Learn more about the Crisis of the Third Century

[76561198368677954]

Empire Divided takes place during The Crisis of the Third Century. Want to learn more about this time period? Check this article out from Ancient.eu!

{LINK REMOVED}https://www.ancient.eu/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century/

"The Crisis of the Third Century (also known as the Imperial Crisis, 235-284 CE) was the period in the history of the Roman Empire during which it splintered into three separate political entities: the Gallic Empire, the Roman Empire, and the Palmyrene Empire."

[DAWG DAYS]

That was a interesting read :D

[interceptor]

Yes..I think that this period of roman history is interesting, but...I think that the new "politic content" is not very significant..some other aspects in the game deserve more attention...I 'll explain that better...First: limited availability of some type of troops (depending from diffferent
achievements of degree of culture or state's religion's conversion), limited recruitment of troops in relation with some types of citizens' classes and overall quantity of the populations (like in some population mods)...frequently civil wars are not desiderable...and once occurred (1 time) they should no longer occur..a second aspect is the degree of the details of skins (lamellar armour, belts...oval of tower shield ext...)..
Then it is very annoying waiting for the update of broken or not updated mods..for now..let's hope that CA faces these tips.....so we will not have a bad attitude playing with this game (like deep purple said)....cheers

[Tom]

rome had lost its way of lasting peace despite the people wanting peace and enjoying peace i want to go see italy with all the roman ruins and i have to say out loud this is the civilation europe was born from and surpassed

[Migz - DH]

My feedback on the free politics update:

While I like the intent behind the new politics system, I think that it is missing a key feature: feedback on player actions. In the current UI messages, all we see are the results, not the why. Without the why, I find deciding what to do in the future to be difficult.

Let me give an example scenario:

I send a statesman on a diplomatic mission, and the next turn, I receive a message saying that the statesman betrayed me, and I receive a penalty.

Ok, I learned that that mission failed, but I didn't learn why or how to make ones not fail in the future. Why did the statesman betray me?
-- Was there something wrong with my actions in the kingdom/empire/republic/what-have-you that precipitated that action?
-- Was his faction too popular or not popular enough?
-- Was his faction's loyalty too high or not high enough?
-- Was the target nation too opulent for my citizenry to handle in an honest way?
-- Did RNG say that would happen regardless of any other factor? (This is how it feels)

Similarly, why do diplomats get wounded or succeed?


Since we don't know why the diplomatic missions end the way they do, I cannot make strategic decisions on how to use my statesmen. Without knowing why things happen, I'm far more inclined to do nothing with the statesmen than send them on missions ruled by a roulette wheel.


-----------------------------------

Question:

How does the game determine what faction will control newly conquered settlements? Thanks

[SPQRGBN]

I would like to ask why the producers of Rome II, why they did not put in cities and towns with more slots to be able to build more, the cities with the six complete and the villages with the four not only in the new DLC in the remaining campaigns. Rome, Athens, Carthage, and Alexandria should have eight instead of six.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by Balsarius:

Ah, the joy's of google.

Yes, the era that proves Christanity wasn't the reason Rome declined. Pagan ambitions and destructive infighting was the actual cause. If you want to know why the Empire actually fell in the West, look to more than Attila the Hun, or Germanic invaders, though they played their roles as well.

Exactly. Don't forget the currency debasement and the destruction of the economy, which also was reaching a climax in the third century too.

I always laugh a little when people talk about the "fall of Rome" in 476, as if everything was smooth sailing and functional up till about 410 or something. 476 really was a ceremonial or "official" ending. De facto, the Roman Empire collapsed as a unitary political entity during the Third Century Crisis, and it just limped along for about another 200 years in name and regalia in the west. There was a reason everything started being relocated to the east during the 4th century, but I get a kick how so many history texts act like it was just because Diocletian or Constantine had a burr under their saddle or something ;)

I also get a kick out of the huge deal almost all historians usually make about Adrianople, or 'the freezing of the Rhine,' or the "barbarization of the Roman army" as if these were something of an "extinction event" like the meteor wiping out the dinosaus. Always treating the symptoms as if they were the cause!