The Diadochi are much more fun than Rome and Carthage

[Arthrodira]

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)

That's a really interesting solution. An argument can be made that Babylon was still dealing with the fallout from Alexander and the successors, but that's really beside the point; Rome shouldn't come near Pataliputra. Using the levy per pop ratio to model their manpower rather than just pop is a great idea.

 

[Arthrodira]

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.

I see your point, but I think you might be greatly underestimating/downplaying the historical population of Greece, which I will still contend is much too low in game. You cannot judge them by modern or premodern population sizes, they clearly were more populous at this time than they would later become after centuries of Roman and Ottoman neglect and exploitation.

Mesopotamia is already pretty populous, but I could see making it even more so. I think some cities like Babylon and Pataliputra should really start as metropolises.

 

[AggaWackTan]

An argument can be made that Babylon was still dealing with the fallout from Alexander and the successors, but that's really beside the point; Rome shouldn't come near Pataliputra. Using the levy per pop ratio to model their manpower rather than just pop is a great idea.

Yeah, the Wars of the Diadochi podcast on spotify says that Babylon became quickly depopulated around this time, with a lot of the pops moving to Seleukia nearby but still this area would have been highly populated, it had been the centre of empires for thousands of years...whereas Rome was still a local power.

I think ideally culture needs to be reworked so integration is a step towards assimilation. And unintegrated pops don't assimilate.

In this way a Roman player would have to integrate the Etrsucans, Samnites and the other italic cultures before levying them, as assimilating wouldn't be a first option. But the use of colonies would be needed for some reason.

In this way a good Roman heritage would be %15 levy multiplier, less primary culture happiness from integrated cultures, but -10% tax from integrated cultures. I know this conflicts with the idea of the Social War and Italian rights, but just an idea to represent the Socii and how well Rome managed to be a federation of italian cultures.

I see your point, but I think you might be greatly underestimating/downplaying the historical population of Greece, which I will still contend is much too low in game.

I probably am, I don't know how many people lived there then. From what I've read a lot of sites seem to point at around 12 million, which is an awful lot for the time, but I'd still imagine that shouldn't be equal to or even half of Mesopotamia, Persia and the Indus combined?

 

[Arthrodira]

I think ideally culture needs to be reworked so integration is a step towards assimilation. And unintegrated pops don't assimilate.

Great idea! That actually solves a ton of problems.

 

[Shogun96]

I think ideally culture needs to be reworked so integration is a step towards assimilation. And unintegrated pops don't assimilate.

This is a very good point. Please devs, do consider rethinking the way assimilation and integration work in the game. I feel that cultures shouldn't "naturally" assimilate unless you decide not to, on the contrary cultures should remain relatively static unless you actively decide to assimilate.

 

[AggaWackTan]

This is something I read from someone else's thread in the forum somewhere but it is a very good point. It makes more sense too. Hopefully it will stop the mass assimilation of cultures who then disappear. It might also mean it's unfeasible to have an ever growing number of pops who can be levied, therefore levies don't keep growing to huge numbers. Unless ofc there's a widespread effort to integrate and assimilate, but not the huge level of passive assimilation currently in place.

 

[Battlex]

This is a very good point. Please devs, do consider rethinking the way assimilation and integration work in the game. I feel that cultures shouldn't "naturally" assimilate unless you decide not to, on the contrary cultures should remain relatively static unless you actively decide to assimilate.

But it already happens this way. If you just leave high pop wrong religion wrong culture they won't, because of how long it takes to become majority either to quickly convert, and governors often using embezzlement policies. Rome and Greece assimilate each other fast because they're both hellenic so that's already done. Illyrians are also largely hellenic so also quickly assimilated. Desert nomads should spawn in Egypt and Iran more often to stop the low pop provinces flipping so much faster

Yeah, the Wars of the Diadochi podcast on spotify says that Babylon became quickly depopulated around this time, with a lot of the pops moving to Seleukia nearby but still this area would have been highly populated, it had been the centre of empires for thousands of years...whereas Rome was still a local power.

