The Diadochi are much more fun than Rome and Carthage

[olivenkranz]

Maybe rework the law system? The plebis fought for their rights, and you should be able to enact certain laws, without having to chose between two or more. They shouldn't all provide flat bonuses though, more like locking/unlocking certain positions. F.ex the lex Ogulnia was introduced in 300 BC (or 246 AUC) and allowed a Plebs to become Pontifex Maximus. But in the game, rn, if you want to enforce another law from its "group", the lex Ogulnia isnt active anymore. Does that mean, no more Plebis for Pontifex?
It should be more dynamic in who can get what office, and less bonuses, but not mutually exclusive laws.
Also a rework of families/commoners in general would be nice.

 

[Daft]

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. One of the myriad of issues faced by the Empire was this. Internal politics, rivalries, a fucking Praetorian "Guard" that couldn't fucking stop killing Emperors.

There was a lot of challenges from withing, andfrom outside the Empire and late Republic that could be used to increase the challenge.

And give me a representation of the Preatorians so I can kill them all, their heirs, and everyone that even utters their name.

 

[Will Steel]

Rome will never be as interesting until civil wars are fixed and republics are reworked (and stop being generic monarchy-lite).

 

[Backstab]

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.

It's because there just aren't coalitions like in EU4 and the tribes themselves are laughably weak compared to civilized nations due to technology.

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

And give me a representation of the Preatorians so I can kill them all, their heirs, and everyone that even utters their name.

Be at peace: in the game's time frame, the praetorian guards weren't much of a factor, politically speaking.

 

[Daft]

Be at peace: in the game's time frame, the praetorian guards weren't much of a factor, politically speaking.

Then we need an event chain that prevents their very existence!

 

[Ben1612]

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.


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.


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.

I'm sorry, but in this case you are mistaken. You are drawing on different time periods of Rome's history and conflating them together. Yes Rome's population was high in comparison to it's immediate neigbours, but not as high as it is in game, not by a long way. Rome was not able to draw upon a huge population until later in it's expansion when it had more territory. Rome initially had to play off it's vassals and use them to tip the balance in wars, because it did not have unlimited manpower. Talking about the Punic wars and later is completely irrelevant, we are talking about Rome's start, not a generation or ten down the line.

As regards the AI, you are building straw men here. Rome is overpowered, this is a simple fact, and it is for the player, because Rome is the most played nation and was always intended to be the most played nation. That the AI doesn't live up to it's potential is down to the AI, which is predictable because making good AI is hard. Also, I assume you are aware that the Rome achievements in game are not based on historical accuracy for the time period, for the player to get those achievements they have to outpace Rome's expansion by a significant degree.

Also, Rome's success was not a foregone conclusion, so Rome shouldn't always conquer everything. Hannibal showed that he was capable of repeatedly beating Rome's numerically superior forces, it was his lack of strategic skill that meant he was unable to use those victories. Had he either been more skilled, or listened to his advisors, the third Punic War could possibly have ended very differently. And that is just one example of how Rome's rise could have been derailed.

People often look back in hindsight and think the outcome that occurred was always inevitable, but it really isn't. Rome's rise wasn't predestined and small changes in events could very well have led to another power rising instead. This possibility of an alternate history is the main point of this game, so saying Rome has to become a dominant power is just silly.

 

[goodcigar]

One thing I will say is that the Gauls (Senones) invaded and sacked Rome in 387 BC. Then in 280 BC Pyrrhus invaded to help Tarentum and dealt some significant blows to Roman armies. He was a highly skilled General with an impressive varied collection of troops. Professional Greek mercenary armies whereas Rome had a citizen levy.

Then the Punic Wars happened. Carthage was the other superpower of the time. They were a real threat to Roman hegemony. Hannibal an extremely skilled General took his army (with elephants) over the Alps and completely annihilated multiple Roman armies. Rome suffered huge losses. Hannibal literally roamed inside Italy for like a decade. The Romans thought their city would be taken but Hannibal never had the manpower or resources to take Rome itself. Though some argue he could have at one point if he had tried. But ultimately he went with a different strategy which didn't work out in the end.

Later in 113 BC the Cimbri, Teutones, and Ambrones who were migrating invaded Rome and routed a Roman army and posed a real threat to Rome. Their army was huge. Rome suffered huge losses. Discord between Roman field commanders led to disaster. This is something which happened a bunch of times in Roman Republic history actually.

Then the Social War happened between Rome and its former allies in Italy. Tearing Italy apart. A war basically about Roman allies in Italy wanting the same rights as Romans. Many Romans died. There were three legal classes in Roman Italy. Roman citizens, Socii, and Latini. Only Roman citizens had full rights. Until after this war.

Then the Third Servile War happened which posed a real threat to Rome. An army led by elite Gladiator commanders and forces. A fair amount of Romans died. The Third Servile War played a big role in the eventual dissolution of the Roman Republic.

So 3 things:

I think certain characters need to be spawned with very high stats and directed towards their historical purpose and historical invasions spawned.

