Mechanics of a Dark Ages Game

[Sebor13]

Well neither Project Nero nor Project Armstrong was a Dark Ages game but I did notice that a lot of people seemed very interested in one so I decided to start a thread for discussing possible mechanics for a game set in the Dark Ages.

The Dark Ages began with the Fall of Rome, not the actual sacking of Rome but the Fall of the Western Roman Empire. Fall of Rome sounds more dramatic though.

Many factors contributed to the collapse but one of the largest and most direct of them was the migration of German tribes into Roman lands. Migrations played a large role in the Dark Ages and I feel like it should be a core mechanic of a Dark Age game.

If you're playing as a tribe you can choose to uproot your people and migrate somewhere else. Perhaps you can choose a certain number of provinces based on your population to take when migrating. If the owner of those provinces accepts you moving there, then you would now live under their rule (although you would be basically independent). If they do not, then you can declare war for them.

Another important mechanic would be cultural mixing. The cultures of France, Italy, and Iberia all mixed together with the German tribes that conquered them and that should be an option between any conquered group and its conqueror in a Dark Ages game.

However, this should not be the only way of taking land because the Saxons taking over modern day England had very little cultural mixing involved. The Saxons largely replaced the Anglo-Roman culture that existed before.

This is obviously a very broad and very short list of what would be needed for a Dark Ages game but i feel like it's a good start. If you have any ideas, please contribute below.

 

[jakt]

it would definitely need to be a game about peoples. as in it would need to look to Vicky II's population system for inspiration. you'll have to manage that culture and its population. it will grow and shrink with time -- from disease, from war, from attrition. it shouldn't be based off of "province values" it should be a number of people of a given culture. it should be able to remove (war, raping, pillaging, burninating)/assimilate (proselytize) other peoples when taking over provinces, causing strain on your own population if you do not migrate but rather expand. also it should have events of easterners like the huns pushing west where staying and fighting is likely a death sentence but you can flee as they push to cause a domino effect. if the leader is great enough of a people he can expand, but if he dies, chaos ensues if stretched too thin (his people only account for a small percentage of the population in the province, with a great leader can hold it, with not... not so much). obviously religion would have to be a large part of it as well. you could fund missionaries to other cultures to try to bring about alliances with your own through faith.

all they while, byzantium should have a different type of playability, by this i mean more of managing the empire than cultural management, closer to eu or ck. i think having different ways of playing entirely in one game would be good. it would need to be balanced with endless onsluaghts from muslims, huns, and plague (it should still have population requirements for how many men it can muster, etc) that should make holding on to the territories you started playing with a challenge, let alone expansion

it's a very interesting time period and i hope one day they make a game about it

 

[Barkingdragon13]

The Visigoths of Spain made it a point not to mix with the 'native' population, but still emulated and continued Roman-style society and rule. I believe the Ostrogoths did much the same before Justinian came a-knocking, so perhaps you could choose to integrate culturally and politically seperately.

 

[FOARP]

We know that Paradox want to do a Rome sequel eventually, we know you guys want a Dark ages game, so . . .

Any Rome game is going to be relatively easy to make a "Fall of the Roman Empire" extension DLC for, similar to the way TOG extended CK2 back into the period of Viking invasions. We know a Rome sequel will come along eventually so this seems totally doable.

 

[Vedinu]

all they while, byzantium should have a different type of playability, by this i mean more of managing the empire than cultural management, closer to eu or ck. i think having different ways of playing entirely in one game would be good.

Exactly. Tribes and kingdoms should have as different mechanics as possible.

As for the cultures: While I think a cultural focus would be good, I would want some restrictions;
I wouldn't want it to be possible for a major culture to completely disappear or completely move to another land, if people of that culture didn't actually do it. For historical things like that, there should be scripted events, or desicions of some kind.

