The Western Roman Empire

[Jck2]

I know this is a long shot, and I also know that you can't take the game back too far, but I honestly think that it would be cool if we could try to salvage the Western Roman Empire. When people think about expanding the time line (something that has been mentioned numerous times on this board), the obvious solution is to move time forward. With that though, you run into the problem of technology increasing to the point where the game starts to evolve into something else.

So what do I suggest? You expand the timeline by letting players start the game in 400 AD (possibly 394). This would put you right at the time that Theodosius dies and approximately 10 years prior to the sacking of Rome. I would prefer a start date after the Eastern and Western Empires have already split though.

I'll be honest, my favorite dlc thus far has been Legacy of Rome. But even though the Byzantine Empire considered themselves Romans, and even though everything can be restored, it just seems like once you take the time to do that (those are some hefty goals that span generations), you don't have much time left in the game to actually enjoy your success. I'd like the opportunity to completely avoid the dark ages and restore the Roman Empire (or Republic ) before it ever falls.

With that said, I really wish Paradox would make Rome 2 But anyway, Thoughts?

 

[Jck2]

I would also like to add that I do understand the scope and size of something like this. We're talking about 600 years of history so it obviously should come with a price tag. I mean, I would be willing to pay $20 or so for something like this, but that's just me. At the end of the day though, I think the time line does need to be expanded. The game just feels too short in my honest opinion.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Better do it like me and create a specific Western Roman Empire title which you can create if you control Italy and Sicily and either HRE doesn't exist or you're heretic.

 

[Prime624]

There are a few mod like that. All of them are free.

 

[Theddude]

Better do it like me and create a specific Western Roman Empire title which you can create if you control Italy and Sicily and either HRE doesn't exist or you're heretic.

Something like this, yes, maybe a bunch of different possible ways of going about it, I'd add having an insane amount of prestige or piety in the mix. I'd love to see a WRE thing of some type, bring back the real Rome!

There are a few mod like that. All of them are free.

And never be able to do it in multiplayer. Not to mention you would have to get either a slew of small mods or get a big mod that makes a bunch of changes you don't want. To me going to mods is for the mod itself, as a whole; not for a specific issue. That's like taking a machine gun to an archery target.

 

[Prime624]

I thought you could use mods in multiplayer. And plus, PI will never make this. This is Crusader Kings 2, not Rome.

 

[nestorius]

I think moving the time back is the way to go, moving forward doesnt help really would need to be able to expand of map.

That being said, Western Roman Empire is a little too far back imo. You get the same issues as going forwards really the tech at the end would be too good.

 

[Hackworthy]

Going back that far wouldn't really fit the theme of CKII which is 'Crusader Kings' and feudalism. I'm betting though that they will step back a century or two for the Pagan DLC since that's the best way to make Pagans more survivable.

 

[NewbieOne]

I know this is a long shot, and I also know that you can't take the game back too far, but I honestly think that it would be cool if we could try to salvage the Western Roman Empire. When people think about expanding the time line (something that has been mentioned numerous times on this board), the obvious solution is to move time forward. With that though, you run into the problem of technology increasing to the point where the game starts to evolve into something else.

So what do I suggest? You expand the timeline by letting players start the game in 400 AD (possibly 394). This would put you right at the time that Theodosius dies and approximately 10 years prior to the sacking of Rome. I would prefer a start date after the Eastern and Western Empires have already split though.

I'll be honest, my favorite dlc thus far has been Legacy of Rome. But even though the Byzantine Empire considered themselves Romans, and even though everything can be restored, it just seems like once you take the time to do that (those are some hefty goals that span generations), you don't have much time left in the game to actually enjoy your success. I'd like the opportunity to completely avoid the dark ages and restore the Roman Empire (or Republic ) before it ever falls.

With that said, I really wish Paradox would make Rome 2 But anyway, Thoughts?

Rome didn't necessarily die in the West. Under tetrarchy, the entire empire was divided in terms of jurisdiction and competence of individual emperors but if nobody was vested in the West, then the emperor in Constantinople was basically the emperor of the whole thing, which is the understanding after 480 AD. That's the year Julius Nepos died, who was the more legitimate WRE, as Romulus Augustulus was a puppet installed by his father, effectively a usurper; Gothic kings ruled in the name of the emperor in Constantinople. In 6th century Belisarius reconquered Rome, which basically never fell to barbarians again. Byzantines held out in southern Italy until the 11th century (there's a reason Sicily is in de iure BYZ in this game along with Greek dukes in Naples), while in the north the Exarchate of Ravenna held out until 751. In 756 the Pope started talking to the Franks about protection, while Rome remained nominally under BYZ. In fact, even the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 AD wasn't really a clear break with BYZ. Having multiple emperors that didn't necessarily like or even recognise each other was nothing new for Rome. Byzantine influences were strong in Rome even in early 11th century, by which time the restored empire in the West had to be restored again in 962 after the last emperor had died in 924. That's 38 years, which means it was possible for some people to have talked to both the last Carolingian emperor, Berengar (his mother was a Carolingian, father was a duke (and a saint)) and Otto I (again some connection with the Carolingians through women), bridging the gap in people's perception.

