How bout we plit imperial Rome and Republic Rome into 2 different Civs?

mboettcher

General
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
524
While both are technically the same Civ, mid republic Rome and Mid imperial Rome are almost entirely different beasts culturally, militarily and economically. Their achievements apart from one another (though obviously imperial Rome depends on the republic foundation) are well more than enough to make it into the game. Imperial Rome can make it on its all time great socioeconomic accomplishments and Republic Rome on it military and legal achievements.

Ok this may not be the best idea but I would at least like both periods of the Roman empire/republic to be well represented. Basically all we ever had from the Republic Period was the mostly useless forum and the guys who ended the Republic. There's no Roman constitutional achievements, the senate, Scipio Africanus, Cicero, Pompey, Marius etc. Where's the early legionary drafting system (u know not the Praets which weren't even a military unit...), unique Roman warships (the one with the claw whose name I am forgetting), basically all the figures who actually did the majority of the conquering for them.

edit: also to be fair many of the great emperors aren't represented as well and neither is the great Roman engineering capacity. I mean the aqueducts were a rather unique engineering achievement for, well, until the 20th century. (The 1920's was the first time a major world city surpassed imperial Rome's per capita fresh water supply)
 
In a scenario about Rome? Sure. In the main game? This makes no sense.

I do have some ideas for a Rome scenario that might be fun for Civ5.

Most scenarios are designed to be played as any faction, and so are limited in their ability to actually provide a challenging and flavorful environment.

Some of the best Civ3 scenarios were those designed to be played by only a single faction; Red Front for example, playing as the Russians resisting German invasion.

The general idea would be to make a Civ scenario (or two) that was designed to be played primarily from the Roman perspective. Somewhat like Rome Total War and some of its mods (especially the SPQR mod) and the Barbarian Invasion expansion. This way, you can make the game historically accurate, and you can make the game HARD, because you're not trying to create a game that can be played from multiple perspectives. Sure, people might only play it once or twice each, but its worth it if the mod is good enough.

The game would start with early Republic Rome and chronicle the rise of Rome. And then a second (on the same map) could start with the split empire and chronicle the Fall of Rome.

You can have a range of victory conditions designed around specific goals for the Roman player.

There would be "Road to War" type aspects with events that would trigger, either on historic dates or historic dates + random modifier.
These would include things like particular wars (and civil wars), or invasions of barbarian hordes.

We could have a detailed tech tree with engineering/technological, political and military innovations, and a detailed unit roster. Things like the Marian reforms would be techs, not events. There could be a detailed roster of units, starting from ancient phalanx-style militia, and then through Hastati/Principes/Triarii, and then eventually legionaries and auxiliaries (which would require unique location resources that you could get only by conquering particular territories - would work great with the Civ5 ability for strategic resources to require a limited number of units).

[Gaulish cities would be built on top of the Gaulish Auxiliaries resource. Conquer the city, you can recruit 3 Gaulish auxiliaries. Some rare units like Balearic slingers would only be possible from controllnig the Balearic isles. And so forth.]

Other factions would be a mix of enemy players (Carthage and the like) and barbarians.

So basically Rome Total War meets Rhyes and Fall meets Road to War.
Plus maybe a mix of Europa Universalis type options that give you different choices in events (do you control the Senate or Caesar, like picking sides in the English Civil War in Europa Universalis).

If anyone was skilled enough to code such a thing, and we had people interested in doing art, I'd put the effort into doing the design work.
 
While both are technically the same Civ, mid republic Rome and Mid imperial Rome are almost entirely different beasts culturally, militarily and economically.

Ridiculous, the language, culture and military tactics are all identical. All that happens if a change in the form of government from Republic to a kind of non-hereditary kingship, Civ games have always had a 'government' concept which can be changed at will and which is distinct from national and cultural identity.

If you wanted to argue for the Byzantine Empire or Modern Italy as different civ you would have an excellent argument, Firaxis already did the former ware as the later is commonly modded.
 
This may well be a troll from a Byzantium dissenter. At least I can't see a rational person sincerely believing it.
 
Practically speaking, there's little difference between the Republic of Julius Caesar and the Empire under Augustus. The change was gradual. Changes have always been represented in game through some kind of Government mechanism. Plus, there's plenty of awkwardness through overlapping cities.
 
