Peter Ebbesen said:
Of course playing larger powers with a small number of provinces will be a joke, considering the level of the AI especially in 1.0 versions of the game. Paradox games' replayability relies mostly on minors.
-
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.
Of course playing larger powers with a small number of provinces will be a joke, considering the level of the AI especially in 1.0 versions of the game. Paradox games' replayability relies mostly on minors.
i agree that greece should be more complicated and i'd like to elaborate on that point by saying that europa should also be more complicated. I'll explain my reasons:
Paradox has a history of allow you to play any state that existed in a game world and this latest game is no different. Some people have expressed aninterest in playing as a gallic, britannic or germanic tribe. Ok. Fine, but look at the map and screenshots you find that the 'provinces in the north' are huge relative to the number of people that were historically living there in the 200's BC.
Also, there should be a province in greece called thermopalyae that allows for easy access to Athens and the Peloponesse. Somehow that pass should be mich like the Suez canal in HoI2, and be of the utmost strategic importance. The alternative to trying to batter a path through thermopalyae would be to take the long hard way around it through mountainous and hilly terrain exposing your army to high levels of attrition. Remeber there were in fact two battles at thermopalyae, the famous one between the greeks and persia and the other less famous battle that took place sometime around 220 BC between Rome and the Selucid Empire.
Paradox has a history of allow you to play any state that existed in a game world and this latest game is no different. Some people have expressed aninterest in playing as a gallic, britannic or germanic tribe. Ok. Fine, but look at the map and screenshots you find that the 'provinces in the north' are huge relative to the number of people that were historically living there in the 200's BC.
Also, there should be a province in greece called thermopalyae that allows for easy access to Athens and the Peloponesse. Somehow that pass should be mich like the Suez canal in HoI2, and be of the utmost strategic importance. The alternative to trying to batter a path through thermopalyae would be to take the long hard way around it through mountainous and hilly terrain exposing your army to high levels of attrition. Remeber there were in fact two battles at thermopalyae, the famous one between the greeks and persia and the other less famous battle that took place sometime around 220 BC between Rome and the Selucid Empire.
On one hand, I like having larger numbers of provinces because wars can be less dramatic. Instead of handing over a giant swath of territory, you could instead give up a relatively small amount of land, meaning there can be less giant swings of fortune. I like to see a balance of power prevail in games so it's frustrating to see one harsh peace allow one nation (usually Austria) to turn the tide, crush their opponent, and become an ever expanding blob.
On the other hand, it can be a nightmare to micro-manage billions of small territories. I made the mistake of running the British Empire in my first game of Victoria and I almost threw the game in a drawer and forgot about it. I don't want to have to deal with a hundred colonial governors, a couple of dozen will probably be plenty.
On the other hand, it can be a nightmare to micro-manage billions of small territories. I made the mistake of running the British Empire in my first game of Victoria and I almost threw the game in a drawer and forgot about it. I don't want to have to deal with a hundred colonial governors, a couple of dozen will probably be plenty.
Although doubling the number of provinces would probably be an exaggerationa and could result in all the problrms listed above, I believe
P-dox should (carefully) add a number of provinces - 10 to 20, parhaps - to increase the historical accuracy. I.e. apart from Thermopylae (which could add a lot of fun for the players who choose greek minors) we also need Syracuse (adds more flavour to wars on Siciliy).
Drawing boundaries along geographical features is an excellent suggestion.
Far better then choosing them in a way that would enable the recreation of the Roman imperial boundary line and provincial division - which is to much extent outside of the EU:R time span.
P-dox should (carefully) add a number of provinces - 10 to 20, parhaps - to increase the historical accuracy. I.e. apart from Thermopylae (which could add a lot of fun for the players who choose greek minors) we also need Syracuse (adds more flavour to wars on Siciliy).
Drawing boundaries along geographical features is an excellent suggestion.
Far better then choosing them in a way that would enable the recreation of the Roman imperial boundary line and provincial division - which is to much extent outside of the EU:R time span.
takedown47 said:
Actually there are 4 battles in Thrmopylae ,all lost by the greeks.
The first 2 ones are the famous ones
-Spartan+peloponesians VS persians
-Seleucid VS Romans
-1821Rebels VS turks
-1941Greek and British VS Germans
The 2 last aren't famous because the modern greeks don't have the importance of the ancient ones.
The most famous is the first in which 300 Spartans and other 4000 peloponessians fought against many hundrends of thousands barbarians(persians)
The greeks will always fight in thermopylae bravely and always they will loose..
Of cource the first it was like victory because it united the greeks and showed that final victory is very possible
ps yes i know you mean ancient ones...
