-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
The map should almost certainly include the entire Eurasian landmass, and large portions of Africa. India, Iran, and China as well as various steppe tribes all have very interesting histories in this period, especially if there is an Alexander the Great / Warring Kingdoms time frame. Lets not forget how terribad it is to play Parthia in vanilla because of the needlessly and a-historically maimed scope of the map. The Seleucids are in the same boat. This period was very influenced by international trading and geopolitics across the latitude.
However, it makes no sense at all to include America, as only a county sized Epi-Olmec culture would be represented and—as others have said—it would be an historical abomination to have classical civilizations colonize the new world.
edit: here is a series of historical maps of Eurasia for those that are skeptical of the game-play potential in these areas. Notice the rapidly changing borders and flag swaps.
323bc: http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_323bc.jpg
200bc: http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_200bc.jpg
100bc http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_100bc.jpg
The spread of Buddhism is also a serious potential for a game-play verb, as is the silk road that forms in this period.
Last edited:
I would be more than happy with a map similar to the current CK2 map, perhaps even a little smaller.
The coverage of the Iranian plateau is essential , as already posted in this thread, for the Achaemenid empire and the Persian wars, as well as for the Alexander's conquests, the Pathians etc,
On the opposite I don't think that India (and part of China) are strictly required, at least if the main focus is to cover classical greek (since V cent. BC) up to the early Roman empire ( II cent. AD )
Probably a "Rajah of India"- like expansion , covering the late Vedic period would be quite interesting but we all known that "Better" is the fierce enemy of "Good"
About covering American shores... no way, not another "sunset invasion" please!
The coverage of the Iranian plateau is essential , as already posted in this thread, for the Achaemenid empire and the Persian wars, as well as for the Alexander's conquests, the Pathians etc,
On the opposite I don't think that India (and part of China) are strictly required, at least if the main focus is to cover classical greek (since V cent. BC) up to the early Roman empire ( II cent. AD )
Probably a "Rajah of India"- like expansion , covering the late Vedic period would be quite interesting but we all known that "Better" is the fierce enemy of "Good"
About covering American shores... no way, not another "sunset invasion" please!
I would be more than happy with a map similar to the current CK2 map, perhaps even a little smaller.
The coverage of the Iranian plateau is essential , as already posted in this thread, for the Achaemenid empire and the Persian wars, as well as for the Alexander's conquests, the Pathians etc,
On the opposite I don't think that India (and part of China) are strictly required, at least if the main focus is to cover classical greek (since V cent. BC) up to the early Roman empire ( II cent. AD )
Probably a "Rajah of India"- like expansion , covering the late Vedic period would be quite interesting but we all known that "Better" is the fierce enemy of "Good"
About covering American shores... no way, not another "sunset invasion" please!
Well I don't disagree completely, Adding China is not necessary. In my opinion however excluding India would limit the potiential of playthroughs with either Alexander (if possible) or the succesor kingdoms, not to mention Bactria. India itself might nog be the most interesting place to add but adding them hopefully won't hurt too much. And who knows perhaps they'll manage to squeeze out an interesting Indian kingdom governemnt form with great dynamics.
That being said while China has as good as no relation with playthroughs of the Mediteranian or Hellenistic empires nor with the GaulsGermans, and closer steppe hordes I would still very much like them to add China. Adding China would allow for some great diversity which can be expanded upon with DLC's and I would advise against focussing the game too much on only Rome.
This game in my mind should be the beginning of the next big franchise of PDS. Limmiting it too much in scope (like Crusader Kings) initially might bite them in the ass if they want to fullfill their dream of covering most of the worlds history with their games. Calling the game Ancient Empires or Emperium Antiqua or something like that would give them plenty of arguments for inlcuding Rome. The rise of both the Han chinese and Rome was a marvell of empire building 2000+ years ago and both would definetly deserve to be in this game.
expansions and DLC would for me suffice in including earlier starting dates to add Alexander or the Greek wars for example but 300BC untill 50 AD or something would be fine by me.
I could very much settle for that... But as long as the game spans from Rome to Japan.
many regions like Northern Europe , Central , north and north east asia could be treated like in EUIV new world colonization , with many regions that could give 0 to no bonus to control them or almoust incontrollable due to the size of the land ...
