I think a lot have been said about the failure of Imperator Rome. But one thing I really wish Paradox will make in the future is an character-based ancient world game like CK3, but with a unique Ancient world twist and identity.
I don't mean CK3 but set in the ancient world, but a game that is organically built around playing as a character or a dynasty in the ancient world. That does mean a game that doesn't rely on the feudal mechanics of CK3 given that it is a different time period and a totally different model of society and government.
Ideally, what this mean is you can play either as a small novus homo (i.e. a Ciero) or someone that belongs to the most prestigious dynasty (Julio-Claudians). Yes, a player can potentially command armies and conquer the world, but that shouldn't be the main point. Instead, the core game focus should be about giving the player-character the chance to climb all the way to the top, or if they are already at the top, try their best to hold onto power as long as possible.
The entire gameplay strategy should revolve entirely around how a player can make use of the politics of ancient civilisations to climb to power and hold power against foes both internal and external. Wars should be seen as an tool for the player to gain power or hold onto power, and not merely map-painting for the sake of it. Ideally, a player should decide against waging war of expansion if they deem such wars comes at too much of a cost to a player's political position.
Wage too many wars and produce too many successful generals means you are creating too many rivals. But if you are a novus homo, you would want the republic/kingdom/empire to wage as many wars as possible to allow you the chance to hold command and earn prestige.
Similarly, holding office should be an entire mode of gameplay by itself. A player-character without office is not able to do too much stuff. So you should be aiming to gain and hold offices as often as possible, and as high of an office as possible. This means you need gameplay mechanics that revolve around what holding onto an office really mean for you. You should be able to use the powers of a respective office to do what it is supposed to do, and i.e. giving you more bonus points if you perform well, or if not, be very good at corruption to gain more wealth.
If one is holding onto the office of Quaestor, their role in the game is to be the treasurer. You should be spending time managing public funds, ensuring they are well collected and properly distributed. But you can also chose to be corrupt and misappropriate the funds for your own gain. Get caught and you lose all of your power, avoid getting caught and you can potentially be a very rich person.
Be a Praetor and you are going to be the one passing legal judgement and cases of the city. How you choose to handle cases will affect your career. Adjucate cases fairly and you might receive bonus reputation boost. Adjudicate cases badly because of special interest and you might make a lot of people in the city hate you.
Similarly, holding minor military position should also matter greatly in the game. But this would require a new and detailed battle simulation system in order to allow players in minor military positions to do stuff in the game. Instead of commanding an entire army, a player might command a cohort, or a cavalry wing. This mean how well your unit is trained, how well they perform on the battlefield and etc should all be subject to the player in charge of the units. At the same time, a player can choose to either be a coward on the battlefield ( if it is a hopeless losing battle), or be the brave warrior can might turn the tide of the battle. The key point is while a player cannot command the entire army, they still get to make a series of decision that might affect how a battle might pan out.
At the same time, having command of one legion should offer the player a lot of flexibility in terms of what to do with the legion. A player might not be able to dictate the overall grand strategy of a war, but they can decide where to march their respective legion and whether one cooperate with another legion by another character. A character should have a list of commands and calls to make, such as calling for help of reinforcement and etc. As the leader of a legion, you can either choose to aid the other characters or leave them to die if they are your rivals. But your actions will be remembered and have consequences of their own.
There should also be a complex patron-client system in place. What your character choose to do can often be limited by the patron you have, or the clients you own. An honourable character might be forced to become corrupt if the only patron they can find is a very corrupt character. Or if you are a patron, you might stack your clients with corrupt people just to gain power faster.
This is just some suggestions on what a character-based ancient grand strategy game can be like for Paradox. You no longer have to worry about map painting if a player spend most of their time managing their specific role in office of a faction. Military conquest should be seen as an extension of the game politics-simulator.
I don't mean CK3 but set in the ancient world, but a game that is organically built around playing as a character or a dynasty in the ancient world. That does mean a game that doesn't rely on the feudal mechanics of CK3 given that it is a different time period and a totally different model of society and government.
Ideally, what this mean is you can play either as a small novus homo (i.e. a Ciero) or someone that belongs to the most prestigious dynasty (Julio-Claudians). Yes, a player can potentially command armies and conquer the world, but that shouldn't be the main point. Instead, the core game focus should be about giving the player-character the chance to climb all the way to the top, or if they are already at the top, try their best to hold onto power as long as possible.
The entire gameplay strategy should revolve entirely around how a player can make use of the politics of ancient civilisations to climb to power and hold power against foes both internal and external. Wars should be seen as an tool for the player to gain power or hold onto power, and not merely map-painting for the sake of it. Ideally, a player should decide against waging war of expansion if they deem such wars comes at too much of a cost to a player's political position.
Wage too many wars and produce too many successful generals means you are creating too many rivals. But if you are a novus homo, you would want the republic/kingdom/empire to wage as many wars as possible to allow you the chance to hold command and earn prestige.
Similarly, holding office should be an entire mode of gameplay by itself. A player-character without office is not able to do too much stuff. So you should be aiming to gain and hold offices as often as possible, and as high of an office as possible. This means you need gameplay mechanics that revolve around what holding onto an office really mean for you. You should be able to use the powers of a respective office to do what it is supposed to do, and i.e. giving you more bonus points if you perform well, or if not, be very good at corruption to gain more wealth.
If one is holding onto the office of Quaestor, their role in the game is to be the treasurer. You should be spending time managing public funds, ensuring they are well collected and properly distributed. But you can also chose to be corrupt and misappropriate the funds for your own gain. Get caught and you lose all of your power, avoid getting caught and you can potentially be a very rich person.
Be a Praetor and you are going to be the one passing legal judgement and cases of the city. How you choose to handle cases will affect your career. Adjucate cases fairly and you might receive bonus reputation boost. Adjudicate cases badly because of special interest and you might make a lot of people in the city hate you.
Similarly, holding minor military position should also matter greatly in the game. But this would require a new and detailed battle simulation system in order to allow players in minor military positions to do stuff in the game. Instead of commanding an entire army, a player might command a cohort, or a cavalry wing. This mean how well your unit is trained, how well they perform on the battlefield and etc should all be subject to the player in charge of the units. At the same time, a player can choose to either be a coward on the battlefield ( if it is a hopeless losing battle), or be the brave warrior can might turn the tide of the battle. The key point is while a player cannot command the entire army, they still get to make a series of decision that might affect how a battle might pan out.
At the same time, having command of one legion should offer the player a lot of flexibility in terms of what to do with the legion. A player might not be able to dictate the overall grand strategy of a war, but they can decide where to march their respective legion and whether one cooperate with another legion by another character. A character should have a list of commands and calls to make, such as calling for help of reinforcement and etc. As the leader of a legion, you can either choose to aid the other characters or leave them to die if they are your rivals. But your actions will be remembered and have consequences of their own.
There should also be a complex patron-client system in place. What your character choose to do can often be limited by the patron you have, or the clients you own. An honourable character might be forced to become corrupt if the only patron they can find is a very corrupt character. Or if you are a patron, you might stack your clients with corrupt people just to gain power faster.
This is just some suggestions on what a character-based ancient grand strategy game can be like for Paradox. You no longer have to worry about map painting if a player spend most of their time managing their specific role in office of a faction. Military conquest should be seen as an extension of the game politics-simulator.
- 2