New game mechanics (campaign map) for next Total War game(s), then Rome 2 Total War

[ThePianist]

I like RTW so much that I don't want R2TW to be the next release of Creative Assembly, lest they mess it up. There should be at least one more game in the Total War series, or maybe 2 more games in the Total War series, then R2TW should be made, so that Creative Assembly would have maximum game-design experience by the time R2TW is made.

And indeed I am very encouraging the time of 2014 for the release of R2TW, because that would be the 10-year anniversary of RTW, and also because it would allow for probably 2 more Total war games to be designed in between.

RTW is good gameplay, but there are many serious flaws that need to be improved.


I have little to say about battlefield mechanics (how units move, the physics of arrows, etc.)
But I do have a lot to say about the campaign map.


It's about time that the gameplay of the campaign map to be upgraded. The worldview is severely flawed.

(I may edit this post from time to time, when new ideas come. I won't have time to type it all today).

---------------------
Different government types (socialist government where most concern is for the poor and average people, with democracy. imperial government where most concern is for the rich)

The RTW world (and I assume M2TW as well) assumes that all governments are monarchies and that's the only possibility.
Well, since in the game, it was possible for gauls to fight all the way to Persia (you could do it, if you wanted), then why isn't it possible for democracy to be restored in Rome? Why isn't it possible for democracy to happen among barbarian tribes, or the Greek empires remaining from Alexander's imperialism? The Seleucid, the Ptolemics...

In other words, since Rome had democracy between 300 BC and 27 BC, then so could other factions since knowledge can spread.
It would be great to adopt democracy in a monarchy faction (which is... all the in-game factions). Perhaps you start out as one stack of pro-democracy rebels, and you have to fight province by province against the monarchist government.
-----------------------------------------------
The ability to do other things than expand territory

The RTW world assumes that the only way to change the in-game world is to militarily-occupy another people's land, and add that land into the player's kingdom.
How about more option?
How about this (it would also make rebels more interesting):

Every faction will have an opposing-faction:
The government
The anti-government faction

(of course, there should also be grey stacks of bandits and warlords once in a while, but faction rebels are a different matter)

So if you are a democracy governor, then the anti-government faction would be the monarchist, the big merchants and the ultra-wealthy. You need to constantly do something about education in all the provinces. If you don't build enough schools, or if your education spending is too low, then the average people will become illiterate or ignorant of basic facts, and get deceived by the ultra-wealthy, who will "teach" the average people that monarchy is good, and rule by the rich is good.
And the monarchy faction (or, in modern terms, the fascist faction, or the right-wing faction, or the pro-business faction, or the free-market faction) would gain enough support in a province (or maybe in more than one province) to suddenly spawn stacks of troops or mercenaries to do a coup against the democracy government.
(as happened in Chile, of Salvador Allende, and Iran, of Mohammed Mossadegh)

And, if you are a plutocracy/monarchist governor, then the anti-government faction would be the democracy activists, and also the oppressed poor people and average people, because your officials will love money more than justice, or getting anything done correctly and fairly. You need to constantly spend money on entertainment and deception. So you need to build "Disneylands" and huge lavish entertainment centers, and advocate decadent lifestyles of parties, to keep the people distracted about their purpose in life. You also need to spend money on deception, and state-sponsored terrorism through an army of spies, covering up the crimes of your officials, and killing/imprisoning the democracy activists.

If you don't spend enough money on entertainment and deception (about how plutocracy is great), then the people will realize that justice matters more than entertainment, and they will rise up to demand the sharing of wealth and sharing of government powers. As to how democracy happens... maybe it spawns entire stacks of armies, like Americans in 1776, or perhaps the corrupt officials are merely overthrown peacefully and the entire land goes to democracy in one turn.

At the beginning of the campaign, when you choose factions to play, you'd have to choose an extra choice: democracy or monarchy?
If you choose democracy, you have to maintain your government that way. If you lose all your provinces to foreign invasion, or to monarchist/wealth-mongers plutocracy of your own land, your campaign is over.
If you choose monarchy, then it's the same thing, except opposite.


Different methods of acquiring territories:
* If you play a faction as the monarchists, then the campaign is played the same way as any Total War game: build a military, invade, kill everybody who resist, occupy the land, and add it to the map of your country.

