It is easy to distinguish between the Kingdom of Rome and the Roman Republic. But regarding the wars, there is a major block that begins with the last three kings of Rome (of Etruscan origin) and continues up to the Punic Wars.
There were the wars against the Aequi, Volsci, and Latins, as well as the conflicts with Taranto and Pyrrhus over Magna Graecia. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s a bit difficult to draw the line whether they would go into the Kingdom of Rome or the Roman Republic. I listed the Sabines first because they were actually defeated as early as the second king of Rome.
Yes, certainly. So, when we speak of the war between the Romans and the Latins, we are referring to the wars between the inhabitants of the city of Rome and the inhabitants of the city of Alba Longa, for example, and so on.
I think the next Chronicles DLC could begin in 280 BC with the start of the Pyrrhic War. It would be a natural bridge between Alexander the Great and the rise of Rome, because Pyrrhus still belonged to the Hellenistic world while his campaign in Italy introduced a direct conflict with the Roman Republic. From there, the story could continue through Rome’s conquest of Italy, the Punic Wars and the later expansion of the Republic.
In that case I’d depict Rome’s wars with the Latin League through mirror matches (differentiating different city states with scenario editor units and UUs and UTs borrowed from other civs), and save up the civ slots for more distinct tribes
I think the next Chronicles DLC could begin in 280 BC with the start of the Pyrrhic War. It would be a natural bridge between Alexander the Great and the rise of Rome, because Pyrrhus still belonged to the Hellenistic world while his campaign in Italy introduced a direct conflict with the Roman Republic. From there, the story could continue through Rome’s conquest of Italy, the Punic Wars and the later expansion of the Republic.
Yeah, that is a good way to introduce the story, securing the Italian peninsula. And since there is already a Pyrrhus campaign, maybe this time would be a Roman perspective.
If they do the birth of rome as 3rd one, it means they can focus more on all the italic area story leading to rome growing, abit like BfG campaign style, and not have the player doing all the camapign under roman flag.
With the 4th beeing punic war, they can focus on carthago, sicily, hannibal, scipio, and vary again the gameplay from one side to the other.
And by going with the 5th beeing Civil War, there they can give us the Parthian with Crassus, Spartacus revolt with young Caesar, then gaul with Caesar, and the civil war with Pompeii etc.
I agree it’s hard to distinguish kindom / republic / caesar era roman variant. But, they can’t make us play in the campaign a civ they don’t add to the dlc. So either they rush it (which is not their style), either they’re going to release multiple roman variant, as they did with Athenian, Spartan, Macedonian, Thracian, which are people from a very similar place. Yes they are not the same gouvernement, but we can think of rome too as a damn mess. Maybe you can drop the roman as a civ in the 3rd one and instead have Etruscan, Samnites and Italic/Latin (call them how you want, it’s basically the west side of italy, while samnites are the east side, and etruscan are the north-west part)
I expect we will see Romans, Carthagaens and Gauls as new civs. I would want to see a seperate Epirotes civ and some Pyrrus scenario but they probably will make Epirotes a scenario only civs that is mix of Greek civs.
Problem with Epirote is that they are basically Macedonian with some elepehant, so they will more be a variation of the Macedonian like the Theben were. Otherwise it would mean making the pahalangite a regional unit, like the Hoplite is, and I think they are currently more of a unique unit. But sure, they are a valide candidate if they aim to do the pre punic war setup.
The only thing that will determine if Pyrrus got his civ or not is that very simple point: Are Phalangite a Macedonian Unique Unit or a Macedonia-like Regional unit.
That would also imply the same architecture set from the Macedonian, so less money to invest in them, so sure it’s a possibility in my opinion.
I think we don’t nedd a epirote civilization because Pyrrus can be played as the macedonian, they did this in Return of Rome. Chronicles macedonian civilization with some war elephant (Sannāhya), we need no more, all the assets are already in the game.
I don’t think than we will play much Pyrrus in the next Chronicles because we have already a campaign for him in Return of Rome and 16 scenario with the macedonian in Chronicles. It’s better to play against Pyrrus early roman facing war elephant for the first time, a real challenge, maybe with flaming pig as scenario editor unit, we already have flaming camel.
I think than the next elephant unit in chronicle will be a reskinned battle elephant for the carthaginians because those northh african elephant were much smaller than the indian elephant.
For the next Chronicles : Roman, Carthaginian, Iberian, and Numidian. (No Gauls, because it’s better to keep them for a Cesar DLC with germans and ancient brittons)
Yes but it wasn’t a dlc with “new civ content”. Chronicles can’t feature a new civ added, and make us play one civ from another dlc. Just because they can’t make the 3rd dlc requieres you to pay the 2nd dlc, it’s economical mistake.
So if pyrrus is to be played, it will have a civ on its own.
I agree leaders like ashoka of the mayurans or emperor wu of china would be great stories to tell and can add more civis to the roster without overlap.Indian one is easy as puru assets can be used for multiple indian civis such as mayurans/magadha kalinga tamil kingdoms(chera pandya chola) Tamraparni(sri lanka).
Also the east was full of civs. The Viet and different Chinese dynasties and the Gojoseon of Korea and the Xiongnu to be proto Huns/Mongols and fill the steppes. And that’s just the surface
You can even reuse the Chukonu because it is pre common era enough to be timeline appropriate
If you’re thinking about Chronicles, that may be someday the aim yes. As well as Egypt vs Hittites, with the infamous Sea People raids, and many other ancient civs that are cool to learn about.
But for now, the next topic is Definitly Rome. But I also hope they won’t stop JUST at Rome, even if I love Rome topic.
Still want Chronicles: The First Empre with the focus on Neo-Assyrian Empire. Where everyone around the region literally teamed up against them due to how brutal they were. Also literally led to the birth of Archaemanid Empire. Technically Neo-Assyrian is the one historically which were first Empire in a sense.
Assyria, Summeria, Akkadia, Hittites, Egypt, Minoan, Micenian, Trojan, Sea People(so many civs for them), hindu-kush empires, meso-american old empires. Europe barbarian invasions. And many other topic I forgot.
Look I’m the hugest Hittitophile you will meet but that civ is sadly a few centuries too before the Chronicles timeline its a magnitude of years too off kilter that 3kindomgs isn’t even at
There is no timeline for Chronicles. It’s not antiqutiy, it’s “solo narratives”. Currently focusing on antiquity topic, but as they don’t do any ranked related, they can do whatever they want.
The name explain everything: Chronicles.
Anything with a story rich enought to be named a Chronicle is candidate.