Talk:Imperium IV - Imperial Battles/@comment-82.209.138.20-20130120000830

Very well then, as you wish! :) I have many ideas, so I would make a list:

Factions:

Iberia is without an H. Hispania is with an H. I propose for the "barbarian" factions to generally remain the same, only to change the names of the units from the tribe they come from. For example "Arverni spearman" or "Nervii horseman". Also, don't call these factions "Germany" or "Gallia" or "hIBERIA" as if they were a national country. They were simply tribes that could establish a confederation from time to time. Germania for example(not Germany!!!) is only the land they come from. That's why it's stupid to have a "Germany" or "Gallia" faction. Better to have "gauls/gallic tribes" etc. Still, for the sake of balanced gameplay, stats and abilities could be slightly changed. If you have more proposals for them, go on.

Rome needs major alteration. Even when separated in Imperium III, the units are basically the same. Tech tree is also similar. So I suggest to implement more units (especially from the republican period!) and include some new special abilities - like pilum throw and testudo (for imperial and pre-imperial legionary infantry).

Carthage could benefit from hero abilities improvement. The ones from Imperium III are quite useless and they always lead to high casualties among the army. Also, units could be slightly modified in view and abilities. I have some good examples, but that I would post later.

IMPORTANT - There is NO SUCH thing as "Greece" BEFORE 1829. The "hellenes" were never a single faction, but rather numerous warring states. If you want to merge them into a single faction, I suggest using "The Achaean league" which was formed to counter first Macedonian and then Roman hegemony in the region. Here is a good question: Are we to include the Greco-Persian wars? Because this makes the game too extensive. A more reasonable period could be from Philip's ascension in 359BC till the end of the Danube campaign of Marcus Aurelius in 180AD. We could include the battles from the Greco-Persian wars in the great battles section though. Also, there are two types of phalanxes we could introduce - the classic one - short spears, large shields and the syntagma (the macedonian one), but that really depends on the troop tree. By that time, the troops in Hellas were more hellenistic than "classic hoplite style".

In this region, apart from Macedon, the Thracians and the Dacians I would also suggest to include the Illyrians and the Kingdom of Epirus: home of Pyrhus - Alexander's cousin and the one famous for his Pyrhic victory against the Roman republic.

Egypt should be Ptolemaic. Yes, I know that a lot of people like Horus and Anubis warriors, but appart from them "being cool" is there any other significant reason to keep "classical" Egypt - the one of Ramses II which was in 1700's BC!? And even then, these warriors were not real. And look on the bright side, Ptolemaic Egypt is a very interesting mix of hellenistic and more local units, so I believe the new version should be much more diverse and fun to play with.

As for the East, we should keep the Scythians, Pontus and Parthia (and maybe Armenia; because it was not that of a major actor) NOTE: there is SeleucID kingdom with capital of SeleucIA. No such thing as SeleuciDIa. And this should be the end of the map for several reasons. The game's focus is on Rome (and its opponents). No point to include factions miles away from the Mediterranean (I am speaking of Mauria India mainly). As for Persia, no worries, Parthia is the perfect replacement in Alexander's campaign. There is one more reason not to include India. Until the 16th century, Europeans didn't knew where India was. They believed it was either in the Caucasus or in Ethiopia. So when Alexander was "in India" he was just simply invading Persia from the Caucasus. That's why he needed an agreement with the Scythians before the invasion, so that he could peacefully pass through their lands. The same lands which Xerxes invaded during the Greco-Persian wars. There was NO crossing of the Hellespont either. The hellenistic ship could carry 10 fully armed men on board and Alexander had around 30k + 5000 horses. Do you believe that he just "simply disembarked" on the other side? And what about Xerxes' army which was even larger?! The history we have of Alexander in the Hindukush and in the Indus valley is most likely made up by Pseudo-Calisthenes. Think of it ... IF he was there, how would he communicate with the locals? So ... no India ... and come to think of it, there is no need of it in this particular game.