I think ideally culture needs to be reworked so integration is a step towards assimilation. And unintegrated pops don't assimilate.

In this way a Roman player would have to integrate the Etrsucans, Samnites and the other italic cultures before levying them, as assimilating wouldn't be a first option. But the use of colonies would be needed for some reason.

In this way a good Roman heritage would be %15 levy multiplier, less primary culture happiness from integrated cultures, but -10% tax from integrated cultures. I know this conflicts with the idea of the Social War and Italian rights, but just an idea to represent the Socii and how well Rome managed to be a federation of italian cultures.



I probably am, I don't know how many people lived there then. From what I've read a lot of sites seem to point at around 12 million, which is an awful lot for the time, but I'd still imagine that shouldn't be equal to or even half of Mesopotamia, Persia and the Indus combined?

Rome would be better reworked into having more conquest missions make you release the italic power as a feudatory, setting the stage for the social wars, and some code against the AI picking to integrate, otherwise its like if you pick any historical eu4 date with vassals where they instantly start getting integrated

An interesting idea of choosing a side in the civil war. It strikes me that risks becoming easily abusable though? Just avoid this devastating civil war by switching to the stronger side! I know that as much as possible things should be up to the player, but there is a multiplayer community so balance does have to come into consideration somewhere.

I certainly think revolts should carry more risk than they do at the moment. I am not sure about them being quite as random as it sounds like you are suggesting, though. They do need to be something you can interact with and see coming, even if they are difficult or even impossible to avoid. If you just lose half your country with zero warning it will be annoying and punishing rather than exciting and fun.

Something similar to the EU4 disasters system maybe? Not necessarily a ticking counter, but at least having factors that drive you towards a civil war/disaster, and you are aware that these are in play, even if the exact outcome or timing is unpredictable.

Each patch we inch closer and closer to being able to recreate Caesar vs pompey. Integrating gauls you've held forever causes nobility to be upset. Governors can now command armies and if engage first can lead legions. We just need the swap button as is so common. If non ironman players can do it, we should too via event. If you lose the civil war you lose the game despite your civilisation and city still prospering, so yes you're incentivised to pick the stronger of the two but the Eastern Rome missions let you pick as either kingly not! sulla or Republican not! marius, so why not allow this for all civil wars, you could then have fun in a civil war happening during an invasion, where you form a rump state evading the invaders who might also be coming. The prescripted Antipatrid civil war let's you also pick sides iirc. Vic2 events let you swap from GB to boer republics and Canada iirc

 

[Llort_7991]

"Roem is to strong!"
"Roem is boring. Too easy!"

After devs change stuff

"Roem is to weak!"
"Can't seem to finish my campaign as Roem."
"I keep getting stomped. What is this! Roem should be doable for noobs!"



This discussion is never going to end. It with never be to everybody's liking.

I am a role player, don't min-max everything, make decisions that are often not the optimal choice.
IMExp, in IR Rome has always been very easy-peasy. Egypt is different but just as easy. The other Successor States? What are they going to do to you?
They are fighting each other while you secure lands and trade elsewhere. Even if they oppose you. There will always be at least one other to join you in gang up.

Seleucids, Macedon tiny bit harder. But still easy. Mauryan Empire; different, but also same-same: Still very easy to do. All of them.
Even with my less than optimal play style and 500 hours something, something noobish experience.

Even if. What do you want to change with Rome or Egypt then? How are these nations ever really going to be challenging.
You can give them less pops, take away modifiers, decrease stability. All that is going to do is maybe giving you a (small), (artificial) challenge.

Rome, Egypt and Maurya, amongst others are never going to be a real challenge, even on very hard. That is what deity level in Civ is for, or very hard iron man with single province minor in Paradox games is for IMO.