For example mongols are usually depicted in historical maps erroneously , they never had control of that large sized lands but only of choke points in some cities, moost of the region were uncontrolled and unafected as were mostly unhabited and bare steppes or taiga.
For example mongols are usually depicted in historical maps erroneously , they never had control of that large sized lands but only of choke points in some cities, moost of the region were uncontrolled and unafected as were mostly unhabited and bare steppes or taiga.
The issue I would with having China would be purely related to performance. India slowed down CK2 quite a bit till changes were made.
Well Ck2 is a very diffrent game from how a rome/ancient game would be.
Not too different I hope ;-) There are quit a few things I'd like them to take on board from CKII (having provinces consist of multiple holdings for example)
That being said it's a bit silly to not want China in a completely new game because an addition of India to a 5 year old game gave performance troubles. I could easily counter that argument by saying that HOI IV and EU IV are running fine and both have China included (an argument that's just as silly).
By having an Original development scoope that includes China the situation is dramatically different from CKII that had originally a smaller scope and adding India hurt performance.
The feudal pyramid is totally wrong for the era and the holding idea might be good but the three types of holding makes no sense neither in the ck2 era nor in the rome era. I would prefer to see a distributed buildings thing like how empire total war did from medieval 2 total war. With actual things being there and improved upon like fords, estuaries, natural resources and so on. And towns being things that grow up around them.
I'd have to agree with TheDungen's idea - done correctly, it could potentially even help simplify other aspects of the game, and/or offer more unique qualities to different territories and areas of the map.
Okay, so some food for thought (on a different issue):
In Stellaris, government types are distinguished by two main factors (ignoring the initial/advanced distinction). These are: a) what your empire's ethos is (e.g. militarist vs. pacifist), and b) who holds power (i.e. democracy, oligarchy, and autocracy).
A similar system could be implemented here. The second distinguished factor (who holds power) would still be relevant, but instead of the other factor being your ethos, it could be the scale of your domain. In other words, you could have government types further delineated based on size and socio-cultural cohesion. To put it in more concrete terms, think of the following categories as examples of what I mean:
I'm just brain-storming here, and I'm sure there's a better way to split this up, but the idea is this: government types would not only provide different bonuses, but would also fundamentally operate very differently. For example, a City-State might involve more micro-management, a Tribe might involve more complex inter-tribal politics reminiscent of CKII, an Empire would need to spin off regions into their own administrative provinces, which would micro-manage themselves, etc.
Some other stuff to consider is how things like culture, factions, leaders, etc. all effect government.
Thoughts?
Okay, so some food for thought (on a different issue):
In Stellaris, government types are distinguished by two main factors (ignoring the initial/advanced distinction). These are: a) what your empire's ethos is (e.g. militarist vs. pacifist), and b) who holds power (i.e. democracy, oligarchy, and autocracy).
A similar system could be implemented here. The second distinguished factor (who holds power) would still be relevant, but instead of the other factor being your ethos, it could be the scale of your domain. In other words, you could have government types further delineated based on size and socio-cultural cohesion. To put it in more concrete terms, think of the following categories as examples of what I mean:
- Tribe (e.g. Helvetii, Teutones, Cimbri, Belgae, etc.)
- City-State (e.g. Athens, Sparta, early Rome, etc.)
- Nation-State (e.g. Egypt, early Persia, the early Roman Republic, etc.)
- Empire (e.g. Persian Empire, Macedonian Empire, Rome after the Punic Wars, etc.)
I'm just brain-storming here, and I'm sure there's a better way to split this up, but the idea is this: government types would not only provide different bonuses, but would also fundamentally operate very differently. For example, a City-State might involve more micro-management, a Tribe might involve more complex inter-tribal politics reminiscent of CKII, an Empire would need to spin off regions into their own administrative provinces, which would micro-manage themselves, etc.
Some other stuff to consider is how things like culture, factions, leaders, etc. all effect government.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Also, some thoughts on start dates:
As for the dates listed above, I feel like 559, 499, 359, 323, and 264 are the best - especially 559 and 323. Thoughts?
