Hello, I have a really large concern for the 3 biggest of the Diadochi, and honestly, the Mauryans too. I fear they will become big blobs, unstoppable and stupidly easy to play.
What Will Stop The Diadochi from being big Blobs
- Thread starter XxNovaStarxX
- 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.
Each other. Or events, rebels, and such.
I'm not worried about that at all. If it gets out of control on launch, it won't be a hard fix for Paradox.
I'm not worried about that at all. If it gets out of control on launch, it won't be a hard fix for Paradox.
Tbh I think it's a valid concern, while I think we should see them thrive (or at least some of them), every now and again, I really hope they don't become superpowers in every single game. And given how empires in CKII have been handled (i.e. they basically never fall apart and just keeps growing), I'm a bit worried this will happen here as well.
On the other hand, this period did see the rise of one of the largest empires in european history, so it shouldn't be impossible to do, with an already established powerhouse, so it's a tricky path to walk on
It would be a sad game if they usually collapsed and there was not something in Persia that is a strong superpower.
They should be superpowers. It's good that the game will offer different experiences depending on where in the world you play. In some parts of the world you'll either be a superpower or exist in its shadow. In other parts you'll a nation of moderate power, and in others, small and almost irrelevant.
I expect/hope that the larger you get the more difficult it becomes to manage your governors, generals and provinces. That way the Diadochi can be very strong, but also stagnant, as expansion may mean provinces breaking away (Like Bactria or Parthia in case of the Seleucids). Meaning that the more you expand the more you have to manage internal politics.
Big Blob problem is a plague following Paradox games at least from EU2. So if you can offer "not hard fix" so such problem, I, personally, want to hear it.
They should eventually collapse due to being Greek states with a 90%+ non-Greek population, and be replaced by more `native`/`nativized` states such as Parthia. It would be a shame if no large Parthian/Persian state emerges, for example.
So, with the exception of Macedon, the majority population of the daidochi states are both non-Greeks and non-Hellenics.
Based on what has been shown to press/influencers, there are no coalitions, but instead aggressive expansion will really annoy pops within your nation who are of a different culture group, while having a different religion will also make them even more annoyed just as a baseline. Low pop happiness can trigger civil wars, which seem to be much more dangerous and decisive than the rebel spawns of EU4 at the cost of being more predictable (they look more like CK2 civil wars than traditional rebel spawns).
What this should mean (although I've not heard it actually stated) is that the daidochi states will be very, very powerful but will also suffer heavily from internal problems, especially if they attempt to expand. Given that the entire nation is majority different culture with only a small greek ruling class, I'd expect daidochi civil wars to be devastating.
While expansion is always going to be a big part of any game focused on Rome, it seems like there's a much more noteable tradeoff in Imperator between wanting to expand and gain more population and power through expansion and wanting to maintain stability.
Based on what has been shown to press/influencers, there are no coalitions, but instead aggressive expansion will really annoy pops within your nation who are of a different culture group, while having a different religion will also make them even more annoyed just as a baseline. Low pop happiness can trigger civil wars, which seem to be much more dangerous and decisive than the rebel spawns of EU4 at the cost of being more predictable (they look more like CK2 civil wars than traditional rebel spawns).
What this should mean (although I've not heard it actually stated) is that the daidochi states will be very, very powerful but will also suffer heavily from internal problems, especially if they attempt to expand. Given that the entire nation is majority different culture with only a small greek ruling class, I'd expect daidochi civil wars to be devastating.
While expansion is always going to be a big part of any game focused on Rome, it seems like there's a much more noteable tradeoff in Imperator between wanting to expand and gain more population and power through expansion and wanting to maintain stability.
Last edited:
Mauryans need the Ming treatment for this game. They were seriously huge. Their army supposedly numbered somewhere close to 900,000 at their peak while their treasury dwarfed the Mediterranean, controlling every last corner of India as well as much of eastern Persia. And let's not even mention the enormous population.
...Yet they were the fastest major Indian dynasty to collapse in history - 143 years (even if their government system continued mostly unhindered).
So yes - they need a "fragility" mechanism like Ming does, in a very different way.