* If you play a faction as the democracy government, then the campaign is different and much more interesting.
Your mission is not to expand your national territory by x number of territories, but to bring social justice to x number of territories.

For instance, if you play as Gauls, with democracy (why not?), your campaign goal would be to bring social justice to 16 more provinces. Let's say... Germania, as a monarchy, controls 5 territories, and the imperials in Rome control 11 territories.
Well, you would send your diplomats and seek out the democracy faction of Germania and the democracy faction of Rome. You would pledge to help them overthrow the monarchists and bring democracy. So you built a Gallic army, take over all the territories controlled by Germania, and hand them over to the German democracy activists. Then you do the same thing in Rome, overthrow Caesar and install the Pleibeians as the representatives of the people.
And if you can manage to do these things while still keeping your own Gaul under democracy, then you win the campaign.


Different styles of societies:
* If you play as the monarchist faction, the spending of your money is the same as in any Total War game. It is assumed that the only function of the land is to provide money for your army. The people is nothing but fodder. Squeeze as much money out of the people as possible to fund your army. And when the people rise in rebellion, kill them and sack the cities, etc.
* If you play as the democracy faction, you can't just funnel all the money into the army, because your people's lives (especially the poor) actually have value. So you have to spend money on social spendings: education, health care... provided as freely for the people as possible. Also, education is very important, because it is necessary for the average people to not fall into deception, and yield the control of society (government powers + wealth) out of their own hands to the hands of a few merchants.
But if you take care of your people well, and they are highly educated, then they understand the importance of having such a government, to fairly manage a society. There would be less money available for military, but the troops would have higher morale and better quality.

The troops of the monarchy factions, other than the elite guards, would rout much more easily.

If you play as monarchy faction, every once in a while, there could be rebelling cities (like any Total War game).
If you play as the democracy faction, perhaps once in a while you could be given errands by the people? Like, help fixing a natural disaster, punish and remove corrupt officials, remove insanitary and poisonous living conditions in a certain area, etc.

In other words, I would like to be able to do errands for peasants asking for help, like how you can do it in Mount and Blade.
Also, I would like to be able to put into power people who should be governing certain lands, but who are exiled unfairly, like how you can do so in Mount and Blade. However, in Mount and Blade, all the challenger factions are themselves monarchists. That's boring. It's so much better to put into power a democratic and wealth-sharing government, replacing the old monarchy.


I especially would like to restore democracy in the Roman Empire, after 27 BC. That ought to be a great campaign faction, the Roman Pleibians. Perhaps they have the regular units, plus the gladiators. And the imperial Romans would only have the regular units.
The Pleibians, after 33 AD, should also have the option of changing the religion to Christianity. They should also have the option of removing imperial Roman occupation of a certain area, and handing it back to its original inhabitants.
For instance, let's say the Roman Pleibians retook Gaul. They could have option of keeping it as Roman Republic territory, or they can hand it back to the Aedui, Arverni and Helvetii, with some benefits (either...better trade value on the roads and ports, or access to a cheap stack of Gallic volunteer units, with 0 denari upkeep)
-----------------------------------
Other methods of diplomacy

In RTW, the only methods of diplomacy is to use money to bribe people. You could bribe a whole stack of troops, and they'd join your faction. Or you could bribe an entire city, and it would join your faction, becoming your territory.

How about this:
If you have extra money, you have option of sending a diplomat and help a certain province build roads, hospitals, etc, and try to convince them that joining your faction as a territory would be better for them, than staying in their current faction.

Or, better. In a city where there is an academy built, or a forum, you could send a diplomat (with somewhat elevated trait, at least 4 or 5 charisma) into (beside?) that city. And the diplomat would try to persuade the city's inhabitants that the form of government of your faction (either monarchy or democracy) is better than their current form of government, so they'd be better off if they joined your faction, for a better form of government.

This is especially useful if you are playing a faction as the democracy government. You can go persuade the monarchists' cities to join you.
Or, maybe half the time, the city decides to not join your faction, but to establish their own government (same as your government style, but as their own country, not as a territory of your country). And the city would give you an errand to help it gain more cities, and overthrow the monarchists of that land.

Whenever you help the democracy cities, you'd gain benefits like increased trade for a few turns, or free upgrade of certain troops, or free offer of foreign troops with 0 upkeep.
If you don't, or if you do things that are against democracy, then your people would lose confidence in your government, they would pay less taxes to support such a government, and the monarchists in your own land would start agitating, and perhaps even spawn troops for a coup.


