Grand Strategy Imperator: Rome - the new grand strategy from Paradox

[Life of the Party]

TBH I'm tired of this period of time, at least as a beginning rather than end.

I'd rather see a game before the Late Bronze Age Collapse starting around 1300 BC or so. You can expand and do all the shit you want, but everyone gets rocked by the collapse and you have to come back from it, leading towards the nominal start of games around the Rise of Rome/Alexander or the Diadochi period being the conclusion.

 

[Agame]

I think they did a mistake when they went with nation-focused, rather than character-focused.

This here is simply mind boggling, I am beginning to think that even Paradox dont understand the true potential of the CK character system they have created. They seem to be stuck on traditional grand strategy map painting as their fundamental design. This is a real tragedy as both Stellaris and now Imperator could have been something unique and progressive in the strategy genre. Instead Stellaris is the embodiment of 4X Space Generica, and it looks like Imperator is turning into EU5 with some token call outs to Vicky and CK2.

Its possible they can somehow expand the character system in later DLCs, maybe? But if they dont lay the groundwork in the release version this seems very unlikely. This whole thing seems like a massive waste of an opportunity.

 

[Preben]

Yes but antiochos was defeated twice in decisive field battles,in magnesia he fielded more men than the romans and also the best he had atm.
So if he had defeated the romans at least in magnesia i think he would have won the war,rome would have come back eventually but this goes too far in alternative history.

There was literally no chance for Antiochus III to win the war. Even if, disregarding the massive qualitative discrepancy, he somehow managed to win at Magnesia, the Romans would simply return with a fresh army and would eventually defeat him either in battle or in a war of attrition. They did this in Spain during the Second Punic war, they did it in Asia during the Mithridatic wars, there's no reason to believe that Antiochus III would be given a pass.

Heck, when I think about it, the rapid Seleucid defeat was the best possible outcome for them. Had the war been more drawn out, the royal prestige would fall even more and the whole empire would collapse much sooner. The quick peace treaty allowed Antiochus III to retain much strength for the realm and the Seleucid Empire remained a major player for another generation, collapsing only after Antiochus IV's death.

 

[Average Manatee]

The more I think about it the more I think a character-driven Rome game would actually be better at what it does than CK2.

The big issues with CK2 are:

- The AI simply can't handle the complexity well.
- Most of the inter-character stuff is for when you are a vassal, once you are ruler you can kind of ignore most rules and play in more of an EU4 style, just sometimes imprisoning people and revoking titles.

If they had gone with a character-focused Rome, you'd actually avoid both of these problems. Less focus on the characters and less complexity would mean the AI could handle it better. You'd also avoid the "player is always the ruler" problem by properly implementing an elected consulship system. This would make the player more invested in improving their personal standing since just blobbing as Rome would be less rewarding when the AI got to take back control.

You'd want to:
- Get rid of the dynasties. Let players play as their relatives on succession, not worry about the fact that some woman matrillineally married a commoner and therefore their son causes a game over if they are they heir. Let players adopt characters.
- Get rid of the levy system. CK2 has a good manpower system with hordes, basically just switch to that. Keep the CK2 system of mercenaries hireable from tribes and stuff.
- Have more power obtainable by elected positions and calling in favors from other characters.
- Make it really hard to hold the highest position for long. Make becoming an empire the end-game goal. Elections should be impossible to keep going for long, unlike CK2 merchant republics where you simply throw 500 gold at the problem to stay Doge permanently.

And you'd have a great Rome game. Of course this wouldn't be applicable everywhere, for example large tribes could probably still use a levy system. You'd have a lot of room to sell DLC that gave new or different mixups of the various mechanics for other areas of the map. But who am I kidding? DLCs aren't supposed to require effort or historical research, they are about selling the players NI buffs and railroaded missions to conquer nearby territory.

 

[razvedchiki]

guys field of glory empires will come out next year,who cares of imperator and its banal/generic blobs of generic named units auto fighting?

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

- Get rid of the dynasties. Let players play as their relatives on succession, not worry about the fact that some woman matrillineally married a commoner and therefore their son causes a game over if they are they heir. Let players adopt characters.

They could just swap Dynasties for the Roman Gentes, in the roman context. Would work similarly.

