Some ideas

Hi everybody!
Since I don't have a stable connection right now I thought to put all the ideas and doubts I have in a single topic, this will make this post a little long but I think it's the best solution right now. Maybe we can split in different topics later. I don't know if any of this issues are already being discussed somewhere because it took me ages to load this page and I can't read all the topics right now, so I apologise in advance if I'm being redundant. I apologize also for any mistake, I'll use this modding experience to improve my english.

First of all there's the problem of Rome. As you all probably know ( ) Rome played a great role in the historic period we are covering with this mod so if we want to stick to the historical outcome as the most likely we have some job to do since Rome starts as an OPM. My idea is that Rome should have missions to vassalize its neighbors (we can use the word socii instead of vassals) right at the start of the game, in this way Rome will be able to deal with stronger enemies like the Etruscans. Lazio was a well-populated region at that time so we could give a higher value of manpower to Rome compared to its neighbors to rise a larger army an beat them (obviously also Cuma and Taranto were highly populated at that time so they're the major threat in Rome's way). This will pose Rome at the head of a sort of confederation of vassals, that in my opinion is a good way to simulate in the game the situation of the italic confederation during the first stages of Rome's expansion. Later on Rome can receve missions to annex this vassals, like the ones that France recives in vanilla, to represent the concession of roman citizenship to the socii during time and their integration in the roman state. This is not 100% historical accurate but I think it's a good compromise between history and gameplay. We could also add a decision (called for example "form the italic confederation") that gives a boost to manpower and income, to simulate the fact that Rome asked to its socii to pay a tribute in soldiers and gold (more in soldiers than gold really). This decision obviously will require the control of a certain number of vassals in the italian region (right now I'll say Sabini, Umbri, Samniti, Cumae and Oscii). Everything I've said here con be also made avaiable for any of the italian OPM, not just Rome, in this way we create a wide range of alternatives and also make the game possible for the other states even if more difficult. In general I think that we should encourage vassalage over annexion whenever it's possible to recreate the situation of that time period.
As for something that regards Rome only there are two things I want to point out. The first one is the government and the second one are the military reforms. First of all we must decide if the changes of roman government's form will be set in stone (republic in 509 bc etc), made avaiable with a decision (declare roman republic, avaiable with a low-stats king maybe?) or just with rebels. I would prefer the decision, by the way as it adds more control to the player and allows to modify the course of history. The military reforms pose a similar dilemma, we can have them as events that just happens during the game, events that happens when certain conditions are met or decisions. As before I'd prefer the decisions but I'm not sure if the reforms will grant new units or just give some military bonuses, like the prussian reforms in vanilla. I have some ideas also for latin colonies but I'll open a new topic about coloines later on, for now I have just random thoughts.

Then we have the celts, since leaving a large part of Europe as uncolonized provinces sucks in my opinion for at least two reasons: the map feels empty and conquering those regions was a matter of military conquest rather than settlement. Obviously we can't simply put nations like "Gallia" or "Britannia" because they would be unbalanced since they'll be huge and basically unbeatable. And also unhistorical.
What we can do is to create a large number of states using known tribes to fill Spain, France, Britain and Germany. Having a large numbers of tribes will also give us the possibility to create different level of "civilization" between the celts, with tribes influenced by the presence of greek and etruscan colonies having more stable forms of government while more remote tribes could be tribal federation or something like that. The problem though is that we don't really know the names they used since we have very few historical surces of that time. I think the best option is to take as many sources as we can and fill in the blanks with later surces (like Tacitus). This would not be historically accurate but again I think is a good compromise. If we want to add more flavour we could also add Gallia or Britannia as formable nations, even if they are actually unhistorical.

Hi alcon!

Some good ideas on Rome there! Indeed I think it's a good idea if Rome gets decisions to vassalize its neighbors. Later on it can start annexing these neighbors, either on its own or by mission.

