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

[TheDungen]

People like playing the underdogs, it's a challenge. Hence why Ck2 is about beating the HRE (or in early start dates the abbasids/ummayads), Eu4 is about beating the ottomans, vic is about beating britain and HOI is about beating the US/USSR/Germany (depending on who you play).
It comes naturally from that if you don't play these then they will always be a major obstacle. Bu in IR Rome does not have that strong a starting position, instead you have some of Alexander's successors who will be super strong early on. Then again keeping rome from rising may be the IR version of keeping germany from forming in Vic2.

 

[SirAlexius]

Then again keeping rome from rising may be the IR version of keeping germany from forming in Vic2.

Yeah I think if Rome is not given a strong enough start, it may never rise to power in most campaigns or even worse get killed off by its neighbors. If I am playing a Greek city state I think I want to witness the rise of Rome even if they are played by the AI, which means they probably should have some advantages.

 

[TheDungen]

Yeah I think if Rome is not given a strong enough start, it may never rise to power in most campaigns or even worse get killed off by its neighbors. If I am playing a Greek city state I think I want to witness the rise of Rome even if they are played by the AI, which means they probably should have some advantages.

If they do it well Rome will be the top dog in it's neighbourhood and have the ability to become very powerful by taking that land, essentially the only stumbling block for rome should be carthage. Again reminiscent of how Prussia needs to beat France to become Germany in vic.

 

[Searry]

I will first play other nations. I hate Rome personally. They did human sacrifice, mass slavery etc.

 

[TheDungen]

I will first play other nations. I hate Rome personally. They did human sacrifice, mass slavery etc.

Eh... Rome actually had a lot less slavery than many other ancient powers. It's not a humanitarian standpoint late antiquity had a lot more people than early antiquity and when there's more people slavery become a lot less economically beneficial.

 

[viola]

I will first play other nations. I hate Rome personally. They did human sacrifice, mass slavery etc.

Mass slavery is just the norm for ancient polities.

And Ancient Rome isn't known for human sacrifices aside from rare occurrences in the very early Rome.

 

[Thure]

I will first play other nations. I hate Rome personally. They did human sacrifice, mass slavery etc.

Who want you to play? I'm pretty sure the nation you want to play has Mass Slavery too. Like most of the powers during this era.

 

[cristofolmc]

I will first play other nations. I hate Rome personally. They did human sacrifice, mass slavery etc.

You must clearly have an ancient history uni degree.

 

[Denkt]

Rome is the tutorial nation. While they are not the largest nation, many of the major nations mostly rule over foreign population so they will have huge stability issues as aggressive expansion make foreign pops unhappy. In EU: Rome Italy have one of the highest population densities so that may be the case in Imperator: Rome as well, so if Rome is able to annex Italy they may be ready to take out the major powers such as Carthage. Large concentrated population mean their infrastructure and resources may be more effective than many other nations.

 

[cosmeIII]

I will first play other nations. I hate Rome personally. They did human sacrifice, mass slavery etc.

Human sacrifice was abhorred by most Roman authors. You might be talking about ritual strangulation, which was more of a punishment. Though the event of strangling leaders in the Triumph was a bit more peculiar, as these leaders were only sacrificed at the very end: in front of the temple of Jupiter.

And mass slavery was a common thing in ancient times. If you read the dev diaries, you might see something that isn't your cup of tea: A conquered province has all its pops demoted by one tier, which means all of the freemen are turned into slaves. As far as we know, this applies to all countries.

 

[Jack]

I hope that Rome is going to be powerfull in most if not all games.

How boring to built up a neigbour for years and waiting for a roman invasion that never arrives.

 

[TheDungen]

Rome is the tutorial nation. While they are not the largest nation, many of the major nations mostly rule over foreign population so they will have huge stability issues as aggressive expansion make foreign pops unhappy. In EU: Rome Italy have one of the highest population densities so that may be the case in Imperator: Rome as well, so if Rome is able to annex Italy they may be ready to take out the major powers such as Carthage. Large concentrated population mean their infrastructure and resources may be more effective than many other nations.

Actually Carthage is a lot more interesting case when it comes to balancing, and the balance of rome will be very much determined by the balance of carthage. Carthage really should be a lot less powerful than they appear at first glance, they should be rich and have a wide domain and the ability to spread it further, but they should also have next to no army and be forced to either go through slow and expensive reforms to get one or rely on turning their gold to mercenaries. In real life they did the latter and it didn't work out for them.
Essentially carthage should be very good at taking on barbarians but relatively bad at taking on enemies like rome who can put up a serious fight.

 

[ShahanShah]

Actually Carthage is a lot more interesting case when it comes to balancing, and the balance of rome will be very much determined by the balance of carthage. Carthage really should be a lot less powerful than they appear at first glance, they should be rich and have a wide domain and the ability to spread it further, but they should also have next to no army and be forced to either go through slow and expensive reforms to get one or rely on turning their gold to mercenaries. In real life they did the latter and it didn't work out for them.
Essentially carthage should be very good at taking on barbarians but relatively bad at taking on enemies like rome who can put up a serious fight.