 

[Sebor13]

it would definitely need to be a game about peoples. as in it would need to look to Vicky II's population system for inspiration. you'll have to manage that culture and its population. it will grow and shrink with time -- from disease, from war, from attrition. it shouldn't be based off of "province values" it should be a number of people of a given culture. it should be able to remove (war, raping, pillaging, burninating)/assimilate (proselytize) other peoples when taking over provinces, causing strain on your own population if you do not migrate but rather expand. also it should have events of easterners like the huns pushing west where staying and fighting is likely a death sentence but you can flee as they push to cause a domino effect. if the leader is great enough of a people he can expand, but if he dies, chaos ensues if stretched too thin (his people only account for a small percentage of the population in the province, with a great leader can hold it, with not... not so much). obviously religion would have to be a large part of it as well. you could fund missionaries to other cultures to try to bring about alliances with your own through faith.

all they while, byzantium should have a different type of playability, by this i mean more of managing the empire than cultural management, closer to eu or ck. i think having different ways of playing entirely in one game would be good. it would need to be balanced with endless onsluaghts from muslims, huns, and plague (it should still have population requirements for how many men it can muster, etc) that should make holding on to the territories you started playing with a challenge, let alone expansion

it's a very interesting time period and i hope one day they make a game about it

Religion is another one that would be challenging.

During the Dark Ages there were so many heresies and several new religions that rose up (Most notably, Islam) that I think starting a brand new religion that takes influences from previous religions would be a necessary mechanic.

The obvious negative of starting a brand new religion is that nobody would be practicing that religion and thus everybody would be your enemy.

The Visigoths of Spain made it a point not to mix with the 'native' population, but still emulated and continued Roman-style society and rule. I believe the Ostrogoths did much the same before Justinian came a-knocking, so perhaps you could choose to integrate culturally and politically seperately.

Maybe there could be different choices on taking influence from cultures and from integrating with them.

Exactly. Tribes and kingdoms should have as different mechanics as possible.

I like this idea. By the end of the Dark Ages most of Western Europe and the Middle East would be ruled by actual kingdoms instead of tribes so having kingdoms rise up in power and tribes becoming weaker over the course of the game would be a good way of showing the Dark Ages coming to a close.

Another thing, a converter to CK2 would be amazing.

A converter between this and a Rome game would be great too. Especially if this game is formatted in a way that no matter what, Classical Era-style Empire will have a hard time if not collapse completely. That would be a great way of destroying any massive blobs of empires people make in a Rome 2.

As for the cultures: While I think a cultural focus would be good, I would want some restrictions;
I wouldn't want it to be possible for a major culture to completely disappear or completely move to another land, if people of that culture didn't actually do it. For historical things like that, there should be scripted events, or desicions of some kind.

I disagree with this.
In the Dark Ages, nearly everything was up in the air.

I believe that cultures that would already be in charge of kingdoms shouldn't migrate or anything but I think that any tribal culture should be able to migrate to any non-tribal land. For tribes against other tribes, I think that big, unifying, short lived empire would be a good way to show them.

The Huns were one example of a tribal empire doomed to fall.

 

[jakt]

i don't think an expansion would change base mechanics of a game so drastically that it would give a different playstyle; the Dark Ages were an age of migration. Migration, people, cultures, these are the things that would have to be the heart of the game and (correct me if I'm wrong.... i never played rome >.> ) Rome (as a game, and how it was as an entity) wasn't like that at all.

if we discount the end of the dark ages that the old gods went back to, that's still 500 years of time that we're talking about after the fall of the roman empire. i think it would be interesting to first have a game that showed the fall of rome -- and you couldn't play rome. so it starts at the height of the empire and you watch it crumble. we're talking close on a millennium. Rome... Rome never fell to an invader for 800 years. Rome is an entirely different type of thing than The Dark Ages. I just don't think they belong together in the same game.

but lets say that playing Rome in The Dark Ages came up in an expansion to a dark ages game, that included the empire type play through, to defend civilization against barbarians. you'd have to make deals with the various peoples, giving them weapons of war to try to defend against the other barbarians. mess up diplomatically, and they rebel and then come at you. Again, it would require a different type of game that would have to balance with the others and make it neigh on impossible for you to 'win' (and by win i mean hold the empire's borders and not allow the vandals to do their thing in The City).

 

[ray243]

I think there ought to be a game that can properly charter the historical development of the Roman Empire and its fall. There should be a wide variety of features that are aimed towards making life difficult for large empires. Maintaining a large Empire is NOT supposed to be an easy task, and this is one major aspect that many grand strategy game tend to ignore. Often it is way too easy for a player to manage a large and rich empire, to the extend it makes the game rather boring.