Now as to the various reforms. There's several things that Rome should do, if everything goes historically. 1) Break its vassalage with the Etruscans, 2) Change to republic, 3) Do military reforms, 4) unite Italy. Now, 1) could be done a) by decision, or b) by event (i already made an event that makes vassals break vassalage if their masters are undergoing a civil war), or c) by the Etruscans losing a war and being forced to free their vassal. b and c are automatic, so yay! I think however we also need the decision "route". The only problem is: what are the conditions for Rome breaking its vassalage? Have a larger army? Have a larger income? Have better tech? Anyway. On to 2). I agree fully with you on this one: there should be a decision that becomes available when Rome's king has too low stats. When taking this decision, Rome becomes a Direct Democracy. This could be kind of fun: a player playing Rome should then strive for getting a bad king, instead of a good one. I do think that 2) shouldn't be a prerequisite for Rome getting its vassalize missions: it could actually be interesting to see a Roman monarchy dominating Italy. Ok, 3). The effect of 3) is actually quite simple: Rome goes from the 'Italic' to the 'Roman' tech group. This is a change from 80% to 100% tech efficiency, and makes the typical Roman units available (legionaries etc ). See also the post I made in the Military Units thread. Now when should 3) happen? I think the decision should only be available when 1) has happened (Rome is not a vassal), but 2) shouldn't be a prerequisite. Probably it should become available when Rome has a monarch with good MIL stats. Republics are more likely to get that anyway, so that makes Rome becoming a republic the most sure way for it to dominate Italy. Ok, now 4). What I mean by 'unite Italy' is Rome should end up owning all of the Italian provinces. Now I realize that this is not historically accurate, but there's a solution: Rome should become the Federated Republic (FR) government form. This govt form is created to model the federations that were formed during our time frame. A FR has a pretty bad centralization cap, to model that fact that the provinces it 'owns' are more like vassals than actual subordinates. Carthage is also a FR. Now how should Rome become a FR? It can do it on its own, by getting a good enough monarch (for getting the 'Imperial Ambition' modifier) and controlling enough provinces while he's in power (this is the standard way of becoming any of the 4 Imperial govt forms in this mod). I think this should already be enough, but if it isn't, we can always make a decision.

Ah, the Celts. I've slowly been persuaded that indeed the Celts should be in the game. Most of them should be under TI though, so that they can't be that easily conquered. Since you automatically discover provinces next to you, this should allow still for 'slow' expansion into Gaul and Spain. Also, at some point in the (vanilla) game you discover provinces of a different tech group, so somewhere late in the game maybe everyone discovers the Celts and full-blown conquest becomes possible. There's a few problems though. One problem is that there are too many provinces in Germany. So putting in the Celts would require some map editing in Germany (and maybe some other areas I'm forgetting right now). We could also make the provinces in Germany worth crap, so the tribes occupying don't get too strong, but I prefer the idea of merging a few provinces. Another problem is with consistency. If we make the Celts separate nations, then what about the Iberians, Lusitanians, Germans, Slavs, Thracians, Venetics and Illyrians? That's a lot of statelets we'd suddenly have to make.

Now, 1) could be done a) by decision, or b) by event (i already made an event that makes vassals break vassalage if their masters are undergoing a civil war), or c) by the Etruscans losing a war and being forced to free their vassal. b and c are automatic, so yay! I think however we also need the decision "route". The only problem is: what are the conditions for Rome breaking its vassalage? Have a larger army? Have a larger income? Have better tech? Anyway.

The problem here (from an historical point of view) is that we don't have any source, except the roman ones. On the other hand this means that we can decide what to do without caring too much of historica accurancy. I would say that having a larger army is the easier (and quikest for a human palyer) way to free from etruscan control. However, should this led to a declaration of war against the etrurian or to the etrurian getting a casus belli against rome?

One problem is that there are too many provinces in Germany. So putting in the Celts would require some map editing in Germany (and maybe some other areas I'm forgetting right now). We could also make the provinces in Germany worth crap, so the tribes occupying don't get too strong, but I prefer the idea of merging a few provinces.

Yes, merging provinces is the better thing to do in my opinion.

If we make the Celts separate nations, then what about the Iberians, Lusitanians, Germans, Slavs, Thracians, Venetics and Illyrians? That's a lot of statelets we'd suddenly have to make.

