Rome has to be nerfed.

[MachopPower69]

This is a bit controversial since it is the main feature of Imperator Rome, but Rome is a bit too strong. I like to play in Very Easy (Sorry), but even then Rome is very dangerous (15% reduction in morale does nothing at all). And since everyone else is complaining how broken Rome is, it should be nerfed or have an easier way to compete with. Sure, it is supposed to be hegemonic in nature as it was in real life, but I can't play a normal game as a reforming Tribal nation in Iberia without Rome stomping to my doorstep and munching on every nation I border because they have 1 million men in Legions.

How I would nerf Rome is to make AI province loyalty reduced so provincial revolts are more common. I play with a mod that does this and Rome always has revolts when in vanilla if they conquer a territory it is instantly loyal.

Another way is to make the difficulties redone. As I said, Very Easy is useless against Rome. Maybe make AI revolts more common or make AI less likely to expand extensively like they are FlorryWorry in an EU4 campaign with only marines.

Finally, nerf legions. They are too strong and for Rome, it is free to expand because it is in an Italic culture group in a place with lots of Italic nations. Maybe reduce cultural legions or make them only be able to have capital legions instead.

Sorry if this doesn't belong here, it is basically a rant to nerf Rome because they are too strong.

 

[Warrior2099]

I guess that you are not author of post with similiar title which was posted on reddit forum?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Imperator/comments/miyttb

Rome doesn't need any nerf. It was nation on the way for dominance in ancient world. Rome should be able to get position of major power in game and should be major threat to all nearby factions. This is exacly historical. If you have problems to play with some factions and if problem is rise of Roman power - this is exactly how it should be.

The game needs some changes - but for sure this element is not one of them.

 

[Herennius]

As I wrote in this thread ( https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/absurd-ai-peace-deals-with-rome.1465695/ ) with a similar topic, Rome has the special Antagonist modifier. I wonder what would happen, if that was taken away...? That might be already enough - taking away such AI special rules can work miracles... I'm playing my game without the AI loyalty boost of +30 for each province after a revolt and empires like the Seleukid one have become a lot less monolithic, instead having to fight chain rebellions. Maurya take advantage of this situation and has become even bigger, but probably only because I made that change mid-game and they already has reached a solid position at that moment.

 

[Kadanz]

The AI is currently getting a few OP cheat modifiers that makes them very stable and able to largly ignore stability and AE. The problem isn't necessarily Rome specific.

If an AI nation suffers a province rebellion all their other provinces get a +30 loyalty boost.

 

[MachopPower69]

I guess that you are not author of post with similiar title which was posted on reddit forum?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Imperator/comments/miyttb

Rome doesn't need any nerf. It was nation on the way for dominance in ancient world. Rome should be able to get position of major power in game and should be major threat to all nearby factions. This is exacly historical. If you have problems to play with some factions and if problem is rise of Roman power - this is exactly how it should be.

The game needs some changes - but for sure this element is not one of them.

I'm sorry. Did you say something while I was playing sparta and Rome decided to say hello to me 20 years after the game started even if i removed their subjects and made their provinces disloyal before they even took over northern Italia? Or am I too weak about complaining about how broken Rome is?

And no, I'm not the guy who made that post. I have 109 hours

 

[Herennius]

The AI is currently getting a few OP cheat modifiers that makes them very stable and able to largly ignore stability and AE. The problem isn't necessarily Rome specific.

If an AI nation suffers a province rebellion all their other provinces get a +30 loyalty boost.

As said, take it away (there is a mod doing it) and you have an entire new dynamic in the game. Can't say yet how it affects Rome AI, because I'm playing them myself in my current game...

 

[Kadanz]

As I wrote in this thread ( https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/absurd-ai-peace-deals-with-rome.1465695/ ) with a similar topic, Rome has the special Antagonist modifier. I wonder what would happen, if that was taken away...? That might be already enough - taking away such AI special rules can work miracles... I'm playing my game without the AI loyalty boost of +30 for each province after a revolt and empires like the Seleukid one have become a lot less monolithic, instead having to fight chain rebellions. Maurya take advantage of this situation and has become even bigger, but probably only because I made that change mid-game and they already has reached a solid position at that moment.

My guess is they implemented this as a bandaid because they didn't have any development time to improve the AI on this regard. Purely conjecture of course. I think if you remove the bandaid all the AI empires will collapse after a decade because they can't seem to grasp the concept of AE and stability. Which they seem to blissfully ignore.

 

[MachopPower69]

As I wrote in this thread ( https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/absurd-ai-peace-deals-with-rome.1465695/ ) with a similar topic, Rome has the special Antagonist modifier. I wonder what would happen, if that was taken away...? That might be already enough - taking away such AI special rules can work miracles... I'm playing my game without the AI loyalty boost of +30 for each province after a revolt and empires like the Seleukid one have become a lot less monolithic, instead having to fight chain rebellions. Maurya take advantage of this situation and has become even bigger, but probably only because I made that change mid-game and they already has reached a solid position at that moment.

Of the nations that have the unique modifier, I only see Rome do well.

