The Diadochi are much more fun than Rome and Carthage

[Olix]

I've now played through four games with the 2.0 patch:

• Egypt
• Macedonia
• Carthage
• Rome

And I was struck by how much more interesting the game is as the Diadochi. I really like the initial scramble for territory with the 'Legacy of Alexander' CB, and the mission trees are all really interesting and with lots of flavour.

By comparison, my games as Carthage and Rome were really dull. You end up fighting endless tedious wars against crappy barbarians to grab a handful of pops. Rome in particular was very dull - I think *every* mission is "conquer these provinces, get a colonia". It's very easy and there isn't even very much flavour text to make up for it.

As a major power, its very easy to go on a massive conquering spree through the smaller powers - the AI isn't able to put together a big coalition to oppose you, and after the war is won, internal management is very easy. Rome and Carthage are strongly encouraged to go on this conquering spree. The Diadochi aren't quite so able to as there are many more guarantees and alliances in their area, plus their competitors are more aggressive. Rome and Carthage, by comparison, hardly need fight at all without the mission trees forcing it.

I hope the developers take another look at the experience of playing as Rome and Carthage in a later patch. I think they *either* need more interesting gameplay (big tribal coalitions, A more aggressive 'competitor' western Mediterranean major to fight against, or much harder internal management) or more interesting missions and flavour text. Rome in particular, as the headline nation in the game, should be more fun to play!

 

[schnupfi]

Whereas some people will now say rome should be boring because history...

Most people want to play rome and it is just boring to play them. This is a real issue in my opinion.

It is called Imperator Rome, but don't play rome because no mechanic really matters except aggressive expansion....

 

[Lord Lambert]

With regard to missions, I think it's particularly telling that the Roman mission trees were the very first ones done with this new mission tree format, and it shows as the ones that have been added later have been generally more interesting. I think the devs are becoming more familiar and more experimental with the mission tree format and it's resulting in more interesting missions.

Hopefully Rome sees another pass later on down the line

 

[Stug_Life]

Hopefully, their missions will become reworked, but also the addition to flavor for 'barbarian' will add more intrigue to the region as well.

 

[Synen]

The only Diadochi missions I have done are the ones for Thrace and I love them. I mainly ignore missions because they're simply not relevent to me at the time that I can choose them. Most of the times the missions are either for regions that I have no interest of expanding into, for regions that I don't want to expand into yet and/or I can't choose the mission that I want to do. They don't seem very useful nor helpful to me most of the time either.

The Diadochi missions that I have done for Thrace on the other hand were useful and helpful. Thrace starts out weak and 2 out of the 3 Diadochi missions that Thrace gets actually makes Thrace stronger with the last mission pushing you towards wars against the other Diadochi. One other thing that I like about them is that they add flavor to the Diadochi countries which I find lacking with the Roman, Carthaginian and generic ones.

 

[cristofolmc]

So true.

Rome is unplayable. Its impossible not to quit after winning the first punic war. There is just no challenge other than try to get the empire as big as possible by the end date.

 

[Voy]

So true.

Rome is unplayable. Its impossible not to quit after winning the first punic war. There is just no challenge other than try to get the empire as big as possible by the end date.

A wee bit hyperbolic, don't you think? Try some achievements. Go for a historical timeline, it's rather tight with time to follow it. Say bye to Carthage and go north, or go to India. Be creative.

 

[Ben1612]

The problem with Rome is that it is far too easy, there is zero challenge so it's boring. But Rome is intentionally overpowered, because it's Imperator ROME, and they want everyone to be able to win as Rome. To this end Italy is massively overpopulated, particularly around Rome. Also, Roman mission trees, while dull, are very strong (particularly compared to the generic trees that everyone else got initially).

Rome really needs to be toned back, to a more realistic level to add some challenge. Carthage is just boring because it hasn't had much attention. It is just a foil for Rome to look good against.

But, if you think Rome and Carthage campaigns are dull, try playing a couple of barbarian campaigns...

 

[Battlex]

So true.

Rome is unplayable. Its impossible not to quit after winning the first punic war. There is just no challenge other than try to get the empire as big as possible by the end date.

Tribes do become easier to conquer when they're larger rather than several OPMs, but navally invading Greece and Egypt with levies is a challenge surely

 

[giant_sloth]

Pick Seleucids and then pick a fight with Mauryans. The dullness will go away.

 

[Decius]

As many already said, improvements for the mission trees of Rome and Carthage would be great! They are really boring and one sided in comparison to the other ones. They were the first missions and the devs learned a lot since then, but they need to add the gained experience into the first mission trees.

I would also like to see smaller improvements for the Epirus missions. I don't know how this would fit with the mission tree designs for Epirus, but the italian mission tree should be available from start, so that you can go faster against Rome, if you want to. That way Magna Graecia shouldn't be occupied already by Rome and you can experience the mission tree as it is meant to without nerfing Rome into the ground. Currently there is no one left beside Rome, when you can pick this tree.
There are also a lot of rewards for optional missions, which are never worth their effort. Either lower the conditions or raise the rewards - otherwise I don't see any reason to do them.

