Will this become a pro-Rome or anti-Rome game?

[SirAlexius]

I am curious whether the community will decide that it is more fun to celebrate Rome in the game or make fun of it/destroy it.

In a way, the time period of EU4 is about the rise and fall of the Ottoman empire, yet it seemed like for some reason the community decided to hate on the Ottomans.

Similarly, I:R could be described as the rise and fall of the Roman Republic.

I like Rome a lot but from a gameplay point of view I am guessing it will be really fun to stop Rome in its tracks/delete it from the map.

 

[dav77-b]

I am curious whether the community will decide that it is more fun to celebrate Rome in the game or make fun of it/destroy it.

In a way, the time period of EU4 is about the rise and fall of the Ottoman empire, yet it seemed like for some reason the community decided to hate on the Ottomans.

Similarly, I:R could be described as the rise and fall of the Roman Republic.

I like Rome a lot but from a gameplay point of view I am guessing it will be really fun to stop Rome in its tracks/delete it from the map.[/QUOTE

EUROPA universalis is about the ottoman empire?

 

[Wavey]

I think it'll depend a lot on how strong Rome is at the start. The Ottomans get so much stick because they are so strong - same with France. The challenge is stopping them, not succeeding as them.

If Rome starts out able to just steamroll over its neighbours and not face significant challenges then defeating it will be the thing to aspire to. But if the reverse is true and playing as Rome you face significant challenges as Rome historically did with Pyhrrus, Carthage, etc - then I reckon there will be a lot more love for a triumphant Rome.

 

[ShahanShah]

I am curious whether the community will decide that it is more fun to celebrate Rome in the game or make fun of it/destroy it.

In a way, the time period of EU4 is about the rise and fall of the Ottoman empire, yet it seemed like for some reason the community decided to hate on the Ottomans.

Similarly, I:R could be described as the rise and fall of the Roman Republic.

I like Rome a lot but from a gameplay point of view I am guessing it will be really fun to stop Rome in its tracks/delete it from the map.

Rome at game start is in a really good position, but it definitely isn't the superpower it would become, especially when compared to well established powers at game start like the Carthagianians and big Diadochi. I don't think comparing it to the ottomans is really accurate given the power disparity, I'd say Phrygia fits that bill more (EU4 isn't about Ottoman decline since they rarely ever decline without player intervention).

 

[SirAlexius]

I think it'll depend a lot on how strong Rome is at the start. The Ottomans get so much stick because they are so strong - same with France. The challenge is stopping them, not succeeding as them.

If Rome starts out able to just steamroll over its neighbours and not face significant challenges then defeating it will be the thing to aspire to. But if the reverse is true and playing as Rome you face significant challenges as Rome historically did with Pyhrrus, Carthage, etc - then I reckon there will be a lot more love for a triumphant Rome.

I think you have a good point. I always assumed Rome would be the overpowered monster in this game, but if Paradox is able to make Rome feel like a rising underdog throughout this time period then the RP motivations will be very different.

I am getting the feeling the Carthage may have the role of the big blob in the early game, so if they have a much stronger start than Rome, it will definitely be an aspiration to start as Rome and take on Carthage.

 

[cristofolmc]

The Ottomans get so much stick because they are so strong - same with France. The challenge is stopping them, not succeeding as them.

This basically.

The game is called Imperator Rome so Rome gets more focuse, but it seems both playing as rome as defeating it or stop them will be a very fun experience, as all government types seem to be getting as much love really and different gameplay styles.

And no, Rome is not the Ottomans. In fact I think from reading an article from a journo Who got to play the game, he was defeated by Etruria who was superior at game start, so taking off as rome wont be an easy ride, and it will be a lot of fun qnd challenge gaining control of Italy, as it is in tje EU4 mod Imperiu Universalis, since Italy is its own continent almost, with so many provinces and countries you have to annex. So you can clearly see two stages of gameplay. One securing a homeland, a region uunification to become a regional power, and then another, becoming an empire, both with different strategies and challenges.

So yes, I dont think Rome will bbe either hated or loved. Sometimes you'll want to play as rome and others defeat as a tribe in Iberia Gaul or Britain, or as Carthague or a middle east or egypt monarchy, or as a greek state confederacy.