But how do you remove the Antagonist modifier?

 

[Herennius]

My guess is they implemented this as a bandaid because they didn't have any development time to improve the AI on this regard. Purely conjecture of course. I think if you remove the bandaid all the AI empires will collapse after a decade because they can't seem to grasp the concept of AE and stability. Which they seem to blissfully ignore.

Yes, the devs reasoned this mechanic exactly that way. I'm still exploring the mod and will have to play at least one more complete game to judge the effects, but I'm not sure if it is really enough to outright collapse the big empires. It hits them and they fall into periods of internal instability, where they just have to fight to supress rebellions, but so far e .g. the Seleukids survived. They have grant autonomy to some territories or turned them into vassals, but so far that change played more as a anti-blobbing mechanic than one fractating an AI empire. But as said, I need to test it a bit more to say for sure.

Of the nations that have the unique modifier, I only see Rome do well.

The eastern migratory tribes of the steppe (which have it as well) usually unite at same point, expand to some extend and then stand their ground. So I think they profit as well from it, but in case of Rome it allows to snowball because they start even stronger and are located better (more fertile lands, more pops, weaker neighbours)

 

[Daft]

I guess that you are not author of post with similiar title which was posted on reddit forum?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Imperator/comments/miyttb

Rome doesn't need any nerf. It was nation on the way for dominance in ancient world. Rome should be able to get position of major power in game and should be major threat to all nearby factions. This is exacly historical. If you have problems to play with some factions and if problem is rise of Roman power - this is exactly how it should be.

The game needs some changes - but for sure this element is not one of them.

I would agree with this, maybe another game mode?

But what I feel is somewhat missing from the game is the hardships that Rome actually faced. The defeat at Cannae for example. It was more than a speed bump for the Romans, but they managed to overcome due to their perseverance, pride and large manpower pools.

Things the Carthaginians did not have. And yet, they suffered ANOTHER large defeat that same year, at the hand of the Boii, yet the just kept on coming. That's over 80 000 peolpe killed.

I rarely see setbacks like this in the game, playing as Rome. That is quite possibly the distance I am willing to go on any Rome nerf. More speed bumps.

Another part is the loss of experience and competence of the Legions once the veterans of the Punic wars have died or were to old to serve. It lead to some very poor performances by the Roman fighting forces. This is probably also something that could be expanded upon to sort of slow the juggernaut, or at the very least, give the Rome player some extra crunch in terms of difficulty.

 

[Fungi]

Rome should be strong, but what irks me is that Cartaghe is not. Cartaghe AI should be more active in spain and win there ( the celtberians alway kick them out in my expierence) So after loosing Scilily and Sardina Cartaghe and rome stop having conflicts till Rome has conquered all of gaul and spain and greece etc no competition anymore.

 

[Arthrodira]

I think the issue, if there is one, is that Rome seems weirdly biased towards Illyria, greece, and Pannonia. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen them go west unless forced to (ie player Antigonids subjugated the pannonians and illyrians before Rome got to them). They usually eventually take Carthage, but only literally Carthage (Tunisia). I’m glad that they go after the Hellenistics at some point now, but it is odd how early the Romans go east. In OPs case, without even taking Etruria.

To be clear. I still strongly disagree with the OP and similar posts. Rome is not over powered. It is more or less balanced appropriately. But, Epirus is FAR too weak (giving Rome a very early foothold in Greece) and the Punic Wars are still not well simulated.

 

[Poliut]

I wouldn't say Rome is OP, but Rome does need a few checks/challenges, like Carthage or maybe the Diadochi winner.

 

[Vityviktor]

To be clear. I still strongly disagree with the OP and similar posts. Rome is not over powered. It is more or less balanced appropriately. But, Epirus is FAR too weak (giving Rome a very early foothold in Greece) and the Punic Wars are still not well simulated.

Completely agree. Playing Epirus in I:R only leaves me wondering how could I even do half of the things Pyrrhus did. It really feels like a rump or failed state doomed to end up being sandwich-ed by Rome and Macedon.

 

[Saladin87]

Guys, the game is called Imperator Rome. Rome is OP not just for that, it's historically accurate. If you expect Rome to die out or become crippled on every run, it's unreasonable. Just imagine this, even with all the OP bonuses and advantages Rome gets, it's still quite challenging to conquer all the lands to replicate Rome's historical borders. To me that's quite fair.

I feel like the devs got it right, making Rome the ultimate "Last Boss" in the game. After you've blobbed yourself to mid/late game and have that final clash with Rome, it's just epic and I love it. Other nations blob too but they don't really put up much of a fight in the mid or late game. I find myself so far ahead in economy, tech and traditions that Egypt, Seleukids or others just melt like butter. In all my runs it was only Rome who provided the best challenge and it was quite satisfying to fight them. I think the balance is right in terms of Rome's strengths in military, economy and stability.