I can see the problem (expecially the flag problem ). But, on the other hand, I don't think there is a better way to represent the celts and other "barbaric" populations if we want them in the game. I'll do some researches so we can have at least an idea of the number of these new nations.

Venetics

I didn't mention the venetics in my previous post because I was doubtful, since here in Italy they are part of the political debate with a party claiming the indipendence of northern Italy because of his celts-venetian ancestors. Yes, it is as crazy as it sounds.

alocin wrote:The problem here (from an historical point of view) is that we don't have any source, except the roman ones. On the other hand this means that we can decide what to do without caring too much of historica accurancy. I would say that having a larger army is the easier (and quikest for a human palyer) way to free from etruscan control. However, should this led to a declaration of war against the etrurian or to the etrurian getting a casus belli against rome?

Well we could make multiple ways to get Rome to free itself. Since there are no historical records, we should just go for things that make sense gameplay-wise. It should probably be something that takes a while to achieve, seeing as Rome didn't free itself in 650BC yet. The bigger army option should probably lead to a DoW, I mean, if Rome has a bigger army, it can probably defeat the Etruscans anyway.

alocin wrote:I can see the problem (expecially the flag problem ). But, on the other hand, I don't think there is a better way to represent the celts and other "barbaric" populations if we want them in the game. I'll do some researches so we can have at least an idea of the number of these new nations.

Well we can just make Celtic tribes for now. The others didn't really do that much anyway in our time frame. Except maybe the Thracians but oh well.

alocin wrote:I didn't mention the venetics in my previous post because I was doubtful, since here in Italy they are part of the political debate with a party claiming the indipendence of northern Italy because of his celts-venetian ancestors. Yes, it is as crazy as it sounds.

haha, well they did exist, but to claim independence because of a people of more than 2500 years ago...

haha, well they did exist, but to claim independence because of a people of more than 2500 years ago...

They took 12% in the last national elections in 2008. But enoght of Italy's crazy political parties, let's talk about stuff that is really important!

The celts. I found out they are a much harder nut to crack than I initially thought. I was able to find out info about the populations of the Po valley, but anything beyond the Alps is still quite a blur. Here's a map with the populations so far (I used paint ):

Spoiler:

We have in order: Carni (green on the right), Veneti (blue), Reti (yellow), Camuni (green in the middle), Leponzi (purple), Insubri (orange), Salassi (red on the upper left), Taurini (red on the left) and Liguri (deep blue). The colours are of course just random, because my sense of estetic really sucks. So, Carni, Reti and Camuni are celts in the strict term of the word, being part of the Hallstatt culture. Leponzi, Insubri, Salassi and Taurini were part of the Golasecca culture that is belived to be an indigenous culture of northern Italy later "conquered" by La Tène culture (the second, and much bigger, celtic culture, spread during the V century b.C. by celtic migrations). Veneti and Liguri are two populations with their own specific culture. Now, I don't know if putting this cultures in the game as separate groups would be a good idea in terms of gameplay/balance, I'm just pointing out stuff I think might be interesting.

alocin wrote:

haha, well they did exist, but to claim independence because of a people of more than 2500 years ago...

They took 12% in the last national elections in 2008. But enoght of Italy's crazy political parties, let's talk about stuff that is really important!

The celts. I found out they are a much harder nut to crack than I initially thought. I was able to find out info about the populations of the Po valley, but anything beyond the Alps is still quite a blur. Here's a map with the populations so far (I used paint ):

Spoiler:

We have in order: Carni (green on the right), Veneti (blue), Reti (yellow), Camuni (green in the middle), Leponzi (purple), Insubri (orange), Salassi (red on the upper left), Taurini (red on the left) and Liguri (deep blue). The colours are of course just random, because my sense of estetic really sucks. So, Carni, Reti and Camuni are celts in the strict term of the word, being part of the Hallstatt culture. Leponzi, Insubri, Salassi and Taurini were part of the Golasecca culture that is belived to be an indigenous culture of northern Italy later "conquered" by La Tène culture (the second, and much bigger, celtic culture, spread during the V century b.C. by celtic migrations). Veneti and Liguri are two populations with their own specific culture. Now, I don't know if putting this cultures in the game as separate groups would be a good idea in terms of gameplay/balance, I'm just pointing out stuff I think might be interesting.

