Imperator Dev Diary - 20/03/23

[Natethegreat]

Is there any chance for the ability to client state/make into a tributary a nation while also taking some territory?

god please add this. It bugs me so much i cant take some territory and make a client state, i have to do 2 wars for that.

 

[Denkt]

Please remember, the Hellenistic system of war also took a minor and, at the time, little known, Greek Kingdom based in the hinterlands of the Greek peninsula to conquer the largest and most powerful empire the world had ever seen up to that point - that empire being Persia. *Something Rome was never able to accomplish*

On the other hand the greeks or nobody else for that matter managed to conquer all the territories the romans did. Also Persia Empire was rather united and only took rather few battles to put under Control which is very different from the conquest the romans did which was to conquer territories held by many various people. When the Romans defeated a large nation like Carthage they could grab basically the whole nation in one war which is similar to Alexander's conquest of Persia.

Also it is not clear how formidable the Persian army actually was when Alexander invaded, to me it seems to have been pretty mediocre, atleast compared to the army Alexander had.

In the game however it is very different due to how warscore work which mean stuff like Gaul can be conquered quickly since you can annex each small country in one war while the land grab in the second punic war or even the first punic war is pretty much impossible due to the warscore limitation. In fact the conquest Alexander did is actually impossible with the current game mechanics even though it is just a few decades Before the start of the game.

Yeah, the Romans did a great job of exploiting the weaknesses of an Alexandrian styled army largely due to good leadership on the Roman side and bad leadership on the Greek side (Credit to the Romans of the time). But for those who seem to think that battles like the Battle of Magnesia proves that Alexandrian styled warfare was outclassed by Roman, please read up on how bad the Macedonian armies of the 200+ B.C.E. timelines were compared to those prior to 300 B.C.E. The Seleucid Empire's army in 190 B.C.E. commanded by Antiochus III does not compare to the soldier's/armies commanded by Alexander, Eumenes, Antigonos, etc.

And why do you think these later greek armies would be so bad? It seems like such argument is often used when one side lose, it armies must have been bad, like the same argument is used to describe later roman armies but if they was so bad how for example did Rome survive to 1453?

 

[Lord Lambert]

It seems like such argument is often used when one side lose

In fairness, you're critiquing something you yourself have just done:

Also it is not clear how formidable the Persian army actually was when Alexander invaded, to me it seems to have been pretty mediocre, atleast compared to the army Alexander had.

 

[Denkt]

In fairness, you're critiquing something you yourself have just done:

Yes but that is also to tell the flaws of such way of thinking. Either the Persian army was in a pretty bad shape (which is the same argument used when Rome conquered greece and when Rome in turn lost territories) or the romans probably beat relevant and capable greek armies just like the greek beat the best persian armies.

Just because an army lost don't mean it have been in decline, it could simply mean people have figured out ways to beat it. In fact the army could very well have improved but someone else may have improved even more. Like France during Napolonic wars defeated Austria and Prussia several times but in the Franco-Prussian War the Prussian won but that don't mean that the French army had suddenly become worse than it was during Napoleon.

 

[Marinakis]

There are numerous examples of the Romans repeatedly losing to Hellenistic styled armies, in catastrophic fashion. Rome did, however, win the wars against many divided Hellenistic states. Rome did a good job of politically isolating and individually conquering them. Macedon conquered the combied forces of the largest superpower the world had ever known. Like i said, the Roman system was good, but so was the Hellenistic... And so was the Persian, since you seem inclined to demean that system too. The Persian Empire was the Roman Empire before Rome. Even with Rome at its zenith, Rome was repeatedly embarrassed by Persia.

But, its whatever. You're clearly a fan of Rome. So, more power to you.

Exit: I encourage you to actually research what happend in some of the major battles between Rome and the Hellenistic states. When the Roman legions actually face a proper Macedonian Phalanx head on, the legion was stopped... Thats the point. The Romans won the battles by winning on the flanks. For example. Due to inferior Greek Hoplite units being place on a flank and routing. Or due to Seleucid cavalry going after a baggage train and leaving a flank exposed. Or due to relying too heavily on gimmicky tactics like charriot warfare.

