• 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
Not open for further replies.
Hopefully Rome II will fix these problems:

1. Sitting around waiting for barbarians to attack so that you can take their land
A solution would be to make colonization passive, and out of the player's control

2. Treaties shouldn't be time bombs. Rome should declare war on Carthage months after a treaty expires. The Punic Wars had at least twenty years between them.

3. Relations shouldn't be so centered on religion and culture. People traded with each other back then without conquering each other first. If I have a hot commodity, I should be able to trade it to the Persians if they have an open trade route.
 
Hopefully Rome II will fix these problems:

1. Sitting around waiting for barbarians to attack so that you can take their land
A solution would be to make colonization passive, and out of the player's control

2. Treaties shouldn't be time bombs. Rome should declare war on Carthage months after a treaty expires. The Punic Wars had at least twenty years between them.

3. Relations shouldn't be so centered on religion and culture. People traded with each other back then without conquering each other first. If I have a hot commodity, I should be able to trade it to the Persians if they have an open trade route.

Good ideas. As for trade, though, I think it should become fully abstract/automated. Trade in the game is just taxing merchants that are transporting large amounts of goods. Why force routes when you can tax wherever the merchants are going? This time period is long before state-controlled trade and economics; merchants went wherever they wanted to, bar large fleets blockading ports.
So I propose this:

1. Trade becomes completely abstract. No finding routes, even no goods.

2. Forums don't add one trade route, they now double the trade income.

3. Occupation causes a complete cessation of trade.

4. Blockades significantly decrease trade, and cause cessation in island provinces; the decrease depends on land borders. If a province borders six others, its trade will decrease much less than a province with only two borders with others (if they are both blockaded, of course).

5. Goods that add bonuses or allow construction of units and buildings will depend on roads and availability of contact, and amount. Provinces bordering each other have access to each other's goods unless one is occupied. Ones with a province between each other get 75% of that good, etc. Sea zones transport goods better than land (unless there are pirates, in which case it is zero; in this way pirates can completely cut off a good's flow).

What do you think? I admit number 5 is poorly fleshed out and a bit of a clustermuck, but I believe the other points could work well.
 
I think I'm going to make it a habit to come into this thread once a month and pray to the gods that Paradox does this. And I shall start my prayers as such:

"In the words of Spartacus, by Jupiter's **** we need Rome 2!"

Amen.
 
I think I'm going to make it a habit to come into this thread once a month and pray to the gods that Paradox does this. And I shall start my prayers as such:

"In the words of Spartacus, by Jupiter's **** we need Rome 2!"

Amen.

When Paradox finally makes it:
"Heh, you're not as stupid as I thought. You might even be intelligent. That's dangerous in slaves. Just you remember, from now on everything you do, I'll be watching."
 
Good ideas. As for trade, though, I think it should become fully abstract/automated. Trade in the game is just taxing merchants that are transporting large amounts of goods. Why force routes when you can tax wherever the merchants are going? This time period is long before state-controlled trade and economics; merchants went wherever they wanted to, bar large fleets blockading ports.
So I propose this:

1. Trade becomes completely abstract. No finding routes, even no goods.

2. Forums don't add one trade route, they now double the trade income.

3. Occupation causes a complete cessation of trade.

4. Blockades significantly decrease trade, and cause cessation in island provinces; the decrease depends on land borders. If a province borders six others, its trade will decrease much less than a province with only two borders with others (if they are both blockaded, of course).

5. Goods that add bonuses or allow construction of units and buildings will depend on roads and availability of contact, and amount. Provinces bordering each other have access to each other's goods unless one is occupied. Ones with a province between each other get 75% of that good, etc. Sea zones transport goods better than land (unless there are pirates, in which case it is zero; in this way pirates can completely cut off a good's flow).