Perhaps a Rome/Dark Age game can take climate change into account, and portray how the cooling of the earth led to many northern tribes migrating southwards towards the Mediterranean.

 

[Sebor13]

i don't think an expansion would change base mechanics of a game so drastically that it would give a different playstyle; the Dark Ages were an age of migration. Migration, people, cultures, these are the things that would have to be the heart of the game and (correct me if I'm wrong.... i never played rome >.> ) Rome (as a game, and how it was as an entity) wasn't like that at all.

if we discount the end of the dark ages that the old gods went back to, that's still 500 years of time that we're talking about after the fall of the roman empire. i think it would be interesting to first have a game that showed the fall of rome -- and you couldn't play rome. so it starts at the height of the empire and you watch it crumble. we're talking close on a millennium. Rome... Rome never fell to an invader for 800 years. Rome is an entirely different type of thing than The Dark Ages. I just don't think they belong together in the same game.

but lets say that playing Rome in The Dark Ages came up in an expansion to a dark ages game, that included the empire type play through, to defend civilization against barbarians. you'd have to make deals with the various peoples, giving them weapons of war to try to defend against the other barbarians. mess up diplomatically, and they rebel and then come at you. Again, it would require a different type of game that would have to balance with the others and make it neigh on impossible for you to 'win' (and by win i mean hold the empire's borders and not allow the vandals to do their thing in The City).

The Fall of Rome seems like a pretty easy mark to say where the Dark Ages began and the world worked very much like how it does throughout the Dark Ages during the Fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Essentially, for a Dark Ages game, the Western and Eastern Roman Empires would both be in risk of collapsing. The Eastern Roman Empire essentially won the way the Western Roman Empire lost.

I feel like this could all be modeled in a single game well.

Also, the way you described the Western Roman Empire winning is what lead to its defeat. That's how it should play out in a game, if you don't ally with the barbarians, they attack and conquer you. If you ally with the barbarians they become stronger and then attack and conquer you.

There's an inevitability in how Classical Era-style empires would fall in the Dark Ages.

I feel like the Fall of Rome being the start of a Dark Ages game is a great way to kick off the chaotic violence that the time period was.

I think there ought to be a game that can properly charter the historical development of the Roman Empire and its fall. There should be a wide variety of features that are aimed towards making life difficult for large empires. Maintaining a large Empire is NOT supposed to be an easy task, and this is one major aspect that many grand strategy game tend to ignore. Often it is way too easy for a player to manage a large and rich empire, to the extend it makes the game rather boring.

Perhaps a Rome/Dark Age game can take climate change into account, and portray how the cooling of the earth led to many northern tribes migrating southwards towards the Mediterranean.

The Fall of the Roman Empire (the Western half) was a very different time from the rest of the empire's history.

With research you would find that the Roman Empire changed a lot in its later centuries. The splitting of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, the recruitment of barbarian mercenaries, and allowing Germanic tribes to migrate into their land are only a few examples of how the Roman Empire changed in what was leading up to the Dark Ages.

This time period would be easier to represent in a Dark Ages game than a Rome game, this time period would play very different from the Classical Era.

 

[jakt]

while I do think empire management should be and feel very different than 'culture management', the empire should have to deal with populations and peoples. allow too many into your borders and you risk rebellion. don't, and risk invasion.

i feel like this game would be difficult to do in my respects but i think many people would enjoy it. it's a fascinating time: the breakdown of society as it was and the replacement with something different. a historical post-apocalyptic grand strategy game (where the apocalypse i mean the gradual destruction, not a climactic one, of what was viewed as civilization, destroyed by Vandals who had no respect for things of beauty and goodness, and all that classical western interpretations of the fall of the roman empire, and also (if the start date is early enough) in the christian historical/preterist perspectives of what revelation described as apocalypse was: the persecutions of christians in the early part of the first millennium by the roman empire)

 

[Vedinu]

I disagree with this.
In the Dark Ages, nearly everything was up in the air.

Yes, of course. I just fear it would be too messy in a game, and therefore there should be events or whatever to at least encourage AI (and players) to be somewhat historical.