I wouldn't say they shouldn't be bad at fighting more organised nations like Syracuse or Rome (Two civs they regularly fought), since they really did give them a good run for their money in the wars they fought. Granted Carthage relying mostly on a merc force wasn't able to handle the more organised home raised armies of Rome and Syracuse who fought for more than coin.

A big thing Carthage should have is being a naval superpower, you mentioned them having a wide domain which went hand in hand with their naval focus, it took a wrecked ship for the Romans to finally one up them navally and bring the Latin advantage to the waves.

 

[Buttons12345]

Personally I just have a few states in different games I like to bully, often declining empires I can humiliate and watch collapse that much faster. In Victoria it is the Ottomans, Qing, and Austria, in CK2 it is the Eastern Roman Empire, in this game I feel like it will be the Seleucids and maybe Macedon. Just starting a game as someone like Armenia or Pontus and picking apart the Seleucids, conquering bits of their empire or demanding massive tribute after wars so they go into crippling debt, unable to support armies, and are picked off that much faster. Maybe choose the Dacians or Celtic tribes and molest Macedon so they lose any position of dominance in Hellas and are defeated that much faster by Rome.

Of course I could start as an actual likely power like Rome, Carthage, or Egypt and carve an empire from those dying empires, but I generally prefer instigate their rapid decline than personally finishing them off. I would rather cripple the Ottoman Empire, see them be unable to retake the Levant from Egypt in the late 1830s, be forced to hand over large chunks of Greece, be forced to form a Republic, then form a dictatorship, then lose complete control of the Balkans than personally have my Russian armies marching through Constantinople and claiming the Dardanelles.

 

[TheDungen]

I wouldn't say they shouldn't be bad at fighting more organised nations like Syracuse or Rome (Two civs they regularly fought), since they really did give them a good run for their money in the wars they fought. Granted Carthage relying mostly on a merc force wasn't able to handle the more organised home raised armies of Rome and Syracuse who fought for more than coin.

A big thing Carthage should have is being a naval superpower, you mentioned them having a wide domain which went hand in hand with their naval focus, it took a wrecked ship for the Romans to finally one up them navally and bring the Latin advantage to the waves.

Well the big thing for carthage is they have a very small population to draw from, only very few people in their domain is actully carthaginians or anything relating to that, while rome sits in italy where most people are fairly close to them, they have acess to a big block of people they could relativly easily assimiliate, the closest place that had that for carthage was the levant.

Me I prefer taking a declining empire and turning it around, but that's assuming the decline is modelled well. Carthage and egypt sounds like really interesting choices to me.

 

[ShahanShah]

Well the big thing for carthage is they have a very small population to draw from, only very few people in their domain is actully carthaginians or anything relating to that, while rome sits in italy where most people are fairly close to them, they have acess to a big block of people they could relativly easily assimiliate, the closest place that had that for carthage was the levant.

Me I prefer taking a declining empire and turning it around, but that's assuming the decline is modelled well. Carthage and egypt sounds like really interesting choices to me.

Well you've just pointed out Carthage's primary flaw, a lack of a native population to recruit from. Where Rome had many different peoples in italy who were more or the less the same, Carthage had none of that in Africa. The Phonecians were in the Levant like you said but Carthage had no control or influence there.

I imagine one of the first things you'll have to do as Carthage is unite the North African hinterlands for some extra manpower and land, and connect some of the more distant colonies out west.

 

[TheDungen]

Well you've just pointed out Carthage's primary flaw, a lack of a native population to recruit from. Where Rome had many different peoples in italy who were more or the less the same, Carthage had none of that in Africa. The Phonecians were in the Levant like you said but Carthage had no control or influence there.

I imagine one of the first things you'll have to do as Carthage is unite the North African hinterlands for some extra manpower and land, and connect some of the more distant colonies out west.

But the north african hinterlands are still of diffrent cultures you can stick swords in their hands but they are as likely to use them on you as to use them to help you.

You shoudl really be forced to either make some of the cultures in the african hinterlands accepted cultures (at the risk of losing your levantine heirtage), or assimiliate them (which should take time and money) or try to get some serious migration going the ancestral homeland (essentially colonize it).

 

[Gurkhal]

I don't know which stance this game will take, on Rome, but I know what stance that I will take.

 

[Drake VI]

For me, and those I do multiplayer with, the fun is to make the biggest, most radical dent in history possible ("alternate histories R us"). So likely starts are to make Carthage or Egypt dominant empires at the expense of Rome. Or to build up one of the other leftovers from Alexander's empire to be a dominant power coming from the east. Later single-play might turn to Rome, and trying to make it more expansive than it would have been in this timeframe. After that, try really minor nations (Gauls? Germans? Britons? Others?) become truly significant by game end.

Perhaps the real question is "Which Empire will we love to hate?" In EU4, Ottomans, Austria, or a western colonizing power are our typical victims (recently had Catholic-then-Protestant Ottomans engulf France via personal union while Coptic Mamluks/Egypt took over Italy and Spain). We'll be looking for similar opportunities in I:R.

 

[Will Steel]

Personally I'll play others like Mauryans, the Diadochi, Carthage and minor city states around the world. Rome isn't a top priority for me.

Rome exists only so that I can raze it to the ground and camp an army there. Deal with it.