Early vs Mid Republic Starting Date

[Manningham]

CA have stated that the starting date will be mid republic, but wouldn't it be better to rewind a bit and make Rome earn its hegemony over Italy? It makes sense both historically and in terms of gameplay.

The early struggles with Etruscans, Samnites and Italic Celts.. the war with the Italic Greeks and Pyrrhus.. these hard earned victories were never assured and largely defined the Roman character. Beginning the game in the mid republic means starting with a Western Mediterranean superpower - the player who chooses Rome is forced to earn very little while the player who does not knows exactly who to be wary of moving forward. (Carthage would be the other one to watch in that area, though historically they were far more interested in controlling trade routes than exerting hegemony over swaths of foreign lands and peoples. The eastern successor states were also extremely powerful, but each had a dagger to the next one's throat and largely ignored Western Mediterranean developments until it was too late.)

In terms of gameplay, CA team members routinely state that the TW formula works best when a variety of factions are all able to achieve victory. An early-republic start meets that condition far better than mid. The only drawback I can envision is the potential lack of Punic Wars in the form they took historically.. but that is what historic battle scenarios are for, not campaign play. A predictable campaign is not fun - a dynamic and unpredictable one is.

Suggestion:
I suppose being able to select from a few starting dates, as in the Medieval games, would be best. However, I don't think that will happen.. I think CA would rather make an option like that DLC where a company like Paradox offers it outright.

So what starting date/era would you prefer?

[Xerrop]

What exactly means Mid Republic Start date? As long as it starts before the second Punic War in 218 BC it would be ok.

[Rhaegar1]

As we allready discussed somewhere else ;-) I prefer the game to start (and am glad that it will do so) just before the Punic wars. The problem with an earlier date is that although the early campaign will still be filled with names we recognize in history (although to a lesser extend) the late campaign will deviate quit a lot from history. Not only in which factions are powerful (that's part of the total war experience) but also what kind of factions exist in the map. Withouth heavy scripting the hellenistic states covering almost half of the map won't be in existence which means that factions which are much better know as historical enemies of Rome like Parthia, Seleucid Empire, Macedon, Armenia and Pontus will probably not even exist in the campaign.

An added disadvantage is that while from these factions quit a big historical set of units could be produced with realistic and historical developments and late-era units. In an earlier starting date scenario the roman end game will probably be with the achaemenid empire enemy in the east, and no one has an idea how later era units of them would have looked like at 100 BC.

I just don't agree with the assessment that the campaign will have a predictable winner, when starting just before the 1st Punic war there are at least 5 factions in the game (carthage, seleucid, ptolemeacs, macedon, Rome) of which you could say that they had the upper hand in the game of thrones. But if a Gallic faction would unite a large part of gaul or a smaller greek faction would unite a large part of Greece they definitely have a good fighting chance.

Anyway, it's clear that CA has chosen for a campaign covering the more recognizable part (for the larger public) of Rome's rise to power with all the factions that the more general public also has some recognition with. Besides that, I'm pretty sure that we will get some sort of Alexander campaign in an expansion or DLC so they are probably saving that era for a more focussed campaign

[Lord Baal]

Wow that sucks... early republic would be fun. With the tutorial being the establishment of the republic.

[IGdood]

Is early republic before or after the Camillan Reforms?

[Lord Baal]

I think it would be around that time, or right after or before said reform. (My opinion of a start date, not that Early republic is based on that)

Since you gave me a cookie I made a little more of homework (read, google it and look upon a few of the first pages). I must say here is a pretty readable version of the origins of the republic if you fancy reading a bit about it.

[torongill]

Thing is, early republic battles were exactly like the original RTW - a couple of units facing off two or three enemy units in a field somewhere with five more identical battles each turn, ad suicidum.

[General Sultan V]

I Think early would be fantastic.... some furious battles were fought at those times. And the player would get a chance to go through actual roman history. playing early, you won't miss the Punic wars or the Pyrrhic & Servile wars. Mid is ok, But I Very very much want it to start right before the Pyrrhic wars. or better yet alot before those. just so one can feel the real rise of rome, from a monarchy to a republic to an empire. a historical heirarchy system would be appreciated too.

I Vote early republic

[Paragon]

You know that they're going to put a start date and then just add DLC's and submods with different starting dates, like in Shogun 2 or the original Rome.

[Rorarii]

I would love an early republic start but that would mean adding alot to the game, i think CA want aviod that for time being. Hopefully a Rise of Rome game will be developed after R2.

Rise of Rome (500 BCE - 270 BCE) - including greek states, persia, middle east, fertile cresent etc

Actually come to think about it, i hope the next Rome game is - Fertile Cresent - Rise of Civilizations (3000BCE - 1000BCE) , focusing on the 2 rivers .. and hopefully including ancient India.

R

[Orlorin]

They could go the SS route and have an early and late campaign. One to start with the Punic Wars, the other with the rise of the Republic and the battle with Phyrrus.

[Manningham]

Here's a little breakdown of how most people refer to these phases of the Roman republic.