But well, the Dark Ages were "messy" if anything

 

[Sebor13]

while I do think empire management should be and feel very different than 'culture management', the empire should have to deal with populations and peoples. allow too many into your borders and you risk rebellion. don't, and risk invasion.

i feel like this game would be difficult to do in my respects but i think many people would enjoy it. it's a fascinating time: the breakdown of society as it was and the replacement with something different. a historical post-apocalyptic grand strategy game (where the apocalypse i mean the gradual destruction, not a climactic one, of what was viewed as civilization, destroyed by Vandals who had no respect for things of beauty and goodness, and all that classical western interpretations of the fall of the roman empire, and also (if the start date is early enough) in the christian historical/preterist perspectives of what revelation described as apocalypse was: the persecutions of christians in the early part of the first millennium by the roman empire)

That's one of the main reasons I found this time period interesting. To the Romans the world as they knew it was ending, savages were taking over and there was no way to stop them.

I think that the time before Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire might be a little too early.

Yes, of course. I just fear it would be too messy in a game, and therefore there should be events or whatever to at least encourage AI (and players) to be somewhat historical.

But well, the Dark Ages were "messy" if anything

I'm very much interested in how a system could be developed so that the messiness fixes itself by the CK2 start date.

Cultural splits would be very necessary (not just cultural mixing and taking influence from other cultures) and were there any cases of land being ruled with no direct border in this time period (like how Austria rules part of the HRE that they don't have a border with)? If not, then that could be a mechanic to keep the borders from getting too terrible (unless they're both coastal).

 

[ray243]

The Fall of the Roman Empire (the Western half) was a very different time from the rest of the empire's history.

With research you would find that the Roman Empire changed a lot in its later centuries. The splitting of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, the recruitment of barbarian mercenaries, and allowing Germanic tribes to migrate into their land are only a few examples of how the Roman Empire changed in what was leading up to the Dark Ages.

Of course the late Empire was quite a different place from the early Empire. However, at the same time there is an element of continuity even in the late Roman Empire. Things like the recruitment of the barbarians is something that has happened in the early Roman Empire after all.

This time period would be easier to represent in a Dark Ages game than a Rome game, this time period would play very different from the Classical Era.

I'm not too sure on that. It's not like a Roman living in Thagaste during the late empire will be able to tell he is living in an entire different age from his ancestors a few hundred years age. I think that the real break with the classical age only came about with the rise of Islam in the 7th century.

 

[Sebor13]

Of course the late Empire was quite a different place from the early Empire. However, at the same time there is an element of continuity even in the late Roman Empire. Things like the recruitment of the barbarians is something that has happened in the early Roman Empire after all.



I'm not too sure on that. It's not like a Roman living in Thagaste during the late empire will be able to tell he is living in an entire different age from his ancestors a few hundred years age. I think that the real break with the classical age only came about with the rise of Islam in the 7th century.

The Classical Era ending in the 7th Century?

That's the latest date for it I've heard of.

I looked into it a bit, the times for the beginning and end are all over the place but a common consensus said they began in the 5th Century. Some say towards the beginning of it and while most say 476 (the Fall of the Western Roman Empire) was the beginning, I feel like it already began.

And I'm a little curious, how much did they rely on barbarian recruitment in the early and late Roman Empire? It seems to me that their downfall came because a large part of their army was made up of barbarians.

 

[WeissRaben]

Yes, of course. I just fear it would be too messy in a game, and therefore there should be events or whatever to at least encourage AI (and players) to be somewhat historical.

But well, the Dark Ages were "messy" if anything

Hell no. I want to see "Cadavera vero innumera" levels of changes.

Map in 700 AD

 

[ray243]

The Classical Era ending in the 7th Century?

That's the latest date for it I've heard of.

This is a date that a few historians are using as the Byzantine Empire up until that period is still an empire that retains much of its "Romaness". Historians working on this period are now using the term "late antiquity" to describe the period from the rise of Constantine to the reign of Heraclius.

I looked into it a bit, the times for the beginning and end are all over the place but a common consensus said they began in the 5th Century. Some say towards the beginning of it and while most say 476 (the Fall of the Western Roman Empire) was the beginning, I feel like it already began.

I think to use the 476 date is generally ignoring the many aspect of Roman culture that manage to survive even after the fall of the Western Empire. The Byzantine Empire, Vandal Africa, Gothic Italy and Frankish Gaul still feels very Roman when you examine those period closely.