 

[viola]

...

This is a weird thread with a weird question in it.

Most people will play whatever they like.

 

[Smokez83]

...

This is a weird thread with a weird question in it.

Most people will play whatever they like.

This. I am torn as to who to play first as they have done a great job of making each faction/area/government style appealing. Part of me wants to repeat history and set up the Republic to be taken over by a just, glorious deity like Octavian Another part of me wants to take over Britannia then steamroll south and conquer Rome instead. Alternatively, let's make Greece Great Again! I don't feel that any of them are there to be hated on, each provides different challenges. Even the large empires look like they could have their own issues to deal with and won't necessarily be able to just steamroll across everyone. Or maybe they will. We'll find out soon enough, I guess.

 

[DukeDayve]

This. I am torn as to who to play first as they have done a great job of making each faction/area/government style appealing. Part of me wants to repeat history and set up the Republic to be taken over by a just, glorious deity like Octavian Another part of me wants to take over Britannia then steamroll south and conquer Rome instead. Alternatively, let's make Greece Great Again! I don't feel that any of them are there to be hated on, each provides different challenges. Even the large empires look like they could have their own issues to deal with and won't necessarily be able to just steamroll across everyone. Or maybe they will. We'll find out soon enough, I guess.

You'll play as Rome first. We all know it!

I'm gonna do Rome first then Greek Massalia. I don't think it's very far outside the realms of plausibility for Massalia to have slowly grown in power and influence along the coasts to their east and west, maybe creating a navy and a little network of alliances and trading partners inland a bit.

 

[Smokez83]

You'll play as Rome first. We all know it!

I'm gonna do Rome first then Greek Massalia. I don't think it's very far outside the realms of plausibility for Massalia to have slowly grown in power and influence along the coasts to their east and west, maybe creating a navy and a little network of alliances and trading partners inland a bit.

You're most likely right... Roma victrix! Gloria Romae! I'm interested in seeing how the game actually plays with the different tech trees etc.

 

[Martynios]

The Ottomans get so much stick because they are so strong

Pretty sure this is more due to all the Balkanites and Byzantophiles.

 

[SirAlexius]

Most people will play whatever they like.

Obviously people will play how they like. My question is whether there will be some prevalent, or at least widely known attitudes towards Rome in memes about the game and so forth.

I didn't want to quote the actual EU4 meme because it is inappropriate but I imagine at least some of the players would want to see Rome removed from the map.

 

[cosmeIII]

Rome first to learn the ropes, then Greek city states in the western Mediterranean to form a new hellenic empire

 

[viola]

Obviously people will play how they like. My question is whether there will be some prevalent, or at least widely known attitudes towards Rome in memes about the game and so forth.

I didn't want to quote the actual EU4 meme because it is inappropriate but I imagine at least some of the players would want to see Rome removed from the map.

This is such a weird thing to care about.

 

[kente]

Ottomans in eu4 start with cores in half of their neighbors giving them the reconquest CB (less AE and no OE), they have a decision to make Constantinople capital which transforms a very good province in the best province in the game, the other missions give free claim on all Egypt, Middle Eastern and half Arabia peninsula (and Balkans which by the way are all orthodoxes and nobody in Europe care if they are conquered). At the start date their main rivals are Venice and QQ, the first can only try to compete in naval warfare (which in eu4 is useless, at least until Golden Century i didn't try it yet) and QQ if try to start a war against Ottos will find itself in war also against Timurids and Mamluks and maybe some minors (like Georgia).
So Ottos starts is probably the easiest start in eu4, i doubt Rome in I:R will have such strong start

 

[Zarastro Marchio]

Ottomans in eu4 start with cores in half of their neighbors giving them the reconquest CB (less AE and no OE), they have a decision to make Constantinople capital which transforms a very good province in the best province in the game, the other missions give free claim on all Egypt, Middle Eastern and half Arabia peninsula (and Balkans which by the way are all orthodoxes and nobody in Europe care if they are conquered). At the start date their main rivals are Venice and QQ, the first can only try to compete in naval warfare (which in eu4 is useless, at least until Golden Century i didn't try it yet) and QQ if try to start a war against Ottos will find itself in war also against Timurids and Mamluks and maybe some minors (like Georgia).
So Ottos starts is probably the easiest start in eu4, i doubt Rome in I:R will have such strong start

You are essentially right, though I have the impression that the start has become somewhat more difficult for the Ottomans because the Mamelucks have become stronger and are more willing to oppose the Ottomans when they try to expand into Anatolia. Though once the Mamelucks are beaten (which happens eventually in like 90% of my playthroughs) there is usually nothing -except a very powerful coalition - from stopping them to expand deep into Europe.