Imperial Rome and Republic Rome is still Rome, before we go adding 2 3 OR maybe 5 different Romes we should add Civ like Israel and so on
 
Imperial Rome and Republic Rome is still Rome, before we go adding 2 3 OR maybe 5 different Romes we should add Civ like Israel and so on

way to political, The Mughals deserve to be in Civ 5 more than a second Rome
 
This applies to how many civs?
Let's consider a civ with a longer history than Rome:
While both are technically the same Civ, ancient China and modern China are almost entirely different beasts culturally, militarily and economically.
Also, for instance the French Monarchy and the French Republic (or even the Empire) are different beasts. And what about Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union? You'd end up splitting most civs in many variants when they are just the same beast at different times with different techs and political systems.
 
And why not the Roman Kingdom as well :p
 
Impaler[WrG];9125383 said:
Ridiculous, the language, culture and military tactics are all identical.

You are kidding right? Latin evolved significantly from the time of the Punic wars until the time of say Marcus Aurelius. The empire became much more culturally and ethnically diverse and inclusive (as well as the citizens of the city of Rome itself) and the military was completely overhauled by this period. The military tactics, equipment and the legal and economic systems that surrounded the raising and arming of armies was completely different.
 
You are kidding right? Latin evolved significantly from the time of the Punic wars until the time of say Marcus Aurelius. The empire became much more culturally and ethnically diverse and inclusive (as well as the citizens of the city of Rome itself) and the military was completely overhauled by this period. The military tactics, equipment and the legal and economic systems that surrounded the raising and arming of armies was completely different.

Sure it did. There were some big changes during that period.

Not enough to warrant 2 Civs though.
 
I think you are missing the point by probably not reading the whole OP. Look its likely not a god idea to split up Rome but it was the best example of a Civ that looked very different in 2 different eras yet accomplished so much in both time periods yet because of their pervasive success as a whole a lot of the important and valuable individual figures who had such a major impact on history get lost in the shuffle and I think the game suffers by under representing them. Civs should probably be way way more unique (we've heard some inklings of rumors that their will be more unique stuff) with perhaps even unique goverment options availabel or something. I picked Rome of this point because, well, their rival the Carthaginians made it into the game basically because they were a significant enough rival to Rome when they were expanding. Tells you how important Rome was yet none of the leaders and unique Roman social, economic and Military structures that defeated the Carthaginians are in the previous Civ games which I think is a shame.
 
mboettcher - which of the current european civilizations would you remove from the game to make room for a second Rome?

Russia?
Greece?
France?
England?
Germany?

Exactly.
 
way to political

Seconded on that one. Same reasons for the guy that was a major German leader in the 1930's and 40's. On paper there are a lot of people/civs that should be in the game but are left out for reasons that don't technically add up but thats fine. Don't want a great franchise destroyed over absurd political issues like that. Oh also Didnt I just break some reference that should end this thread b4 it gets out of control?
 
@Chalks

? Remove? we dont have to remove anything. More is better. Granted there are only so many civs in the vanilla but you get my point. Also read the full OP
 
@Chalks

? Remove? we dont have to remove anything. More is better. Granted there are only so many civs in the vanilla but you get my point. Also read the full OP

If we were going to have 150 civilizations in the game, I'm sure there would be plenty of people who agree with you, but there is a concept known as "quality over quantity".

Adding loads of additional civilizations is what mods are for.
 
I think you are missing the point by probably not reading the whole OP. Look its likely not a god idea to split up Rome but it was the best example of a Civ that looked very different in 2 different eras yet accomplished so much in both time periods yet because of their pervasive success as a whole a lot of the important and valuable individual figures who had such a major impact on history get lost in the shuffle and I think the game suffers by under representing them. Civs should probably be way way more unique (we've heard some inklings of rumors that their will be more unique stuff) with perhaps even unique goverment options availabel or something. I picked Rome of this point because, well, their rival the Carthaginians made it into the game basically because they were a significant enough rival to Rome when they were expanding. Tells you how important Rome was yet none of the leaders and unique Roman social, economic and Military structures that defeated the Carthaginians are in the previous Civ games which I think is a shame.

Well, I agree with you there. There should be more representation by Romans from the Republican era. I noticed that too.

Hopefully they would be vastly different to play.

Unfortunately, that's very unlikely.
 
It would make a fun mod to call it the "Six degrees of Rome" with at least: Republic, Imperial, Byzantium, Barbarian controlled, Holy Empire, and finally Italian city-states. That is about as far as this goes.

Before we split a culture into many. Lets add civs NOT in at all. It was bad enough with a Frankish King leading a German land with the drama that caused. Adding a 3rd Rome would be silly and un-needed.
 
Top Bottom