But I really enjoy the Diadochi mission trees! They are the best so far!

 

[Decius]

Pick Seleucids and then pick a fight with Mauryans. The dullness will go away.

Started a Maurya campaign - it's insane how many levies they can raise already at the start of the campaign!! No one can compete with them from the beginning on. I really hope the devs adress Maurya someday and make them more challenging, because right now you just steamroll everything! Ideally this would happen with an update alongside a faction DLC, which adds flavour and mission trees to Maurya and some factions in india too.

 

[Geodynamis]

The Roman missions would benefit greatly from some polish/revamps:

-The coloneia modifier's specialization you choose at the end of Roman Italia gets reset if the territory is lost and regained. It also doesn't get used in any later mission trees, nor is there any waay for it to be applied to subjects later integrated.
-No particular emphasis on Romanizing their conquests, just conquer this, now conquer that
-Too many missions get gated out if certain nations become Rome's subjects (e.g. Lucania), or no longer exist (Numidian berbers)

The generic infrastructure mission could probably use more polish as well (just look at how many get tripped up by the Trade task)

 

[LunarBahamut]

The problem with Rome is that it is far too easy, there is zero challenge so it's boring. But Rome is intentionally overpowered, because it's Imperator ROME, and they want everyone to be able to win as Rome. To this end Italy is massively overpopulated, particularly around Rome. Also, Roman mission trees, while dull, are very strong (particularly compared to the generic trees that everyone else got initially).

Rome really needs to be toned back, to a more realistic level to add some challenge. Carthage is just boring because it hasn't had much attention. It is just a foil for Rome to look good against.

But, if you think Rome and Carthage campaigns are dull, try playing a couple of barbarian campaigns...

Exactly, and these are not just Rome problems, they are game problems.

Rome was made forcibly op so they rise to their historic power more often, but the boringness of playing after you get powerful enough is a problem every nation has, especially outside of the area that spans Alexander's former empire and the big surrounding nations (Maurya, Bactria, Kush, Atropatene), that part of the world is fun to play because there are always big neighbours to manoeuvre around, even when you are strong yourself.

By contrast, the west of the map just doesn't have those threats if you want to play a titular nation like Rome or Carthage, and if you want to play a barbarian nation and rise against them as your challenge, you don't have any flavour, it's just uniting Gaul or Iberia, and while admittedly the warfare itself can be quite fun, and the first time you grow a random barbarian nation to a great power it feels good, it gets boring quickly because the play pattern is always the same.

 

[Battlex]

The Roman missions would benefit greatly from some polish/revamps:

-The coloneia modifier's specialization you choose at the end of Roman Italia gets reset if the territory is lost and regained. It also doesn't get used in any later mission trees, nor is there any waay for it to be applied to subjects later integrated.
-No particular emphasis on Romanizing their conquests, just conquer this, now conquer that
-Too many missions get gated out if certain nations become Rome's subjects (e.g. Lucania), or no longer exist (Numidian berbers)

The generic infrastructure mission could probably use more polish as well (just look at how many get tripped up by the Trade task)

Yeah a warning that making them a subject will bypass without rewards would really help. As well as saying which possible coloniea there are. I beat the Lucanians but didn't have Heraclea yet so savescummed on the mission.
Also there don't seem to be claims that follow on for some, so you still need to fabricate which is kinda against the point of mission trees

 

[kpaw]

I definitely think internal challenges is the way to go. It's fine that Rome is strong (although it could be toned down a little). Having a large nation that is well placed to reflect its historical might and success is fine in principle.

There's a lot of scope for internal politics to play a bigger role. I'm no expert on the history, but there's so much there for Rome in particular. The Triumvirate, Caesar's civil war, another Triumvirate, more internal strife.

I think the ideas seen in the Rome Total War games where you grew but this created an inevitable civil war for the later game could be a useful starting idea to explore. I know people don't want to feel railroaded, but there does need to be something going on internally that poses a genuine threat to your stability.

It will be a difficult balance between challenge and just feeling like an arbitrary kick in the teeth for building a large empire. And then of course the AI will no doubt struggle massively and collapse every game...

But that's definitely the direction to take, in my opinion.

 

[Arthrodira]

A wee bit hyperbolic, don't you think? Try some achievements. Go for a historical timeline, it's rather tight with time to follow it. Say bye to Carthage and go north, or go to India. Be creative.

This. Everyone complaining that Rome is OP - have any of you actually recreated the historic conquests on the historic timeline? It's extremely difficult, nearly impossible - I almost guarantee most people complaining haven't done it. Has the AI ever done it? Nope.