And I'm a little curious, how much did they rely on barbarian recruitment in the early and late Roman Empire? It seems to me that their downfall came because a large part of their army was made up of barbarians.

That really depends on the period you are talking about. For one, let's not forget the fact that nearly 50 percent of the Roman army during the Early Empire period was made up of barbarians. That's the Auxiliaries we are talking about.


Regarding the late Empire, it seems like the amount of Romans actually outnumbered the barbarians in the Roman army at least until the final days of the Western Empire. Hugh Elton's work on the late Roman army is a pretty good place to start if you are interested in finding out more about the percentage of "barbarian" in the late Roman army. Personally I think what really killed off the Western Empire was their failure to defend and hold onto Carthage and North Africa. Once the Romans lost control of their wealthiest province in the west, the Western Empire practically lost all available funds to rebuild their armies. The barbarinziation theory is not a widely accepted theory by historians nowadays to my knowledge.

 

[Sebor13]

This is a date that a few historians are using as the Byzantine Empire up until that period is still an empire that retains much of its "Romaness". Historians working on this period are now using the term "late antiquity" to describe the period from the rise of Constantine to the reign of Heraclius.

I think to use the 476 date is generally ignoring the many aspect of Roman culture that manage to survive even after the fall of the Western Empire. The Byzantine Empire, Vandal Africa, Gothic Italy and Frankish Gaul still feels very Roman when you examine those period closely.

That really depends on the period you are talking about. For one, let's not forget the fact that nearly 50 percent of the Roman army during the Early Empire period was made up of barbarians. That's the Auxiliaries we are talking about.

Regarding the late Empire, it seems like the amount of Romans actually outnumbered the barbarians in the Roman army at least until the final days of the Western Empire. Hugh Elton's work on the late Roman army is a pretty good place to start if you are interested in finding out more about the percentage of "barbarian" in the late Roman army. Personally I think what really killed off the Western Empire was their failure to defend and hold onto Carthage and North Africa. Once the Romans lost control of their wealthiest province in the west, the Western Empire practically lost all available funds to rebuild their armies. The barbarinziation theory is not a widely accepted theory by historians nowadays to my knowledge.

I've saw that term used a few times when I was doing research earlier.

On the other hand, you could say that using 476 also ignores the changes in the Roman Empire over the last few centuries. Those places may have been very much like the Roman Empire but the (Western) Roman Empire itself was different from how we think of it now at the time before its fall.

What kind of barbarians were those? Maybe we should focus on Germanic tribes instead. Non-Germanic barbarians were what most of the empire was made up of.

I seem to remember learning in History class that the Eastern Roman Empire was wealthier than the Western Roman Empire and was better able to pay of barbarians and hire mercenaries because of it.

 

[ray243]

I've saw that term used a few times when I was doing research earlier.

On the other hand, you could say that using 476 also ignores the changes in the Roman Empire over the last few centuries. Those places may have been very much like the Roman Empire but the (Western) Roman Empire itself was different from how we think of it now at the time before its fall.

True, it is a vastly different time from the Principate era. The rise of Christianity had began to reshape the western world during this period and the empire as a whole. Yet the western world in 479 has more in common with the ancient world than the medieval world in my opinion.

What kind of barbarians were those? Maybe we should focus on Germanic tribes instead. Non-Germanic barbarians were what most of the empire was made up of.

Well, the Romans has always recruited Germanic tribes into the army despite their failure to conquer Germania. Some of the most famous auxiliaries units were recruited from Germanic tribes after all, like the Batavians.

I seem to remember learning in History class that the Eastern Roman Empire was wealthier than the Western Roman Empire and was better able to pay of barbarians and hire mercenaries because of it.

The east had always been the more developed part of the Roman Empire than the west. Let's not forget that the reason why the Roman Empire became so powerful and wealthy during the early Imperial period was because they have control of Egypt.

 

[keneticpest]

I would want a heavy focus on migration mechanics. I'm not sure how to model them, though.

 

[vyshan]

One thing that a dark ages game, especially if it is set before the council of Nicaea*, would need to handle is religion especially Christianity and how different it can turn out. There were a lot of christian movements that came about during this time: Arianism, Pelagianism and so on. This was also the years before the Catholic church and the orthodox church became split so this separation would have to be modeled somehow.


*ie if you played the preceding years before the fall of the roman empire.