My own "receipe" for Roma.2

[Kliwarrior]

As the title says, a recipe or better a wish list for my dream Roma.2

• Vic.2 style POPs
  at least 4 social classes + slaves. Soldiers not included as a stand-alone pops because armies were raised among free citizens which can pay for his own equipment.

• Pop have different cultures and social status

• CK2 levy system + mercenary
  Permanent army possible only with mechanism similar to retinues, number increasable with advanced military ideas

• EU4 Trade system
  with trade zones and the possibility to enforce (almost) commerce monopoly in sea zones. Commercial ships and presence of harbour and “commercial hubs” increase the power of a given state/empire.

• Rome Senate, but with a flavour of VIC2.
  Different laws and reforms increase or decrease the power of aristocrats (patrician) , plebeian and mid classes. “Political Parties” based on the power of the social classes. Possibility to switch back and forth from democracies/republics to tyrants ( see Pesistratos in Athens ) or even to monarchy (Augustus) in a dynamic way. (especially for an V-IV century gre

• No “empty provinces”. Use the CK2 lessons for tribal organizations and for migrating pops (early barbarian migrations of Celts in Greece/Balkans in III cent. BC or the invasion of Cimbri and Teutons in I century BC )

• EU4 style national ideas, to expand the current civil/religious/military idea system.

• Possibility to found cities in provinces (see CK2 holdings mechanism) to represent the Greek and Roman colonies to populate provinces.

 

[NoodleNaught]

I personally find EU4s trade system to be horrible. I would love a better one for Rome 2 though certainly.

EU4 national ideas are horrendous, let's keep that shit right outta here.

 

[Kliwarrior]

EU4 trade system isn't perfect , but it's great to depict (and make easily understandable) situations like "Carthage is the hegemonic trade power in the Tyrrhenian sea" or "Athens and other Asia minor cities are competing in Aegean Sea".
The "trade flow" trough trade zones probably has little sense inside the Mediterranean sea, but definitely has for inland trade.
Moreover the direct impact of having a big fleet to sustain and protect the trade is very good and clear .
Everything should be adjusted for the historical settings, but it's a great starting point, IMHO.

About NI... oh well I love them since EU3, but I understand it's a matter of taste...
But consider the possibility to implement in this way the (sometimes) radical differences between various empires and city-state of the classic age.

 

[NoodleNaught]

EU4 trade system isn't perfect , but it's great to depict (and make easily understandable) situations like "Carthage is the hegemonic trade power in the Tyrrhenian sea" or "Athens and other Asia minor cities are competing in Aegean Sea".
The "trade flow" trough trade zones probably has little sense inside the Mediterranean sea, but definitely has for inland trade.
Moreover the direct impact of having a big fleet to sustain and protect the trade is very good and clear .
Everything should be adjusted for the historical settings, but it's a great starting point, IMHO.

About NI... oh well I love them since EU3, but I understand it's a matter of taste...
But consider the possibility to implement in this way the (sometimes) radical differences between various empires and city-state of the classic age.

The radical differences should be organic, like they were pre-EU4. EU4s take on the difference between nations is North Germans are racially superior and cannot be defeated. Russians bread twice as fast as rabbits. And everyone else pretends like they do stuff, but in reality are just worse at the one thing the game is about.

On the topic of trade, I certainly see where your coming from. My big issues with EU4s trade system is the trade flow mechanics. You have to be abusive as hell if your not in a natural end zone.

 

[Nordic Sage]

Interesting suggestions by the OP.

My ideas:

Pops: As mentioned, there should be different pops for different cultures and social classes, though perhaps not as detailed as Vic2. Preferably there should be a very rough approximation of how the demographics of the ancient world might have looked like. Furthermore, politics should not be "democratic" as in Vic2 but different factions of the aristocracy more or less represent the interests of different group.

Government: Different kinds of government. Monarchy (e.g. Successor states, Parthians), Popular democracy (Athens), Noble republic (Rome), Tribal confederations (Germans, Nomads). Government type would have benefits and drawbacks as well as being more or less suitable for different peoples. Democracy would perhaps give your goverment more legitimacy and less unrest but you cannot declare war or change laws without support from a democratic assembly. Monarchies are less constrained but more prone to challenges to the throne etc. Traditions, laws and events can ultimately change government type, like Rome becoming a de facto monarchy.

