Rome II

[Tisifoni12]

EU:Rome feesl like a micromanagement nightmare,

Micromanaging with the sort of detailed information that a Classical era ruler wouldn't have unless he / she ruled a relatively compact state.

Ultimately "battles" in any of the EU games don't exclusively represent large scale conflict, but are also supposed to show the impact of raiding and skirmishing. Because of this armies should be able to disengage with relatively low casualties, to better model leaving before decisive engagement. (In fact there should be a stage of the battle when it moves from skirmishing to engaged combat).

A raid would tend to mean a force crossing a province border to loot / damage / distract / threaten.
While skirmishing in WW2 might mean a low level of harassing contact along a continuous front, skirmishing in the Classical era tended to be small units on foraging or scouting missions contacting the enemy, e.g. 500 Numidian cavalry (out of an army of 25 - 40,000) happening on a detached force of 1,000 infantry (from an army of similar size) out gathering supplies, or harassing troops access to local water supplies.

Classical generals would often avoid battle if they didn't think the situation sufficiently favourable to take the risk. They might sit in fortified camps for days, waiting for some advantage, or seek to quietly abandon their camp at night and retire to a more favourable location. Maneuvre skill ?

 

[NoodleNaught]

A raid would tend to mean a force crossing a province border to loot / damage / distract / threaten.
While skirmishing in WW2 might mean a low level of harassing contact along a continuous front, skirmishing in the Classical era tended to be small units on foraging or scouting missions contacting the enemy, e.g. 500 Numidian cavalry (out of an army of 25 - 40,000) happening on a detached force of 1,000 infantry (from an army of similar size) out gathering supplies, or harassing troops access to local water supplies.

Classical generals would often avoid battle if they didn't think the situation sufficiently favourable to take the risk. They might sit in fortified camps for days, waiting for some advantage, or seek to quietly abandon their camp at night and retire to a more favourable location. Maneuvre skill ?

Ah my point was more that there should be a raiding mechanic separate from armies. Representing small scale conflict between groups, not large enough to directly represent on the map. (I.E. no armies just some sort of damage system along shared borders occupied provinces etc..)

I agree that classical generals would have avoided battle except under as ideal circumstances as they could achieve. That's why I was trying to say there should be a separate, pre-battle phase (I believe there is one in EU4 of sorts). During this phase little combat happens between armies except maybe a couple skirmishes (Only at most say a few hundred per side). Low casualties, but maybe increased attrition for the losing side. Winner might also has a higher chance of choosing favorable terrain for battle etc... I made a couple posts a while back in other threads, that the Rome combat system in a sequel could give us the option to give our armies stances, like a disengage stance (extends pre-combat phase to try for reinforcements).

The EU combat system especially at the time of (EU3/EU:Rome, and in EU4 as well), never felt (at least to me) like it factored in the size of areas that your armies occupy on the map. Most of the provinces on the map are more then large enough to have 2 armies in them and to have a couple weeks even before they would find each other let alone engage in direct combat. That timing doesn't even factor in what your talking about, with generals avoiding combat. Considering both sides would be doing this that could add to that pre-combat length as well.

To sum it up, the whole warfare system I think failed to take in to account the time and size of the areas it represents. I understand to a degree Paradox kept things at what they believed was a manageable level. However considering combat this represents such a large aspect of the game, it definitely needs a more substantial system. There's more to inter state warfare then just whose got more guys, or the 70 Martial general.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

I don't Have this game but I will wait for a Rome II ...

Good for you wallet, so you will never spend money.

 

[Styo]

We need Rome 2!

 

[Sanny]

Keep coming up with new ideas for the game, Paradox will surely be watching.

 

[Thrake]

Keep coming up with new ideas for the game, Paradox will surely be watching.

Shams must be...!

 

[NoodleNaught]

Shams must be...!

I haven't seen a post by that fellow in a while. Are they still even around?

Keep coming up with new ideas for the game, Paradox will surely be watching.

Wasn't the last post from a Paradox person in this forum years ago? I'm not convinced they are still watching. None the less I agree with the first part of your post.

 

[Sanny]

I haven't seen a post by that fellow in a while. Are they still even around?



Wasn't the last post from a Paradox person in this forum years ago? I'm not convinced they are still watching. None the less I agree with the first part of your post.

Even if they aren't posting, they are always watching. I think its safe to say we might get a follow up to EU: Rome or perhaps a remake due to the interest from the community and considering none of the Staff have ruled out another Rome being made. And of course you know Paradox, they are rather secretive with their projects in development. However, they will need to do some market research and find out if creating a Roman period Grand Strategy is viable and worth their time and capital. It's not necessarily what the community wants that will be the deciding factor but if the wider audience would potentially buy the game. Though if they ever announce Rome, they will likely have something solid to work from and develop further.