 

[Life of the Party]

 

[Life of the Party]

 

[Life of the Party]

 

[Life of the Party]

 

[Makabb]

So it's EU mixed with CK and a little Victoria

 

[Makabb]

There are so many provinces i can see what they are doing there........ they don't want to limit the player in map painting like they did in EU 4, so instead of limiting the player they created insane ammount of provinces to conquer, so the map painting will take a lot of time, almost looks like hearts of iron 3 map in terms of provinces..... I just wonder how it will be later when you have a big empire, will you just steam roll others ?

 

[Life of the Party]

Spoiler

Hello and welcome to another development diary for Imperator:Rome! Today I will talk some more about the pops in locations that nobody owns, and colonization as well as the map of the Levant and the Traditions of Levantine and Arabian countries.

As you may recall from previous diaries Pops in Imperator are the base units we use to represent population. Each pop will have its own type, its own culture and its own religion. How they feel about the country that rules them will largely depend on both local conditions and on how closely their culture and religion aligns with your country.

As an example of the former is that certain pop types will be happier if they have access to certain trade goods in their province.

An example of a more national level factor that impacts population happiness is their culture and religion. Pops that share your own religion and culture will generally be easier to manage than those of others. Though this may of course be modified by many things such as ideas and laws.

Pops exist throughout the cities of all countries on the map and in some regions there might be quite mixed population. Carthaginian Sicily for instance has a large Carthaginian upper class, while the Freemen, Slaves and Tribesmen are generally more mixed with local Siculian and Siceliote (Greek) culture.

Pop Movement:

Pops can move between cities as a result of scripted content such as events (examples can be natural disasters, tribal groups feuding and migrations) as well as when a city falls and some of its population is enslaved.

But the era of Imperator is one where the government intervened quite a bit in population movement. With Hellenistic kings founding great cities in their own name such as Seleucia Magna, Antiochea, Lysimachea, or Ptolemais. The standard way to operate in many of these cases was to force the local population of nearby cities to move into one designated newly prepared location. Some would also be brought in from further afar, not in the least the Romans themselves, founding colonies, first in Italy and later all over their growing empire.

Much like the kings of the era, most of the time if you want a certain pop to be transferred to a specific place within your empire you will need to move it yourself.

A pop can be moved from one city to either an adjacent city, one adjacent across a seazone, or any other owned city in the same province for a power cost of 20 Civic Power.

Slaves are cheaper than other pops to move, and only cost 5 Civic Power to transfer. Since the number of slaves in a city also decides if it can produce more than one surplus of its Trade Good this means that you can more easily set up production centers for certain goods, whereas you will have to pay more power if you want to build a Metropolis in a way away

Civilization Value

As mentioned in an earlier development diary Civilization Value is a rating that exists in all locations on the map, and it represents the level of infrastructure and urbanisation in that location. As mentioned briefly in an earlier development diary this is a big factor for pop happiness. Tribesmen will be happier in cities with low Civilization value whereas more stratified pop types such as Freemen and especially Citizens prefer locations with high Civilization value.

Your country also has a national Civilization Value of its own (mainly increased by government type and technology) - all owned cities will slowly gravitate towards this value if they are below it, and slightly more quickly towards it if they are above it. Positive civilization growth can also never push the local value above that of your nation.

Colonization of Uncolonized Land

(population map mode)

From the interior of Sardinia to central Germany and Ireland, there is a lot of land that is uncolonized and seemingly empty on the political view.

As long as you have an adjacent city of at least 10 pops you can send one of these pops into an uncolonized location and this pop will claim it for their home country at the same cost as the one you pay for moving pops inside your own lands.

This will turn the uncolonized location to a city under your control, but it will not change the culture, religion or type of any of the pre-existing pops.

If you are a country with a high civilization level the local Civilization rating will now start to climb towards your country value. Making it more suitable for your freemen and citizens, but most likely making the original population of tribesmen quite unhappy (potential ways to counter this is to spend power to convert them to another type or adopt the governor policy for Civilization Effort which changes the type of your tribesmen over time).

There are also other ways to resettle people, or to colonize new land. For instance using your army to create military colonies or tribal migrations. But that is something we will get into in greater detail in later Development Diaries.

Northern Syria

In 304 BCE Syria, much like Anatolia, was in the hands of Antigonus, represented by Phrygia in Imperator. Syria was a quite fertile and well populated region, one of the central Hellenistic regions Syri has a considerable Greek minority population after the campaigns and projects of Alexander the Great as well as the Successors that came after him.