The Etruscans are probably going to be the litmus test for Rome, they are designed to be their rivals for hegemony over Italy. Once they fall, I suspect that Italy is almost guaranteed to conquer Italy. The question is though, how effectively the many small countrys can band together and oppose a large conqueror? Since it has been stated that countries of the same culture can form a defensive pact, Roman expansion will be slowed down eventually.

 

[Concrete]

EU4 isn't so much about the Ottomans as you can say that Imperator's time period is about Rome or the Diadochi. But it certainly is probably the single most influential, just for the concept it represents. With European nations having finally found their feet after the instability of the middle ages, many nations find themselves with an almost insurmountable foe in the east. But it's that breakpoint in technology and information that the period encompasses. When some states begin to explore and discover far more possibilities than were available to say, Rome when they were faced with their challenges.

So I'd say the Ottomans are the defining nation of the time period, but not the stars of the show. So to speak.

To actually address the OP's question, and to kinda reference the above point. I think it'll be both. The comparison to other time-periods don't really apply.
Rome's success and legacy were so tremendous that they've been worshiped by so many for such a long period of time. In the later years, even the most differently organized states and the most bitter of rivals would share an appreciation for and an ambition to reach towards the idea of Rome.
So as opposed to EU4, where what would become modern nations are already defined. So you might have Polish players cackling maniacally as they bully a fledgling Russia; while some players might not care for eastern Europe and fixate on colonial ambitions. But in the time period of Imperator, I think everyone playing wants to either Rise as Rome, or emulate its success as other nations. Either way, eyes are definitely on that single nation and/or its legacy.

So I think the answer to your question is both, at the same time.

Though I will also say that I think even without context, viewing the game without history's lens; Rome is pretty well situated to offer what most people seek in grand strategy games.
Large enough to begin shaping and directing in different directions from day one, small enough to seem like a challenge, with serious rivals down the road. But with enough roadblocks to keep things interesting.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

In fact I think from reading an article from a journo Who got to play the game, he was defeated by Etruria who was superior at game start

The Etruscans are probably going to be the litmus test for Rome, they are designed to be their rivals for hegemony over Italy.

Etruria alone as viable rival for Rome in 305 BC sounds bit much honestly. I'd expect that a good and/or lucky Roman player at very least would be able to defeat a whole coalition of Etruscans, Samnites, Umbrians and Senone Gauls with more or less the starting territory and allies. It's what they managed historically at least.

If anything Samnites were still the more dangerous ones, even after their defeat in 2nd Samnite War.

 

[Zarastro Marchio]

Etruria alone as viable rival for Rome in 305 BC sounds bit much honestly. I'd expect that a good and/or lucky Roman player at very least would be able to defeat a whole coalition of Etruscans, Samnites, Umbrians and Senone Gauls with more or less the starting territory and allies. It's what they managed historically at least.

If anything Samnites were still the more dangerous ones, even after their defeat in 2nd Samnite War.

You might be right historically (I do not know enough about this myself), but I suspect that the developers have different plans. I believe that a developer diary mentioned that the Etruscians would be hostile to Rome. I recently watched the video from a Germany youtuber (Steinwallen) in which he played as Rome; after conquering large parts of South Italy the Etruscians ended up giving him a serious run for his money.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I believe that a developer diary mentioned that the Etruscians would be hostile to Rome.

They should be, the game begins during an interbellum in general conflict in central Italy. The dev diary also states that Rome is now the dominant power and that the Etruscans are now much more limited compared to the dominant power they used to be, it doesn't seem to suggest anything about intentionally buffed Etruria.

I also note that about 80 years later Samnites are giving about 50% larger levy for Rome than Etruscans, though perhaps this is just a case of the less pugnacious Etruscans having more forgiving deal than the Samnites.