Which means Mauryans will remain nearly unbeatable as long as the Emperor is a high-stat, good-trait guy. It will work even with mediocre rulers. But as soon as a guy with bad attributes becomes Emperor (which will inevitably happen one day because RNG never stops), there will be immediate consequences like:
1) Every neighbour will get a free one-time casus belli to invade Mauryan India and try to cut their piece of the cake in it.
2) Characters will start growing disloyal and hostile to the ruling family, so it will be a race to preserve the dynasty.
3) Civil war and rebellions that will break up the Mauryans piece by piece into both minor kingdoms and major empires. Lots of tags will become independent, often ruled by characters who were former Mauryan governors.
4) All vassals and client states, if any, are immediately freed. And maybe even ally with the enemies.
5) Mauryan army will get big debuffs, requiring major effort to pull through all this insanity.
This way, you can guarantee that Mauryan AI will go on a conquering spree and unite all of India (historical), but also guarantee that it will live only a bit less than two centuries and then undergo a massive implosion (also historical). Unless there is also a reform mechanism allowing them to survive and restore power by decentralizing (maybe in a future expansion).
What kind of resulting things does this mean in game terms?
a) It will be a very significant mid-game event that will permanently change borders in the eastern map. Kinda like a disaster event as it was.
b) If you are a player nation and neighbouring Mauryans, it is a great opportunity for you to use that 1-time casus belli, rush into India and take as many lands as you can before a new dynasty reemerges and starts reconquering the land back.
c) Once the giant unified Indian empire is gone, that part of the map will always have some action. From Yuezhi trying to move in, Greeks, Bactrians, Parthians, conversion and reconversion, split empires in India fighting to reunite (Shunga and Satvahana historically) while also trying to kick out foreigners, and so on. It will not be boring compared to the "3 giant empires sit there staring at the world" thing like CK2's India.
d) If there is a reform mechanisms, Mauryans may decentralize and survive, reduced to a few areas around the capital. And then they'd come back with an extremely bloody path to vengeance.
...Yet they were the fastest major Indian dynasty to collapse in history - 143 years (even if their government system continued mostly unhindered).
Reason? They centralized the empire so much and put so much power in the hands of the Emperor, it made them completely unable to handle the possibility of surprisingly bad luck, unexpected events and demanded total competence from the rulers, or else the system ceases to function (imagine if Roman emperor had to do every single thing by himself...it would've collapsed by the time of Nero). Mauryan Empire was not designed to function with an inactive ruler.
Once emperors began dying too quickly (bad luck), the government destabilized and collapsed on itself. And that rapid succession eventually put a (seemingly) incompetent palace-dwelling slacker on the throne as Emperor. He was completely unable to handle noblemen and generals rising all around him and his own governors using him as a pawn. Followed by entire southern half of the empire breaking away in a civil war. Followed by renewed Greek invasion, which he failed to stop even with largest army in the world at his command. Followed by his general finally putting an end to him and taking over and installing a new dynasty (Shunga). Whole load of bad luck.
Once emperors began dying too quickly (bad luck), the government destabilized and collapsed on itself. And that rapid succession eventually put a (seemingly) incompetent palace-dwelling slacker on the throne as Emperor. He was completely unable to handle noblemen and generals rising all around him and his own governors using him as a pawn. Followed by entire southern half of the empire breaking away in a civil war. Followed by renewed Greek invasion, which he failed to stop even with largest army in the world at his command. Followed by his general finally putting an end to him and taking over and installing a new dynasty (Shunga). Whole load of bad luck.
So yes - they need a "fragility" mechanism like Ming does, in a very different way.
Which means Mauryans will remain nearly unbeatable as long as the Emperor is a high-stat, good-trait guy. It will work even with mediocre rulers. But as soon as a guy with bad attributes becomes Emperor (which will inevitably happen one day because RNG never stops), there will be immediate consequences like:
1) Every neighbour will get a free one-time casus belli to invade Mauryan India and try to cut their piece of the cake in it.
2) Characters will start growing disloyal and hostile to the ruling family, so it will be a race to preserve the dynasty.
3) Civil war and rebellions that will break up the Mauryans piece by piece into both minor kingdoms and major empires. Lots of tags will become independent, often ruled by characters who were former Mauryan governors.
4) All vassals and client states, if any, are immediately freed. And maybe even ally with the enemies.
5) Mauryan army will get big debuffs, requiring major effort to pull through all this insanity.