The point of a Macedonian army was to win on the flanks. Later Hellenistic armies shifted to focusing on the Phalanx and placing inferior units or using terrible tactics to protect the flanks. The later Macedonian also relyed too heavily on foreign troops in critical spots.

 

[DexterNick]

I make 1 simple bet regarding 1.4 - bugged pieces of land that just never get fully colored when you take everything around (like one in India, Chattisgarh or something) will not be fixed.

 

[Lucky0000]

I make 1 simple bet regarding 1.4 - bugged pieces of land that just never get fully colored when you take everything around (like one in India, Chattisgarh or something) will not be fixed.

I guess you know there is a toggle to fill in uninhabitable land in the meny and this is something else?

 

[Denkt]

There are numerous examples of the Romans repeatedly losing to Hellenistic styled armies, in catastrophic fashion.

However the romans destroyed such armies in spectacular fashion on many occasions over the centuries and even before the marian reform which happened quite late but in the game you can get it early. Roman armies did quite well against Carthage, like in Iberia, except for Hannibal but that was one reason why eventually Hannibal was forced to leave for North africa in which he was defeated.

Macedon conquered the combied forces of the largest superpower the world had ever known.

I would say Rome military was beyond Persia in second Punic war and Hannibal had some similarties to Alexander and won several battles against the Romans but while the Persian territories defected to Alexander, Hannibal did have much greater trouble getting the roman allies to defect and also unlike the Persians even with those defeats and Hannibal in their Backyard they still managed to commit successful offensives and recover their losses and eventually win the war which effectively lead to an conquest in which it was Carthage, not Rome that lost most of their territories. I would also probably say that Carthage during the second punic war had a military equal if not more powerful than Persia had when Alexander invaded based on what I know and given the performance of Persian and Carthaginian armies in the respective war.

Even with Rome at its zenith, Rome was repeatedly embarrassed by Persia.

A gap of like 300+ years and hellenistic influence would probably have lead to a quite different Persian army than what Alexander faced. Argubly the Persians did better than the greeks against the romans but Trajan still managed to reach Deep into Parthia and in the showdown Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 the Romans kinda won or atleast reached a draw but both sides was severly weakened by that war allowing the rise of islam, however unlike the Sasanian who was completely conquered, the romans while losing alot of ground did maintain their independence for Another 800 years.

We don't know how well Alexander or the diadochi would do in the second Punic war, against Parthia or Sassanid Empire but we know how the romans did against them. Also we don't know how the Romans would do against the Achaemenid Empire. There is alot of things we simply can't really know.

 

[Marinakis]

You seem to think any critique of Rome, or placing a Roman victory into proper context, as me looking down on Rome. As i had said mutiple times. Rome benefited from tremendous leadership in the 200+ B.C.E. and benefited from great manpower, tolerance and innovative ideas.

What do you want me to say? Rome was the greatest society and military ever. All others were merely inferior entities existing in a Roman World just counting the days down until conquest!"

My point was, AGAIN, the Roman and Hellenistic systems of war and governance were different, each with strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not sure you're aware, but, despite maintaining a massive empire over much of the known world, the Roman Empire did eventually implode in on itself. It wasnt perfect.

However the romans destroyed such armies in spectacular fashion on many occasions over the centuries and even before the marian reform which happened quite late but in the game you can get it early. Roman armies did quite well against Carthage, like in Iberia, except for Hannibal but that was one reason why eventually Hannibal was forced to leave for North africa in which he was defeated.

Seriously, both sides had huge victories and defeats. Rome, however, won the larger wars.

would say Rome military was beyond Persia in second Punic war and Hannibal had some similarties to Alexander and won several battles against the Romans but while the Persian territories defected to Alexander, Hannibal did have much greater trouble getting the roman allies to defect and also unlike the Persians even with those defeats and Hannibal in their Backyard they still managed to commit successful offensives and recover their losses and eventually win the war which effectively lead to an conquest in which it was Carthage, not Rome that lost most of their territories. I would also probably say that Carthage during the second punic war had a military equal if not more powerful than Persia had when Alexander invaded based on what I know and given the performance of Persian and Carthaginian armies in the respective war.