Very interesting information! I think the best way to model this would be to make a "Golasecca" culture, which is part of the (already existing) Celtic culture group. The distinctiveness between Leponzi, Insubri, Salassi and Taurini would then be modeled by the fact that they're different countries (and don't have a core on each other's territory). The Hallstatt culture already exists, as do Venetic and Ligurian. As to the rest of the Celts: I realize that it's pretty blurry. I think Caesar has a list of Celtic tribes, right? I know Caesar is much later than our time period, but no-one's gonna be able to prove us wrong anyway . Besides, I put Japan and Gojoseon on the map and they most probably didn't exist either.

What we could do is find as many Celtic tribes as possible, put them on the map, and then merge provinces until a good fraction of provinces in the Celtic sphere has a nation in it.

Ok, I'll do this way.
I've already done Spain, turned out it was a lot easier than France.

Spoiler:

Here we have (circa 200-250 b.C.):
*Vaccaei (celts) white
*Carpetani (celts) puke-color in the middle
*Cantabri (celts) green, above the purple blob
*Turduli (celts) dark blue
*Gallaeci (celts) yellow
*Asturi (celts) red
*Caunei (celts) orange in the lower left
*Arevaci (celts) purple

*Vettones (indoeuropean, pre-celtic) light blue
*Lusotani (indoeuropean, pre-celtic) pink

*Vascones (aquitanian) blue on the Pyrenees

*Llercavones (iberian) light purple on the right
*Edetani (iberian) gold (dark yellow?) on the right
*Lacetani (iberian) dark green on the right
*Bastetani (iberian) light blue on the lower right
*Indigetes (iberian) light blue on the upper right
*Contestani (iberian) orange on the right
*Oretani (iberian) pink on the lower right, under the Carpetani
*Llergatae (iberian) orange on the right,right to the Vascones

However I think the map needs a little edit, here there is the map I made without using the privinces and just putting the tribes down:

Spoiler:

France tomorrow! (Sorry if there are any mistakes but here is pretty late and today has been a loooooong day.)

And here we have France, finally.

What we could do is find as many Celtic tribes as possible, put them on the map, and then merge provinces until a good fraction of provinces in the Celtic sphere has a nation in it.

My problem was actually that there are too many tribes to put them all in the map, unless we decide to make like 100-150 opm. So I made a little research to find tribes that had a specific caracteristic that may make them different to play from each other. My fear was that with so many tribes playing with the Arverni or the Viducasses would feel exactly the same (I really hope I made myself clear).

Spoiler:

*Tarbelli (aquitanian) orange on the bottom left
*Tarusates (aquitanian) light green, on the right to the Tarbelli
*Conuenas (aquitanian) blue on the right to the Tarusates
*Cocosates (aquitanian) dark green above the Tarbelli

*Auscii (celts) purple above the Tarusates
*Volcae Tectosages (celts) green above the Conuenas
*Volcae Areconici (celts) light blue on the right to the Tectosages
*Ruteni (celts) pink above the Tectosages
*Elusates (celts) yellow on the bottom left
*Cadurci (celts) light blue above the Auscii
*Santones (celts) ocher on the left above the Elusates
*Petrocorii (celts) brown on the right to the Santones
*Arverni (celts) white
*Alloboriges (celts) red on the right
*Vocontii (celts) light purple in provence under the Alloboriges
*Ambarri (celts) something like blue above the Alloboriges
*Elvetii (celts) orange on the right
*Sequani (celts) purple on the lef to the Elvetii
*Aedui (celts) grey(?) above the Arverni
*Bituriges (celts) gold in the middle to the left to the Aedui
*Lemovici (celts) blue under the Bituriges
*Pictones (celts) orange on the left
*Namnetes (celts) red on the left above the Pictones
*Diablintes (celts) green above the Namnetes
*Cenomane (celts) light blue to the right to the Diablintes
*Bramovices (celts) yellow above the Cenomane
*Eburovices (celts) bright red above the Bramovices
*Carnutes (celts) purple in the middle above the Bituriges
*Senones (celts) light blue above the Aedui
*Parisii (celts) green above Senones and Carnutes
*Bellovaci (celts) brown above the Senones
*Lingones (celts) blue above the Aedui
*Viducasses (celts) dark yellow in Normandy
*Lexovii (celts) purple above the Eborovices
*Caletes (celts) blue above the Lexovii
*Triboques (celts) green on the right