So that was the situation in which a diplomat was sent to a foreign city that had a different style of government.
If a monarchist faction sent a diplomat to a (foreign) monarchist city, then the only option to gain the city would be to attack/occupy it, or to bribe it.
If a democratic faction sent a diplomat to a (foreign) democratic city, then there is no way to gain the city, because there already is democracy there, and they are already part of a national faction. There is option of doing errands for that city, to gain improvement of relations with that city (and that faction).
---------------------------------------------------------
More detailed portrayal of the population, when playing as a democracy

If you play a faction as a monarchy, the people is only fodder, the background material that is used to support the armies, and extract wealth for the governing aristocrats. Nothing more.

If you play a faction as a democracy, then the people is portrayed with much more detail, and there are many more opportunities of running errands for the people.
It would be great if the player could interact with his cities in the same way that a player in Mount and Blade can interact with villages and farmers (except, with more errands than gathering wheats, herding cattle, training villagers and ridding the village of bandits).
------------------------------------------
ADD:

The campaign map should have different names, depending on the faction that is being played.
For example: this.

In RTW, it is assumed that the map should only carry Roman names no matter what faction is being played.
For a better design, the names on the map should be different by the faction. So for example, in M2TW, when playing as the Turks, the capital of Italy should be "Rum". When playing as the Italians, Roma, when playing as the French, Rome.

That body of water between North Africa and Europe, when playing as the Italians, it is "Mare Nostrum", when playing as the English it is "Mediterranean Sea", when playing as the Turks it is "White Sea" (as opposed to Black Sea).

So far EB mod has the best mod of RTW. Among other things, they have made every faction truly different, so you'd think you were back in time playing that faction. The modding team didn't go to the point of changing names on the map, but it surely would have helped.

I actually have more ideas, but I'll write more at another time.

[ray243]

I do suggest that you might want to read up about the History of the Romans in depth before developing those ideas into a game, or try and play one of the many realism mods in order to gain a deeper understanding on why did Rome involves itself into so many wars, and why did it expand.

[Fireright]

No desire here to wait until 2014....waay too far off!!

If RTW2 broadly retains the same format as the original game, I'd suggest a couple of new agent pieces to reduce hassle and government-rule complexity stuff. Keeps things nice and simple and fun to use.

i) Agent piece, lets call him a 'rabble rouser'....sole purpose to wander around enemy territory spreading propaganda in a players favour, causing mucho unrest and a freebie rebel army to eventually emerge which is directly under the control of the player, same as a regular army is. Quality/quantity of troops and speed of emergence would increase with the rabble-rousers skill level. A basic 'rabble-rouser' would initially raise low quality dross units to join the players side. All freebies and no bribe costs.

ii) Agent piece, call him a 'town mayor/castle-keeper'...sole purpose to govern towns/castles in a super-efficient manner to keep the population of a newly conquered place in line from day one. No unrest, squalor, riots or other annoying garbage. Costly to recruit and very slow to move, yet a quiet conquest guaranteed with sufficient planning.

Jeeze...squalor, rioting, and fiddling about micromanaging stuff....Zzzzzzzzz.

Bring unto me my new agents!!

[Deux]

You have some very good and very interesting ideas ThePianist. I would be tempted to say that most of them are too indepth for a totalwar series game. This are the kind of ideas I would want in a game which was just availiable as Rome, just the one faction availiable to play. Then I would want so much detail. I think you may be over-thinking this a little bit.

[Fireright]

Given that TW games are fairly complex and detailed strategy/campaign games, the Start Menu options are quite basic in rtw,mtw etc. Other than faction choice, campaign length and difficulty level there isn't much to it.
With so much 'activity' going on in a campaign game there should be more start options, either selectable by drop down menus or sliders, eg frequency of rebels, pirates, riots etc. Give players more choice.

I see many players editing their game files or modifying their game to remove or reduce rebels, pirates and other stuff. All this hassle shouldn't be necessary and would be avoided by a greater choice of selectable options up-front in the start menu.

[General Nuisance esq]

I don't get why anybody would want to wait till 2014
I want a new RTW and I want it NOW

[ThePianist]

Actually, the ideas are very easy to implement.