IMO on normal, or even very hard level; Egypt, Rome, Maurya should be (very) (somewhat) easy. Depending on experience and play style. You cannot compare noobish play style to a (more) (very) seasoned play style. The same goes for role play style vs. 'min-max everything out' play style.

Not everyone, dare I say most don't want to play 'deity level with artificial difficulty'. It is not "real" difficulty. The Ai is still the same, only the modifiers change to an absurd degree, the higher you go. If that is what you like? Peace be with you. Enjoy! You can if you want.

Have you all finished Rome and Egypt, on very hard, in iron man mode, with all achievements? My humble guess: some of you, maybe. Even if all managed to do so. There are people with different preferences.

Almost the same discussion took place with TW Roem 2. We ended up with a game (onmodded) where diplomacy and trade did not matter because the 'computer always says no'. Just to up the difficulty. The Ai was given 2 to 3 full stack armies per city / settlement. Still people said; 'too easy' That is just two examples of many in that game.

Best thing you can suggest IMO is that the Devs expand upon the AI Settings in the game, so you can tweak all the details in game set up.

You want to see overpowered btw.? Play as a migratory tribe and learn the gimmick. You will sack the captitals of all the big empire's

​

 

[Samitte]

Mesopotamia is already pretty populous,

But its not, it has some big cities with way too many Greeks, and a whole slew of hardly inhabited lands and marshes. It had a population many times higher then Rome, instead it has one slightly more then twice as large. It had many cities and was an incredebly wealthy region, even if we account for devasation from the shennanigans of the Diadochi.

Yeah, the Wars of the Diadochi podcast on spotify says that Babylon became quickly depopulated around this time, with a lot of the pops moving to Seleukia nearby but still this area would have been highly populated, it had been the centre of empires for thousands of years...whereas Rome was still a local power.

Babylon was fiiine, and certainly much, much bigger then Seleukeia at 304 BCE. As would be Nippur, Sippar, Borsippa, and especially Uruk which would be the second biggest city in the region. Seleukeia might not even have been founded yet as it was likely found somewhere in the 305-300 BCE date range, though we don't know exactly. That means Babylon at this point was still its massive self, since even if Seleukeia was found already it would have been very recent and mostly a building pit for another decade or two.

Later on, yeah it declined. But it remained a large city for a while yet, probably bigger then Athens at the start, and remaining decently sized all the way through the Seleukid period.

From what I've read a lot of sites seem to point at around 12 million, which is an awful lot for the time

Ive seen the number too, but never with a source. I think its someone adding up the numbers for Greece + Asia Minor (and then conveniently forgetting that most of the population there was Anatolian before Alexanders conquest). 3-4 million is a much more likely amount.

 

[Arthrodira]

Yeah, the Wars of the Diadochi podcast on spotify says that Babylon became quickly depopulated around this time, with a lot of the pops moving to Seleukia nearby but still this area would have been highly populated, it had been the centre of empires for thousands of years...whereas Rome was still a local power.

I think ideally culture needs to be reworked so integration is a step towards assimilation. And unintegrated pops don't assimilate.

In this way a Roman player would have to integrate the Etrsucans, Samnites and the other italic cultures before levying them, as assimilating wouldn't be a first option. But the use of colonies would be needed for some reason.

In this way a good Roman heritage would be %15 levy multiplier, less primary culture happiness from integrated cultures, but -10% tax from integrated cultures. I know this conflicts with the idea of the Social War and Italian rights, but just an idea to represent the Socii and how well Rome managed to be a federation of italian cultures.



I probably am, I don't know how many people lived there then. From what I've read a lot of sites seem to point at around 12 million, which is an awful lot for the time, but I'd still imagine that shouldn't be equal to or even half of Mesopotamia, Persia and the Indus combined?

