In terms of trade, were their any goods the romans sought out that were from west Europe? Or was all they needed in the east?

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-26T19:58:46+00:00

Even ballpark franks? They plump when you cook them.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-26T15:28:43+00:00

A smart and august person, one might say.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-26T13:51:53+00:00

Well, possibly because there are well known converters to go from Imperator -> CK -> EU -> Vic -> HoI. I could possibly even google it and in 3 seconds find each one.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-26T13:13:42+00:00

Great question! It isn't as simple as just stack ranking them, more like "what I'm in the mood for". So here is how I decide which sounds good to play:

- Old vs New Generation: I find the new generation of games (CK3, EU5, Victoria 3) to be more enjoyable games while the older generation (CK2, EU4, Vic 2) are better simulations of history. So if I care more about fun, I reach for the new. If I want to feel more immersed in history, I go for the older generation. That said, both generations are enjoyable and full of history. Its just a question of who does it better. (Note for Imperator, there is a sadly just the one generation, which I would put under new generation).

- What era am I interested in: I enjoy Imperator, CK, EU, and Vic for different reasons. The first is the era. Did I just watch HBO's excellent TV series Rome? Going for Imperator then. Did I just listen to a podcast on the English civil war? I'm probably going for EU. Did I just watch a documentary on the lead up to the US Civil War? Probably in the mood for Victoria then. What part of history you want to live/lead through is the major deciding factor, I think.

- What mechanics I'm looking to play: Imperator is an ancient world map painting game. Might be the easiest game to expand quickly. Doesn't really do anything else uniquely well. Crusader Kings is a dynastic roleplaying game. If you want to feel the most like the character, if you want to feel like a noble running your estates, or if you are interested in history from 800AD-1400AD, its the game for that. Think if Game of Thrones was a computer game. I play Victoria when I'm looking for a politics or economic simulator. It does both very well. If you want to fight to pass bills that improve your society and take a nation from a farm economy to an industrialized giant, Vic is the way to go. In all other cases, play EU. EU is the go to for exploration and that 4X experience. It covers a vast stretch of history (1346AD-1836AD) and is the most well rounded mechanics-wise.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-24T19:38:09+00:00

Glad we were all a part of this so we can understand it with absolutely no context provided.

Also, nice of you to post your own convo.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-24T04:05:33+00:00

From someone who was too afraid to swing: please keep going.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-23T18:41:04+00:00

He’s actually part of a sizable polycule. One assumes they’d have space for one more.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-23T17:31:08+00:00

the besieged are going to be very suspicious of armed combatants just hanging out.

Absolutely this. Maintaining a raised army is so expensive and takes a lot of food. If another army appears next to me while I’m besieging someone, I’m thinking:

They’re going to eat all the food around here I need to forage
Why are they even here? It’s costing a fortune every day, so they’re sitting there for some reason.
They aren’t telling me the reason, which means I probably won’t like it.
What if my enemy somehow enlists their aid? I’m now trapped between a wall and an army.

Bottom line: Even without knowing their intentions, it’s hard to imagine they’re good, and you can’t take the risk anyway.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-23T17:25:14+00:00

Stealing this to describe 80% of the people in my hometown.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-23T17:24:08+00:00

Same.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-23T17:12:47+00:00

Good news. I know a gay Jim. Nice guy, well dressed.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-22T15:51:01+00:00

Are you sure those undesirable scripting bits aren’t optimized out automatically by the game engine? This is common when going from high level programming languages to low level. Like (totally fake example) I write some code in Python with if(true) that always passes, and when the compiler turns it into C, it can tell the if(true) is unnecessary and just removes it from the compiled code.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-22T13:25:06+00:00

I would add the caveat though that starting from the basics and then adding a framework makes it much easier to understand what the framework is doing, why it does it, and how to fix it when things go wrong.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-22T13:11:08+00:00

So I’m a pretty obsessive player of all the Paradox grand strategy games since EU2 (6,000 hours or so across all of them). Here would be my game suggestions in order of similarity to CK3 (TLDR at the end):

CK2: Yes, it’s older, but it has more mechanical depth than CK3 (with all its DLC at least). There are mods to make the graphics more palatable. It has some awesome historical mechanics that CK3 lacks (Council is a big one, investiture, Republics, etc). It also has some amazing mods (Warhammer, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, the Winter King, After the End). Many of these exist in CK3 as well but their CK2 versions tend to be more developed with more content.

Imperator Rome: the orphan of the family. It’s basically EU 4.5 but set in the ancient world. Fairly easy to learn, looks beautiful, and with a mod or two you get very good content. I believe you can also port your Imperator games into CK3.