For socialism (you can call it "wealth distribution"), in-game it is a simple matter of always having high-taxes on the big merchants, by default. So government income should be really easy.
= The cities could also have an unemployment level, and you'd have to keep it as near 0 as possible, so each person is guaranteed a job. And every month you'd have to encourage the development of family-owned small businesses and do your best to help them all, and halt the wealth expansion of any big merchant.
= There would also be a wealth-distribution measurement: how much wealth is owned by the richest 1% of the population.
To have a fair society, the richest 1% should own less than 5% of the wealth in society. (in America, it owns 50% of the wealth, squeezing the other 99% of the Americans to own the other half of wealth...)

For democracy (you can call it "government power distribution" or merely "democracy"), it's a simple matter of making fair government, spending less money on military and spending more money on education.
= In RTW, there is already an option of "spend more money on entertainment" "spend less money on entertainment". The entertainments are chariot races and circus games. It's a simple matter of changing this to "spend more money on education" and "spend less money on education".
= the military units can simply be made more expensive in a democracy
= there could be a "fairness of government" meter: how much corruption there is in government at all levels, and how easy is it for common people to immediately remove a corrupt official and replace him with a better one.

I am certain that these ideas have been thought of by the ancient Greek philosophers, and therefore are known by the Romans, who extensively studied the ancient Greeks. None of these are "modern" ideas.

It's strange that in RTW it is possible, to conquer the whole known world using the Numidians or the Gauls (that was historically impossible), or even take and occupy Rome before the year 300s AD (that was also historically impossible) using a faction that Rome was supposed to have defeated in history (say, the Gauls, or the Dacians, or the Thracians),

then why isn't it possible in RTW to defeat the Roman empire and restore Roman democracy? (Roman democracy actually happened in history, and was well-known).

[ray243]

Actually, the ideas are very easy to implement.

For socialism (you can call it "wealth distribution"), in-game it is a simple matter of always having high-taxes on the big merchants, by default. So government income should be really easy.
= The cities could also have an unemployment level, and you'd have to keep it as near 0 as possible, so each person is guaranteed a job. And every month you'd have to encourage the development of family-owned small businesses and do your best to help them all, and halt the wealth expansion of any big merchant.
= There would also be a wealth-distribution measurement: how much wealth is owned by the richest 1% of the population.
To have a fair society, the richest 1% should own less than 5% of the wealth in society. (in America, it owns 50% of the wealth, squeezing the other 99% of the Americans to own the other half of wealth...)

For democracy (you can call it "government power distribution" or merely "democracy"), it's a simple matter of making fair government, spending less money on military and spending more money on education.
= In RTW, there is already an option of "spend more money on entertainment" "spend less money on entertainment". The entertainments are chariot races and circus games. It's a simple matter of changing this to "spend more money on education" and "spend less money on education".
= the military units can simply be made more expensive in a democracy
= there could be a "fairness of government" meter: how much corruption there is in government at all levels, and how easy is it for common people to immediately remove a corrupt official and replace him with a better one.

Why the hell are you talking about modern day tools of government in a game set in ancient rome? Hell, why would military units be more expensive in a democracy? Does that even make sense?

In regards to corruption, are you saying R2TW requires more micro-managment to be fun?

In regards to the economic system you are talking about, you do realise that the concept of a middle class didn't even exist during the time of ancient Rome? The standard of living for most people in that era isn't that high.

Could you at the very least try and read up about Roman history before sprouting all those half baked ideas?

I don't get why anybody would want to wait till 2014
I want a new RTW and I want it NOW

If you want a half-broken game with game breaking bugs that might never be fixed...

I am certain that these ideas have been thought of by the ancient Greek philosophers, and therefore are known by the Romans, who extensively studied the ancient Greeks. None of these are "modern" ideas.

Idea wise, they might be the same, but you are failing to neglect the difference between how democracy is praticed in the past and how democracy is practiced today. The Athenians praticed direct democracy, something that most nations don't pratice on a national level. The Roman democractic system is more of an oligracy than a democratic system of government.

then why isn't it possible in RTW to defeat the Roman empire and restore Roman democracy? (Roman democracy actually happened in history, and was well-known).

Of course, you are forgetting that there is a large difference between the Roman system of voting and the system of voting in modern society.

Additionally, I never said that you cannot restore roman democracy. You also failed to have a answer to many of the points raised by me.

