Dr First Millenium, or How the Roman Empire Learned to Fall and Love the Barbarian

[VolitionNewlove]

Looking over the Paradox strategy titles, I just can't help but feel that there's a large timeperiod that does need to be done. The one I'm speaking of is Late Antiquity, and the Early Middle Ages, the one between EU:Rome, and CKII (Some have suggested EU3, even). The time periods between 1066-1948 have all been covered by CKII, EUIII, Victoria II, and HoIII, and an upcoming game will continue from where HoI left off, for the Cold War. It just seems the only missing link is between Rome and CKII. Some fans certainly want a Rome 2, the first only covered the republican era of Rome, with an extended timeline to it, to include the conversion to Christianity of Rome, but even so, I don't believe that one game to span from 280BC-1066AD would really work so well.

I'm sure many fans would love to allow a game run through the entire Roman Empire, but there would be so many things to simulate. The fall of Imperium Romanum Occidentale to the Ostrogoths and the other migrations could probably fit within a Rome game in addition to the Republican and Imperial eras, but there leaves the rise and fall of the Imperium Romanum Orientale through Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages.

I've heard a lot of people play EU3: In Nomine and Crusader Kings II to play as Byzantium, and reconquest the former Roman Empire as Byzantium. Imagine being able to play as either the East or West empire, and actually succeed in repelling the attacks.

So many historical events and civilisations haven't yet been done by the series, but would it not be great to play as either the Angles, Saxons, Frisians and Jutes in their conquest of England? Or play Zoroastrian as the Sassanid Empire? Or the Carolingian dynasty of Francia and the formation of the Holy Roman Empire? Or, Víkingr raids and settlement, and Norman Apulia?

I just wish that someday, the gap in the timeline would get repaired, and we'd be able to play through those times and places in late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. And I apologise most heartedly for not photoshopping an image of Emperor Charlemange riding an atomic bomb.

 

[Matt714]

This has been suggested ad nauseam in the past.

I think they're wary because EU:Rome did not sell well, and a game set slightly later wouldn't fare much better.

Besides I'm pretty sure they're going to focus on squeezing dollars out of EU4 once it's released.

 

[Castellon]

(I apologise if this is better suited to the Paradox Development Studio forums, I'd presumed that it was just a folder for the other games, rather than also a thread-posting area in addition.)

No Problem lets move you over.

 

[Easy1]

This has been suggested ad nauseam in the past.

I think they're wary because EU:Rome did not sell well, and a game set slightly later wouldn't fare much better.

Besides I'm pretty sure they're going to focus on squeezing dollars out of EU4 once it's released.

EU:Rome was quite a shitty game and it was relased after Rome:Total War.

I agree with OP. Anything centered around Vikings especially has great marked potential. Needless to say that most paradox games are sold in countries with Viking affiliations.

 

[Phelan]

The one big problem with this timeframe is the lack of information. A friend of mine is doing his PHD about this time frame in europe and africa, and we talked about it recently. The problem is, that all those tribes who succeed the romans did not left much written history. Their history is mostly embedded in songs and tales. So at least for europe it is really difficult to make a game about this time frame.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

Part of EU:Rome was there wasn't really a good goal and only one good nation to play...
Think about how many players go about things. They want to be most powerful country in the world...that's Rome. They want to restore roman to historical borders...again Rome. Gee golly pick Rome on the start screen and you're all done. Now let's add in weird senate mechanics, civil wars, and chronic manpower problems. That's just bothersome. Now it's not all that bad to place in greece but as soon as you border rome you will be dow'd constantly until you die. Also if one unstoppable juggernaut isn't enough we have Carthage, Egypt, and Seluecids.

I can only speak for myself, and my friends here, but when I play a Paradox strategy game, my goal isn't simply "to be the most powerful country in the world." It tends to be just to survive, and outlast or outperform the actual nation in history. I usually pick one of the weakest, or one of the most uninteresting, and just try to last with them. Like Ghirnata or Khandesh in EU3, for example. And civil wars isn't something I'd call bothersome. Sure, while in EU3, it usually just featured as a small generic group of rebels lead by a pretender or the like, the way they're treated in Crusader Kings 2 is extremely well, and I do hope that, while the CK2 civil war mechanics were mostly due to the title-based gameplay, that a similar situation for civil wars will be done with EU4. And I'm only saying this in a joking manner (run by the Fatmids) is already an unstoppable jaggernaut in CKII.

 

[Rewjeo]

I've thought that a game focused on the time period where you had the Vandals/Goths/Franks/etc. migrating across Europe where you control a people, rather than a country or a specific character, could be fun and somewhat refreshing. I do think that there should be multiple games to fill the gap, though. I mean, from Rome to CK2 we have over a thousand years of history to cover, and it would be nigh impossible to come up with game mechanics to fit the whole game.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

I'm talking about the EU:Rome civil wars. It spits out a separate tag.

