimbri or Teutones to plausibly recreate the war.
The only part of the map where China ever brought troops during the game's time period was the Tarim basin, which I assumed was included to allow easier access to Tibet and to prevent India from being too defensible. Honestly I would like it if there a few hardwired events that would happen like china establishing the western protectorate or the Celts settling Galatia. I simply don't wish for china proper to be included, because that would draw the focus majorly away from rome, though my biggest concern is how that would ruin multiplayer. At the very least I hope that china is added late in the development cycle after we've had several dlcs fleshing out the mediterranean and the diadochi.
That's still an argument that works for the other, you could say the exact same thing about China and the Xiongnu.
In any case you have people's whose simulation is not too far off from the Cimbri, like the Sakasm thatwere pushed by the Yuezhi which were themselves kicked out of Gansu by the Xiongnu, the Yuezhi themselves would move south of the Oxus river later on.
Untrue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Heavenly_Horses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhizhi
No reason to believe that, if China is going to be unbalanced, so will India or Rome. Plus people wouldn't play such disconnected regions anyway.
If the expansion of the map requires some complex process, it's better to start earlier than later, plus if you had China(and surrounding regions) you basically have all attested states in the old world within the time frame, there is really no remotely as strong argument to add any other region, be it West Africa, Indonesia or Siberia and North-Eastern Europe.
Ok, so china tried and eventually succeeded to send some envoys to rome and some romans made it to china maybe. Sounds like an equal stretch.
Or you can just realise that your story doesn't exactly justify the including of ceylon or india beyond an event giving the seleucids some elephants. Does being on the same continent as a vague second hand non-gameplay related relations really justify the current map and not a map with china?
Thank you for correcting me. So the Chinese fought in the Fergana valley adjacent to the Tarim basin, good to know. If there is a reason why the Cimbri would be treated differently from the Sakas, it would be because in a Rome-Centric game, the Cimbri actually fought Rome. Though I really would like to see some fixed events that cause migrations from off the map. Having the Sakas and Yuezhi flee into central asia and having china conquer the tarim basin would really give the game a sense of the passing of time.
There was a weird period of time in ck2 after they released horse lords, where the mongols would never really make an empire, and having some fixed events can really ground a game's simulation. That's why adding the relatively fixed events of Seljuk and Tamerlane to ck2 really helped the game be more interesting rather than having the Abbasid empire last 600 years.
No, it doesn't justify adding Ceylon and Southern India, but you'd have to show me a map projection where you can have the roman empire, Persia, and the entirety of the Indus valley without including the rest of India. Not that it can't be done, but I'm betting it would look pretty awful.
Honestly I would be fine with not including most of India. I don't really care for it anyway.
Some of us think it's just as disgusting to cut the map off at india.
Think about it. You're making our arguments now.
So, just because I've seen it multiple times in this thread:
There is no need for map projections in imperator since the map is actually using a (semi)spherical surface, so there is no need for a projection unlike previous games.