Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Who wants Rome 2?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
nalivayko said:
Make each city/province a character, if you wish, so owning more cities would present more problems within the game. Just an idea.
Click to expand...

Noooooo, it's hard enough to keep track of characters and their relations as it is; it will be much harder if so many more governors are needed.
I think Rome 2 should go more in-depth character-wise, with the Monarch, or the Leader of the year, able to propose marriages to secure alliances; but I don't want CK2-type depth, though family ties should be considered. For example, THE Julius Caesar's family was perturbed that he would prosecute Gaius Antonius Hybrida, the husband of Caesar's THIRD-cousin Julia, in the courts. That Julia's brother Lucius Julius Caesar didn't hesitate to prosecute her NEXT husband, Publius Cornelius Lentulus Sura, during the unfolding of the Catilinarian Conspiracy; she hated him after that, of course, and it was only the depth and ignominy of the conspiracy that saved Lucius Caesar from general scorn.
So, you see, even such distant ties are important.
 
If Rome is the only focus then yes, otherwise no. A focused game is better than trying to everything and not any of it very well. As much as I would ove to play as the Seleucids..
 
takedown47 said:
If Rome is the only focus then yes, otherwise no. A focused game is better than trying to everything and not any of it very well. As much as I would ove to play as the Seleucids..
Click to expand...

I don't understand this logic. Why should any Paradox game be limited to just one country? You don't have to play always as Germany in Hearts of Iron, but instead you can play every nation in the world, no matter which political system that nation has. So why should you be forced to play only as Rome in EU: Rome?

It's one of the greatest things in Paradox games that you can play as every one province minor there is and you aren't limited to few great powers, like in most strategies. Crusader Kings is the only series where playable nations are limited and even in that case Paradox is working hard to make every nation playable.
 
I want them to put alot of effort into making a game about playing as a dynasty within the roman republic. Actually they did this same strategy with CK2 by focusing on the christians (and did a good job) while ignoring the muslims and pagans but later unlocking those parts of the map with excellent expansions. I hope eventually Rome 2 will have playable Carthaginians or Macedonians etc, just not yet.
 
takedown47 said:
I want them to put alot of effort into making a game about playing as a dynasty within the roman republic. Actually they did this same strategy with CK2 by focusing on the christians (and did a good job) while ignoring the muslims and pagans but later unlocking those parts of the map with excellent expansions. I hope eventually Rome 2 will have playable Carthaginians or Macedonians etc, just not yet.
Click to expand...

Paradox didn't remove any playable countries from CKII, but they made every country playable which was playable in CKI. Removing playable Sparta, Crete, Rhoxolani and Picts (some of my favorite nations) would be a great way to make sure that I won't buy Europa Universalis: Rome II. I enjoy playing small nations more than I enjoy playing as Rome, because unlike Rome those nations offer some challenge after first few grand campaigns. Currently I'm playing as Crete (although my campaign is on hold, because I experience random crashes in government menu which happen occasionally when I click faction leader's or next ruler's portrait and I'm waiting next beta to fix that).
 
Olaus Petrus said:
Paradox didn't remove any playable countries from CKII, but they made every country playable which was playable in CKI. Removing playable Sparta, Crete, Rhoxolani and Picts (some of my favorite nations) would be a great way to make sure that I won't buy Europa Universalis: Rome II. I enjoy playing small nations more than I enjoy playing as Rome, because unlike Rome those nations offer some challenge after first few grand campaigns. Currently I'm playing as Crete (although my campaign is on hold, because I experience random crashes in government menu which happen occasionally when I click faction leader's or next ruler's portrait and I'm waiting next beta to fix that).
Click to expand...
I'm with you there. I played two full games of Rome before I actually played as Rome. It just doesn't attract me at all, I prefer playing as Macedonia or Carthage.
 
wolfing said:
I'm with you there. I played two full games of Rome before I actually played as Rome. It just doesn't attract me at all, I prefer playing as Macedonia or Carthage.
Click to expand...

It's the same with me and any other game about Rome. The idea is to play against Rome. Thus, I get always disappointed when the damn thing doesn't grow strong enough to present the real challenge.
 
I want rome 2..
 
brxbrx said:
In order to increase playability as Rome, internal management gameplay should be added. It's not all about conquest, after all.
Click to expand...

This. +1
 
/sign If paradox is not sure about its future success, it can test the waters by doing a Kickstarter campaign.
 
Last edited:
takedown47 said:
If Rome is the only focus then yes, otherwise no. A focused game is better than trying to everything and not any of it very well. As much as I would ove to play as the Seleucids..
Click to expand...

This was actually tried, back in the dark ages pre-EU3. I forget the name, but they tried to make a Rome-only focused game, and it did not work well.
 
To me the dynastic focus could really work if supported by a strong government and politics system. The prestige should be the major focus of a roman character, not the grabbing of land like in Ck
 
Archaalen said:
This was actually tried, back in the dark ages pre-EU3. I forget the name, but they tried to make a Rome-only focused game, and it did not work well.
Click to expand...

We can always try again. Richard Branson failed three times in business before he got it right. Anyone heard of Virgin Cola?
 
tuareg109 said:
Noooooo, it's hard enough to keep track of characters and their relations as it is; it will be much harder if so many more governors are needed.
I think Rome 2 should go more in-depth character-wise, with the Monarch, or the Leader of the year, able to propose marriages to secure alliances; but I don't want CK2-type depth, though family ties should be considered. For example, THE Julius Caesar's family was perturbed that he would prosecute Gaius Antonius Hybrida, the husband of Caesar's THIRD-cousin Julia, in the courts. That Julia's brother Lucius Julius Caesar didn't hesitate to prosecute her NEXT husband, Publius Cornelius Lentulus Sura, during the unfolding of the Catilinarian Conspiracy; she hated him after that, of course, and it was only the depth and ignominy of the conspiracy that saved Lucius Caesar from general scorn.
So, you see, even such distant ties are important.
Click to expand...

I meant - get rid of characters and governor appointment and let me play as the state or a city within the state (similar to count within the kingdom). Abstract rulers and generals like EU has done. I'd rather have that. Keep the civil wars, of course :)
 
I wouldn't want Rome to be the ancient version of CK2. I actually like the fact that it's a hybrid of CK and EU and think a Rome 2 should follow the same concept. I do love both Eu and CK by the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back