This way, you can guarantee that Mauryan AI will go on a conquering spree and unite all of India (historical), but also guarantee that it will live only a bit less than two centuries and then undergo a massive implosion (also historical). Unless there is also a reform mechanism allowing them to survive and restore power by decentralizing (maybe in a future expansion).
What kind of resulting things does this mean in game terms?
a) It will be a very significant mid-game event that will permanently change borders in the eastern map. Kinda like a disaster event as it was.
b) If you are a player nation and neighbouring Mauryans, it is a great opportunity for you to use that 1-time casus belli, rush into India and take as many lands as you can before a new dynasty reemerges and starts reconquering the land back.
c) Once the giant unified Indian empire is gone, that part of the map will always have some action. From Yuezhi trying to move in, Greeks, Bactrians, Parthians, conversion and reconversion, split empires in India fighting to reunite (Shunga and Satvahana historically) while also trying to kick out foreigners, and so on. It will not be boring compared to the "3 giant empires sit there staring at the world" thing like CK2's India.
d) If there is a reform mechanisms, Mauryans may decentralize and survive, reduced to a few areas around the capital. And then they'd come back with an extremely bloody path to vengeance.
Last edited:
All depends if we get civil wars and rebellions, Diadochi empires not will be big blobs. I believe as Rome is easy to play and conquer whole world before 100 BC
, Diadochi empires not will be big blobs. I believe as Rome is easy to play and conquer whole world before 100 BC
I suspect that a large factor will be the intelligence of the KI. How well can it handle large expansions, and how ruthless can it exploit weaknesses and attack? The Seleucids and Ptolemian Egypt seem to have a decent starting position thanks to their alliance. But e.g. the Seleucids could be in trouble if they use their ressources in a costly war with the West, and are afterwards attacked from the East. I am sure the developers have put a lot of thought in how to balance those powers and they'll hopefully make sure that we see a wide range of developments through our playthroughs.
Proper mechanics that simulate the strain of administering a large territory and mechanics that make distant areas or areas with awful terrain difficult to govern. Take the Mauryas for example. They should have a really difficult time controlling land in Iran. Of the two land routes that exist, the Khyber Pass and Balochistan (I forget the contemporary name for it, something with an M), only the Khyber pass can reasonably be used to send an army through, and at great expense considering the mountainous terrain on both sides. The sea route is impractically expensive and the only viable ports for sending a large amount of men are actually farther away than looking at a map would imply. Effectively this means that whoever you put in charge on the other side has a high level of autonomy. You would be liable to get very little tribute from them and if the local ruler decides he wants to be independent, sending a large enough force to assure victory is going to be much more expensive than what you got from having that region under your control.
Of course, considering Imperator is taking it's cues from EU4 there will be no cost associated with sending an army anywhere, you will get full taxes regardless of distance and geography, and you will be able to transport large amounts of men from anywhere that has a coastline to anywhere else that has a coastline (again at no cost tot you). So the only thing keeping the blobs from blobbing is going to be each other.
Of course, considering Imperator is taking it's cues from EU4 there will be no cost associated with sending an army anywhere, you will get full taxes regardless of distance and geography, and you will be able to transport large amounts of men from anywhere that has a coastline to anywhere else that has a coastline (again at no cost tot you). So the only thing keeping the blobs from blobbing is going to be each other.
Last edited:
These are all very good points. At worst there should be domestic/foreign unit maintenance costs for units. Also, your point on terrain is very good, it would be amazing if that was somehow a factor. Of course Rome was more long-lasting than the Maurya as it had the Mediterranean to facilitate transport. The Mediterranean core of the Empire survived for 550 years, which is quite an achivement for such a large Empire (no single Indian Empire ever managed that).
Using Stanford's ORBIS this maritime/land transport gap is easy to see. For a regular traveler, the 650 km from Rome to Carthage took 4 days to cover and cost 123 denarii. Rome to Arretium was 200 km, took 6 and a half days and cost 265 denarii.
Last edited:
OP's concern is very legitimate. Just look at EU4 Timurids and Ming, or Byzantium in CK2.
I look at it as the big baddies you need to beat or avoid and we all know you need some of those.
They did finally weaken the ERE in CK2 (after 5 years) by adding in the new imperial succession law. Byzantium does have tons of problems now like it did in real life, and even collapses or loses territory.