-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
There's nothing wrong with Rome 1 and I would like to see second expansion to it, but Paradox has stated that they aren't planning more expansions for Rome.
And some people always want new games rather than expansions or DLC. There has already been CK3 threads despite the fact that CK2 was published this year.
I don't quite get it. Rome isn't that old, and a lot of the stuff people talk about could be done just as easily with an expansion. Why is everyone always jumping to Rome 2 instead?
Edit: Just looked back and saw Olaus' post about Paradox saying more expansions aren't likely. In that case, I imagine it's because the game didn't sell very well, which means a full sequel is also probably unlikely, at least for now. Just seems like people are jumping the gun a bit.
Edit: Just looked back and saw Olaus' post about Paradox saying more expansions aren't likely. In that case, I imagine it's because the game didn't sell very well, which means a full sequel is also probably unlikely, at least for now. Just seems like people are jumping the gun a bit.
Apparently the game did sell reasonably well though. Certainly a lot better than original CK and Victoria which both got sequels.
CK and Vic didn't sell well....what's wrong with ppl both are excelent games
Well then why hasn't it gotten more attention? The game really does feel like it's been kind of forgotten about, and I assumed the reason had to be not enough sales to justify more time spent on it.
Interestingly enough, I believe this ship has sailed (atleast for the moment) with the announcement of Total War Rome 2. I'm very interested to see how that game plays out and hope more elements from Paradox games are included. I think this game is going to be huge.
On the contrary, the announcement of TW Rome 2 increase the chanec of seeing a EU Rome 2 in my opinion. The increase of focus on the Roman era by many PC gamers may well allow P'dox to capitalize by making Rome 2.
I just hope if that's the case that Rome II doesn't end as a Sengoku, the only Paradox game that I disliked.
I considered buying it, but after trying the demo I couldn't figure out a single reason why I should buy that instead of buying Sword of Islam expansion to CKII. In all aspects it felt like CKII lite and I certainly hope that if they make Rome II it doesn't feel like CKII lite. I believe that Sengoku could become a good game if they patched features of CKII into it and make stuff like Korea DLC.
My problem with Sengoku is that it's almost a pure and very poor war/expansion game with little deph, sure you have features like plots and what not but you barely use it, it's literally a race to see how much fast you can't blob before someone else blobs more and conquers you, not much more to it. Anyway I guess this isn't the proper place to discuss the game.
This isn't proper place for detailed discussion about Sengoku, but I think that it can be used as an example of what we don't want to see in Rome II. I want Rome II to be as detailed as CKII, not a lite version of it. Many Paradox fans were disapointed to Rome I, because they felt like it was Europa Universalis III lite. Personally, while I did find it's lack of factions and low number of provinces bit annoying, I think that Rome's internal politics (especially after Vae Victis) were interesting enough so I still play it occasionally. Nevertheless I think that second expansion which would add provinces and factions, so that you could have more meaningful foreign relations, would make Rome I a better game and these are the things which I wish to see in Rome II if we won't get second expansion to Rome I.
- Status