At our start date Antigonus himself would have been in his namesake capital, the growing city of Antigonea, preparing for new Pan-Hellenic games, that he hoped would help to impress on the world the importance of his new dynasty and capital.

After the fall of Mesopotamia and Persia to Seleucus this capital is now much closer to the border with the Seleucid Empire than perhaps had originally been envisioned (and indeed in real life the city would eventually fall to the Seleucids and fall from glory, though the later Seleucid metropolis Antiochia would be founded close by).

Less concerned with the freedom of Non-Greek cities this region is not home to any subject city leagues like Anatolia and Greece. But a number of old states that once capitulated to Alexander remain and retain some level of autonomy in Phoenicia and northern Syria.

Starting Countries:

• Commagene: Small local tributary of Phrygia in the upper Mesopotamian region. Conquered long ago by Alexander Commagene is not central enough to warrant direct control by the its bigger overlord. In time this would be the site of the later kingdom of Commagene
• Bambyce: Small state based around the cult of the Canaanite deity Atargatis. The state predates Macedonian conquest but has sworn fealty first to Alexander and then to his successors. The Theocratic Monarchy is ruled by the hereditary High Priests of Bambyce.

Phoenicia & Upper Syria

While Phoenician merchants are still a significant force in the mediterranean, especially in and around Carthage, Phoenicia itself has been under foreign rule for a long time in 304 BCE. The great forests of Lebanon remain a prime source of wood for ships however and has been the goal for Egyptian expansion plans more than once for the largely wood-deprived kingdom.

A number of small Phoenician city kingdoms remain here since days past, having sworn fealty first to the Achaemenids and later to Alexander and then Antigonus.

The fortified city of Tyre itself, associated with the production of the fabled Tyrian Purple, remains under the direct administration of Phrygian army, and has been the site of many famous sieges in the years past.

This is also the region in which the huge Antigonid fleet of Demetrius was built before it set out to invade Greece and destroy the Ptolemaic navy off the coast of Cyprus.

Starting Countries:

• Arados: Small Phoenician city kingdom under Antigonid protection. At the start of the game Arados is a tributary of Phrygia.
• Byblos: Ancient Phoenician city kingdom on the coast below the Lebanese Mountains. Byblos has been populated for thousands of years but is by now, like the other kingdoms but a satelite of the greater Antigonid realm. At the start of the game Byblos is a tributary of Phrygia.
• Sidon: Historically one of the most important Phoenician city states, Sidon is now just one of a few remaining kingdoms on the Lebanese coastline. Awarded great autonomy Sidon would come to embrace hellenistic culture. At the start of the game Sidon is a tributary of Phrygia.

Judea & Nabatea

The Southern Levant is on the doorstep of Egypt and has come to be the site of repeated conflict between the Ptolemids there and the other successors but it has not generally been the price fought over. The current Antigonid control of the region has left much of the inland in the hands of the High Priests of Judea and Samaria, contenting itself with the control of major ports and fortifications along the coastline.

Before earning the nickname the besieger Demetrius fought his first battle in this region, just outside the Hellenistic trade port of Gaza. A scathing defeat that did not speak well of his future prospects as one among the other Diadochi.

While left alone politically the Jewish states were not unaffected by the influence of the Hellenistic states. Even here Hellenistic influence has penetrated the cultural and religious world of Judea and Samaria, something that would in time lead to theological as well as political conflict.

Starting countries:

• Samaria: Small hebrew Theocratic Kingdom. Ruled by the hereditary high priests of Shekhem and paying tribute to the Antigonid Empire. Samaria also has a growing minority of Greek origin but as of yet is mostly left to their own devices. This may well change if the borders of the great successor empires should stabilize in the future however. At start Samaria is a Tributary of Phrygia.
• Judea: Judea is ruled by hereditary high priests, at the start of the game this is Simon the first. By some identified as the legendary Simon the Just. Much like Samaria to its north the only direct influence of the successor kingdoms on Judea at the start of the game is cultural rather than political. The Antigonids are happy to leave the local High Priests in charge in exchange for regular tribute. At the start of the game Judea is a Tributary of Phrygia.
• Nabatea: Small Arabic Trading kingdom, controls most of the lands between Judea and the Red Sea, and lives to a large degree on the Frankincense trade between Arabia and the Mediterranean. At the start of the game Nabatea is independent and unaligned.