DoomKaiser said:
Hundreds of Thousands? Granted 300 was like an orgasm for my eyeballs, it may not be the best source for your numbers.
Let's not forget also, that even thoroughly anti-Persian historians like Herodotus accounted for more than 10,000 Greek soldiers in the initial phase of the battle.Tai-Pan said:Hundreds of Thousands? Granted 300 was like an orgasm for my eyeballs, it may not be the best source for your numbers.
1.7 million, no way. Granted there is to much debate to bother speculating on this one. I'm just going to say that I belive Herodotus exagerated the hell out of his numbers, whether on purpose or accident who knows.
DoomKaiser, the point wasn't a simple win. The Greco-Persian battle at Thermopylae was a tactical loss, but a slight strategic victory. It was definitely important.
I'll agree with Mr. Peter on the number of provinces issue, but I'll also have to point out the thread starter is very much correct about the relation between natural geography and borders. Rivers and mountains don't have to be borders, no, but they many times were, and even if they weren't such games-mechanic wise (like eu2-HoI), it would be great for feeling if they could atleast coincide in the player's eyes.
You can't even feel like you're crossing the Rubicon here!
You can't even feel like you're crossing the Rubicon here!
I agree. Worse, if we go by EU3, then you're still going to have a river crossing penalty when attacking into a province that has rivers (which, in this light, makes absolutely no sense at all).th3freakie said:I'll agree with Mr. Peter on the number of provinces issue, but I'll also have to point out the thread starter is very much correct about the relation between natural geography and borders. Rivers and mountains don't have to be borders, no, but they many times were, and even if they weren't such games-mechanic wise (like eu2-HoI), it would be great for feeling if they could atleast coincide in the player's eyes.
You can't even feel like you're crossing the Rubicon here!
Consider the difference between HOI2 and EU3 concerning the start of battles:
-In HOI2 the battle starts immediately after the attacking units begin moving into the defenders prov. Therefore, the river advantage must be determined by a map with rivers that run between provs.
-In EU3 (and Vic, and CK) the battle does not begin until the attacking units arrive in the defenders prov. Likewise, the river advantage must be determined by a map with rivers that are present inside the provs. (since that is when battle begins... it is just that simple)
So, the defender of a river province is given the benefit of knowing which side of the river to be on in order to maximize their defenses.
The Rhine-Danube line in a fully developed Roman Empire would consist therefore of the provs which the Rhine and Danube run through.
Therefore to control a River province is to control the crossing points of the river. Barbarians on the other side of the Rhine gain no benefit from it, and this is historical. Typically, the Romans would destroy the bridges if they faced a barbarian attack. The barbarians themselves did not have this advantage.
Now, if the Rhine Freezes over... (but I digress).
In short, the map-river design as it stands is accurate for the period which the game represents.
-In HOI2 the battle starts immediately after the attacking units begin moving into the defenders prov. Therefore, the river advantage must be determined by a map with rivers that run between provs.
-In EU3 (and Vic, and CK) the battle does not begin until the attacking units arrive in the defenders prov. Likewise, the river advantage must be determined by a map with rivers that are present inside the provs. (since that is when battle begins... it is just that simple)
So, the defender of a river province is given the benefit of knowing which side of the river to be on in order to maximize their defenses.
The Rhine-Danube line in a fully developed Roman Empire would consist therefore of the provs which the Rhine and Danube run through.
Therefore to control a River province is to control the crossing points of the river. Barbarians on the other side of the Rhine gain no benefit from it, and this is historical. Typically, the Romans would destroy the bridges if they faced a barbarian attack. The barbarians themselves did not have this advantage.
Now, if the Rhine Freezes over... (but I digress).
In short, the map-river design as it stands is accurate for the period which the game represents.
hildoceras said:and you must add that doubling the provinces might multiply the time required to perform all tests for the events, and if you thought EU3 was slow...
but if there are fewer provencies than in eu3 it is already faster. It's gotta have the same number...
This is my first look into rome, so if i'm way off forgive me, but if you are starting early enough you need to get the feel for the Roman's basically cattle raiding thier neighbours... The Latin wars and the Veii were like 20 miles away...
And also like eu, people will want to attempt the a historical thing, so starting this small would enable many rome like beginnings all over.
The maps looks great, which is good, though in my opinion i never care about what the graphics are like.. I play in counter mode where possible. But my critisim is that it looks more like Rome total-war(tm) than a paradox game. Maybe that is the point but i'm sure the paradox gameplay will be present...
