Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

What do you want most from EU:Rome 2 if it happens.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Tisifoni12 said:
Trade was something I didn't like in Rome. This is handled better in EUIV.
The this province exchanges this resource with this province model was simplistic, tended to structure internal markets and was a state managed top down model that would be more true of the Palatial Bronze Age than the more complicated Iron Age / Classical Age.
Apart from certain state managed enterprises that had a specific purpose, the primary example being ensuring Rome's grain supply, which applies only late in the period covered by Rome, trade was largely left to entrepreneurs. The state's interest was in extracting taxes from economic activity.
So similar to EUIV please, but probably without state directed merchants. Unless perhaps you have state officials with specific duties, like ensuring Rome's grain supply ?
Click to expand...

Yeah, provincial trade was really annoying, although I liked how strategic ressources were important. Not having iron, horses or wood was really a strong incentive in trying to get those. Though once you had one, having more really lost its appeal. In EU, what you have, or don't does not really matter.
 
Powerslave said:
Atleast it's better than CK2 where the number of troops alone is almost the only important factor in the battle.
Click to expand...

Definately. Also, unlike in CK2, not just stats matter; a general with lower martial but a battle event trait can be much more valuable than a general with high martial but no battle traits. I've never faced situations where 20k men would loose to 4k.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Opopo1122 said:
I seem to recall my 20,000 man army led by a 9 martial general getting the crap kicked out of them by 4,000 led by a 10 martial general. No thank you. Should be taken into account, but the one time that 500 held off a whole Persian army should not be the standard for the system.
Click to expand...
If they add the focus system of CKII, your general may get 11 military and win next time :p
 
Thrake said:
Yeah, provincial trade was really annoying, although I liked how strategic ressources were important. Not having iron, horses or wood was really a strong incentive in trying to get those. Though once you had one, having more really lost its appeal. In EU, what you have, or don't does not really matter.
Click to expand...
Trade nods I want them to add trade nods
 
Opopo1122 said:
I seem to recall my 20,000 man army led by a 9 martial general getting the crap kicked out of them by 4,000 led by a 10 martial general. No thank you. Should be taken into account, but the one time that 500 held off a whole Persian army should not be the standard for the system.
Click to expand...
You know this would be wonderful because the facus will be on the characters and also on the training and armament of the troops rather than their numbers.
 
In EUIV generals are rated for four factors: shock fire, maneuver, siege. Maybe four is more than enough, but generals could be rated for perhaps maneuver, charisma and cunning. Hannibal was undoubtedly cunning, Alexander charismatic. Siege capability is more about the engineering capabilities of the army. Romans do siege engineering, Greeks do siege engineering, other people don't so much . . .

Battles could be handled better, both in Rome and EU. If its about numbers and factors then you don't need a display and you don't need it to last days. Maybe instead give choices between options; to fight or attempt to avoid a battle, to defend and only counterattack if the enemy attack falters, to attempt to exploit a cavalry advantage, etc.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Another thought, the terrain factors applied to battles are I assume based on the qualities of the province in which the battle takes place and the direction from which the attacker moves into that province ?

This makes sense for large armies, e.g. WWII (Hearts of Iron), but for earlier periods you're probably looking at a small area within that province, probably, though there are some historic 'encounter battle' like Gettysburg, ground chosen by one general or the other, like Waterloo, or Cannae. In the ancient period frequently, but not always, invaders would invade, find a good location for a camp and battle ground and sit and wait for the invaded state to respond and come and attack.

Perhaps the favourability of the terrain should be determined by the relative skill and character of the generals with also some reference to the general character of the province, e.g. a predominantly cavalry army may be unhappy in a region that is heavily forested or mountainous compared to an infantry army, the reverse in open plains, for example Carrhae.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Culture should matter. It would be easier to have tributaries than to annex a different culture. Still, we can have colonizing empires such as carthage (they send colonists to change the demographic structure of provinces), Colonizing new states Greeks They colonize other lands but form new city states. Cultural dominations such as Rome (Romanization), Cosmopolitan empires (like Persia where people are allowed to keep their traditions as long as they serve the king of kings) or assimilation (Helenistic where you create a hybrid culture intermarriage worship of native gods etc.). If you are Greek for instance, you cannot annex other cities, you can only dominate them as hegemon. The Egyptian may have an empire outside Egypt but they cannot spread their culture away from the Nile. Administration, therefore, should be left to vessal petty kings. But the Ptolmics can have a GreecoEgyptian administration outside Egypt. So if you decide to become Egyptian like Cleopatra, you risk losing this bonus but you gain the bonus of Egyptian culture. Temples and exotic arts as well as undisputed rule in Egypt as the Egyptian see Pharaoh as god. Some choices are difficult. Helenistic and Persian Kings adopted the title of Pharaoh but they were not able to convince the Egyptians. Still, if the Ptolmic adopt Egyptian culture they become Egyptian.
 