All of the above states (along with any other Arabic, Native Egyptian and Levantine powers) will have access to the Levantine & Arabic Military Traditions:

Levantine and Arabian Traditions

The Levantine and Arabian Traditions will allow the countries that have them to excel at desert warfare but also gives a few significant bonuses to Phoenician and Arabian navies in tribute to Phoenician and Arabian sailors.
Since this is a region with significant Hellenistic influence you can also to some extent embrace the martial ideals of the Hellenic Kingdoms.

Starting Tradition - Pathfinders: Land Unit Attrition -15%

“Arabian Path”

• Desert Sands: Hostile Attrition +0.50
• Merchant Coast: Trireme Cost -50%
• Beasts of Burden: Camel Offense +15%
• Ships of the Desert: Camel, Light Cavalry and Heavy Cavalry Desert Combat Bonus +15%
• Sturdy Design: Trireme Defensive +15%
• Legacy of the Builders: Training Camp Cost -25%
• Oasis Trade: Camel, Heavy Cavalry and Light Cavalry Cost -25%
• Finisher Bonus - Trained Camelry: Camel Discipline +15%

*Egyptian Path*

• The Spear of the Kingdom: Light Infantry Defense +15%
• Arms Race: Trireme Discipline +15%
• Stonemovers: Fort Defense +15%
• Colonial Integration: Allows Military Colonies
• The Blood of Egypt: Trireme Morale +15%
• Thick Hide: Camel Defense +15%
• Cradle of Civilization: National Manpower +15%
• Finisher Bonus - Rank Upon Rank: Light Infantry Discipline +15%

*Graeco-Levantine Path*

• Surfeit of War: Heavy Infantry Cost -25%
• Thorakitai: Light Infantry Offense +15%
• Machimoi Epilektoi: Heavy Infantry Offense +15%
• Greek Warfare: Allows Phalanx
• Good Reputation: Mercenary Maintenance -15%
• Ramming Speed: Trireme Offense +15%
• Unending Riches: Monthly General Loyalty +0.02
• Finisher Bonus - Learning from the Best: Heavy Infantry Discipline +15%

Some bonus things:

The Lebanese Mountains have a modifier that allows you to produce a surplus with fewer slaves than would be possible in other locations.

The city of Tyre similarly has a modifier to dye output.

 

[Life of the Party]

Bambyce: Small state based around the cult of the Canaanite deity Atargatis. The state predates Macedonian conquest but has sworn fealty first to Alexander and then to his successors. The Theocratic Monarchy is ruled by the hereditary High Priests of Bambyce.

De Dea Syria describes the worship as being of a phallic character, with votaries offering little male figures of wood and bronze. There were also huge phalli set up like obelisks before the temple, which were ceremoniously climbed once a year and decorated. The treatise begins with a re-telling of the Atrahasis flood myth where floodwaters are drained through a small cleft in the rock under the temple.[3]

Castration and ritual sex went on in the temple precinct, and there was an elaborate ritual on entering the city and first visiting the shrine under the conduct of local guides. A mode of divination by movements of a xoanon of Apollo was also practiced.

The treatise also provides a physical description of the temple. It was of Ionic character, with gold-plated doors and roof, and much gilt decoration. Inside was a holy chamber into which only priests were allowed to enter. Here were statues of a goddess and a god in gold, the goddess statue more richly decorated with gems and other ornaments. Between them stood a gilt xoanon, which seems to have been carried outside in sacred processions. Other rich furniture is described. A great bronze altar stood in front, set about with statues, and in the forecourt lived numerous sacred animals and birds (but not swine) used for sacrifice. The temple also had a tank of sacred fish, of which Aelian also relates marvels.

Some three hundred priests served the shrine and there were numerous minor ministrants. The lake was the centre of sacred festivities and it was customary for votaries to swim out and decorate an altar standing in the middle of the water.

 

[Agame]

There are so many provinces i can see what they are doing there........ they don't want to limit the player in map painting like they did in EU 4, so instead of limiting the player they created insane ammount of provinces to conquer, so the map painting will take a lot of time, almost looks like hearts of iron 3 map in terms of provinces..... I just wonder how it will be later when you have a big empire, will you just steam roll others ?

There is an opportunity here to finally create complex empire management, making it hard to keep together a large empire, and the bigger it gets the more chance it all collapses. Now wouldnt that be fun and fitting for a Rome game? Of course they wont do this and the game will end up being another blob simulator, but this time you can make fluro colored blobs. (Seriously WTF is the deal with the colors?)