Would give a testicle to beta test it... been playing paradox games since eu1...
iGenovese said:
I'm sure in plutarchs life of Caesar, he mentions the rivers all freezing during the gaullic campagins, so not impossible...
Also bridges afford choke points on a battle field... the germans could have attacked while romans crossed... if they were organised enough... It is not simply enough to state that historically the germans didn't make ue of the rivers as a natural defence, and that the Romans could at will cross it. They may not have used them effectively but that doesn't mean they couldnt' ahve and as such a player, playing their faction, shoudl be able to make use of them.
Certainly during the Gaullic campaigns the Germans crossed the Rhine without problems, in large numbers, in fact Caesar had trouble bridging the river but i agree he managed it, but it took ten days to build the bridge, if the germans had been better organised they could have used that time to be ready to attack it as the Romans tried to cross it...
Tai-Pan said:
Yes I know dude that they weren't 2 million as Herodotus told that's why I told 'hundrents of thousands'.
Always the nation that wins a war (i mean the whole war) and is more civilized (the looser won't write anything) writes that the enemy numbers were much more and enemy looses were huge. examples: Greeks vs Persians (persian wars and after Alexander's wars),Rome vs Barbarians (Julius Ceasar), Chinese vs Barbarians (Mongols)-(only when china won). Civilized Winner presents things as wanted.
BUT: Think an empire like Persia how many could deploy. How many?
50000? no, surely more
100000? no, more
how many?
This empire had millions of people. Greece had much less than 1 million because more than the half were slaves of Xerxes. So of cource the number 2 million is huge but surely they weren't 50000 or something.
note: Herodotus said that 2000000 invaded Greece from Byzantium. How many were at Thermopylae isn't sure.
Surgünoglu said:
Of cource!
''Of cource the first it was like victory because it united the greeks and showed that final victory is very possible''
I say 'like' because it 'united' Greeks.
From the name i think you are a Turk so you may know about the battle of Maniaki in Peloponessus (Greeks rebels vs Turkish-Egyptian forces 1825.) 1500 untrained greeks opposed 4000 turkish-egyptian highly trained and equipped forces of Imbrahim (sorry if mispell) in plains! The battle was sure to be lost. The greeks lost without doing many casualties to the enemy. BUT they were united after the battle and we won our independence after some years. (with foreign help also of cource).
Edit
apaflessas ,the greek hero that fell in Maniaki knew that he is going to loose- he said to his soldiers that reinforcements will come. So the soldiers stayed, fighted even when the realized they were alone, they continued and they fell.
Last edited:
i agree with the OP as there should be the possibility to redraw the roman empire on the map for the cases youd like to play it "historical".
furthermore "natural borders" would allow to give defensive boni when being attacked across rivers/mountains.
furthermore "natural borders" would allow to give defensive boni when being attacked across rivers/mountains.
-MoRiDin- said:
Mardonius before the battle of Platea had 300000 against almost 100000 greeks(all). In that battle even the slave greeks helped greek side(secretly). Alexander (not the great of cource) revealed some of the plans of persians and he dint deploy all his troops.
the battle of platea had happened much later after of thermopylae. So the persians would have cetaintly more when invaded. The leaved garisoons in Thrace,Macedonia,Thessaly,Aetolia,Euobia,Aegian,Attica and they had casualties so the may invaded with 500000 more or less. How many they had in thermopylae exactly we can't know.
Anyway this isn't of an importance if you think that Thermopylae was a very narrow passage to southern greece. So everytime the persians attacked they couldn't attack with all their soldiers but with only a small part. That's why they had so many casualties. Xerxes only care about numbers that's why he was so idiot.
DoomKaiser said:Mardonius before the battle of Platea had 300000 against almost 100000 greeks(all). In that battle even the slave greeks helped greek side(secretly). Alexander (not the great of cource) revealed some of the plans of persians and he dint deploy all his troops.
the battle of platea had happened much later after of thermopylae. So the persians would have cetaintly more when invaded. The leaved garisoons in Thrace,Macedonia,Thessaly,Aetolia,Euobia,Aegian,Attica and they had casualties so the may invaded with 500000 more or less. How many they had in thermopylae exactly we can't know.
Anyway this isn't of an importance if you think that Thermopylae was a very narrow passage to southern greece. So everytime the persians attacked they couldn't attack with all their soldiers but with only a small part. That's why they had so many casualties. Xerxes only care about numbers that's why he was so idiot.
This is only true if you accept that there were 300000 at platea and not less... i figure it's safest to consider that there was probably somewhere between half and the number stated in anceint accounts, and also that there where probably somewhere between half as many again on the smaller side...
thus platea becomes 150000 to 300000 verses 100000-150000...