[ThePianist]

Also, other than the demo, I never played RTW until mid-2007 (or 2008?).
-
These ideas did exist in ancient Rome. They were among the early Christians in 33 AD. Galatians 2:10, Luke 3:11, Proverbs 30:8-9, Matthew 19:21, Jacob (James) 2:1-17, Jacob (James) 5, 1 Timothy 6:17-18, 1 Timothy 6:8-11, 1 Timothy 5:8, Ephesians 4:28, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Acts of the Apostles 2:44-45
-
About micromanagement: micromanagement could be an option that people can turn on and off, for added challenges. Players can start with a simple way of playing (monarchy, or the usual Total War campaign mechanics). And when they'd like extra challenges, they can try a more complex campaign (democracy + distributing wealth). This would lengthen the replayability of the game and add to its likability.
-
socialism or "wealth distribution" does not require a middle-class, in fact I am not sure what that means exactly. It is good enough that people share their wealth.
-
About Roman history, I am a bit amazed that you are OK with armies taking over lands that they historically never did, but you are not OK with ideas taking over lands that they historically never did.
For instance, Numidia never took the city of Rome and the policy of wealth-distribution never took over the government of Rome.
In RTW game, it's possible for Numidia to take over the city of Rome, then why can't the policy of wealth-distribution take over the government of Rome?
-
Thanks very much for pointing out to "I want a new game now" that good games take years to develop.

Hopefully there would be a
"Ancient Asia: 600-1300AD (or, 800-1300AD)"

dev now, release sometime in late 2010

Then
"Colonial Resistance: 1600-1860" (map can be expanded to include Egypt, so as to play Mohammed Ali against the Ottoman Empire)
(i am sure playing the underdog factions will be wildly popular)

dev in 2010, release in 2012

Then
Rome 2 Total War
dev in 2012, release in 2014

(starting in 200 AD, ending in 1453AD)

In between, there could be a major reform: the reform of Diocletian, when the Marian and Augustan legion systems were done away with, and the army was made into the Comitatense and the Limitanei.
The elite units of the army was no longer the infantry, but the cavalry, with increasing use of horse-archers and Persian and Armenian-style Kataphractoi.

This would be a change from the original RTW, where the reform was the Marian reform (from the velite-hastati-principe-triarii to the Marian legions). Players that want to play the Camillan and Marian era can always make mods easily.

The years of Roman history between 200s (after "Gladiator) and 476 (that one event) have always been neglected and lack portrayal. Then the history between 476 and 1453 was even more neglected.
-
About direct democracy of Athens:
and indeed there wasn't instant communication in the ancient world so democracy works best in small localities (and it is still that way).
A more direct way of democracy is also easy to implement in a future RTW:

Under the monarchy model, when a land is added, it is done by military conquest and occupation, and directly added as a piece of homeland. This is the portrayal so far in every Total War game (I think).
Under the democracy model, a land can be added to your territories in two ways:
a. if already a democracy, then you negotiate, for a province to join you. This shouldn't be made easy.
b. if part of an empire, then you send an army, expel the imperial troops from the region, and grant democracy and wealth distribution to that province, in exchange for being a federated territory of yours (not incorporated as direct homeland, but not their own country either). As a federated territory of yours, the people of that province can run their own local democracy, and pay you some taxes for military protection.

Of course, this is only for the convenience of gaming.
In real life, true democracies should not expand in territory at all.

Also, when Bush invaded Iraq, he brought "democracy" but he did not bring wealth-distribution. As a result, the richest 1% of the people in Iraq (eh, American merchants, European merchants, Maliki, some Iraqi officials) own probably half the wealth of the country, or more. So society is just as bad as under Saddam (when Saddam and a few rich Iraqis probably owned half the wealth of the country). There is plenty of voting, but the people don't get to vote on distributing the wealth. And because there is no distribution of wealth in Iraq, the richest few people, they control the government using their wealth. So as a result, government power is in the hands of a few people, and not distributed either.

This is why democracy and wealth-distribution must go hand in hand. Lack of either would result in the failure of the other.
Rome did not have wealth-distribution, so eventually democracy failed and government powers was taken over by a few rich men.
Communist USSR did not have democracy, so eventually wealth-distribution failed, and wealth was taken over by a few government officials.