So which is the bigger problem, the country that conquered the entire Mediterranean IRL has an easy time conquering the Mediterranean, or that Rome only unites Italy 50% of the time (the case in past patches) or only really expands out of Italy to Gaul, Dacia, and Illyria (still kind of the case now).

Yeah, you played the easiest country in the game and then complained it's easy. The problem isn't Rome, it's what you want out of it.

The problem with Rome is that it is far too easy, there is zero challenge so it's boring. But Rome is intentionally overpowered, because it's Imperator ROME, and they want everyone to be able to win as Rome. To this end Italy is massively overpopulated, particularly around Rome.

This is completely wrong. The population is high because historically it was high - Rome was famous for it's absurd population, allowing it to swallow losses that were catastrophic for Carthage, Macedon, the Seleukids, and Mithridates. Rome is overpowered because of its population and neighbors - these cannot and will not ever change. Add to that some small military buffs, a good levy composition, and conquest-focused missions. That's it. Rome is not OP, it's arguably still not aggressive enough. Have you ever seen Rome annex Carthage - the whole thing from Tunisia to Spain, not just the city itself and surrounding countryside?

If it's buffed, it's not so the player will have an easy time. It's so the AI will have an easy time and so somewhat predictably become the threat they should become.

I've now played through four games with the 2.0 patch:

• Egypt
• Macedonia
• Carthage
• Rome

And I was struck by how much more interesting the game is as the Diadochi. I really like the initial scramble for territory with the 'Legacy of Alexander' CB, and the mission trees are all really interesting and with lots of flavour.

By comparison, my games as Carthage and Rome were really dull. You end up fighting endless tedious wars against crappy barbarians to grab a handful of pops. Rome in particular was very dull - I think *every* mission is "conquer these provinces, get a colonia". It's very easy and there isn't even very much flavour text to make up for it.

As a major power, its very easy to go on a massive conquering spree through the smaller powers - the AI isn't able to put together a big coalition to oppose you, and after the war is won, internal management is very easy. Rome and Carthage are strongly encouraged to go on this conquering spree. The Diadochi aren't quite so able to as there are many more guarantees and alliances in their area, plus their competitors are more aggressive. Rome and Carthage, by comparison, hardly need fight at all without the mission trees forcing it.

I hope the developers take another look at the experience of playing as Rome and Carthage in a later patch. I think they *either* need more interesting gameplay (big tribal coalitions, A more aggressive 'competitor' western Mediterranean major to fight against, or much harder internal management) or more interesting missions and flavour text. Rome in particular, as the headline nation in the game, should be more fun to play!

The successors are a lot of fun because of their particular historical position and the fact that they just got a DLC. There are plenty of regions that actually need work, most of all India. Rome is nowhere near the pariah it's being made out to be.

Now there is certainly a case to be made here for better coalitions. For tribal unions to form in response to Rome (through a Vercingetorix like figure), creating a strong state to resist expansion. However, you cannot just invent a major power in Iberia because you think it would be fun though. The countries that existed are the ones that can. Their strength is based on what it reasonably was. All PDX games follow this philosophy, creating natural inequality.

 

[Arthrodira]

I definitely think internal challenges is the way to go. It's fine that Rome is strong (although it could be toned down a little). Having a large nation that is well placed to reflect its historical might and success is fine in principle.

There's a lot of scope for internal politics to play a bigger role. I'm no expert on the history, but there's so much there for Rome in particular. The Triumvirate, Caesar's civil war, another Triumvirate, more internal strife.

I think the ideas seen in the Rome Total War games where you grew but this created an inevitable civil war for the later game could be a useful starting idea to explore. I know people don't want to feel railroaded, but there does need to be something going on internally that poses a genuine threat to your stability.

It will be a difficult balance between challenge and just feeling like an arbitrary kick in the teeth for building a large empire. And then of course the AI will no doubt struggle massively and collapse every game...

But that's definitely the direction to take, in my opinion.

This is basically all after the end of the game. The politics you're looking for are the Conflict of the Orders, the Social War, and the brothers Gracchi - it's all about citizenship rights and land reform. You can touch on the civil war between Sulla and Marius, not Caesar and Pompey or Octavian and Antony.

 

[religiousphanatic]

i mean in real life epirus was on par with rome for few years, here how long they can last, im talking bout AI . i have seen numerous times epirus being eaten by korkyra

 

[kpaw]

This is basically all after the end of the game. The politics you're looking for are the Conflict of the Orders, the Social War, and the brothers Gracchi - it's all about citizenship rights and land reform. You can touch on the civil war between Sulla and Marius, not Caesar and Pompey or Octavian and Antony.

I think they're within the time frame? Although admittedly towards the end. But yes, fair point that there are other figures and events that are central to the period depicted in game.

I don't mean to suggest that specific events or historical figures should be recreated directly. Just that there's plenty of historical material that can guide the development of internal management mechanics.