The game's current mechanics do not really properly reflect history and the dynamics that were at work. This is a big one. The game still has fundamental issues even after all the changes that have been made since launch. At launch it was kind of just a copy-paste with a Roman skin with mana systems in everything. A lot of things have been changed (though not for the better in every single case) and improved but it's still a very flawed game.

Also I think the Roman population may be too high in the game currently. Though it's hard for me to tell because the game uses Pops and not real population numbers.

 

[stratigo]

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.


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.


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.

I guarentee no player has actually conquerred rome's real borders, because rome would be, in large part, clients and feudatories at the point the game ends.

 

[Chehabian]

I think the main problem is that the events for Rome after Carthage don't have any sense of imminent danger. It becomes a situation of, "Well we're heading to Greece because we can" rather than any perceived threat. It'd at least make more sense if there were some events during the Punic Wars that occurred which recreated Rome's initial frustrations with the Macedonians.

 

[andersonm]

One thing that would help to make Rome more interesting would be Vercingetorix style tribal chieftains that can call on super regional massive temporary confederations to try and stop Roman (or other Major Power) expansion into tribal lands.

These would not be normal defensive pacts or alliances but would instead trigger an event chain where tribes in surrounding regions could start joining a defensive war that is ongoing. If done well, this would make things far more fluid and interesting.

This would make fighting tribals far more unpredictable and would also allow for Caesar like expansion in a single but difficult war.

 

[Battlex]

I think the main problem is that the events for Rome after Carthage don't have any sense of imminent danger. It becomes a situation of, "Well we're heading to Greece because we can" rather than any perceived threat. It'd at least make more sense if there were some events during the Punic Wars that occurred which recreated Rome's initial frustrations with the Macedonians.

You get claims on epirus for conquering somewhere in Apulia, rather than an event chain from pirates in Illyria raiding your east coast, or from claims in southern cities in magna graecia making you fight epirus for hegemony.

You get claims in Macedonia for conquering epirus, rather than Macedonia allying with Carthage to abate your interests and so wanting to punish them for interference. Although in the Greek mission tree you do release some client states iirc, representing Macedon being turned into 4 client republics after the macedonian wars

You then get claims on Greece for conquering Macedonia rather than the aetolian league declaring war on you to preserve their independence after the macedonian wars

However these 3 events come from the launch patch and so might be scrapped at some point later in development

 

[Bargey]

I think what we have here is a bit of a "Increasing content complexity" issue. Not that it's a bad thing that new content is more complex and better tailored than old content. In fact I absolutely love it. But it does create an issue where older content becomes very notably outdated when that newer content drops. As this post explains, the Diadochi content feels so much more detailed, engaging, and as a result more fun than Rome or Carthage, which feel notably dated and such.

It's not an issue exclusive to Imperator, of course. Hearts of Iron 4, for example. The Soviet or Italian focus trees are absolutely terrible in comparison to anything that came out after it, and especially compared to the newest content that HoI4 offers. It's a bit of a difficult issue to avoid unless Paradox brings on 1-2 more content designers to each team with the sole task of constantly rejigging and redesigning older content to meet the "new standard".

That being said, I do hope it can be addressed, because without a doubt, Rome and Carthage will always be the most played nations I assume, and so their content really ought to set a strong par for the course, rather than being known as the weaker content.

 

[Baldamundo]

Lots of good suggestions in this thread. Especially there needs a lot of work on making the internal politics deeper and potentially more threatening.

The point about barbarian invasions is important too - some of the mechanics for it are already basically there even, just not really utilised. And would cover other quite important events, like the Galatian invasion of Greece + Asia Minor.

One thing that does strike me, though, is that by the time of the Social War, relatively near to the end of the game's timeframe - not only was Rome wracked by a massive internal conflict, but as I understand it involved a rebellion by what the game would class as Feudatory vassals (comments in the code make it explicit that they're supposed to represent the Latin Allies) covering most of the Italian peninsula. I.e. all the orange area on this map:

Spoiler: I.e. the whole of the orange area on this map

Whereas as currently represented in-game:

1. Rome hardly ever vassalises most of these territories and just annexes them directly (and I think the mission tree encourages you to annex them?)
2. Even if Rome did vassalise them, by 100BC it will have integrated all of them and occupy the entire peninsula directly
3. Even if they remained independent as vassals all of this time, it currently seems to be literally impossible for vassals to revolt (the mechanics are there for an independence war, but I think the AI will literally never declare it?)

And also, as others have pointed out in detail in other threads, even accepting an interpretation where the Allies would be represented as directly controlled territories in-game, the culture integration mechanics as currently implemented don't represent the tensions or the dynamics and the seeds of the conflict right at all

 

[Slavicist]

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!

Exactly. My key issue. I am a big fan of Epirus and it seems a bit pointless that Rome is already everywhere by the time you even get to get involved in Italy.

And by that time I've found it actually more than challenging to be able to beat the Romans back, even at the beginning. Epirus just doesn't have enough manpower. And Rome has quite good generals.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Exactly. My key issue. I am a big fan of Epirus and it seems a bit pointless that Rome is already everywhere by the time you even get to get involved in Italy.