The Early Republic (500~275BC) - Starting at the founding of republican government, ending when Rome overcame Pyrrhus and shifted its focus to Carthage. This period saw Rome struggle for survival before struggling for dominance and the difficult position it found itself in forced Roman people and leaders to be flexible, opportunistic and resilient, or capitulate. By the end of this period, the Romans controlled a dominant part of the peninsula, binding former enemies to themselves through patronage. @IGdood the Camillan reforms took place smack dab in the middle of this period, sometime after Brennus' sack of Rome.

The Mid Republic (275~150BC) - This period is defined by the three Punic Wars, though the Romans were often fighting in many places simultaneously. Ending with the destruction of Carthage, the strained political institutions of the republic, originally designed to meet the needs of a small Italic city-state, were strained in trying to manage Rome's massive expansion from Spain to Africa to the Aegean.


@torongill - I see your point, but those battles were not small and the number of soldiers we think actually fought in them still dwarf what TW is able to represent on screen. Just as some of the first battles in S2 and other TW titles are smaller, so would be those for Rome in an early republic start - not a bad thing to start small.

@Rhaegar - It sounds like you're worried that, by the late game, factions which were historically relevant might not be powerful, or even present. I think that's a good thing!

TW does not recreate history, it reimagines it, and it's fun If a player (or AI) wants to develop a pastoral Celtic society into a cosmopolitan coastal city-based people with professional armies, well that should be achievable.

CA's job is to balance that reimagining such that it develops in authentic ways.. but the process is subjective and they can't please everyone. But imo, if one of Alexander's successor states has crushed the others by late game to create a new, massive Eastern empire, that's not bad.

As for the predictability statement, I only said that Rome would be a superpower and qualified it by adding 'in the Western Mediterranean'. S2 had 40ish factions? I am hoping for significantly more from R2, so let's consider the plight of the Aedui. A player who selects them in a game starting in 280 BC knows that he has to rush to expand quickly before Rome or Carthage shows up. However, in a 380 start, it is unclear who, if anyone, will develop into the major power in the Western Mediterranean and there is a great deal more unpredictability.. and excitement

[torongill]

Here's a little breakdown of how most people refer to these phases of the Roman republic.

The Early Republic (500~275BC) - Starting at the founding of republican government, ending when Rome overcame Pyrrhus and shifted its focus to Carthage. This period saw Rome struggle for survival before struggling for dominance and the difficult position it found itself in forced Roman people and leaders to be flexible, opportunistic and resilient, or capitulate. By the end of this period, the Romans controlled a dominant part of the peninsula, binding former enemies to themselves through patronage. @IGdood the Camillan reforms took place smack dab in the middle of this period, sometime after Brennus' sack of Rome.

The Mid Republic (275~150BC) - This period is defined by the three Punic Wars, though the Romans were often fighting in many places simultaneously. Ending with the destruction of Carthage, the strained political institutions of the republic, originally designed to meet the needs of a small Italic city-state, were strained in trying to manage Rome's massive expansion from Spain to Africa to the Aegean.


@torongill - I see your point, but those battles were not small and the number of soldiers we think actually fought in them still dwarf what TW is able to represent on screen. Just as some of the first battles in S2 and other TW titles are smaller, so would be those for Rome in an early republic start - not a bad thing to start small.

@Rhaegar - It sounds like you're worried that, by the late game, factions which were historically relevant might not be powerful, or even present. I think that's a good thing!

TW does not recreate history, it reimagines it, and it's fun If a player (or AI) wants to develop a pastoral Celtic society into a cosmopolitan coastal city-based people with professional armies, well that should be achievable.

CA's job is to balance that reimagining such that it develops in authentic ways.. but the process is subjective and they can't please everyone. But imo, if one of Alexander's successor states has crushed the others by late game to create a new, massive Eastern empire, that's not bad.

Do not forget that CA wants to implement Imperial Rome as well. A game starting in 380 would need 760 turns just to make it to the birth of Christ. And that's considering there are only 2 turns per year. What if there are three or four?
Plus, an earlier starting date would be inconventional from Eastern PoV. You'd have Macedon, the two Greek Leagues in Greece and east of that - the Persian Empire. No Baktria, no Parthia, No Seleucid Empire or Egypt, no Epirus.
Besides, while the Roman territory would be bigger than average, it would be a federation, not one monolithic faction and it wouldn't be too big - South of the Po valley is not that big when you compare it with Macedon, Egypt, or god forbid, Carthage.

[Manningham]

Do not forget that CA wants to implement Imperial Rome as well. A game starting in 380 would need 760 turns just to make it to the birth of Christ. And that's considering there are only 2 turns per year. What if there are three or four?
Plus, an earlier starting date would be inconventional from Eastern PoV. You'd have Macedon, the two Greek Leagues in Greece and east of that - the Persian Empire. No Baktria, no Parthia, No Seleucid Empire or Egypt, no Epirus.
Besides, while the Roman territory would be bigger than average, it would be a federation, not one monolithic faction and it wouldn't be too big - South of the Po valley is not that big when you compare it with Macedon, Egypt, or god forbid, Carthage.