Politics: Should revolve much around characters. Monarchs/consuls, governors, generals and diplomats have traits and skills and "gravitas". They should also be connected to factions whose influence depends both on circumstances and the the influence (gravitas) of its individual members. The influence of different factions constrain what you can do with your state, if you pursue a policy (alliances, wars, law changes) in conflict with the strongest faction it will destabilize the realm and possible lead to civil war. Factions types would be dependent on goverment types, in Rome it could be reactionaries vs populists, in kingdoms loyalists vs pretenders etc).

Trade: Should be more fleshed out than in EU4 with specific goods that are demanded and produced by Pops. Trade could provide important additional tax revenues and strategic goods and thus be important in the game but still less central than in Vic2. I think the creation of specific trade routes would be better than static nodes like in EU4.

 

[Nordic Sage]

Part 2:

Provinces: Large provinces (like states in Vic2) containing smaller individual provinces. The "states" are more or less historical provinces that have governors. The minor provinces is a certain type of settlement, like city, trade colony, military colony, tribal land, nomad lands or wilderness). These are not static, colonies can become cities, cities can be razed, nomad lands or wilderness can be settled, tribal lands can assimilate and become Greek/Roman style colonies etc.

Diplomacy: Obvious things like alliance, trade, tribute, gifts/patronage. Confederations can be formed and, occasionally, integrated into a larger state. Large states can make client states of provinces as well as integrating client states into proper provinces. These changes would depend on conditions in both states. As a major state gifts/patronage, trade and military support would pull minor states into your sphere of influence increasing your prestige and open up possibilities. Diplomacy should also be unpredictable and dynamic, more like CK2 than EU4. A succession war in a client state can give you an opportunity to incorporate that state as an province, a civil war in a state where both you and your rival have influence can put you on war footing with your rival etc.

Economy: The productivity of a province is determined by natural factors (such as climate) and size of population. The populations have demands, often very basic except for the aristocracy, that mostly are met by local production. Luxury goods or rare goods are important trade goods. Grain imports can be important for large cities (Rome) or well-populated settlements without much arable land (Greece). Exaclty how detailed the market mehanisms should be is an open question. Probably not as much as Vic2 but there should be some kind mechanism at least. Rich provinces obviously provide greater tax revenues.

Warfare: Like EU4 but with greater diversity of units. Skills of generals is decisive. Units should be based on culure/military traditions (except for mercenaries) and some units are considerably more effective than others. A proper balance between different arms is also important. Recruitment is more like CK2 with a mix of levies/mercenaries and occasionally a standing army. Logistics is important; the armies can be supplied in different ways depending on situation, they cannot stay in the same province for too long and attrition can be devastating. Perhaps battles should be less common but more decisive. Peace treaties should be flexible like Vic2 and EU4.

 

[Nordic Sage]

Last part:

Patronage: Historically, both the Roman emperors and kings during the Hellenic age spent a great deal on patronage of various sorts. This should be an important part of the game, both as a strategic element and as a way to "shape your own" civilization.
The creation of colonies, the constructions of temples, forums, amphitheatres academies, roads and aqueducts do not only add economic and strategic benefits but also increase your prestige and tie your citizens to your rule. A province that is not developed in the direction of your culture will forever resent the rule of your state. The player will have to fund temples and public works in order to assimilate the province. It should also be a mutual dynamic where the local elite also are involved in patronage. So specific buildings in settlements can be funded by both the player and the local elites, and in the case of minor settlements likely the latter.
If the local elites respect your rule they are likely to want to assimilate by funding buildings of your culture. Their willingness to do so depends on the prestige of your state (as well as their culture and civilization). Provinces that are left to their own devices will rebel more often, provide less taxation and levies and might want to secede, especially if a rival state closer to their culture is nearby.