Well, I hadn't played EU:Rome, myself, but I'd presumed that it would've been the case. What I meant to say is that if a new game were to come out, Paradox would be able to deal out a much more enjoyable game, and be able to solve the afforementioned problems, and it is additionally much more convenient to update games now. Of course, I do personally feel that Rome is sometimes put forth into too obligatory a point, meaning some other periods get overlooked, like the two periods I'd suggested covering, even if in places researching some things might be difficult.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

The one big problem with this timeframe is the lack of information. A friend of mine is doing his PHD about this time frame in europe and africa, and we talked about it recently. The problem is, that all those tribes who succeed the romans did not left much written history. Their history is mostly embedded in songs and tales. So at least for europe it is really difficult to make a game about this time frame.

Games aren't supposed to be history simulators, the Paradox developers aren't writing them to earn PhD theses, you know

A lack of historical info is really no problem, just be creative and fill the gaps with something invented. Don't know where the Goths really come from? Well just treat their own myths as full truths and have them come from Gotland. Don't know what the relationship between Germanic mercs and Roman aristocrats was? Well, pick your favorite 19th century nationalist-histotainment author (Felix Dahn etc) and go with it.

It might provoke a few rants from the P'dox forums simulationists ("This is a travesty, archeological research XYZ clearly showed that [...]" ... "The Goth identity is supposed to be complex socio-political construct, I'm so angry because it's not") but who cares if the fundamentals are okay and there's Wikipedia links for those who care

 

[MasterOfGrey]

Games aren't supposed to be history simulators, the Paradox developers aren't writing them to earn PhD theses, you know

A lack of historical info is really no problem, just be creative and fill the gaps with something invented. Don't know where the Goths really come from? Well just treat their own myths as full truths and have them come from Gotland. Don't know what the relationship between Germanic mercs and Roman aristocrats was? Well, pick your favorite 19th century nationalist-histotainment author (Felix Dahn etc) and go with it.

It might provoke a few rants from the P'dox forums simulationists ("This is a travesty, archeological research XYZ clearly showed that [...]" ... "The Goth identity is supposed to be complex socio-political construct, I'm so angry because it's not") but who cares if the fundamentals are okay and there's Wikipedia links for those who care

This a hundred times.

Someone above mentioned controlling a people. I think it would be really interesting if you as a controller of a people controlled roving settlements and warbands. There was a lot of nomadic behaviour for those people (at least on a long time scale) so it would probably work. Instead of having provinces, you would have the map split up into a hexagonal grid type pattern, hidden beneath the terrain layer for movement. Each space on the grid would have support values associated with it which would work the same as supply limits for troops. Each roving settlement would extend a field of influence based on its population (up to a maximum point), and it would be able to grow in population based on the combined supply limit of all fields within its influence. Taking a roving settlement and 'settling' it in one place would reduce its influence but improve the supply limits of every space still within its influence.

Two settlements close together would bend the influence between them based on the relative strengths of the settlement so that it worked out in the middle. A settlement whose influence was restricted too badly would shrink for lack of supplies, this in turn would reduce its field of influence and enough restriction would eventually cause it to die out. Conversely really big settlements could be made to generate smaller roving settlements to act as colonists. Roving settlements would produce troops cheaper, but settled ones would produce more money and a larger population base to draw from. (Roving settlements that were weakening could also combine for surety.)

I think this system would work really well to model the migration and gradual settling down of different peoples into the patterns they have today (or not as is more likely the case with a paradox game).

 

[Qantrix]

Some of my favorite mods focus on this era, such as 399AD Mod for EU3 and the Rome Must Die (that I've seen floating around the internet) and Treaty of Verdun mods for CK2. And they all have some interesting takes on it. I think the fall of Rome is a really interesting event to participate in, both as Rome or as a Barbarian people, and from that point on there are so many paths you can take, converting to Arianism, Catholicism or try to remain Pagan. Remaining a tribe, being able to field large militaries or become a civilized realm getting a tech boost. At the same time there is just so much other stuff going on elsewhere, more attacks from the Eastern Steppes, the ongoing battles between the Sassanids and the Eastern Roman Empire and the rise of Islam.

Although I do think it would be a challenge to properly model this vast historical era, I think it has such great potential.

 

[Tufto]

EU: Rome was a great game! Stop insulting it!

Rome with Vae Victis is great, but I've heard that the original wasn't the best Paradox game and didn't sell well. A Late Antiquity/Dark Ages game would be really cool, especially as you could control barbarian peoples and create whole new countries. Then you have the rise of Christianity, the Arab invasions, the fall of Rome... I think that if the gameplay is solid and it had a catchy title, it could sell well and be really cool. It's my favourite period of history so I hope that it does happen .

 

[unmerged(150945)]

If 50% of the map being controlled by one empire is a problem, then just start during the Crisis of the Third Century. It's split in three, and it's the beginning of Rome's decline.