And by that time I've found it actually more than challenging to be able to beat the Romans back, even at the beginning. Epirus just doesn't have enough manpower. And Rome has quite good generals.

You can find small mercs armies with high martial generals. You should not disband them after recruiting them, saving money as their costs are similar to a legion. Merging them with your main army can make miracles.

Another option is to separate cavalry only levies and go taking all the roman provinces capitals without forts while you defend the castle. This tactic from @AggaWackTan applied with Atropatene and the Seleukid Empire has been proved successful.

 

[Battlex]

One thing that would help to make Rome more interesting would be Vercingetorix style tribal chieftains that can call on super regional massive temporary confederations to try and stop Roman (or other Major Power) expansion into tribal lands.

These would not be normal defensive pacts or alliances but would instead trigger an event chain where tribes in surrounding regions could start joining a defensive war that is ongoing. If done well, this would make things far more fluid and interesting.

This would make fighting tribals far more unpredictable and would also allow for Caesar like expansion in a single but difficult war.

Verc's dad was killed for trying to centralise the tribes so it would need to be fully fleshed out
Offensive defensive leagues would also be a nice thing for tribes

One thing I will say is that the Gauls (Senones) invaded and sacked Rome in 387 BC. Then in 280 BC Pyrrhus invaded to help Tarentum and dealt some significant blows to Roman armies. He was a highly skilled General with an impressive varied collection of troops. Professional Greek mercenary armies whereas Rome had a citizen levy.

Then the Punic Wars happened. Carthage was the other superpower of the time. They were a real threat to Roman hegemony. Hannibal an extremely skilled General took his army (with elephants) over the Alps and completely annihilated multiple Roman armies. Rome suffered huge losses. Hannibal literally roamed inside Italy for like a decade. The Romans thought their city would be taken but Hannibal never had the manpower or resources to take Rome itself. Though some argue he could have at one point if he had tried. But ultimately he went with a different strategy which didn't work out in the end.

Later in 113 BC the Cimbri, Teutones, and Ambrones who were migrating invaded Rome and routed a Roman army and posed a real threat to Rome. Their army was huge. Rome suffered huge losses. Discord between Roman field commanders led to disaster. This is something which happened a bunch of times in Roman Republic history actually.

Then the Social War happened between Rome and its former allies in Italy. Tearing Italy apart. A war basically about Roman allies in Italy wanting the same rights as Romans. Many Romans died. There were three legal classes in Roman Italy. Roman citizens, Socii, and Latini. Only Roman citizens had full rights. Until after this war.

Then the Third Servile War happened which posed a real threat to Rome. An army led by elite Gladiator commanders and forces. A fair amount of Romans died. The Third Servile War played a big role in the eventual dissolution of the Roman Republic.

So 3 things:

I think certain characters need to be spawned with very high stats and directed towards their historical purpose and historical invasions spawned.

The game's current mechanics do not really properly reflect history and the dynamics that were at work. This is a big one. The game still has fundamental issues even after all the changes that have been made since launch. At launch it was kind of just a copy-paste with a Roman skin with mana systems in everything. A lot of things have been changed (though not for the better in every single case) and improved but it's still a very flawed game.

Also I think the Roman population may be too high in the game currently. Though it's hard for me to tell because the game uses Pops and not real population numbers.

Hannibal will make naval landings and an odd route into Rome. But the cimbri wars never happen because the AI never does migration wars as it never gets particularly big, and barbarians spawning are rarely a threat. You also lack the Italian levy being under the command of both consuls, so don't have to worry with the Co consul being disloyal and screwing off before battle. Servile war we used to get slave revolts often but I rarely see them nowadays.

 

[Slavicist]

You can find small mercs armies with high martial generals. You should not disband them after recruiting them, saving money as their costs are similar to a legion. Merging them with your main army can make miracles.

Another option is to separate cavalry only levies and go taking all the roman provinces capitals without forts while you defend the castle. This tactic from @AggaWackTan applied with Atropatene and the Seleukid Empire has been proved successful.

Uhm, how can you afford mercs as Epirus?

 

[Geodynamis]

One thing that would help to make Rome more interesting would be Vercingetorix style tribal chieftains that can call on super regional massive temporary confederations to try and stop Roman (or other Major Power) expansion into tribal lands.

These would not be normal defensive pacts or alliances but would instead trigger an event chain where tribes in surrounding regions could start joining a defensive war that is ongoing. If done well, this would make things far more fluid and interesting.

This would make fighting tribals far more unpredictable and would also allow for Caesar like expansion in a single but difficult war.

I think Leagues should be reworked into something like the Federations of Stellaris. This would help not only the Gallic tribes but also the many Greek polities. This would probably require the mission trees in Magna Graecia to be adjusted, however.​

 

[IsaacCAT]

Uhm, how can you afford mercs as Epirus?

Year 0 and you can hire a nice 11 martial general for 1,84 gold a month. I am sure you can grow 2-3 provinces and get some more slaves for increased income before those pesky Romans get knocking at your door.