Technology: Rather than technology as such institutions and traditions would be central. Every state have their military, political, social, religious, cultural and enginering traditions. Traditions determine much of what you can do with your state. Romans recruit Roman units and build Roman style colonies and buildings, and they have an efficent administration early on. Traditions can change based on time, conditions and "experience". New military traditon open up the possibilty to train even more disciplined legions. New political traditions may open up for new laws or increase accpetance for new forms of government. New engineering traditions allow you to build more impressive buildings. Traditions can also develop across cultures. States that are in contact with each other via trade and politcal relationships can adapt elements from foreign traditions. Late Germanic tribes may learn to fight the Romans better because of their experience of Roman traditions, they may learn how to administer provinces more effectively and they may be able to politically form greater confederations. Likewise, Greeks may abandon the phalanx in favor of Roman style tactics after enough contacts with the Romans and the Romans may develop cataphract units after contact with the Parthians. Cultural traditions, like Platonism or Stoicism, maybe adapted outside their original context and increase the prestige of the state. This way "technological" changes would be slow and incremental but also concrete and important.

If the Paradox team ever decides to create a Rome 2 -game I hope they bring in some of the elements that I have discussed.

 

[Jlop985]

Interesting suggestions by the OP.

Government: Different kinds of government. Monarchy (e.g. Successor states, Parthians), Popular democracy (Athens), Noble republic (Rome), Tribal confederations (Germans, Nomads). Government type would have benefits and drawbacks as well as being more or less suitable for different peoples. Democracy would perhaps give your goverment more legitimacy and less unrest but you cannot declare war or change laws without support from a democratic assembly. Monarchies are less constrained but more prone to challenges to the throne etc. Traditions, laws and events can ultimately change government type, like Rome becoming a de facto monarchy.

As far as Roman government, I would classify it as an aristocratic monarchy (to 509 BC), aristocratic republic (509-367 BC, with the opening of the consulship to plebeians), military republic (367-167 BC, with the abolition of direct taxation for Roman citizens), and oligarchic republic (167-49 BC with the dictatorship of Julius Caesar).

 

[Gurkhal]

Well, if Rome II makes it, I hope for a longer time period to play, much reduced pace in seeing my armies grinded down and an interesting end game with what I would call "Hegemon".

The idea with "Hegemon" is that when an empire has become so large as to domainte the whole world with no possible enemy that can hope to defeat it, it turns inwards just like the Romans did. Suddenly civil strife and conflict with be much more previliant and generals care less about defending the frontiers and more of making themselves the new leaders. Some will no doubt hate it, but I think that an increase in the domestic conflicts when one has created a world empire would be correct when looking at how the Roman and Alexandrian empires developed as well as that it would ensure that the players never reaches a "I am invincible!" position...or at least they'll have to shore up the home front as well for that to happen.

 

[Tisifoni12]

I found Rome II so annoying that I gave up on it and went back to a board game approach to soloing a grand campaign with very simple rules and table top battles with models.
See Empire: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/54859/empire-macedonian-punic-wars-350-150bc
See DBMM: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bellis-Magistrorum-Militum-DBMM-Version/dp/0956546803

Much more expensive approach in time (many hours painting 15mm figures, though cardboard counters would have been an alternative) and a lot simpler in campaign mechanics, but it provided something satisfying.

I'm not saying give up and go off and do what I did, but a Rome II that is a tinkered about version of the mechanics used for EU or HOI isn't going to capture / portray the Macedonian and Punic Wars. Lots of good ideas here and on other threads (I have posted ideas on other threads), but a radical re-think to the mechanics is necessary.