 

[Rangergxi]

I'd love to see it but I doubt we ever will. This game put a major focus on both internal affairs and external affairs. Although CkII was successful this much complexity flies in the face of Paradox's current business model.

 

[Thrake]

Wasn't the last post from a Paradox person in this forum years ago? I'm not convinced they are still watching. None the less I agree with the first part of your post.

I think Shams recently became nostalgic of his favourite t-shirt.

 

[Jlop985]

The restricted commanders of CK2 gave me an idea. For Rome, only consuls, former consuls, praetors, and former praetors may lead armies.

 

[Czert]

spam pdox fb to get rome 2 attention.

 

[Prometheus_1]

There is no evidence for contact with the Americas in the ancient period. 1492 Columbus (Spain), 1421 Zheng (China), 1004 Thorvald's voyage to Vinland (Norse).

There are no old world artefacts in the new world dating to this period, except those that have arrived in recent times as part of the antiquities trade.

There are, but are few and scattered ... One for example is the Calixtlahuaca's Head .

 

[Tisifoni12]

There are, but are few and scattered ... One for example is the Calixtlahuaca's Head .

And if you read down you see 10 'objections' to this 'evidence' and the suggestion even of which student was responsible for the prank of placing the object.
This is one object from a site covering 144 hectares and which appears to have been extensively excavated and only one 'Roman' object found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calixtlahuaca

 

[Prometheus_1]

And if you read down you see 10 'objections' to this 'evidence' and the suggestion even of which student was responsible for the prank of placing the object.
This is one object from a site covering 144 hectares and which appears to have been extensively excavated and only one 'Roman' object found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calixtlahuaca

No hypothesis can be dismissed, however Its not a prank as its been analyzed and proved to be authentic, no fool would waste a real manufact to make a stupid prank .
Also wikipedia is not a thrusted source .


" On the other hand, notwithstanding that the Canary Islands were discovered around 1334 A.D., the highly probable contacts between the ancient Mediterranean world and the Canaries were confirmed for first time only a decade and half ago. In 1987 a Roman trade post dated between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D. was discovered in the Lanzarote island (Atoche Peña et al. 1995), and the continuing archaeological research has proved in 2006 that not only the Romans but also the Punic seafarers reached the archipelago no later than the fourth century B.C. (Atoche Peña et al. 2009). The implications of these discoveries in the discussion of the possible Pre-Columbian Trans-Atlantic contacts are obvious, and it is not entirely unreasonable to expect in the near future that systematical archaeological studies in the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America and Brazil may provide more -and more conclusive- data related to some isolated cases of trans-Atlantic voyages before 1492."

Finally we are talking of a Game that has at its core the "What if" conditional , so What if Romans went actually in America for real ? I think its a plausible condition that in this game could be taken into consideration .

 

[Tisifoni12]

I don't question the authenticity of the object, but of how it got there. There is even a suggestion of which student was responsible. There are no records proving it was found on site, where it was allegedly found (see the ten 'objections' which refer to excavation and recording practices which cast doubt on whether it was excavated there or placed there). Did you read the article you directed me to in full and follow the link below which is included in that article. There seems to me some considerable doubt about the provenance of this head and no additional finds at Calixlahuaca or elsewhere in Mesoamerica.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/tval/RomanFigurine.html

Occasionally things turn up in strange contexts. Like the small Buddha figurine that was found in a Viking age context in I think Sweden. Proof of contact between India and Scandinavia; probably not, but proof of how a curio might be traded along the silk road to Byzantium and from there via the black sea and the rivers of Russia to the Baltic. But that doesn't explain this Roman head.

Certainly pre-Columbus there were Viking voyages to Vinland (from Iceland and Greenland) and fishing on the Grand Banks, but this is far to the North, hundreds of years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire and involve a sequence of shorter voyages rather than sailing across the Atlantic at North African or Iberian latitudes.

Roman and Carthaginian knowledge of the Canaries isn't surprising, they are close to Africa. Excavations on the island of Lanzarote at El Bebedero yielded about 100 Roman potsherds, nine pieces of metal, and one piece of glass. The artifacts were found in strata dated between the first and fourth centuries AD. Roman amphorae have also been found in the water near Lanzarote. I don't know the size of the excavated area, if limited there is likely to be more material there.

For the Romans or their contemporaries to cross the Atlantic they would need both means and motive. I see no evidence for either.

 

[Prometheus_1]

Well the Canary Islands are the obliged stop point before taking sails toward the Americas so tis plausible that the Romans could even sail there as much as Vikings did . The head is just one of the possible evidences , there are others, and sure you can question the evidences because are scattered and not substantial , but yet there is something and I think that for a game based on the rewrite of history is more than enough.
That said there is also the factor that Americas were all but a wasteland in Roman age, sure there were empires and nations as well in that period of history .