Certainly all of greece should be less than all of Mesopotamia or all of the Indus. Persia - maybe. The core of the Persian empire was never really Persia, it was more Mesopotamia. But that doesn’t matter. Athens had a population of around 500,000 if I recall correctly. My repeated complaints about the Greek population are mainly directed at the stupidly low population of in game Athens (less than Sparta!?! Wtf). Also, I believe greece should be more populous than Macedonia, not less.

 

[Arthrodira]

But its not, it has some big cities with way too many Greeks, and a whole slew of hardly inhabited lands and marshes. It had a population many times higher then Rome, instead it has one slightly more then twice as large. It had many cities and was an incredebly wealthy region, even if we account for devasation from the shennanigans of the Diadochi.



Babylon was fiiine, and certainly much, much bigger then Seleukeia at 304 BCE. As would be Nippur, Sippar, Borsippa, and especially Uruk which would be the second biggest city in the region. Seleukeia might not even have been founded yet as it was likely found somewhere in the 305-300 BCE date range, though we don't know exactly. That means Babylon at this point was still its massive self, since even if Seleukeia was found already it would have been very recent and mostly a building pit for another decade or two.

Later on, yeah it declined.



Ive seen the number too, but never with a source. I think its someone adding up the numbers for Greece + Asia Minor (and then conveniently forgetting that most of the population there was Anatolian before Alexanders conquest). 3-4 million is a much more likely amount.

We really need to get some hard data in this discussion haha. Otherwise we’re both just going to keep speculating based on what we happen to know. I would bet that number includes the Ionian Greeks living in Anatolia. That looks vastly too small to me to be reasonable for all of Anatolia though! So I think we can safely discount that hypothesis. I mean in Byzantine times Constantinople alone had a population of 2 million. I doubt the carrying capacity of Anatolia increased that much from Alexander to Alexius - I’d be more inclined to believe it decreased.

To be clear, I’m not saying greece should be anywhere near Mesopotamia, the Nile, the Indus, the Ganges, or even Bactria! I’m just saying that it should be higher than it is now. Those regions also need pop increases (though the Nile might be fine). Really I don’t like how big cities can grow in game and how much of the starting pop setup feels like it’s designed around the expected pop distribution after x years of gameplay. The Greek cities should start out very populous, but stagnant and losing that population to migration. It would be better if urban populations were more stable, and a city being sacked could really cause irreversible damage to the local population.

it was also a mistake, in my opinion, to remove food production from cities. They can produce a more valuable trade resource, fine. That makes sense, but they should still have high food production (even if not a trade resource). Ancient cities aren’t that big geographically. There’s no city on the map that’s SO big and SO sprawling that it takes up all available farmland for 10-20 square miles. the cities are often located where they are because of how much food can be grown right there near the city. Yes there are exceptions, Athens had to import its grain because they couldn’t grow enough. But these should be the starting metropolises. Those exceptional regions where the population can outshine the local carrying capacity because of their trade networks. But they can’t accurately show any of this in game because of their pop growth model!

 

[Samitte]

I would bet that number includes the Ionian Greeks living in Anatolia. That looks vastly too small to me to be reasonable for all of Anatolia though!

I should have specified western Anatolia - but even then there are nowhere near that many Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians combined to make up 8 million. And while I am not read up on demographics in ancient Greece the terrain itself is very mountainous and its very much lacking in good rivers and agricultural land. Ain't no way 12 million people fit there in 304 BCE, it simply cannot produce enough food to feed that many.

As for the population of Greece, population does look a bit on the low side, especially in the non-city provinces. Macedon on the other hand, with its various 30+ pop cities, and Pella nearly the size of Babylon, seems to be doing quite well. And Epirus seems nearly at capacity in most areas - leaving Greece looking quite barren (just like Mesopotamia )

I doubt the carrying capacity of Anatolia increased that much from Alexander to Alexius - I’d be more inclined to believe it decreased.

Its not the carrying capacity of Anatolia that decreased. Its the constant warring and plundering.