 

[Samman666]

I'd personally like to see multiple pop groups for different types of soldiers. So the citizen soldier pop group would only be enabled in times of war and would be drawn from possible patrician and equestrian social pop groups. They would behave similarly to how levies work in CKII. Mercenary pops would be only widespread in mercantile states as well as very multicultural states. It'd be kinda cool if they were semi-autonomous and had the ability to be bribed by the opposing side. Finally, the professional soldiery would exist in larger empires and post-Marius Rome, which would behave like regular armies in EU and Victoria. They'd largely be drawn from the dregs of the plebeian class.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Mercenary pops would be only widespread in mercantile states

Not sure that is quite appropriate. Perhaps it's more complicated than that; different in different parts of the Mediterranean and at different times. Examples:

• Greek mercenaries in Persian service (for Greek city state citizens an employment option for the disaffected, or employment for younger sons, rather than splitting the inheritance)
• Thracian mercenaries (a market for their services in the Hellenistic world, I think in some battles there were Thracians in both armies), similarly Cretan archers, though 'Cretan' may have become a descriptive term for quality of archers or style of fighting rather than ethnic origin.
• Iberian infantry and Numidians in Carthaginian service (outside of Iberia and North Africa)*

*Iberians in Iberia fighting for Carthage or Rome in Iberia are allies; Iberians elsewhere are paid mercenaries.

I certainly feel that raising forces in the Ancient Mediterranean world was not like raising forces in the 18th to 21st centuries. Many served out of obligation to their state, with perhaps limitations on length of service or distance from home and supplying their own equipment or equipped from state armouries. Such systems tend to be monolithic until some shock causes a re-think and there might be little choice over army composition or size. Some served for pay, which also has implications. Carthage was the pre-eminent trading power of the Western Mediterranean. Carthage at the same time minted no coin, trade was carried out on the basis of exchange (I won't use the term barter) of one type of resource or product for another and the profit came from knowing the relative values, or 'exchange rates' of wine, oil, ore, etc. Carthage introduced coinage specifically to pay mercenaries in its first war in Sicily with the Greeks of Syracuse.

 

[Tisifoni12]

Would love the opportunity to develop an Macedonian and Punic Wars game for Paradox, but I suspect that my knowledge of the period and interest in gaming might not be enough; I lack of experience in the games industry !

Would also get me out of Brexit Britain to lovely Sweden . . .

 

[Gurkhal]

Here's a sugges

I'd personally like to see multiple pop groups for different types of soldiers. So the citizen soldier pop group would only be enabled in times of war and would be drawn from possible patrician and equestrian social pop groups. They would behave similarly to how levies work in CKII. Mercenary pops would be only widespread in mercantile states as well as very multicultural states. It'd be kinda cool if they were semi-autonomous and had the ability to be bribed by the opposing side. Finally, the professional soldiery would exist in larger empires and post-Marius Rome, which would behave like regular armies in EU and Victoria. They'd largely be drawn from the dregs of the plebeian class.

What this sounds like is that regular armies would be constructed like retinues in CK2 and that as a state's military evolves "levies" will gradually fade into the background and finally be abolished. But I think an important part would be that unites could gain loyalty to their generals and so support him in a civil war.

Now it was some time since I played with Rome but one thing I thought about, depending on how long the timeline would be, is the aspect of religion. I think it would be a nice feature to have both a province religion as well as one or two Mystery Cults active in a province which could give one benefit or another. But also that the state could try to raise up a Mystery Cult to official religion and transform it into a more political religion, like how Christianity was raised up by the Romans.

Or maybe this would be better for a game focused on Late Antiquity and (very) Early Middle Ages?

EDITED: And another thing, it would be great if you didn't run out of manpower so quickly as you do, or at least I did, in Rome.

 

[Tisifoni12]

• I would pretty much do away with tech development. Instead options to make changes prompted by a significant event or a new challenge, e.g. the Romans can reform their military after significant a military failure / disaster, but otherwise they have to stick with what they know (change from 'Camillan' organisation to 'Polybian' to 'Marian')
• I would limit state involvement in trade to a) some provision for taxing trade, b) some provision for embargoing trade (it would be difficult to make either work totally, EUIV offers a good starting point)
• I would limit military options for what troops can be raised and in what numbers and make those options situation specific*
• The role of religion in national and army morale should be considered
• A mechanism that 'stops the game' and resolves significant battles in hours of 'game time' rather than them dragging on for days. There should be some provision for the battle to be delayed or avoided rather than automatically happening when armies meet. Many generals, though not all, in this period were wary of committing themselves to the risks of battle and might delay waiting for an advantage, attempt to withdraw to more favourable ground, etc. Yes there might be some preliminary skirmishing, but that would generally involve a few more lightly armed troops and casualties tended to be low unless skirmishing drew the armies into a full battle. Players and AI would be presented with a series of decisions / choices, perhaps a constrained series. They would then be presented with the outcome.