Mind you, while we see clear divisions, breaks and delimitations in history books, this isn't like people saw it when they lived then and there. This is because science uses division and classification to justify itself, which is often artificial and even downright false or detrimental in some sciences.

As far as mediaeval Europe goes, HRE=WRE (or even proper Rome) or, in the East, BYZ=Rome.

However, I wouldn't mind a Carolingian expansion. There was a Dark Ages game on this engine, I believe, some time ago, but it was largely unknown. I can't even recall the title. You'd have e.g. plenty of barbarians and paganism (with possibly invasion stacks), pre-crusading relationships with the muslims (who actually would be jihading hard at the time), Roman remnants, still significant Celtic presence, early feudal structure probably meaning no heredity for counts or dukes unless they were sovereigns/vassal princes in their own right (but not royal appointees).

 

[Lord Finnish]

Related to my above suggestion, I also created a custom dynasty which went back to Sygarius (the dynasty was named Sygarius as well), the last Western Roman commander in Gaul. This was to create some basis in my claim of legitimacy.

 

[Jactor]

Going back that far wouldn't really fit the theme of CKII which is 'Crusader Kings' and feudalism. I'm betting though that they will step back a century or two for the Pagan DLC since that's the best way to make Pagans more survivable.

Thats bit of problem becouse CK II religions system and goverment system and feudalism dont mix up with era of Western Rome and barbarian kingdoms during that era.

 

[Yazem]

Have you checked out the mod I'm working on?

It starts in 395AD, and is just about what you're looking for.


The link is in my signature if you would like to check it out. (no released versions yet tho)

 

[Jck2]

Have you checked out the mod I'm working on?

It starts in 395AD, and is just about what you're looking for.


The link is in my signature if you would like to check it out. (no released versions yet tho)

It looks cool but there's no playable version yet?

 

[Theddude]

I think moving the time back is the way to go, moving forward doesnt help really would need to be able to expand of map.

That being said, Western Roman Empire is a little too far back imo. You get the same issues as going forwards really the tech at the end would be too good.

Sadly, not going to happen; one word: Muhammad. There's no way the time period could be covered without making his life and such deterministic, otherwise you have a s__tstorm related to an ahistorical portrayal. Plus it would be really hard to do and keep CK2's mechanics intact. Believe me though, I'd love to see a Dark Ages game.

Rome didn't necessarily die in the West. Under tetrarchy, the entire empire was divided in terms of jurisdiction and competence of individual emperors but if nobody was vested in the West, then the emperor in Constantinople was basically the emperor of the whole thing, which is the understanding after 480 AD. That's the year Julius Nepos died, who was the more legitimate WRE, as Romulus Augustulus was a puppet installed by his father, effectively a usurper; Gothic kings ruled in the name of the emperor in Constantinople. In 6th century Belisarius reconquered Rome, which basically never fell to barbarians again. Byzantines held out in southern Italy until the 11th century (there's a reason Sicily is in de iure BYZ in this game along with Greek dukes in Naples), while in the north the Exarchate of Ravenna held out until 751. In 756 the Pope started talking to the Franks about protection, while Rome remained nominally under BYZ. In fact, even the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 AD wasn't really a clear break with BYZ. Having multiple emperors that didn't necessarily like or even recognise each other was nothing new for Rome. Byzantine influences were strong in Rome even in early 11th century, by which time the restored empire in the West had to be restored again in 962 after the last emperor had died in 924. That's 38 years, which means it was possible for some people to have talked to both the last Carolingian emperor, Berengar (his mother was a Carolingian, father was a duke (and a saint)) and Otto I (again some connection with the Carolingians through women), bridging the gap in people's perception.

Mind you, while we see clear divisions, breaks and delimitations in history books, this isn't like people saw it when they lived then and there. This is because science uses division and classification to justify itself, which is often artificial and even downright false or detrimental in some sciences.

As far as mediaeval Europe goes, HRE=WRE (or even proper Rome) or, in the East, BYZ=Rome.

However, I wouldn't mind a Carolingian expansion. There was a Dark Ages game on this engine, I believe, some time ago, but it was largely unknown. I can't even recall the title. You'd have e.g. plenty of barbarians and paganism (with possibly invasion stacks), pre-crusading relationships with the muslims (who actually would be jihading hard at the time), Roman remnants, still significant Celtic presence, early feudal structure probably meaning no heredity for counts or dukes unless they were sovereigns/vassal princes in their own right (but not royal appointees).

