Also, if you have a superior navy, consider performing hit-and-runs troop landings on coastal cities. kill, enslave as much as you can. Rinse and repeat.
- 2
The Diadochi are much more fun than Rome and Carthage
- Thread starter Olix
- 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.
More light red than orange I'd say. Italian allies revolting could spawn from provinces where the non roman italic culture is dominant. Eu4 has variable triggers for revolts. Hungary can declare independence if in PU, or spawn separatists if annexedLots 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:
Whereas as currently represented in-game:
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
- Rome hardly ever vassalises most of these territories and just annexes them directly (and I think the mission tree encourages you to annex them?)
- Even if Rome did vassalise them, by 100BC it will have integrated all of them and occupy the entire peninsula directly
- 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?)
- 1
This has been commented on a TON of times since 2.0; the problem isn’t Rome, it’s Epirus. Epirus is far FAR too weak. They should start on par with rome, not by nerfing Rome but by buffing Epirus. Rome is really irrelevant to their problems. They can’t even survive let alone conquer their immediate neighbors to the north and south. They’re usually dead long before Rome shows up.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
- 3
- 2
- 1
Yes. You are correct - sorry if I came off as overly critical. The game ends in 27 BC I think; the same year Augustus ends the republic. My point was that it’s all so close to the end that it should function more as an end game crisis than a main staple of gameplay that potentially slows Rome. I think they initially intended civil wars to function as an end game conflict like this, but it never really plays out that way. Civil wars are a much bigger threat early game than end game, which just feels weird.
The main conflict you should be dealing with through most of the game (as Rome) is the conflict of the orders though - it’s a huge political fight stretching over centuries and ultimately setting the stage for the downfall of the republic (given how far conservatives would go to prevent reform - even murdering a tribune). There’s tons of content to mine for gameplay, especially if Rome had proper offices and a cursus honorum like everyone has been wanting since the present system was first announced. But more broadly it would be great to see more class conflict and civil strife. Add the caste system to India while you’re at it.
The social war would also be a good one. They created an integration system - this could be a way to solve the problem of same group minority cultures. Right now you are disincentivized to integrate minorities of your culture group. Maybe modeling the social strife caused by this in particular, given how similar you are, could act as a counterweight offering a reason to integrate your sister cultures. Maybe you could appeal to oppressed cultures when at war with another country, like Hannibal did to the Romans and the Romans did to the Macedonians and Seleukids (claiming to be defenders of the Greeks). And it could be fuel for tons of events.
Honestly I would just love to see more dynamic historical events. They really flesh out a country and make it feel different.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
I just think Rome is very overpowered and overpopulated too. I think the pops should be reduced but the Roman Heritage should have a huge levy of like 15-20%. Like Rome definitely wasn’t as big as Babylon/ Pataliputra at this time but in game it rivals them. I wouldn’t be against giving the AI an extra free fort but overall I think Rome has been deliberately overpowered as there’s few vassal designs in place to resemble how they actually dominated the peninsula, so the workaround is that they just outright conquer it. Playing against Rome I find this is fine as they’re scary like the ottomans in EU4, but playing as Rome is quite boring.
Playing as Rome should be a lot harder though, and the ticks per day increased so we don’t run out of time conquering.
As for Epirus I think they should get a big legion discount, (and Pyrrhus leading it)
Playing as Rome should be a lot harder though, and the ticks per day increased so we don’t run out of time conquering.
As for Epirus I think they should get a big legion discount, (and Pyrrhus leading it)
- 1
- 1
The units are complimentary, what is important is the high martial general to win battles.
I think historical invasion events would be really interesting and spice up the game especially late game. The first invasion could actually be the gallic invasion of Greece/Anatolia with the usual outcome of forming Galatia in central Anatolia. This event could happen about 30 years from game start and also influence the diadochi events.
