who wants rome 2?

[Cheexsta]

Also, updating the game engine would be one big priority, IMHO. Compare the performance of EUR to CK2: the latter is so much smoother (and prettier to boot), even though it handles many more characters at a time than EUR does. It would be much easier to apply things like this if building the game from scratch rather than retroactively adding to the existing engine.

[Soulstrider]

Also, updating the game engine would be one big priority, IMHO. Compare the performance of EUR to CK2: the latter is so much smoother (and prettier to boot), even though it handles many more characters at a time than EUR does. It would be much easier to apply things like this if building the game from scratch rather than retroactively adding to the existing engine.

Indeed I can say by Experience that CK2 runs infinitely better in my pc than Rome.

[rpstrategist]

Indeed I can say by Experience that CK2 runs infinitely better in my pc than Rome.

I have the exact opposite on mine. Rome runs much better.

[AcidBath420]

+1 for Rome 2

[AcidBath420]

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.

As detailed as CK2 in its depth sure, I would love to see the factions and map fleshed out properly. That time period is rich with history and much could be added over Rome I. However, CK2's game mechanics that punish the player for expanding with their military instead of spraying their seed all over every throne near them would be a bit out of place for Rome imo. Dynasty simulator fits the medieval period fine but a game about the most successful military expansionist power in Classical Europe (aside from Alexanders Macedon) ? I just don't see it being enjoyable. I think Rome I's unique blend of EU and CK mechanics, polished and given a bit more depth, would be better. But that's just my 4,000 cents.

[Olaus Petrus]

As detailed as CK2 in its depth sure, I would love to see the factions and map fleshed out properly. That time period is rich with history and much could be added over Rome I. However, CK2's game mechanics that punish the player for expanding with their military instead of spraying their seed all over every throne near them would be a bit out of place for Rome imo. Dynasty simulator fits the medieval period fine but a game about the most successful military expansionist power in Classical Europe (aside from Alexanders Macedon) ? I just don't see it being enjoyable. I think Rome I's unique blend of EU and CK mechanics, polished and given a bit more depth, would be better. But that's just my 4,000 cents.

I think that you misunderstood what I was trying to say, I didn't mean that Rome II should be ancient history mod to CKII or that it's feudal mechanics should be used in ancient republics and monarchies, however Sword of Islam shows that character system is rather flexible and can be used to simulate conditions of different societies. What I wanted to say was that CKII offered plenty of improvements to engine and characters which should be used as basis for Rome II, instead of reinventing the wheel. I also wish that Rome II will be as big as CKII is, instead of being more limited like Sengoku.

[Parzival2211]

As detailed as CK2 in its depth sure, I would love to see the factions and map fleshed out properly. That time period is rich with history and much could be added over Rome I. However, CK2's game mechanics that punish the player for expanding with their military instead of spraying their seed all over every throne near them would be a bit out of place for Rome imo. Dynasty simulator fits the medieval period fine but a game about the most successful military expansionist power in Classical Europe (aside from Alexanders Macedon) ? I just don't see it being enjoyable. I think Rome I's unique blend of EU and CK mechanics, polished and given a bit more depth, would be better. But that's just my 4,000 cents.

I totally agree (as much as I like CK2 for what it is)

[Olaus Petrus]

I totally agree (as much as I like CK2 for what it is)

You win. I give up as people seem to completely miss my point, which I tried to explain in my previous post. Let's build Rome II over the engine and more limited character model of Rome I instead of using advances from CKII, which would have allowed polygamy and concubines and alliances between different families. After all we don't want anything from CKII to ruin our Rome experience.

[vanin]

You win. I give up as people seem to completely miss my point, which I tried to explain in my previous post. Let's build Rome II over the engine and more limited character model of Rome I instead of using advances from CKII, which would have allowed polygamy and concubines and alliances between different families. After all we don't want anything from CKII to ruin our Rome experience.

I don't think they understand how engines work.

Whatever the case, Paradox won't just take the CK2 engine, repaint it red for Rome and call it a day. It will be the same basic engine, aka Clausewitz, but expect it to be as heavily modified as CK2 is to EU3. Else a modder could just pick up CK2 and make Rome 2, but that's not how it works. Why should they continue iterating on the engine presently used for CK2 rather than iterating on the engine used for Rome? Because the former has several years of work dumped into it that the latter doesn't, the former is in every way, shape or form better than the latter. Everything the engine used for Rome can do can be done in the engine used for CK2 as well, as they are at the basics one and the same, just that the CK2 one is vastly superior. That's why they will (not should, Paradox will iterate on their most recent version of the engine) iterate on the CK2 engine again if they choose to create Rome, which I dearly hope.