Of course, I am not encourage the idea (in real life) that democracies should expand in territory.
Only, games are made so that the player expands in territory for fun, so that's why there should be a mechanism, in the game, for democracies to expand in territory.
-
the proposal is mainly written for devs to see. I don't want to get into extensive arguments.
I have no idea how Romans voted. The end objective of democracy is for

1. common people to be able to remove corrupt/unjust officials as fast as possible (replacing them with better ones),

and

2. common people being able to steer government policy so that the poor and common/average people are taken care of first, not the already-rich.

American society currently fails at both, though there is plenty of voting.
The process of voting doesn't have to be simulated in the game. The only measurements needed are how these simple objectives are accomplished.

[ThePianist]

The idea, is that the default way of playing each faction is monarchy (the usual Total War campaign gameplay), but after a while if you want extra challenges, there should also be a democracy campaign for each faction.

Most of your objections are hinged on thinking that I advocate playing democracy as the default campaign for each faction.

[ray243]

The idea, is that the default way of playing each faction is monarchy (the usual Total War campaign gameplay), but after a while if you want extra challenges, there should also be a democracy campaign for each faction.

Most of your objections are hinged on thinking that I advocate playing democracy as the default campaign for each faction.

Still, you must consider the ideas you are offering to the fullest extend. Asking a city to vote for a leader ( bearing in mind that consuls are not directly electeed by the people) is one thing. Asking an Empire of several million people to vote for a consul in Rome is just crazy.

Although, we must still bear in mind that election did occur even when the Roman Empire is under the emperors.


Instead of offering half-baked ideas, it would be better if we implemented ideas based on what has happened in history. For example, add in features regarding troops rebelling against their emperor because they think he is weak as a military leader, and proclaim their general as Augustus, or you can have various party factions trying to assinate emperors.

For economic system, we could add in features like the debasement of gold and sliver in the coins, and how much impact did it have on the people.

[G-Megas-Doux]

I cant quite see the point of the Democracy in RTW2, or rather the way you want it, I know that there were a few states who had it, but I dont see the point of the way you are trying to implement it. In MIITW only the states like Venice deserved something different for government considering the extensive constitutional requirements for electing a Doge and how it had a Grand Council, however many cities were not that complicated in antiquity, nor would it be useful to distinguish all factions as being able to get Democracy in the game.

I believe that it should be possible for Rome to start as a Republic and then change to a Monarchy later, I believe if you are going to do this with the Greeks then they need to be divided and be in a league, maybe Pontus had one as well but I can not see a democracy option for each faction. Nor could I see a socialist democracy for any faction as that required a heavy industialisation and marxist theory.

If you want to add all things you have said to the game you may as well have a cross between Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Civilization, Europa Universallis and Total War games all mixed together.

If you are going to believe that all Monarchs used their people as fodder then that misjudges Monarchies throughout history, you have wanted to put socialist democracy in the game but you missed out the Age of Enlightenment when the so called enlightened rulers did have concern for their people and thus lost much power. There are many types of Monarchy also.

You have Feudal Monarchy (which in itself has many varients), Despotic Monarchy, Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy and Bureaucratic Monarchy. Why should it be limited only to Despotic Monarchy and be the end of it?

[caesar_37th]

ok id like to say that half of that is comepletely ed up since the romans or any culture never came up with anything. I mean how the are 500000 people from carthage gonna vote for someone in Rome. SO anyways it seems sort of wierd that people are trying to add so much stuff to a game that i would just like to see expanded further east so sele doesnt get ed over in the first 20 turns. I mean all this implimentation is heading towards civilization and believe me that is not what i want in a tw game. I mean come on i DO NOT wanna go through congress to raise a ing army to go kill the Gauls. I prefer it when i want something done it happens in a set ammount of time. You also havent really shown why someone would want to change to democracy cuz thats like putting a faction that only has light infntry into the game. No one will ever use it cause it sux. In any case i find it a bit disturbing that you want all this added when you only played the demo?

[G-Megas-Doux]

Citizenship was also important. Even if you were a citizen of Rome you needed to attend in person in Rome both to vote and to stand for election.

[ray243]

For one, it would be wise to simulate Barbarians entering the Roman borders whenever they sense some sort of weakness. For example, there were many gothic invasion into the roman borders, when the empire is in a state of a civil war. This makes the game interesting to play even when you have a huge ass empire.