However, I do agree that the advantage in peace deals has some issues and often comes out with some weird results, but perhaps it's not just a problem specific to Rome but all AI peace deals. For example, in a recent Thrace run I was called into a defensive war by Epirus against Rome, I was just helping out in defending Epirote lands but didn't make any offensive moves into italy as I was busy fighting another war elsewhere. At some point the war ended abruptly and ridiculously enough I ended up with Rome as my client state! The diplomacy definitely needs to be improved in this case. I've also seen in other runs etruria completely destroying Rome and taking over all of Italy, so it's not like the game is rigged for AI Rome, even they have bad runs.

I understand how difficult it is for smaller nations near Rome to deal with their blobbling but honestly it's not impossible to stop them. Maybe the player needs to be more aggressive/efficient in their approach to the early game and get as many allies as possible, because that's the only way to stop Rome. Unless you've allied them yourself, in which case you've got a very OP weapon to help you blob.

I agree that Epirus starts with a very difficult setup, I'd love to see a bit more buff on them but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. In my Epirus run I handled Rome fairly well. The key is to be super aggressive to start with. Early on get as many from Syracuse, Lucania, Etruria or any other blobs near Rome to ally with you and keep Thrace as an ally to deal with Macedon. Save money to get some mercenaries, the initial cost is high but the manpower you'll save is worth the investment. Finish the first mission asap and move on to the next mission for Magna Graecia, don't wait to finish all the missions in the first tree. Go to war with Rome as soon as you get the second mission, it helps massively because the whole mission tree is scripted to help you defeat Rome. Rome's navy is crap in the beginning so if you can somehow destroy their fleet and blockade their capital, you'll cripple them badly and win the war easy. Don't try to annex them in one war, just cripple them and take multiple wars to finish them off.

Carthage needs to be more aggressive and give Rome a proper challenge later on. I'd love to see the juggernauts fight for it in the mid or late game.

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

To be historically accurate, Rome would have to conquer the south of Italy in about 30 years from game start, and the Po valley in about 80 years. In the game they do so much, much earlier on average. They are actually very overpowered, which is again reflected by the fact that the actual Romans had to rely on many alliances (the Aetolian league, Rhodes, Pergamon) to subdue the Greek world because their historical manpower wouldn't have been enough to do so on their own.

The AI Roman in-game expansion at the start of the game is much too fast if we are to compare it to actual history.

 

[Zander]

A lot of good points here.

1) Rome *should* be the ultimate boss.
2) Rome's expansion should be a little slower (but only a little).
3) Rome should pay more attention to the West, and Carthage should be a *much* bigger hurdle for them. Possibly Epirus and Greece need some way to deter them better in the first century of game.

Rome's early victories were not guaranteed. They didn't even strictly beat Pyrrhus, and Carthage knocked them around for a bit before getting crushed.

I would also add:

4) Rome's navy should not be so dominant early.

Since 90% of navy strength in I:R is money, and Rome is overflowing with pops and wealth, they tend to have a navy twice the size of Carthage's before they've even unified Italy. This isn't the biggest problem in the game, but seems widely off the mark from history.

 

[Saladin87]

To be historically accurate, Rome would have to conquer the south of Italy in about 30 years from game start, and the Po valley in about 80 years. In the game they do so much, much earlier on average. They are actually very overpowered, which is again reflected by the fact that the actual Romans had to rely on many alliances (the Aetolian league, Rhodes, Pergamon) to subdue the Greek world because their historical manpower wouldn't have been enough to do so on their own.

The AI Roman in-game expansion at the start of the game is much too fast if we are to compare it to actual history.

I do agree that the expansion can be ahistorically rapid, but I must say for a game of this scale, with all the variables in place, it'll be impossible to simulate the historical expansion in terms of timing. Unless the entire expansion is scripted or event based and that will be boring / repetitive. At the moment there are far more pressing issues that need fixing, balancing and improvement. I'm happy with Rome as it is, the nemesis I look forward to clash with in every run.

A lot of good points here.

1) Rome *should* be the ultimate boss.
2) Rome's expansion should be a little slower (but only a little).
3) Rome should pay more attention to the West, and Carthage should be a *much* bigger hurdle for them. Possibly Epirus and Greece need some way to deter them better in the first century of game.

Rome's early victories were not guaranteed. They didn't even strictly beat Pyrrhus, and Carthage knocked them around for a bit before getting crushed.

I would also add:

4) Rome's navy should not be so dominant early.

Since 90% of navy strength in I:R is money, and Rome is overflowing with pops and wealth, they tend to have a navy twice the size of Carthage's before they've even unified Italy. This isn't the biggest problem in the game, but seems widely off the mark from history.

Yes, maybe it would be a good idea to sort of script the direction of expansion instead of nerfing. The game date could be used to trigger changes to the priority given to the direction of expansion so as to match history.

 

[vicbus]

It's the barbarian nations that need a defensive buff. It should be a painful (not impossible though) ordeal to subjugate Hispania and Germania as it was historically, not a walk in the park as it is right now

 

[Kill_off1004]

before 2.0 everyone was like "oh Rome needs a buff, they die too much, makes them more aggressive"
and now they are what everyone wanted and I see dozens of "pls nerf Rome" posts.
They´re good as is. If you play next to them you should realize it´s gonna be hard