What do you think? I admit number 5 is poorly fleshed out and a bit of a clustermuck, but I believe the other points could work well.
Sounds good. Although now that I think about it, making more things passive, automated, or otherwise out of the player's control risks making the game less fun. We wouldn't want Rome II to be the next Masters of Orion III
 
Sounds good. Although now that I think about it, making more things passive, automated, or otherwise out of the player's control risks making the game less fun. We wouldn't want Rome II to be the next Masters of Orion III

True, I don't want to turn this into a ruined game that caters to a "broader audience", in the process ruining it for long-time fans of the series, who won't throw it aside for COWADOODY6 after 5 hours of play.
However, I don't think it lessens player control. It stays at about the same level. What happens when a province is occupied? LOLNOROUTE. What happens when a civil war occurs and Rebels own the province? LOLNOROUTE. For a small nation this can decrease income by 10% or more, and this isn't realistic at all. The player doesn't have any control when these things happen, and 2 days into the game there are barely any free trade routes left. What kind of control is that?
Merchants who can't go from Panormus to the freaking Black Sea will find markets closer to home like, you know, Carthage, or Epirus, NOT halfway across Europe. Trade can focus on relations; horrible relations or AT WAR means very little trade, great relations or ALLIED means a large amount of trade. I'd leave Paradox's mathematicians to balance the equations, and I do think it would be better than Rome's current system.
Though I won't whine if it doesn't change.
Something I WILL whine about, is if you can't peacefully annex allied vassals paying tribute with great relations and military access!!!!
 
I really want Rome 2, I think the game would be better served by a full overhall and update. Did anyoen else think the republic expansion in CK2 was a great system to be adapted for something like Rome?
 
You gotta help me out, man, what's COWADOODY6 and LOLNOROUTE?

The first is a joke on "Call of Duty", and how many identical (and crappy) games that series's producers make, generally for those with little imagination.

The second is a representation of EU:Rome's crassness in destroying valuable trade routes. "LOL no route", laughing maniacally as it does so. This can be devastating economically to a small nation that can't find routes anywhere, and as I mentioned above isn't realistic.
 
The first is a joke on "Call of Duty", and how many identical (and crappy) games that series's producers make, generally for those with little imagination.

The second is a representation of EU:Rome's crassness in destroying valuable trade routes. "LOL no route", laughing maniacally as it does so. This can be devastating economically to a small nation that can't find routes anywhere, and as I mentioned above isn't realistic.

My brains were on autocorrect mode and I first read that "Call of Duty" as "Call of Cthulhu" and I was rather confused. :) BTW there's ancient Rome sourcebook called "Cthulhu Invictus" to Call of Cthulhu RPG, which sounds very interesting. The Punic Wars certainly change their nature completely if Carthagians can summon the Great Old Ones. :D

But on a more serious note, while commerce was mostly done by private citizens the Roman state negotiated trade treaties with different powers and regulated the trade of important goods, like grain and wine, to guarantee that Roman citizens had enough food and it wasn't too expensive for them. Even if we would get rid of the trade routes as they are in EU: Rome the state should be able to maintain some control over the trade.
 
I support all the ideas about making the game better, especially those about colonisation, barbarians and trade. And for the love of the gods expand the god damn map!

The seleukids must have something attacking them in the rear!
 
But on a more serious note, while commerce was mostly done by private citizens the Roman state negotiated trade treaties with different powers and regulated the trade of important goods, like grain and wine, to guarantee that Roman citizens had enough food and it wasn't too expensive for them. Even if we would get rid of the trade routes as they are in EU: Rome the state should be able to maintain some control over the trade.

Good point. Despite reading somewhat heavily into Roman society and foreign relations of the (mid-late) game's time period, I'd forgotten the immensely important grain contracts. However, while in-game trade routes disappear when a province is taken over or suddenly becomes "Rebels", in real life these Rebels would continue trade with other nations as long as possible, and even come to agreements to not disrupt the flow of goods and currency in any way (easier for all parties involved). Therefore I propose that if goods and/or established trade routes are kept in our hypothetical Rome 2, the player be given a decision when Rebels take a province: continue trading for a penalty in relations with the "legitimate" government, or stop trading for a bonus in relations.
Occupation by barbarians, peasants, or foreign armies should stop trade immediately.
A few months after occupying a province, reorganization under Military Law should begin, and taxes/tithes--small ones, but there at least--should begin to come in.

MarkusH said:
The seleukids must have something attacking them in the rear!

We are of one mind, and that mind is in the gutter.
 
Anyone else see a Rome 2: Europa Universalis 4 Engine game?

Ugh that bright-happy ugly terrain CK2 map?
No thanks.
I see Rome 2 being darker and more gritty, being set in Ancient times where technology wasn't exactly booming, and where civilization didn't reach very far past the Mediterranean.
 
Anyone else see a Rome 2: Europa Universalis 4 Engine game?

If there is a Rome II, it will almost certainly be based on EU IV in some sort of way in the way the first Rome was based on EU III. There's realistically no other way to foresee it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.