Other invasions could be:
-Parthian invasion of Persia around 550 AUC
-Cimbri/Teutonic migrations around 650 AUC
-Helvetian migration around 700 AUC
Other invasions could be:
-Parthian invasion of Persia around 550 AUC
-Cimbri/Teutonic migrations around 650 AUC
-Helvetian migration around 700 AUC
- 2
- 1
Tribal confederations is something that must be implemented sooner or later
- 3
- 1
I think they already do that: now playing as Rome you don t have a game where there is no disloyal character. Having provincial levy generals go solo because of disloyalty is fairly common for a lot of players, i m not quite sure that is fun (for me at least not so much). Just bribing them / granting a holding temperarely solves it, I ve not seen a way to try to make them more loyal long term other than improving the happiness of the family he is in.
Then there is the automatic mechanism that the families will object the governors you pick that are not part of one of the major aristocratic families, if you don t you lose 50 support points of one of their political parties.
The problem is that you as a player for Rome are really not that immersersed in the game politics, since you re playing the country instead of a family or political party (like in rome total war). Why would you care which party/family is in power? You don t lose anything or gain anything, you are more spectator than being involved. In away you play more like a "god" rather than a human element that is vulnerable to human politics in the game.
I m not sure i quite like the way they did it, compomising on putting the best person for the job with accomodating the strongest political families is quite realistic. The question is if it is fun? I as a player rather put the best man on the best job and have the politics resolved in another way. I think the game needs something extra to get the player who s playing as a Roman republic more involved.
Last edited:
- 2
Totallly agree with you, this is a problem of the carrot and stick
There is too much stick for the player (loyalty, rebellions, etc..) and less carrots. We need to introduce some carrots for the player to care about the families.
For example, the families wealth could be invested as it is in settlements buildings. Many players do not know that families build buildings by their own. This should be made a mechanism that the player can incentivate to develop the provinces, even found new cities.
Please devs, give us more carrots to care for our families!!!
- 5
- 3
- 1
I like this idea. In general, it seems like the game needs more mechanics to represent the abilities of different states to levy more or less of their population. For the giant empires, this is represented through citizenship status, but for the smaller states it is missing.
Perhaps a scaling levy size based on pop happiness?
- 1
I just got the event yesterday, since now they are more useful as feudataries than integrating them (I mean, I get free lv 2 forts on useful chocke points, plus a total of 6000 troops... for free!) since I've not integrate the samnites culture.
The event fired up (I guess) since I left them feudataries while swallowing big chunks of italy as Rome.
Since I couldn't afford to bribe them the amount the event wanted (almost A THOUSAND gold!) I got -100 opinion malus from the nations and an additional malus that I don't remember.
They haven't declared war just because they were sitting at +200 opinion.
If I would have been a new player, not knowing about the importance of subjects opinions, war would have probably been declared on me for indipendence.
What year about did it fire in?
Largely agree, but the buffs you yet from certain factions being in power, you might want to prioritise people of certain factions so that their opponents receive less experience and have less funds to do deeds with
Good question, when I'm back from work I'll check. I guess it was some 90-120 years in game. But I'm not sure, I'll check this evening and report.
I think there's a few good points here which the majority seems to agree with:
Rome's starting situation is slightly stronger than what would be historically appropriate, when comparing it to other major powers, and Eprius, which should be a major threat to Rome, is too weak by quite a significant amount.
Roman expansion should rely more on allies and clients of various types and less on direct conquest - I'd argue that this is a broad game design issue applying to many states, and one which will hopefully be addressed when the mythical "subjects rework" happens if it ever does. This would potentially allow Rome to be very powerful but reliant on its subjects.
The Roman missions aren't very interesting and mostly serve to let you conquer faster due to mass claims.
After the 1st Punic war Rome has basically won the game due to lack of internal threats - all that remains is trying to grow as quickly as possible. This is another place where the game as a whole needs more work and isn't a Rome-specific issue, but as Rome grows so fast and has such a good naturally defensible position once it has unified Italy, it's particularly sensitive to such issues.