 

[NoodleNaught]

Well the Canary Islands are the obliged stop point before taking sails toward the Americas so tis plausible that the Romans could even sail there as much as Vikings did . The head is just one of the possible evidences , there are others, and sure you can question the evidences because are scattered and not substantial , but yet there is something and I think that for a game based on the rewrite of history is more than enough.
That said there is also the factor that Americas were all but a wasteland in Roman age, sure there were empires and nations as well in that period of history .

Saying the Romans "could" do something doesn't mean much. Roman and Viking ship construction was different, while the peoples of the Med. were likely better navigators overall, they didn't typically build ships for that kind of travel. And as for the Romans being in the Canaries that's not really surprising they had trade outposts in Southern India/Ceylon/ likely even further east. this can all be reached however without having to across a massive basically empty ocean.

There just isn't much benefit of putting the Americas in, there was very little of import going on. And even if we started buying some very outside theories of trade between Europe and Americas, by your own evidence it was so small as to be utterly inconsequential.

 

[Tisifoni12]

The Greeks, remember Alexander got to India, and the Romans after them had trade with India. This was seasonal, using seasonal changes in the wind, with ships leaving from Egypt, travelling down the Arabian Gulf and the Persian Gulf, then travelling to India. Six months later, with the winds changed, they made the return journey. I'm not sure how far from land they strayed. There is evidence for this in the form of literary references to the drain on Roman gold and silver of the demand for silk and spices from the east, also Greek pottery at over a hundred sites on the west coast of India and some Indian artefacts found in Roman contexts (one was used as an illustration of this in a recent BBC series by Prof. Mary Beard). Bucket loads of amphora and pottery fragments have ben found at each of these sites. Those routes are still sailed by small trading vessels (see Michael Palin's Around the World in 80 Days, BBC 1989).

The Romans and Greeks I believe used the stars for navigation and sailed familiar routes. In the Mediterranean much navigation was about knowing the geography of the coasts. They didn't have the astrolabe which Columbus and Magellan had, or the 'lower tech' sun compass which the Vikings had.

The head at Calixlahuaca is not a particularly notable or valuable Roman artefact, it is a small terracotta head which I suspect would have formed part of the decoration of an inexpensive mass produced oil lamp.

 

[Prometheus_1]

Saying the Romans "could" do something doesn't mean much. Roman and Viking ship construction was different, while the peoples of the Med. were likely better navigators overall, they didn't typically build ships for that kind of travel. And as for the Romans being in the Canaries that's not really surprising they had trade outposts in Southern India/Ceylon/ likely even further east. this can all be reached however without having to across a massive basically empty ocean.

There just isn't much benefit of putting the Americas in, there was very little of import going on. And even if we started buying some very outside theories of trade between Europe and Americas, by your own evidence it was so small as to be utterly inconsequential.

Actually the Viking ships are derived from the Liburnae Roman ships that Romans used in the northern sea fleet . Also Romans did have fleets also inocean they did not just sail the mediterranean , they had regular Atlantic fleet that went up to Scandia and Hibernia as well as Indian Ocean fleet that went up to India , there are roman comercial outposts everywhere.
From Canary islands there are too seasonal winds that bring right to Americas . Also Romans , had Already an Astrolabe, it was then later inherited by Arabs when they took over the classic world as it was a sudden introduction by when they conquered the lands and they never were a seafaring people.The first major writer on the projection was the famous Claudius Ptolemy (ca. AD 150) who wrote extensively on it in his work known as the Planisphaerium. There are tantalizing hints in Ptolemy's writing that he may have had an instrument that could justifiably be called an astrolabe. Ptolemy also refined the fundamental geometry of the Earth-Sun system that is used to design astrolabes.
Do not underestimate Greek and Roman civilizations, they were far more advanced that thought today and if we do not know much is only because 90% of the ancient text went destroyed with the Islamic invasion of the north and east empire as well as the Germanic invasions . New discoveries are made once in while that forces us to rethink about them As shows the Antikythera mechanism.

My Point is not to prove that Romans , greeks or may be even Phoenicians went to Americas but that its a very possible probability. Even in Roman age there were reference of some Indians coming from the Americas that were dropped from a Storm on the European coasts.
"The same Cornelius Nepos, when speaking of the northern circumnavigation, tells us that Q. Metellus Celer, the colleague of L. Afranius in the consulship, but then a proconsul in Gaul, had a present made to him by the king of the Suevi, of certain Indians, who sailing from India for the purpose of commerce, had been driven by tempests into Germany." Pliny the Elder (Natural History 2.67)

Unfortunately its all fault of the 90% lost classic works... how more enightned we would be on our history if those were not lost .