 

[Average Manatee]

I just wonder how it will be later when you have a big empire, will you just steam roll others ?

I don't know, let me just look back at every other paradox game ever to see if I notice a pattern.

 

[Makabb]

There are so many provinces i can see what they are doing there........ they don't want to limit the player in map painting like they did in EU 4, so instead of limiting the player they created insane ammount of provinces to conquer, so the map painting will take a lot of time, almost looks like hearts of iron 3 map in terms of provinces..... I just wonder how it will be later when you have a big empire, will you just steam roll others ?

There is an opportunity here to finally create complex empire management, making it hard to keep together a large empire, and the bigger it gets the more chance it all collapses. Now wouldnt that be fun and fitting for a Rome game? Of course they wont do this and the game will end up being another blob simulator, but this time you can make fluro colored blobs. (Seriously WTF is the deal with the colors?)

mods will fix it

 

[lophiaspis]

The more I think about it the more I think a character-driven Rome game would actually be better at what it does than CK2.

The big issues with CK2 are:

- The AI simply can't handle the complexity well.
- Most of the inter-character stuff is for when you are a vassal, once you are ruler you can kind of ignore most rules and play in more of an EU4 style, just sometimes imprisoning people and revoking titles.

If they had gone with a character-focused Rome, you'd actually avoid both of these problems. Less focus on the characters and less complexity would mean the AI could handle it better. You'd also avoid the "player is always the ruler" problem by properly implementing an elected consulship system. This would make the player more invested in improving their personal standing since just blobbing as Rome would be less rewarding when the AI got to take back control.

You'd want to:
- Get rid of the dynasties. Let players play as their relatives on succession, not worry about the fact that some woman matrillineally married a commoner and therefore their son causes a game over if they are they heir. Let players adopt characters.
- Get rid of the levy system. CK2 has a good manpower system with hordes, basically just switch to that. Keep the CK2 system of mercenaries hireable from tribes and stuff.
- Have more power obtainable by elected positions and calling in favors from other characters.
- Make it really hard to hold the highest position for long. Make becoming an empire the end-game goal. Elections should be impossible to keep going for long, unlike CK2 merchant republics where you simply throw 500 gold at the problem to stay Doge permanently.

And you'd have a great Rome game. Of course this wouldn't be applicable everywhere, for example large tribes could probably still use a levy system. You'd have a lot of room to sell DLC that gave new or different mixups of the various mechanics for other areas of the map. But who am I kidding? DLCs aren't supposed to require effort or historical research, they are about selling the players NI buffs and railroaded missions to conquer nearby territory.

Yes, to do a proper Classical era game it needs to be focused on simulating the Polis, like CK2 is focused on the dynasties. Rome would then be like a super improved and detailed version of a CK2 Republic. You would be paterfamilias of a gens, and if you're not currently one of the Consuls you would still have lots of things to do to build your family's power. And once you are Consul, even then you wouldn't be this Illuminati National Spirit, but only have the power allotted to you by other senatorial families, and if you try to go past these powers they might put you on trial and execute you. This way you might even be against blobbing Rome itself if it would help your rival gentes. All the different classes and groups inside Rome would be represented by characters, not just percentile bonuses. Rebellion and transitioning to Empire would be way more dynamic and fun than this lame seeming system where "you" are the "Nation", and if "your" General dips below a certain loyalty, then he will launch a coup against "you".

Hell, even Rome Total War 1 had a better simulation of Roman internal politics than Imperator, seems like. At least then you had three competing families ending up in a huge civil war.

Vicky 3 will be nothing like what the fans of V2 want.

Paradox have given up on innovation, and will spend the next 20 - 50 years remaking the same systems and creating endless streams of DLC.

Just look at the last few games. HOI4, streamlined, casualized, multiplayer focused, a pale imitation of HOI3. Stellaris, I dont even know what to say? Its the perfect cure for an insomniac as its guaranteed to send you to sleep. And now Imperator, taking elements from the other games, but in a half assed fashion that seems to miss the point of what makes those systems unique and interesting.

It does seem like we are getting some discontent in the ranks with Paradox letting the potential of the CK2 character gameplay wither on the wine. Now with the disappointments of Stellaris and Imperator we have attempts by indies to make a character focused space feudalism game and also a character focused Rome game. I wish them well, and hope we will finally get good competitors in this genre, but the problem is that they lack the engine and resources of Paradox. CK2 is really unique in that the character interactions happen in the middle of such an ultra detailed world simulation, which may be hard to replicate in a more narrowly character focused game.