 

[Spike05]

What year about did it fire in?

Sorry for the late report, right now I'm 530 AUC, which means 80 years in game.
It happened some 10-15 years ago.

I suppose it has to do more with player action than time passed.
IIRC it fired shortly after the boni forced me to give citizenship to the etrurian (I had already integrated, at the time, the Italiotians, given their high starting number of nobles) so I had two integrated cultures, and they where still feudataries. I think that was the reason why the event fired.

 

[Battlex]

We really need to get some hard data in this discussion haha. Otherwise we’re both just going to keep speculating based on what we happen to know. I would bet that number includes the Ionian Greeks living in Anatolia. That looks vastly too small to me to be reasonable for all of Anatolia though! So I think we can safely discount that hypothesis. I mean in Byzantine times Constantinople alone had a population of 2 million. I doubt the carrying capacity of Anatolia increased that much from Alexander to Alexius - I’d be more inclined to believe it decreased.

To be clear, I’m not saying greece should be anywhere near Mesopotamia, the Nile, the Indus, the Ganges, or even Bactria! I’m just saying that it should be higher than it is now. Those regions also need pop increases (though the Nile might be fine). Really I don’t like how big cities can grow in game and how much of the starting pop setup feels like it’s designed around the expected pop distribution after x years of gameplay. The Greek cities should start out very populous, but stagnant and losing that population to migration. It would be better if urban populations were more stable, and a city being sacked could really cause irreversible damage to the local population.

it was also a mistake, in my opinion, to remove food production from cities. They can produce a more valuable trade resource, fine. That makes sense, but they should still have high food production (even if not a trade resource). Ancient cities aren’t that big geographically. There’s no city on the map that’s SO big and SO sprawling that it takes up all available farmland for 10-20 square miles. the cities are often located where they are because of how much food can be grown right there near the city. Yes there are exceptions, Athens had to import its grain because they couldn’t grow enough. But these should be the starting metropolises. Those exceptional regions where the population can outshine the local carrying capacity because of their trade networks. But they can’t accurately show any of this in game because of their pop growth model!

Cities do make their own food production? Or do you mean they should be able to grow food trade goods?

Sorry for the late report, right now I'm 530 AUC, which means 80 years in game.
It happened some 10-15 years ago.

I suppose it has to do more with player action than time passed.
IIRC it fired shortly after the boni forced me to give citizenship to the etrurian (I had already integrated, at the time, the Italiotians, given their high starting number of nobles) so I had two integrated cultures, and they where still feudataries. I think that was the reason why the event fired.

So rather than an actual social wars event, it was just one about the integration events?

I should have specified western Anatolia - but even then there are nowhere near that many Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians combined to make up 8 million. And while I am not read up on demographics in ancient Greece the terrain itself is very mountainous and its very much lacking in good rivers and agricultural land. Ain't no way 12 million people fit there in 304 BCE, it simply cannot produce enough food to feed that many.

As for the population of Greece, population does look a bit on the low side, especially in the non-city provinces. Macedon on the other hand, with its various 30+ pop cities, and Pella nearly the size of Babylon, seems to be doing quite well. And Epirus seems nearly at capacity in most areas - leaving Greece looking quite barren (just like Mesopotamia )



Its not the carrying capacity of Anatolia that decreased. Its the constant warring and plundering.

Anatolia might have been above carrying capacity at the start date, and having ionia and aeiolia mad big might buff Phyrgia too much, but if the cities are above capacity, then the pops are going to migrate out, possibly to magna graecia, possibly to Egypt and Syria, that way hellenisation can be more organic rather than just for whoever has scripted events for it

 

[Spike05]

So rather than an actual social wars event, it was just one about the integration events?

Not directly connected with integration chain events.

I'm more inclined to think it's about a MTTH thing based on how many cultures you have already integrated with rome (or at least, how big those cultures are) while not having integrated the foederatii... it's my guess at least.