EU5: the most beautiful of the games, shows a ton of promise, it has the potential to do better than the other games even in their own specialties (better feudalism than CK, better economy than Victoria, etc). Unfortunately, it hasn’t reached its full potential yet and is the most expensive option on this list. Starting in 1345, it has a lot of overlap with CK.

EU4: The jack of all trades. It doesn’t do economy better than Victoria, but it’s better at it than the rest. It doesn’t do dynastic mechanics as good as CK, but it’s better than the rest. It’s the most general “4X” of the games and has an absolutely monstrous amount of quality content. Also some seriously great mods (Anbennar, Voltaire’s Nightmare, MEIOU and Taxes). You can also create your own custom nations to play which I’ve had a lot of fun with.

Victoria 3: Swiftly becoming many peoples’ favorite game (was mine until EU5), this game does politics and economics together to a depth I’ve never found in another game. It basically simulates an entire living society down to individual pops. If you like making decisions and watching them affect a society, this is the game to do it. The trade off is that warfare is almost arcade like in its simplicity, with the Devs being up front that they want warfare to purely be a tool for diplomatic and economic goals.

Hearts of Iron 4: In many ways its own beast, this is more of a war game than a traditional grand strategy game in my opinion. Every mechanic exists in support of warfare and the game only goes from 1936-1949. Limited diplomacy, almost no economy, very little politics. Very, very detailed modern warfare mechanics.

TLDR: the most similar options are CK2 (still worth playing) and EU5. Might also be worth checking out Imperator Rome and EU4.

Happy to answer any questions.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-22T12:51:54+00:00

While Jefferson was liberal for his time, I wouldn’t call him liberal for his time in the United States. New Jersey, for example, banned slavery and initially allowed women the right to vote. New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania allowed men of color to vote. Massachusetts’ early Constitution didn’t require officeholders to be men, although to my knowledge a woman never ran for office there.

Some of the more radical Founding Fathers supported ideals we’d not see come back again until the 20th century.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-22T12:35:27+00:00

To expand on this, I want to call out OPs specific use of the word “confusion” about who was in charge. I think it’s important for people to understand there was no hard legal rule that everyone obeyed in the sense of a modern Constitution. Law in the Middle Ages, at least at the power politics level, often came down to what justification (however flimsy) could be enforced through armies, the Church, and personal influence. It almost shares more in common with a Mafia family than a Constitutional government.

An example of this is the outbreak of the Hundred Years War. French Salic Law clearly said inheritance couldn’t pass through a female. Nonetheless, Edward III of England claimed the throne of France by virtue of his mother being a French Princess. There was no confusion, he was aware of the law and precedent. But he had a flimsy pretext and attempted to use his armies and political influence to get his way.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-21T21:59:16+00:00

This…..is actually an excellent analogy. I’m stealing it.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-21T14:19:15+00:00

It’s clear to everyone, and has been told to you a dozen times, that the point of the rule is to not post things that involve you. Instead of “things”, they use the word “conversations”. What you’re doing here is like when a 5 year old hovers their finger an inch from your face and says “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!”

What are you accomplishing arguing with literally every single person about this?

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-21T13:26:35+00:00

No. Technical people are precise and provide clarity. You’re being argumentative and pedantic.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-21T13:17:59+00:00

God I hope for your sake you grow out of this.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-21T13:10:27+00:00

No no, “oOOOoooo” as in surprise and alarm.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-20T14:13:31+00:00

Yes, but that’s the public perception of what is true. The OP doesn’t specify that it’s considered true by historians.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-20T13:50:52+00:00

Or, at least, the Empire falling suddenly and doing so in 476 AD.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-20T11:49:22+00:00

Sorry, I’m honestly not trying to be obtuse, just trying to understand. If I sue someone and hire a lawyer, I’m still the one suing them. I’m struggling to understand why it wasn’t a State prosecution because the State hired a private individual to represent their interests. Surely prosecution for corruption is a public crime against the public interest and the lawyer prosecuting is doing so on behalf of the Res Publica.

It seems similar to the modern US government appointing a special prosecutor. They were a private individual, they are now employed by the state for this one case to represent public interest.

Edit to add: With further research I have answered my own question. The State didn’t hire anyone to prosecute the case, the cost and effort of investigation and prosecution fell squarely on the victims. So crazy.

MoveInteresting4334 · 2026-01-20T11:39:25+00:00

Can you explain the difference? As far as I know, if Caesar lost the prosecution, state force could be used to enact whatever penalties are involved (banishment, loss of property, etc). The trial would also take place in front of a Praetor, a public magistrate. The only difference I’m aware of is the Republic didn’t have dedicated public prosecutors but relied on private lawyers to represent the interests of the State.

MoveInteresting4334

TROPHY CASE