Last edited:
Tisifoni12 said:
Another thought, the terrain factors applied to battles are I assume based on the qualities of the province in which the battle takes place and the direction from which the attacker moves into that province ?

This makes sense for large armies, e.g. WWII (Hearts of Iron), but for earlier periods you're probably looking at a small area within that province, probably, though there are some historic 'encounter battle' like Gettysburg, ground chosen by one general or the other, like Waterloo, or Cannae. In the ancient period frequently, but not always, invaders would invade, find a good location for a camp and battle ground and sit and wait for the invaded state to respond and come and attack.

Perhaps the favourability of the terrain should be determined by the relative skill and character of the generals with also some reference to the general character of the province, e.g. a predominantly cavalry army may be unhappy in a region that is heavily forested or mountainous compared to an infantry army, the reverse in open plains, for example Carrhae.
Click to expand...
Totally agree
 
Tisifoni12 said:
In EUIV generals are rated for four factors: shock fire, maneuver, siege. Maybe four is more than enough, but generals could be rated for perhaps maneuver, charisma and cunning. Hannibal was undoubtedly cunning, Alexander charismatic. Siege capability is more about the engineering capabilities of the army. Romans do siege engineering, Greeks do siege engineering, other people don't so much . . .

Battles could be handled better, both in Rome and EU. If its about numbers and factors then you don't need a display and you don't need it to last days. Maybe instead give choices between options; to fight or attempt to avoid a battle, to defend and only counterattack if the enemy attack falters, to attempt to exploit a cavalry advantage, etc.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
Cunning and Charisma should not only add battle statistics but they also should add battle events. Training should help generals acquire certain battle traits and special events. I also find the idea of armis that roam around the map in times of peace unhinging. they are garrisoned somewhere under a certain commander. This may add events like complaints or army mutiny because of long stay in foreign garrisons. Frictions with the inhabitants. etc.They should be trained. Their number should not only depend on the drafting effort but also on the training efforts. So Cvalery should be trained to be cavalery. The same for archers. So time matters and the readiness of units is not taken for granted. Generally invasions and war take months if not years of preparation. You start preparing for war secretly by training men and providing supplies, This may be quite good since wars are not easy to wage and therefore not too frequent. This gives time to more internal factionalism and cunning
 
Last edited:
"Generally invasions and war take months if not years of preparation. You start preparing for war secretly by training men and providing supplies"

Evidence ?

In the ancient period the logistics of supporting an army in the field were pretty basic, unless you're an Imperial state moving a standing army about within your own territories.
Despite the claims of certain historians, writing about battles a generation or more before the time they wrote, it looks as if the logistical limit on army size was somewhere between 40.000 and 60,000. There isn't evidence for the creation of 'grain magazines' to support armies as in the Napoleonic period. The Imperial Roman Army did have granaries in their forts, but you're talking about the supplies for semi-static garrisons of 500 - 5,000 men.

Standing armies tended, I think, relative to population, to be fairly small, supplemented for active campaigns by conscription / recruitment of citizens / subjects liable for military service ('cleruchs', citizen hoplites, etc.) and mercenaries.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Tisifoni12 said:
"Generally invasions and war take months if not years of preparation. You start preparing for war secretly by training men and providing supplies"

Evidence ?

In the ancient period the logistics of supporting an army in the field were pretty basic, unless you're an Imperial state moving a standing army about within your own territories.
Despite the claims of certain historians, writing about battles a generation or more before the time they wrote, it looks as if the logistical limit on army size was somewhere between 40.000 and 60,000. There isn't evidence for the creation of 'grain magazines' to support armies as in the Napoleonic period. The Imperial Roman Army did have granaries in their forts, but you're talking about the supplies for semi-static garrisons of 500 - 5,000 men.

Standing armies tended, I think, relative to population, to be fairly small, supplemented for active campaigns by conscription / recruitment of citizens / subjects liable for military service ('cleruchs', citizen hoplites, etc.) and mercenaries.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back