[lucaluca]

As detailed as CK2 in its depth sure, I would love to see the factions and map fleshed out properly. That time period is rich with history and much could be added over Rome I. However, CK2's game mechanics that punish the player for expanding with their military instead of spraying their seed all over every throne near them would be a bit out of place for Rome imo. Dynasty simulator fits the medieval period fine but a game about the most successful military expansionist power in Classical Europe (aside from Alexanders Macedon) ? I just don't see it being enjoyable. I think Rome I's unique blend of EU and CK mechanics, polished and given a bit more depth, would be better. But that's just my 4,000 cents.

totally agree, i would like for rome ii to be closer to euiii than to ckii

[Cheexsta]

I do think that many of the CK2 mechanics would work really well for EUR2, though. Maybe not as a straight port, unless you want to simulate the later Roman Empire, but things like plots and casus belli and so on would be fantastic.

So my vote would be something where you can interact with individual characters to the same extent as in CK2, but you as a player still represent "the state" (or the driving force behind it) like in EU3. Pretty much the same middle ground that EUR originally tried to reach, but became almost too simplistic IMHO.

That's my two sesterces.

[vintis88]

/signed

[Joel M Bridge]

I do think that many of the CK2 mechanics would work really well for EUR2, though. Maybe not as a straight port, unless you want to simulate the later Roman Empire, but things like plots and casus belli and so on would be fantastic.

So my vote would be something where you can interact with individual characters to the same extent as in CK2, but you as a player still represent "the state" (or the driving force behind it) like in EU3. Pretty much the same middle ground that EUR originally tried to reach, but became almost too simplistic IMHO.

That's my two sesterces.

From what I here in grape vine possible working on a republic DLC for CK2 so if they pull that off yea let good time roll.

[Darky]

I do want Rome 2!

[orielense]

What is the significance of moving Rome to the "Development Forum"? Does this mean that Rome 2 is in the oven?

[vanin]

Do you mean the "Paradox Development Studio" sub-forum? Because that happened a long time ago and I believe it only signifies that it is Paradox who developed the game and not someone of their subsidiaries. The games visible there from the front-page are titles that are recent games, and Rome isn't that old.

[larsie]

Rome 2

It would be a wise decision because it would tap from the rome 2 total war game. I found out about rome 1 because of total war. Thought total war was the most realistic game of all time, then found somebody on the forums who said " Can the realismdudes please play eu=rome and leave us alone!"

So I checked it out and bought it. Never checked in with total war.

Except shogun 2.

And Napoleon!

Ow and Empire..

[king hannibal]

/sign /sign /sign /sign /sign /sign /sign /sign /sign /sign /sign /sign /sign

[James_Manring]

I want to see a massive campaign by the Producers for this game, and possibly a name change from Europa Universalis: Rome 2 to just be Roma Universalis. If done like Crusader Kings and with the lessons learned over the past few years on the coding side I believe this could be quite successful.

[vanin]

I want to see a massive campaign by the Producers for this game, and possibly a name change from Europa Universalis: Rome 2 to just be Roma Universalis. If done like Crusader Kings and with the lessons learned over the past few years on the coding side I believe this could be quite successful.

I agree, and I hope they focus on one part of the game this time around. Imo the big problem with Rome 1 is that everything felt so underdeveloped at release (and still does), even it had great potential. CK2 is nearly wholly focused on Christians, specifically catholics, and the game is better for it. Similarily I wouldn't mind them focusing on republics in Rome 2 and making them fun and engaging to play though I'd mourn the lack of content for the hellenistic monarchies that are my favourites of the era.

For example, what if you could play as a leading figure of a family as in CK2, in the republic of Rome? Aspire to titles and offices, expand Rome's domains and your own personal power within the senate, etc? I think that could be fun, but it would also be very different from Rome 1. They'd need to do a load of work on inner politics if it's to be even half-fun as that would be what most of the game would be about, but once they have that settled the new DLC policy could kick in to give content for tribes and monarchies etc that would also benefit from the basic "inner politics" mechanics already in the game. Playing as the satrap of Parthia in the Seleucid Empire you could try to break free (as Andragoras did) and become king on your own, or playing as a rival brother to the king of some kingdom and try to claim the throne, maybe getting outside help from Rome or whatever. Elsewise I feel that the great opinions-system they have in CK2 would be squandered, and I don't think the above examples would be out of touch with the era either.