I'd like to see another expansion for Rome, but the truth is that Rome needs so much work to bring it up to the quality of other recent PI games that PI probably needs to just make Rome II (and hopefully call it just Rome II and not have so little faith in the series that they need to call it EU). Using the features from PI's recent games, there's a lot of good that can be done here. Did anyone else look at the Chinese sub-state system used in AHD? Imagine how well that could work in Rome, with multiple tags de facto operating autonomously, but on paper all belonging to a single Roman state. And then you could use the CK2 systems to reflect the autonomy of governors and make it so you're not just playing a country like you are in EU3, but instead playing a character. This makes it more interesting, IMO, because you don't play as the state, but rather play as characters whom you walk with on a slowly building road to glory.
I'm sure it's already been said a million times, but that mostly empty map has to go too. What really kills EU:R for a lot of people is that the Roman campaign is basically crush Carthage, and then be bored for the rest of the game. Something has to be there to keep the player occupied and interested. I'd like Rome 2 to start just before Rome is squashed by Brennus, which should make things more interesting as you have to build a weak Rome into a much stronger one. What might also make the game more interesting is having a really large time span. Something like from the sacking of Rome by Brennus to the fall of the western Imperium. To preserve the developers' sanity, they could use bookmark starting dates only, like in Vicky2. Ultimately, I don't think Rome will ever thrive as a series if it doesn't cover the full richness of Roman history. We need to be able to experience the golden age of the republic, the Julian dictatorships, the rise of Christianity, the splitting of the empire, and the eventual decline of the empire too. You could balance out blobbing by using a combination of CK2's vassalage system and AHD's Chinese sub-state system, so your "blob" is only as strong as your ruler's ability to get the support of governors and their legions.
But these are just my opinions which would probably only please me.
I'm sure it's already been said a million times, but that mostly empty map has to go too. What really kills EU:R for a lot of people is that the Roman campaign is basically crush Carthage, and then be bored for the rest of the game. Something has to be there to keep the player occupied and interested. I'd like Rome 2 to start just before Rome is squashed by Brennus, which should make things more interesting as you have to build a weak Rome into a much stronger one. What might also make the game more interesting is having a really large time span. Something like from the sacking of Rome by Brennus to the fall of the western Imperium. To preserve the developers' sanity, they could use bookmark starting dates only, like in Vicky2. Ultimately, I don't think Rome will ever thrive as a series if it doesn't cover the full richness of Roman history. We need to be able to experience the golden age of the republic, the Julian dictatorships, the rise of Christianity, the splitting of the empire, and the eventual decline of the empire too. You could balance out blobbing by using a combination of CK2's vassalage system and AHD's Chinese sub-state system, so your "blob" is only as strong as your ruler's ability to get the support of governors and their legions.
But these are just my opinions which would probably only please me.