* Rome did not raise units in a highly variable way, it raised armies of standard size and composition once a year, Consular armies (e.g. led by a Consul) and Praetorian Armies (e.g. led by a Praetor and half the size of a Consular army). To these armies auxiliary (allied or mercenary) forces might be added depending on where they were campaigning; Iberians in Iberia, Numidians in North Africa, Gauls in Northern Italy, Greeks in Sicily.
* Thracian mercenaries are available to those who can access that market of mercenaries, Galatian mercenaries are available to those who can access that market of mercenaries.

 

[Nordic Sage]

• A mechanism that 'stops the game' and resolves significant battles in hours of 'game time' rather than them dragging on for days. There should be some provision for the battle to be delayed or avoided rather than automatically happening when armies meet. Many generals, though not all, in this period were wary of committing themselves to the risks of battle and might delay waiting for an advantage, attempt to withdraw to more favourable ground, etc. Yes there might be some preliminary skirmishing, but that would generally involve a few more lightly armed troops and casualties tended to be low unless skirmishing drew the armies into a full battle. Players and AI would be presented with a series of decisions / choices, perhaps a constrained series. They would then be presented with the outcome.

I have been thinking across the same lines. Generals should have a maneuver skill that are matched against the opposing generals skill and when they are in the same province determines the chance that either part confronts the other. You could also have different stances for the armies, like aggressive, evasive, defensive. Eg a skilled general with defensive stance would stay and fight if he finds favourable ground, while a low skilled general with aggressive stance would likely miss the opportunity to fight or make an inadvisable attack.
Battles/warfare should also be affected by uncontrollable circumstances, like bad weather. Maybe ships get lost in storms etc.
Battles should also matter, if you lose a decisive battle things will be, well, decisive. Not like CK2 where levies regenerate after after a couple of years.

 

[nbagga]

I like some of the ideas here, really hope the good people at Paradox bring a sequel.

 

[Rhaegar1]

I have been thinking across the same lines. Generals should have a maneuver skill that are matched against the opposing generals skill and when they are in the same province determines the chance that either part confronts the other. You could also have different stances for the armies, like aggressive, evasive, defensive. Eg a skilled general with defensive stance would stay and fight if he finds favourable ground, while a low skilled general with aggressive stance would likely miss the opportunity to fight or make an inadvisable attack.
Battles/warfare should also be affected by uncontrollable circumstances, like bad weather. Maybe ships get lost in storms etc.
Battles should also matter, if you lose a decisive battle things will be, well, decisive. Not like CK2 where levies regenerate after after a couple of years.

Wow, that's a pretty rad idea. Army stances would be great to implement. I would also like to have CKII style provinces with multiple settlements in it. That way you can try to start a colony in a barbarian province. With different army stances you could then have multiple armies in one province as long as they are defensive (they will stay in friendly settlements. When at war you can put them on raid to start pillage and burn enemie countryside, or siege to try and take enemy settlements or agrassive to engage enemy forces who might be raiding your settlement. Depending on the stances, the size of the forces, the army composition (adding more skirmishers could help in more effective raiding and evading the enemies) and the generals characteristics giving armies a chance to engage would be great. Succesfully raiding and skirmishing in a province with an enemy army could add significant atrrition to their army but the longer you keep doing that the bigger the chance the enemy army scores a hit and both armies engage.

Damnit I want this game.

 

[Searry]

Most obvious: Two consuls.

 

[Gurkhal]

As for timeline I would suggest 301 BCE to 476 CE as that would give some 777 years to play with and I think that the time allowed to play in the original Rome game was not nearly enough to even get going. Plus with CK2 having some 684 years we can play in, its not that much of an increasement. I naturally understand that this could potentially cause some troubles but I'll wait for an informed response before cutting down my proposed dates for the time frame.