I think a lot also depends on the individual designers. Doomdark is the one guy in Paradox that really likes character systems, whereas Johan prefers EU4 "watching paint dry simulators". From his Stellaris Postmortem on Gamasutra it seems like Doomdark realizes that Stellaris was a bad idea from the start and a huge waste of potential. I wonder how long until he founds his own studio if they keep pushing out nothing but watered down EU4 clones. But again he would face the same problem that creating such a hugely complex sim from scratch, without Paradox decades of collective experience, is almost impossible. If Doomdark started on his own he might end up like Chris King who released a simplified, cheap looking space strategy that nobody remembers.

 

[Sranchammer]

Sounds like y'all wanted something like this boardgame - 4 players compete against each other while trying to keep the Republic from falling apart.

 

[Serus]

Sounds like y'all wanted something like this boardgame - 4 players compete against each other while trying to keep the Republic from falling apart.

A good game indeed. Can be played with up to 6 people. In fact it's probably best with 5 or 6. Also it takes half a day for one game - but is worth it. I own a copy, never had a chance a play with my own but I played a few times with other people's.

The guy on picture looks like young Silvio Berlusconi .

 

[Sranchammer]

A good game indeed. Can be played with up to 6 people. In fact it's probably best with 5 or 6. Also it takes half a day for one game - but is worth it. I own a copy, never had a chance a play with my own but I played a few times with other people's.

The guy on picture looks like young Silvio Berlusconi .

I bet it works well in voice chat with a virtual board like vassal

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

TBH I'm tired of this period of time, at least as a beginning rather than end.

I'd rather see a game before the Late Bronze Age Collapse starting around 1300 BC or so. You can expand and do all the shit you want, but everyone gets rocked by the collapse and you have to come back from it, leading towards the nominal start of games around the Rise of Rome/Alexander or the Diadochi period being the conclusion.

To be fair, we only have one Grand Strategy game in this period, and its old as hell.

But yah, Bronze Age Grand Strategy game would rock.

I think one of the problems with a Bronze Age/Bronze Age Collapse game, is that not only we don't know that much about the period, but civilization at the time were NOT euro-centric. You can't simply deploy the same ol' Europe + part of Africa and Asia map of CKII and Imperator, and expect a historical game. We know there was civilization in Europe at the time, but outside of that, we don't know that much.

Hell, it would make more sense to extend the map to China in a Bronze Age game, because we probably know more about Bronze Age China than Europe.

 

[Beastro]

TBH I'm tired of this period of time, at least as a beginning rather than end.

I'd rather see a game before the Late Bronze Age Collapse starting around 1300 BC or so. You can expand and do all the shit you want, but everyone gets rocked by the collapse and you have to come back from it, leading towards the nominal start of games around the Rise of Rome/Alexander or the Diadochi period being the conclusion.

To be fair, we only have one Grand Strategy game in this period, and its old as hell.

But yah, Bronze Age Grand Strategy game would rock.

I think one of the problems with a Bronze Age/Bronze Age Collapse game, is that not only we don't know that much about the period, but civilization at the time were NOT euro-centric. You can't simply deploy the same ol' Europe + part of Africa and Asia map of CKII and Imperator, and expect a historical game. We know there was civilization in Europe at the time, but outside of that, we don't know that much.

Hell, it would make more sense to extend the map to China in a Bronze Age game, because we probably know more about Bronze Age China than Europe.

Such a map would prolly have East and Southern Spain and Southern France in the northwest corner of the map with the map center being around Canaan. Everything north of the Alps and Carpathians is irrelevant. TBH, that's the way I've always looked on such world maps until the Romans began to encroach into beyond that (similar to how Greece is on the very fringe of Western Civilization before the Collapse in this period). The map used in this campaign is a good baiss, only zoomed out more, especially to the east an west: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/lets-multiplay-civilization-ii-ancient-empires.121907/

A neat bit a flavour would be to make the map oriented the way people of the time looked on the world with the west in the "north" and east in the "south". It was for that reason that the people's of the Middle East of the time referred to the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf as the North and South Sea, respectively.

 

[Life of the Party]

 

[Sranchammer]

Multiplayer!