Tribel migrations are never a threat, unlike historically. Rome is one of the states most vulnerable to potentially strengthened tribal states, and so anything which is done to make tribes stronger, and particularly more aggressive, will disproportionately impact the game experience as Rome compared to most others.
Rome's starting situation is slightly stronger than what would be historically appropriate, when comparing it to other major powers, and Eprius, which should be a major threat to Rome, is too weak by quite a significant amount.
Roman expansion should rely more on allies and clients of various types and less on direct conquest - I'd argue that this is a broad game design issue applying to many states, and one which will hopefully be addressed when the mythical "subjects rework" happens if it ever does. This would potentially allow Rome to be very powerful but reliant on its subjects.
The Roman missions aren't very interesting and mostly serve to let you conquer faster due to mass claims.
After the 1st Punic war Rome has basically won the game due to lack of internal threats - all that remains is trying to grow as quickly as possible. This is another place where the game as a whole needs more work and isn't a Rome-specific issue, but as Rome grows so fast and has such a good naturally defensible position once it has unified Italy, it's particularly sensitive to such issues.
Tribel migrations are never a threat, unlike historically. Rome is one of the states most vulnerable to potentially strengthened tribal states, and so anything which is done to make tribes stronger, and particularly more aggressive, will disproportionately impact the game experience as Rome compared to most others.
- 4
- 2
I find in my games that Parthia does tend to expand, and I really like it but they don’t tend to go as far as Persepolis or Ktesiphon. While that’s a massive conquest for them I would like to see more of this. The game in this aspect is in a very good state, the AI Parthia just needs a bit more encouragement.
The migrations issue definitely need to be looked at. There’s too much ‘thinking’ for the AI to use the migrate ability. It needs to be forced on them through new tribal CB’s and famine situations leading to events.
- 1
I think this is linked to mechanics which are lacking to make those western medditeranean powers interesting, as such I'm afraid that carthage and rome won't be all that interesting as a distinct nation before trade is reworked as well as tribes and republics, in terms of conquest it's gonna take a tribe rework as said before as well as a diplomacy rework, managing tribemen among your empire is boring however picture yourself playing as rome in late into the earlygmae once you start claiming land in gaul cisalpina, you have to work with your socii allies and keep them happy and loyal, then you have your puppet states (tribal/client rulers) which are not fully integrated and need to be kept in line, as well as your nations strategical allies at the tips of your sphere of influence putting you at odds with other major actors of the regions (that would be your syracuse/massalia/messina)
Or even carthage trying to e powerfull and reign in their allied polis (current subject state).
The monarchies have some fun mechanics and you have clear leadership (the ruling family itself) while republic are confusing and not enticing hence why diadochies are more entertaining than the western republics IMHO.
Or even carthage trying to e powerfull and reign in their allied polis (current subject state).
The monarchies have some fun mechanics and you have clear leadership (the ruling family itself) while republic are confusing and not enticing hence why diadochies are more entertaining than the western republics IMHO.
- 1
- 1
- 1
I'd argue that for the time being, Syracuse is the more interesting and challenging power in the Western Mediterranean.
I think the core of the problem with Rome is that Italia and Greece are so populated and assimilation is so quick along with the ability to integrate that you can easily levy a lot of these pops. The game is still a race to acquire pops.
As Rome holding all Italia and Greece I could easily have 7,000 -8000 pops 100 yrs into the game. Whereas when playing as the Persian empire from the Indus to the Mediterranean I would have around the same. This isn’t realistic as Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley combined would be far more populated than the Balkans and Italy combined.
We have civ value but I think autonomy (not the policy) needs to be introduced. So a Roman and Greek strength is their ability to centralise while extremely populated areas in the East have higher autonomy and can’t use their extremely high number of pops along the way.
I think Maurya in particular should be extremely populated and rich, but suffer from high autonomy and political instability. Whereas the Greeks have good central government control with low autonomy but lower pops. Rome similar to the Greeks but with a very high %levy.
- 3
- 1
- 1