I wonder whether there's a nation-forming event to convert an Iranoid faction to Persia if it does well enough. Because that would be cool. Parthians are great, but Persia is Persia.
-
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.
Secret Master said:I can't really speak to issues of blobbing for obvious reasons. However, for those who have decent math skills, and who are worried about blobbing, take a look at my screenshots from the end of the second war. Examine my manpower tool tip. I think you'll find that Parthia would be wise to stay at peace for the near future if the AAR were to be longer.
That`s what I meant
. I.e. I agree that AI usually is an easy prey for player, but his agressive and rapid expantion should not be encouraged and rewarded by the game, but it rather must be a gambling, on the risk of losing the empire.This also could be done by offering player a lot of things to care about apart from devouring the neighbours, and total conquest should not be a prime victory condition de facto (but rather stay an option for those who prefer it - EU# vanilla offers almost no choice).
But I`m wating for mid-April to test things myself
.
And that's why Rome looks very promisingSecret Master said:I can't really speak to issues of blobbing for obvious reasons. However, for those who have decent math skills, and who are worried about blobbing, take a look at my screenshots from the end of the second war. Examine my manpower tool tip. I think you'll find that Parthia would be wise to stay at peace for the near future if the AAR were to be longer.
Basicly Rome timeperiod is very good for blobbing, and manpower issues ensure it's not done too fast.
A very nice AAR. As others have already pointed out it was a good read. Very informative and focused.
Earl Uhtred said:
Yeah, but Parthia did controll all Iran and still called itself Parthia (parthians and persians two different iranic tribes). But a Persian revolter would of course be cool.
What level difficulty was this on? I must admit that I am disturbed by the ease in which you knocked over the Seleucid Empire AND Ptolemaic Egypt. I am still not clear on how the years work, but from what I understand, this all happened around 100 BC. By then both Hellenistic states were in deep decline, and the Romans were only 50 years from taking Antioch and ending the pitiful remants of the Seleucid Empire.
I just don't want this game to be too easy...I've really been waiting 4 years for it, ever since I played Rome total war and thought "I wish this was more like Hearts of Iron".
I just don't want this game to be too easy...I've really been waiting 4 years for it, ever since I played Rome total war and thought "I wish this was more like Hearts of Iron".
darviathar said:
If you reread my first post, you'll see that I played the game on normal. I also specifically chose a start date where the Seleucids would be really weak (remember, they started the scenario in the middle of a civil war). My second war was timed specifically so that Egypt and the Seleucids had been at war for several years while I had been at peace and building my strength.
So, I wouldn't worry so much about the ease with which I accomplished my objectives. After all, despite stacking the deck in my favor, I still ran out of manpower...
Secret Master said:If you reread my first post, you'll see that I played the game on normal. I also specifically chose a start date where the Seleucids would be really weak (remember, they started the scenario in the middle of a civil war). My second war was timed specifically so that Egypt and the Seleucids had been at war for several years while I had been at peace and building my strength.
So, I wouldn't worry so much about the ease with which I accomplished my objectives. After all, despite stacking the deck in my favor, I still ran out of manpower...
I am sorry, I was just so giddy to see a Parthian AAR that I skimmed through the point at which you stated it was on "normal" level. And yes, you did pick a time in which the Hellenstic successor states were near-finished. How much more difficult do you think it would be to try to raise Parthia from the "ground up"?
Also....Are the Bactrians in this game? From what I can see of the map, it doesn't extend far enough eastward to include much of their territory.
Cortes_R said:It took romans 7 centuries to create their empire (aka blob), but here we see that this can be done in few decades. As it looks now, a skilled player will create the empire very quickly, and his main concern for the rest of the game would be keeping all that together...
But we`ll be able to judge by our own experience soon.
And - very nice AAR imo
Well, the Roman Empire was more or less formed between 300 and 27BC, so not exactly 7 centuries. Apart from that, the problem here is that of perspective. The player plays "the state," whereas real-life politicians play themselves. When we play a country, it's as if some kind of a divine spirit, or Zeus, or whatever guiding it to final and absolute military victory, no matter what the cost. The calculations are different when your have to put your own life and property on the line - for us, if you lose the war, the ruler becomes unpopular and is assassinated, but we get to play on. The poor guy whom our divine counsel led to defeat and humiliation doesn't get to play on.
Also it seems like it will take much more time to develop a minor power and keep it stable.
Great AAR!!!. Many thanks for taking the time to write it it is appreciated but those of us waiting on the full release.
Cheers, Ice
Cheers, Ice
Alexander Seil said:
I agree, I implied 7 centuries ab urbe condita, i.e. including peninsula unification under roman rule
I'm just downlioading the demo. And hope to see that this is really a game worth the purchase!!
A very fine and interesting AAR to read.
I must say I am impressed by what can be achieved by a cavalry army; this sure brings up several interesting possibilities in the game. It was also cool to see that the royal army kept its loyalty to the royal family although the king had died, that also brings up some cool opportunities in the game I think.
Nice work
I must say I am impressed by what can be achieved by a cavalry army; this sure brings up several interesting possibilities in the game. It was also cool to see that the royal army kept its loyalty to the royal family although the king had died, that also brings up some cool opportunities in the game I think.
Nice work
Thanks for the AAR SM. Reading it caused me, for the first time, to get more than a little interested in Rome.
Joe
Joe
I see the point. Additional question: did you run out of manpower more becouse of battles or attrition? Can you try to estimate?Secret Master said:If you reread my first post, you'll see that I played the game on normal. I also specifically chose a start date where the Seleucids would be really weak (remember, they started the scenario in the middle of a civil war). My second war was timed specifically so that Egypt and the Seleucids had been at war for several years while I had been at peace and building my strength.
So, I wouldn't worry so much about the ease with which I accomplished my objectives. After all, despite stacking the deck in my favor, I still ran out of manpower...
I'm curious because in demo, I found difficult to run out of manpower, probably because I seized their most important african provinces first and Carthage went into debt very fast. Carthage ended up mostly with small ping pong armies avoiding battles, I had some medium ones that were besieging cities. Carthage gave up having over 90k of manpower, yet almost no provinces :/