I mean, sure, not sure what the larger point is.

Edit 2: I do not agree that Carthage at its zenith had a greater military strength than Persia at its zenith. But for the sake of not getting drawn into another argument, I'll just leave it at that.

A gap of like 300+ years and hellenistic influence would probably have lead to a quite different Persian army than what Alexander faced. Argubly the Persians did better than the greeks against the romans but Trajan still managed to reach Deep into Parthia and in the showdown Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 the Romans kinda won or atleast reached a draw but both sides was severly weakened by that war allowing the rise of islam, however unlike the Sasanian who was completely conquered, the romans while losing alot of ground did maintain their independence for Another 800 years.

You cherry pick the best example of Roman victory over Persia and ignore the multiple examples of overwhelming defeat the Persians inflicted upon the Romans. Whatever makes you feel better.

Edit: By the way, the Roman state following the Byzantine–Sasanian Wars leading to the Arab conquests is a good analogy of the Greek world in 200 B.C.E.

 

[Denkt]

What do you want me to say? Rome was the greatest society and military ever. All others were merely inferior entities existing in a Roman World just counting the days down until conquest!"

Which I never said in the first place, however I said that rome did manage to defeat legit armies (instead of declining hellenistic ones which don't make much sense to me that they would be in a decline in first place). In the game I have never once seen ai Rome ever to do anything comparable to what it managed to do in reality and that also is true for other nations in the game.

I'm not sure you're aware, but, despite maintaining a massive empire over much of the known world, the Roman Empire did eventually implode in on itself. It wasnt perfect.

Which I never said, I also said it did not last forever but it did last for a long time in some form or Another.

Seriously, both sides had huge victories and defeats. Rome, however, won the larger wars.

Yes and having the ability to outlast the enemy is important in the game, however the wars right now in the game is maybe not all that realistic, which is talked about in Another thread.

I mean, sure, not sure what the larger point is.

Well the Point is that Romans managed to win wars against nations comparable in military capacity to the Achaemenid Empire.

You cherry pick the best example of Roman victory over Persia and ignore the multiple examples of overwhelming defeat the Persians inflicted upon the Romans. Whatever makes you feel better.

I did not actually pick out any time romans actually won a battle or really even a war against the Persians, I simply said that the romans could fight them and actually make inroads as show by for example Trajan.

Right now however we don't see Rome ever getting close to building the empire they did, other than if lead by a player which is maybe fine. Also I did not say that Rome should be stronger than the diadochi but eventually it should probably surpass them so it is likely to make the gains it historically did. However currently the large empires like the Mauryan tend to be pretty stable while historically it did collapse about 120 years after the start date, similar Prygia and Seleucid Empire can be quite resilient. With the large starting empires surviving there is hardly any possibility for new empires to form like Parthian Empire, the Greek states in India or the Roman Empire.

Also the warscore mechanic also greatly favor the large states, stuff like Alexander's conquest is impossible with the current game mechanics and so are alot of the Roman Peace deals as well. Even the Dividing of Phrygia is probably impossible right now and that is with the diadochi having claims on each other lands.

 

[Marinakis]

Which I never said in the first place, however I said that rome did manage to defeat legit armies (instead of declining hellenistic ones which don't make much sense to me that they would be in a decline in first place). In the game I have never once seen ai Rome ever to do anything comparable to what it managed to do in reality and that also is true for other nations in the game.

Which I never said, I also said it did not last forever but it did last for a long time in some form or Another.

Yes and having the ability to outlast the enemy is important in the game, however the wars right now in the game is maybe not all that realistic, which is talked about in Another thread.

Well the Point is that Romans managed to win wars against nations comparable in military capacity to the Achaemenid Empire.

I did not actually pick out any time romans actually won a battle or really even a war against the Persians, I simply said that the romans could fight them and actually make inroads as show by for example Trajan.