Sort of, but really the HRE was just a barbarian conquerer state that was made into "Rome" by power hungry and politically motivated Popes who wanted to have an Emperor (universal ruler and all) that they could place beneath them (rather than above them as the real Rome did). The Franks were a powerful tribe that managed to conquer a lot of land and their ruler got a shiny crown from a cleric who had no right to give it. Not to mention they shared almost nothing with Rome aside from religion and control of formerly Roman land (which by analogy would make the Romans Carthaginian), they had different legal and societal structures and spoke a completely different language (besides the Franks who adopted Gallic Romance later on, who even still originated as Germanic speaking). Only an Emperor of Rome could name a co-Emperor, and after the death of Nepos the Western Empire basically got subsumed into the Eastern one, but that certainly wouldn't preclude a new Western Empire arising if Rome managed to reassert its authority in the West. There simply was no reason to name a new Western Emperor, there was no land under Rome's control for one to rule.

Rome was legally only ever one entity, if sometimes administered in multiple parts, so a new Western Empire would be quite within an Eastern Emperor's power to create if he had the control of the land; I'm not sure exactly how this would translate into the game but if the restoration of the Roman Empire is possible, this is just as possible.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

Speaking of the Western Roman Empire, isn't it high time for a new classical era game from Paradox.

 

[Jck2]

Speaking of the Western Roman Empire, isn't it high time for a new classical era game from Paradox.

Prior to the announcement of EU4 I was hoping it would be Rome 2. Sadly, I don't think we're going to see one for some time. But, Total War Rome 2 is coming out... eventually. So there's that.

/sigh

 

[Tempestra]

Isn't the HRE theoretically the continuation of the Western Empire?

 

[Oriflamme]

Going back that far wouldn't really fit the theme of CKII which is 'Crusader Kings' and feudalism. I'm betting though that they will step back a century or two for the Pagan DLC since that's the best way to make Pagans more survivable.

No kidding. In 1000, Christianity really seemed like it was on the ropes. Muslims in the south, Norsemen in the north, Magyars in the east. Bringing back the starting date to 1000 is not unreasonable, if you ask me. I believe that the conflict between Christianity and paganism could introduce playable theocracies as well as playable pagans.

 

[SRM]

After EU4 we're likely to see another EURome.

 

[Spartanlemur]

I completely agree.

This would basically be Paradox's long-awaited dark ages game, but rather than use a new system, which is utterly pointless given we have everything we need with CK2 (or will do once the pagans DLC is released).

Reasons why this needs to and can be done:


1) As information is scarce on the early middle ages, the lack of detail would make development easier as less dynasties would need to be constructed, so 600 years pre-1066 would be easier than 400 years post 1066.

2) The price point would be similar to that of vanilla CK2 as we are essentially getting a new game here (in the same way Fallout New Vegas was a new game built using the engine+models of Fallout 3.

3) The fact that we go from 395AD to 1453AD if we want allows for an epic level of continuous gameplay.

4) As CK2 has sold so many copies (and continues to do so), there is already a huge customer base who would be willing to purchase the expansion pack

5) As long as it is marketed as more or less a new game, it would attract much interest.

6) As I said before, the engine and map are already there and very much suitable for the late Roman era.

7) EU: Rome covers early-late Rome but also ends in late Rome. This expansion-game would bridge the gap between EU:Rome and CK2.

So why not simply make a post 395AD mod?

1) Mods lack the level of polish which the vanilla game has - CK2 is worked on full-time by paid staff, whereas mods are hobby projects which get juggled alongside other commitments. Not only that but vanilla has the entire community to search for bugs and help with accuracy whereas mods only have their far smaller player bases.

2) Continuing on from my point about polish, mentioned above, the difference in the time spent on mods vs dlc also gives less scope for details.

3) Not every mod will be compatible with a 395AD mod, whereas if the rolled back date was present in vanilla, they all would be, allowing us to play 395AD with our favourite mods rather than simply our favourite mods which are compatible with a 395AD mod.

4) Who's going to do the 395AD mod? There's a lot of work there for a mod team to handle, such as portraits, events, balancing etc. and many mods which get started don't get finished. It's easy to say just mod it in, but mods require a LOT of work, and unless somebody is willing to put in the same amount of devotion the game of thrones team put into their mod, or that the Elder Kings team appear to be putting into their, we're simply not going to see this new start date come to fruition.

5) Paradox South will be able to give us more awesome portrait packs for Barbarians/Romans! The African and Aztec packs were awesome and I for one would love to see as many portrait
packs from them as possible!

Actually, Jck2 would you like us to leave this thread behind and start a "petition for a 395AD expansion pack"? (Unless you can word it better)? We can use my above post as our main reasoning behind why it should be done as an expansion and not a mod (also, do you have anything to add?). I just think that this may be more effective if we try to get Paradox to read logical bullet points of why it should be done backed up by support from the community. Fred Wester himself spoke of rolling back the start date in his recent Q&A by a hundred years or so, but I think it's worth presenting a case for going further than that!