- 559 BC - Cyrus the Great rises to power; the rise of Achaemenid Persia begins
- 499 BC - Ionian Revolt; the Greco-Persian Wars begin
- 431 BC - Beginning of the Peloponnesian Wars
- 359 BC - Coronation of Philip II of Macedon; beginning of the Rise of Macedon
- 336 BC - Alexander the Great rises to power, and begins his meteoric rise to dominance of the Near East
- 323 BC - Death of Alexander the Great; beginning of the struggle for supremacy among the successor states
- 264 BC - Beginning of the First Punic War
- 218 BC - Beginning of the Second Punic War
- 146 BC - End of the Punic Wars; beginning of the Late Roman Republic
As for the dates listed above, I feel like 559, 499, 359, 323, and 264 are the best - especially 559 and 323. Thoughts?
while all those dates are interesting (historically speaking), i think PI will put few starting dates. I remember some devs said (in eu4 forum) that in future games they will decrease the starting date and they will remove the possibility to choose the exact day to start (like in eu4). Mostly because they don't want/can't spend a lot of resources to maintain later scenarios which only very few people plays
But that's eu4, which is pretty old (In that it builds on previous EU titles) and very arcade. In ck2 playing start dates beyond the first one is much more common.
Also the no one plays later start dates is a self fulfilling prophecy. Of course no one plays them when they don't support them.
Yeah, I'm not saying those dates ought to all be in the game - I was just pointing out various options they could use as bookmarks, all of which would offer a variety of options. I imagine they'll probably start with just two, maybe three bookmarks for the player to choose from (e.g. 323 BC and 264 BC), and then expand the timeline in DLC packs, offering one or two earlier bookmarks (e.g. 559 BC) - much like how The Old Gods and Charlemagne did the same for CKII, or how In Nomine extended EU3 back to 1399.
They might even extend the timeline going the other way - i.e. make it possible to play out the whole rise, decline and fall of the Roman Empire. That seems a little trickier (depends on how much they include to start with), but I'm sure plenty of people would find it quite fun to play as Attila the Hun or the Parthian Empire and try to absorb as much as you can from the dying Roman light.
Honestly, though, I'd be perfectly happy if the timeline just went from 323 BC to 1 BC, and we got to play any nation/empire/city-state/tribe from Europe, North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia, or India - that still sounds really epic.
They might even extend the timeline going the other way - i.e. make it possible to play out the whole rise, decline and fall of the Roman Empire. That seems a little trickier (depends on how much they include to start with), but I'm sure plenty of people would find it quite fun to play as Attila the Hun or the Parthian Empire and try to absorb as much as you can from the dying Roman light.
Honestly, though, I'd be perfectly happy if the timeline just went from 323 BC to 1 BC, and we got to play any nation/empire/city-state/tribe from Europe, North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia, or India - that still sounds really epic.
ck2 is older than eu4, i don't see your point here. Anyway, keep in mind, this is not my opinion, i have just reported what some devs said (it was something like 1 year and half ago, so they could also change their mind), i will be perfectly fine to have 1000 starting date, even if i will probably play only the starting date.
The only thing i wish, it's to have a "continue the game" button at the end date (like they recently add to eu4). I don't care if all the boni are lost, but sometimes i just want play those few more years to finish a war or shape perfectly my country
Except both games have loads of inherited stuff from their predecessors. EU grew out of the svea rike series which was based on a board game. And that series have been aroudn since -97. Granted CK also inherited some stuff from the EU series but it's still less of a boardgame simmulator than eu is.
I think we are in agreement about the holdings. I don't mean the 3 varriations holdings but rather to have provinces consist out of multiple cities and villages and a few open slots that can be owned by different factions. It would give a solution to have for example Gaul and Spain being populated by barbarians while still giving Greeks, carthaginians and Romans the possibility to start colonies in those provinces.
As long as you don't do the whole ruler of individual holdings thing, yes there would be local governors but they really aren't important the way the feudal lords were. Instead empires should be a top tier empire and characters relating directly to that important families, influential senators or generals, tribal chiefs in the barbarians and so on. characters would be less bound to the land and more bound to their faction/empire.
I think I agree with you for a centralised nation like Rome or Carthage. A different approacht might be an option for a tribal confederacy or a league of Greek cities. There internal dynamics based on geographically different provinces or 'holdings' might be a the right way to go opposed for internal dynamics based on factions based in the capital. I guess also the seleuced empire or parthians after that ruled with the help of satraps with regional based power I guess.
- Status