 

[Ekyman]

If 50% of the map being controlled by one empire is a problem, then just start during the Crisis of the Third Century. It's split in three, and it's the beginning of Rome's decline.

Or do the same thing Total War did, and start before Rome expands out of Italy.

 

[Raventhefuhrer]

EU:Rome was quite a shitty game and it was relased after Rome:Total War.

I wouldn't go as far as to call EU: Rome 'quite a shitty' game. But I think it's very clear, and maybe Paradox itself would admit it, that EU:Rome did not live up to the quality of its other titles. The reasons for this can only be guessed at, whether it was lack of funding, or lack of passion, or simply not enough focus...I played it and didn't enjoy it at all, which is rare indeed for a Paradox title.

Now if Paradox put their heart and soul into Rome 2, devoted substantial resources to it, and really came out swinging like they did with Crusader Kings 2, I'm sure it would sell just as well. Perhaps some of the same arguments as to why EU:Rome 2 wouldn't work were used when talking about Crusader Kings 2.

Though, avoid releasing it around the time Total War: Rome 2 is being released xD

 

[Tufto]

If 50% of the map being controlled by one empire is a problem, then just start during the Crisis of the Third Century. It's split in three, and it's the beginning of Rome's decline.

I dunno... I think a later start but mechanics to reflect barbarian power and a Roman decline would be better.

 

[ray243]

Sure, we might not have as much information as we liked but there is still enough to build a pretty decent game set during the dark ages. We have a pretty detailed history of Justinian's reign and his re-conquest of the western provinces. We have a pretty good understanding of the Gothic kingdom in Italy and we do have a fairly good overview of Frankish Gaul.

Moreover, to the east we have plenty of decent information regarding the rise of the Arabs and their conquest of the middle east. My main grip would be the game being able to properly simulate late antiquity based on our current understanding of the time period. This is a time period whereby most of the classical world undergo massive changes and reforms. Can Paradox simulate the evolution of the late Roman army into the Themes system? Can they simulate why some areas became more feudal than other regions or why the Arabs were so effective in their conquest?

So far, most of Paradox games are mostly about how feudal kingdoms evolved into a centralised modern state. It will be interesting to see how they will build a game that simulate the breakdown or balkanisation of a large centralised empire into dozens of small feudal kingdoms.

 

[Math2]

Great idea. The dark ages NEED a good game. The only one that I've seen is Great Invasions, which is essentially from what I've heard a simulation. The real interesting question is the time period of the game.

The best starting dates would probably be either the peak of the Roman Empire in regards to land around the 200's (before the Crisis of the 3rd Century), or, since you could definitely put that in a Rome 2 game (if they DO do Rome 2, they should extend it beyond when Rome had just become an empire...), you could start it at the Crisis of the 3rd Century, or even later at the split of the East and West. Either way, all three of those would have to be scenarios to choose from in some game.

I don't think that a Rome game could go into the Crisis of the Third century, that game should be focused more on the expansion of Rome, rather than expansion of the tribes and hordes and the like. You could split that period into two games, the fall of the Roman Empire (end of Rome-480ish....or possibly until the reign of Justinine, who would make for an interesting starting point), followed by a game that picks up where the previous left off, to 1066. Add in an ancients game (I'd do prehistory, or the formation of Sumer until 509 BC ish, which off the top of my head is when Rome broke free of the Etrusians), and extend EU4's time line so to reach 1836, you've got one hell of a franchise...THe hardest part is thinking of names

Ancients game - 3000-509 BC
Europa Universalis: Rome 2 - 509 BC - 14 AD (I guess there aren't any other really good end dates)
Fall of Rome - 14 AD - 523 AD
Byzantium - 523 - 1066
Crusader Kings 2 - 1066 - 1444
Europa Universalis 4 - 1444 - 1836 (hopefully....)
Victoria 2 - 1836 - 1936
Hearts of Iron 3 - 1936 - 1948
East vs. West - 1948 - 1991

That would be an epic campaign...

 

[heliostellar]

I'm not sure what you would "do" in the game... This was a period of great upheaval and people moved all over the map.

See the Migration Period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_period

Although, I do think it's conceivable to push back the start date of CK2 to the founding of Charlemagne's empire. The primary nations of western Europe we see: France, Burgundy, and the HRE are all based on the Gavelkind split remnants of that empire.

EDIT: In thinking about it a little more. I could see an exp that would make sense. Start it at the Treaty of Verdun when the Carolingian Empire was divided into 3 successor states and you can try to form the HRE for the first time. You also can try to Christianize Scandinavia for the first time.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

EDIT: In thinking about it a little more. I could see an exp that would make sense. Start it at the Treaty of Verdun when the Carolingian Empire was divided into 3 successor states and you can try to form the HRE for the first time. You also can try to Christianize Scandinavia for the first time.

tee hee... that's just what they are going to do now for CK2