If restored Rome is gonna be a Hegemony the requirements need to be much stricter

[strattonthebard]

Look I know 50% of the forum right now is Hegemony discourse and I apologize for adding it but I think this is something worth addressing. Right now all you need to restore Rome is pretty much just the Theodosian borders+ Italy, a pretty sizeable chunk of the Roman Empirec's traditional borders but really not that much more than Byzantium starts with. And you actually don't even need to fully control those territories, just a handful of key provinces.

Now the decision doesn't necessarily need to be made harder, I think generally the distinction between Byzantium and the Roman Empire is so paper thin that it's fine if they can just declare it upon retaking Italy, but if it stays the same the decision that makes it a Hegemony tier title should have stricter requirements. A Hegemony that only includes 2.5 de jure empires just seems too small to justify the higher tier frankly.

I'd suggest having to control de jure Byzantium, Italia, Francia, Hispania, and the historically owned portions of Mahgreb and Arabia before being able to upgrade to Hegemony. This still leaves territory Rome had at its height off the table so there's some wiggle room but it more or less constitutes the core provinces of the empire (sans Britain). Honestly if they fix the bug that makes the Roman conquest CB go away on inheritance it shouldn't even be that hard to accomplish.

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Rome being a hegemony with such small borders, and China and India being a hegemony as a sub continent each, is why there should be far more hegemonies

 

[Emperor 1997]

Look I know 50% of the forum right now is Hegemony discourse and I apologize for adding it but I think this is something worth addressing. Right now all you need to restore Rome is pretty much just the Theodosian borders+ Italy, a pretty sizeable chunk of the Roman Empirec's traditional borders but really not that much more than Byzantium starts with. And you actually don't even need to fully control those territories, just a handful of key provinces.

Now the decision doesn't necessarily need to be made harder, I think generally the distinction between Byzantium and the Roman Empire is so paper thin that it's fine if they can just declare it upon retaking Italy, but if it stays the same the decision that makes it a Hegemony tier title should have stricter requirements. A Hegemony that only includes 2.5 de jure empires just seems too small to justify the higher tier frankly.

I'd suggest having to control de jure Byzantium, Italia, Francia, Hispania, and the historically owned portions of Mahgreb and Arabia before being able to upgrade to Hegemony. This still leaves territory Rome had at its height off the table so there's some wiggle room but it more or less constitutes the core provinces of the empire (sans Britain). Honestly if they fix the bug that makes the Roman conquest CB go away on inheritance it shouldn't even be that hard to accomplish.

But Rome gets an special Casus Belli, to easily reclaim the other Provinces very quickly.
So, it can conquer back the remaining Provinces very fast.

There would be no Point, for this Casus Belli, if the Requirement for re-creating Rome would be harder, because you would no longer need the special Casus Belli.

 

[Cyhort]

But Rome gets an special Casus Belli, to easily reclaim the other Provinces very quickly.
So, it can conquer back the remaining Provinces very fast.

There would be no Point, for this Casus Belli, if the Requirement for re-creating Rome would be harder, because you would no longer need the special Casus Belli.

This. If anything, you shouldn't get the hegemony when you reform Rome. You should get it after you reconquer all the former roman lands. That way, there's a ready made goal after reforming Rome.

 

[FondMemberofSociety]

restore Rome

core provinces of the empire (sans Britain)

I am going to be an ass
And point out Britain is in fact, not a core province of the Roman Empire.

Besides, the devs have never drawn the line between the Roman Empire (e_rome) and the Roman Hegemony (h_rome?) yet, we literally know next to nothing except "they're thinking about it".

 

[Eltar1]

But Rome gets an special Casus Belli, to easily reclaim the other Provinces very quickly.
So, it can conquer back the remaining Provinces very fast.

There would be no Point, for this Casus Belli, if the Requirement for re-creating Rome would be harder, because you would no longer need the special Casus Belli.

As far as I understand, OP didn't say that the requirements for restoring the Roman Empire needed to be changed, just that the restored Roman Empire shouldn't become a Hegemony until after it reconquers all those provinces it has a custom Casus Belli for.

 

[Riaman98]

Rome being a hegemony with such small borders, and China and India being a hegemony as a sub continent each, is why there should be far more hegemonies

I disagree, size of the Roma empire at peak was

Under Trajan, the Roman Empire reached the peak of its territorial expansion. Rome's dominion now spanned 5.0 million square kilometres (1.9 million square miles). The most significant military campaign undertaken during the Flavian period was the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Titus.

Whereas the largest Indian Empire, The Mauryan empire was

The Mauryan Empire, at its peak, encompassed a vast area, estimated to be between 3.4 and 5 million square kilometers. This makes it one of the largest empires in Indian history and a significant period of political and cultural flourishing. The Mauryan period is also known for its distinctive art and architecture, particularly the polished stone sculptures and the famous Ashokan pillars.

So they are pretty much equal, the lower estimates of Mauryan are due to some historians claiming they did have 0 control in forests of central India or deserts of western India, But since when did that become a parameter of discounting empires size.

 

[Presedentex201]

Does it matter? once you have a few empire titles, no ai nation is a threat,

In my current rome game ive got 100k gold and 100k levies, im not even trying to min/max, the number could be way higher, the 100k levies by themselves could prob have a go at most other nations armies^^

Anyone playing as China is gonna a have a breeze once its stable...5 empires in one nation

 

[CrazyRat]

I disagree, size of the Roma empire at peak was

Under Trajan, the Roman Empire reached the peak of its territorial expansion. Rome's dominion now spanned 5.0 million square kilometres (1.9 million square miles). The most significant military campaign undertaken during the Flavian period was the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by Titus.