Yeah, that's a good point, game time would be extremely long. Personally, I'm a big fan of epic, drawn-out campaigns, but that's not everyone's bag. Still, I'm sort of worried CA is gonna do the opposite and opt for 1 or 2 years per turn. Hopefully not.

I don't really have a problem with Rome becoming big, but for the previously posted reasons I wouldn't like to see it start that way. Assuming CA implements some kind of tech-tree like the Mastery of the Arts tree in S2, Rome should have access to better advances than other factions, or at least earlier access to them.. so why also allow them to start the race with a hot rod?

@Rorarii - The Etruscans and Samnites were serious obstacles for the Romans.. I don't think writing them off as a 'spent force' and 'hillbillies' does them any kind of justice. The Etruscans' only major weakness was their disunity and the hillbillies battled Rome for over a decade and could have won. But I'm with you on the Jew power an emergent Levant faction would be pretty cool.

[Rhaegar1]

No I just think that if you are looking at campaigns of factions besides rome a later (mid-republic) starting date is much better. You say that the campaign is much less balanced because smaller factions don't stand a chance against Rome. In an earlier starting date the same can be said of the achaemid empire isn't it? and where in mid-republic there are several factions who could be considered 'top-dogs' in an earlier starting date there is only the Persion behemoth as lonely super power in the world.

Sales-wise I also think that even for a roman campaign enemy factions like parthia, armenia and the seleucids are a much more recognizable enemy for the majority of the people then the samnites and a bunch of magna graecia cities in southern italy would be.

As for playable factions, I simply want to be able to play with seleucids, parthia and macedon much more then I want to play with the samnites or a small greek citie in italy.

[Rorarii]

No I just think that if you are looking at campaigns of factions besides rome a later (mid-republic) starting date is much better. You say that the campaign is much less balanced because smaller factions don't stand a chance against Rome. In an earlier starting date the same can be said of the achaemid empire isn't it? and where in mid-republic there are several factions who could be considered 'top-dogs' in an earlier starting date there is only the Persion behemoth as lonely super power in the world.

Sales-wise I also think that even for a roman campaign enemy factions like parthia, armenia and the seleucids are a much more recognizable enemy for the majority of the people then the samnites and a bunch of magna graecia cities in southern italy would be.

As for playable factions, I simply want to be able to play with seleucids, parthia and macedon much more then I want to play with the samnites or a small greek citie in italy.

Yes, your probably right, Etruscans were a spent force and the Samnites conquered hill-billies .. BUT Any of the Successor states could collapse, revealing a strong LEVANT (any israeli players out there?), Egypt (any pro-pharohic players out there?), Syria .. Palestine .. Persia etc etc

If the Jews don't make it the game there'll be protests in the streets!!



R

[daelin4]

Prolly a DLC campaign like Rise of Rome, and Fall of Rome, and Afternoon Tea of Rome where they invade Briton and have to establish a tea trade to make the entire thing profitable.

[General Sultan V]

"Tea"?

[General Sultan V]

Yes, your probably right, Etruscans were a spent force and the Samnites conquered hill-billies .. BUT Any of the Successor states could collapse, revealing a strong LEVANT (any israeli players out there?), Egypt (any pro-pharohic players out there?), Syria .. Palestine .. Persia etc etc

If the Jews don't make it the game there'll be protests in the streets!!

The Etruscans who outnumbered The Romans 3 to 1 and fought them all the way they were an empire were not a spent force, neither the samnites, whom were worse then the Etruscans in terms of being a super challenge against rome, and no, don't take it as a "Challenge". Rome was facing impossible odds against these two who are poking their borders from two sides


the Judaeans won't make it into the game unless its a few battle scenarios or a mini-campaign centering no where outside israel itself because they were never a unified force and they never expanded outside the walls of their cities which they hid behind against the Pharaohs and the Romans and the greeks. and their army compositions in their wars were peasant and tribal and cultural, making it "Impossible" to Raise any form of army outside their 'home' in israel unlike say the greeks or romans or Macedonians, who "culturized" The conquered whom would serve in their armies too as allies or even equals. this required social & governmental abilities far above the access of merely a people whom are'n unified.

[Rinan]

I think the game should start in 753 B.C. where you can choose for either Romulus or Remus and have smelly peasants and sheep-herders fight for which of the seven hills is coolest. Think about it; The Achaemenid Empire doesn't even exist yet, Phaoric Egypt does (granting the ability to play with Egypt's elite units; Terrible Mummies) and Carthage still remains small! The game should, IMO, end in 509 BC when the Etruskans were expelled from Rome and the monarchy turned into a republic. Because, as we all know from Platon, democracy sucks.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But the middle-Republican period sounds fine too, to be honest At least then you get the chance of ever getting into the imperial period. But it'd be cool if they were to set the start just before Pyrrus' invasion, like RTR VII (380 BC I think?)