Another idea could be having a "sphere of influence" system, where all the big players gets involved in a game of geo-politics, and try to ensure the smaller kingdoms follows them. That the competition between the Persians and the Romans in order to ensure Armenia stays in their zone of influence.

One of the biggest peeves I had with RTW was the fact that there isn't much challenge when you have a big empire. An empire would tend to require constant maintence to prevent it from collasping. Sadly, this is something that RTW fails to depict. I have yet to play a game where your stable empire can became an unstable empire due to some minor mistake you made.

Sure, you get lots of challenge when you are playing as the Roman empire in BI, but I want to have some sort of challenge even when the Roman empire is strong under Trajan and Hadrian. There ought to be some ways to simulate how hard it is for Rome to expand beyond Dacia, even when it is strong.

[Keravnos]

@Thepianist,

No offense man, but you seem to project too much of "castro" into your thoughts.
The ancient world was, well... ancient. No socialism had been developed yet. The closest to that I can propose is, when a Tyrant took over a city, killed all the rich folk and split their incomes to his followers. Granted, this is what happened in some communist countries, but the ancients, to their credit, never bothered with rambling on and on about... "freeing the oppressed classes" and the usual tomfoolery. I do wonder if people believe the same tried, used and failed communist propaganda today.

Still, I have to wonder. Are you trying to design a game or are you trying to let us know what your deep thoughts and convictions are? If you are trying to preach communism, no cigar. If you are trying to design a game do not project failed 19th century ideologies into the ancient times, well, they didn't exist back then.

Even Athens that you mention was highly capitalist society. To get people to show up and vote in a sufficient number a "wage" of sorts had to be provided as the poor had to work for a living. No social state whatsoever to provide for the poor, other than free theater every once and a while. The poor and destitute were actively involved in trying to have Athens declare a war somewhere so that they might loot the city, sell its people as slaves and then take their place, with the city becoming an Athenian cleruchy.

Ancient Greece had many great things, no doubt, but let's all remember it was a bloody civil war with each city state on each others' throat. Only Phillipos and Alexandros managed to keep the peace and it was shattered the moment Alexandros' death came about.

@thepianist, I apologize in advance for what I am about to say, but you really need to find out more about the ancient world of 2300 years ago to 2000 years ago. If you do, you will understand how far we have come along in the route of progress, all of us.

[ray243]

@Thepianist,

No offense man, but you seem to project too much of "castro" into your thoughts.
The ancient world was, well... ancient. No socialism had been developed yet. The closest to that I can propose is, when a Tyrant took over a city, killed all the rich folk and split their incomes to his followers. Granted, this is what happened in some communist countries, but the ancients, to their credit, never bothered with rambling on and on about... "freeing the oppressed classes" and the usual tomfoolery. I do wonder if people believe the same tried, used and failed communist propaganda today.

Still, I have to wonder. Are you trying to design a game or are you trying to let us know what your deep thoughts and convictions are? If you are trying to preach communism, no cigar. If you are trying to design a game do not project failed 19th century ideologies into the ancient times, well, they didn't exist back then.

Even Athens that you mention was highly capitalist society. To get people to show up and vote in a sufficient number a "wage" of sorts had to be provided as the poor had to work for a living. No social state whatsoever to provide for the poor, other than free theater every once and a while. The poor and destitute were actively involved in trying to have Athens declare a war somewhere so that they might loot the city, sell its people as slaves and then take their place, with the city becoming an Athenian cleruchy.

Ancient Greece had many great things, no doubt, but let's all remember it was a bloody civil war with each city state on each others' throat. Only Phillipos and Alexandros managed to keep the peace and it was shattered the moment Alexandros' death came about.

@thepianist, I apologize in advance for what I am about to say, but you really need to find out more about the ancient world of 2300 years ago to 2000 years ago. If you do, you will understand how far we have come along in the route of progress, all of us.

Most of the time, the tax levied by the governments tends to be used for wars or the construction of religious temples, and leaders who failed to spend money on that tends to be unpopular with his or her people.

However, to be fair, Rome did provide free bread and food to the people of rome on a daily basis, but that can hardly something that is based on the modern concept of socialism. Many nations in the pass hardly have enough resources to ensure any kind of social welfare program can be implemented on a wide scale.

In regards to communism, I would just like to say that socialism doesn't equate to communism. If so, every nation that exist in the history of man kind would be called a communistic state.