Whereas the largest Indian Empire, The Mauryan empire was

The Mauryan Empire, at its peak, encompassed a vast area, estimated to be between 3.4 and 5 million square kilometers. This makes it one of the largest empires in Indian history and a significant period of political and cultural flourishing. The Mauryan period is also known for its distinctive art and architecture, particularly the polished stone sculptures and the famous Ashokan pillars.

So they are pretty much equal, the lower estimates of Mauryan are due to some historians claiming they did have 0 control in forests of central India or deserts of western India, But since when did that become a parameter of discounting empires size.

The comparison of territorial size misses the point of the population in both Chinese and Indian subcontinent being much more dense. If we are are comparing the size of the territory - then the Arabian peninsula alone has 3,23 mln square kilometres, so...

but anyway, I think that the point was not to debate the size, economic output, or so..., of historical states, but rather that you can take Reform the Roman Empire decision while holding just a few duchies spread around.

 

[tribnia]

I think at least you should be allied with HRE or make sure it does not exist.

 

[Kainser]

They could keep the Roman Empire decision identical and just make the requirement to establish a De Facto Hegemony a separate decision requiring far more land (80% of old Roman borders or whatever makes sense). It isn't like the current decision instantly makes Iberia etc. de jure Roman Empire the moment you form it.

e; oh this is basically what the OP says, that is what happens when you just skim the thread title and first paragraph.

 

[Benismann]

Even if it isnt a hegemony, the requirements are wayyyy to simple

 

[Pups' Socks]

I'd much prefer that ERE starts out with Hegemony of Rome existing already, at least in 867, considering they still hold territory in mainland Italy as late as 1071 when Bari was captured. There could even be some more territory that was captured after Bari, can't recall atm.

 

[Byzantium2000]

I mean India is only 3 dejure Empires and like 20 kingdoms after the update. I honestly don’t get the discourse outside having a goal to work for once you form Rome. All of Dejure Byzantium and Theodosian borders plus the kingdoms the Rome Duchies are in is also around 20 kingdoms. By the time you form Rome you are already the undisputed power on the map. Meanwhile Song China in 1178 is not even 2 full dejure Empires.

Clearly People are divided and confused on what they even think a hegemon is, and to be fair paradox hadn’t fully went over all its mechanics yet either.

Evidently history is not the basis here cause you will not find a single historian or academic who does not consider the Pre Arab conquest ERE a hegemon alongside Sassanid Persia and Tang China and it had borders like this in 600AD.

I get tying it to restored Roman borders for a player goal but outside that it’s just arbitrary requirements.

 

[Ruwaard]

Rome being a hegemony with such small borders, and China and India being a hegemony as a sub continent each, is why there should be far more hegemonies

Yes, personally I thought about a Persian hegemony. There's potential for an Arab hegemony, but that would overlap with some other hegemonies (Roman and a Persian one). If the Roman hegemony is just a glorified ERE and not the whole Roman Empire, then there is room for a WRE hegemony (could be done by the HRE or even France).

 

[DiabloDeVille]

Yes, personally I thought about a Persian hegemony. There's potential for an Arab hegemony, but that would overlap with some other hegemonies (Roman and a Persian one). If the Roman hegemony is just a glorified ERE and not the whole Roman Empire, then there is room for a WRE hegemony (could be done by the HRE or even France).

The Rome decision you can tell came from the era of Justinian fever that gripped history nerds in the mid 2010s, total war atilla's justinian campaign with belisarius came at a similar time

 

[klopkr]

The roman restoration requirements should be updated. But they shouldn't be harder than owning about half of the former roman empire plus italy and greece.

It's silly that it uses duchies.

The requirements should be: Hold all provinces in E_Italia (especially rome), hold K_hellas, K_Thessalonika, K_Epirus, K_Nikea, K_Anatolia, K_Rum (if it exists), K_pontus and hold either the kingdoms of : Syria, Jerusalem, Egypt, and africa Africa, or fully control hold a combination of 50% of the previous listed kingdoms and the following:
K_ Sardinia, K_Tahert, K_Maghreb, K_France, K_Brittany, K_Lothairingia, K_Aquitain, K_Frisia, K_Burgundy, K_Coratia, K_Serbia, E_Hispania, K_Wales.

That way you need to fully control roman lands instead of select duchies meaning more conquest (though not more for most people not just sniping the necessary duchies), and the option to form it in a different shape and way than just controlling the former eastern territories alone. You could for example to a roman restoration but focus on controlling europe first before the east and africa.

 

[strattonthebard]

The roman restoration requirements should be updated. But they shouldn't be harder than owning about half of the former roman empire plus italy and greece.

It's silly that it uses duchies.

The requirements should be: Hold all provinces in E_Italia (especially rome), hold K_hellas, K_Thessalonika, K_Epirus, K_Nikea, K_Anatolia, K_Rum (if it exists), K_pontus and hold either the kingdoms of : Syria, Jerusalem, Egypt, and africa Africa, or fully control hold a combination of 50% of the previous listed kingdoms and the following:
K_ Sardinia, K_Tahert, K_Maghreb, K_France, K_Brittany, K_Lothairingia, K_Aquitain, K_Frisia, K_Burgundy, K_Coratia, K_Serbia, E_Hispania, K_Wales.

That way you need to fully control roman lands instead of select duchies meaning more conquest (though not more for most people not just sniping the necessary duchies), and the option to form it in a different shape and way than just controlling the former eastern territories alone. You could for example to a roman restoration but focus on controlling europe first before the east and africa.

I don't think it should require holding the actual kingdom titles but as far as the territory they include goes I more or less agree

 

[klopkr]

I don't think it should require holding the actual kingdom titles but as far as the territory they include goes I more or less agree

Yeah for sure! Just the territory not the titles.

I don't think you need to hold or create the duchies right now either.