*Osismes (armoricans) purple in Brittany
*Venete (armoricans) light blue in Brittany
*Coriosolites (armoricans) blue in Brittany

*Eburoni (belgic) blue on the upper right
*Treviri (belgic) yellow on the right to the Eburoni
*Suessoni (belgic) red under the Eburoni
*Nervii (belgic) green to the left to the Suessoni
*Ambieni (belgic) pink under the Nervii
*Remi (belgic) purple under the Eburoni
*Morini (belgic) really light blue above the Nervii
*Menapes (belgic) yellow above the Eburoni

*Nori (celtic) blue on the right in the middle of nowhere

As you can see the map needs a reskin as almost all of the tribes are opm. The exceptions I can see are Arverni, Aedui, Elvetii (3 provinces) Allaboriges, Vocontii, Nori, Morini (2 provinces), but if you think that there is a better possibility to arrange the map go ahead.

We have the following formable nations:
*Aedui confedercy: control Biturges, Senones, Parisii, Ambarri, Arverni do not exist
*Arverni confederacy: control Ruteni, Cadurci, Petrocori, Lemovici, Aedui do not exixt
*Armorica (what if): control Veneti, Osismes, Coriosolites, gain core on Namnetes, Diablintes, Cenomane
*Aulerici nation (what if): control Diablintes, Cenomane, Eburavices, Bramovices, gain core on Carnutes, Parisii
*Volcae nation (what if): control Volcae Tectosages, Volcae Aretonici, gain core on Ruteni, Indigetes (Spain)

Great work! I didn't know there were so many tribes known! Do you also have information about the Celtic tribes in Germany? (I can imagine that would be harder since the Romans never conquered it)

Do you have some suggestions for how/where the map should be changed? I personally have a problem with the tribes being opm... most of them were pretty small, right?

There are some known tribes also for Germany, mainly from archeological sources: Cimbri and Teutoni in Denmark, Sweboz (Suebi) in the Brandeburg region, the Boii in Bavaria (they invaded Gallia during the IV century b.C.) and the Wolkas in what is now known as Thuringia (later named after the Turingi, a germanic population that invade the region during the V century a.D.). There were also another population of Veneti, but we have already Venetians in Veneto and Veneti in Brittany, so I think they might be redundant. These are the tribes I remember now, there are surely more in the De Bello Gallico (the tribe of Ariovisto and the ones defeated in the expedition beyond the Reno), but I need to check.

I didn't know there were so many tribes known!

There are even more. But putting all the tribes on the map would result in having something like 100 opm in France...

Do you have some suggestions for how/where the map should be changed? I personally have a problem with the tribes being opm... most of them were pretty small, right?

Yeah, the were more like city-states or even families rather then states or kingdoms. The celts had a system of governement based on the martial valour of the chief and on his family that often wasn't able to impose himself on more than one community. Large nations like the Arverni for example were a confederation of tribes each led by a member of the Arverni family, widely recognised as the most valiants of all Gauls.

(...and by "I personally have a problem with the tribes being opm" I meant "I personally don't have a problem with the tribes being opm", but I think you already got that .)

I was thinking small tribes could have "Tribe" as government. Do you think "Tribal Federation" government is in order for the Averni (and some others)?

The Tribe government could also be applied to India, where most countries were just tribes. Only the Mahajanapadas could then have aristocratic monarchy, to model them being more powerful and advanced, and to make it more likely that they survive and grow.

Yes, tribal democracy, tribal despotism and tribal federation are the best form of governement for those populations. And the creation of a federate nation (Arverni nation, Armorica, Volcae...) should result in a government switch to the tribal federation form.