Right now however we don't see Rome ever getting close to building the empire they did, other than if lead by a player which is maybe fine. Also I did not say that Rome should be stronger than the diadochi but eventually it should probably surpass them so it is likely to make the gains it historically did. However currently the large empires like the Mauryan tend to be pretty stable while historically it did collapse about 120 years after the start date, similar Prygia and Seleucid Empire can be quite resilient. With the large starting empires surviving there is hardly any possibility for new empires to form like Parthian Empire, the Greek states in India or the Roman Empire.

Also the warscore mechanic also greatly favor the large states, stuff like Alexander's conquest is impossible with the current game mechanics and so are alot of the Roman Peace deals as well. Even the Dividing of Phrygia is probably impossible right now and that is with the diadochi having claims on each other lands.

Frankly, I don't even know what were arguing at this point. All I was adding was context. We can agree that both the Hellenistic and Roman sides had victories over each other, but Rome won the larger wars against the Diadochi and Carthage. Both sides, however, had strengths and weaknesses both militarily and politically.

 

[Denkt]

Frankly, I don't even know what were arguing at this point. We can agree that both the Hellenistic and Roman sides had victories over each other, but Rome won the larger wars against the Diadochi and Carthage. Both sides, however, had strengths and weaknesses both militarily and politically.

Yes, the Point is do we actually see that in the game? Right now Rome seems to have a hard time making it out of Italy, meanwhile empires at the start date are likely to survive or even expand which mean you don't see the big Changes that happened during the time.

 

[Don Wing]

Pop Resource changes

Tax income has been slightly reduced overall, and is now split between freemen and slaves. Slaves will still provide the lion’s share of tax income. Citizens research output has been increased to make it slightly easier to retain optimal research ratio.


- excellent, beautiful, sublime!! hope the freemen get a tiny bit to good production also!

 

[UBERWASP]

All players will be treated to new splash screen art in the Archimedes update, depicting the siege of Syracuse:

Can we get high res versions of this to use as wallpaper please!

 

[Lord Lambert]

Can we get high res versions of this to use as wallpaper please!

https://i.imgur.com/K2nG3sv.png

 

[DexterNick]

I guess you know there is a toggle to fill in uninhabitable land in the meny and this is something else?

That's not what I've been talking about. Some places just don't get filled.

 

[EU3NOOB]

When the Romans defeated a large nation like Carthage they could grab basically the whole nation in one war which is similar to Alexander's conquest of Persia.

This isn't how Rome conquered Carthage at all. Rome conquered Carthage in 3 wars.

 

[Denkt]

This isn't how Rome conquered Carthage at all. Rome conquered Carthage in 3 wars.

only reason for that was it did not occupy everything in Carthage in one war. Siege of Carthage happened in the last war.

 

[varonel]

The loyalty change is strange. Previously you have converted instant changes to change over time and now you changed this in reverse. I really don't think it is better, especially since you have temporary modifiers that affect it which you cannot see when they end (for example bribes). Whole thing seems worse than before, loyalties change over time.

 

[Syroc]

Forts are now ‘easier’ to siege.

The addition of food supply resulted in a significant bonus to the defender in a siege situation. This is still preserved, however, we’ve reduced the siege phase timer to 25 days to compensate, and reduced the number of soldiers required per fort level from 5k to 4k. A highly developed fort territory should still prove a significant challenge to invaders.

Sieges are already too damn easy to win - the only way they provide any real use is when they're built up in places with low supply and/or high attrition, or to buy time at chokepoints. Or to protect your cities from just being razed the second the circus that are the successor states come to town.

Not to mention that any benefit they provide to port provinces can be lol-noped by fleet with ships of a certain size.

With the other religious changes in the works, base religious conversion speed (and speed from policies) has been significantly reduced.

Wait, so in order to highlight the importance of a change that hasn't been implemented yet, you're making it even harder to expand into territory that'll likely already be hard to convert due to the already even bigger culture penalty? That's shady. That's making a problem and selling a solution.