Actually I like CkII alot but I think a dynasty focus in Rome 2 would just destroy the game.
-
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
It worries me more the fact that the history of rome should be deterministic as mentioned above. that would completely spoil the fun and the ability of the players to modify history which at the end of the day is whole point of the game.
You may want some sort of succession system when playing as a family, and an elective system for parties or the senate. on top of that you put some options to play the charge you hold in the cursus honorum. If you are not consul the AI should take care of foreign policy while you pay attention to your petty corruptions to build you finances and connections, seeking support for future elections for praetors, aediles, propraetors-governors or consuls.
it looks to me the funniest game ever!
It would need a better interface than what we have now in EU.Rome in order to be able to focus in the characters that are important to you, maybe also a system like the bride selection list or complot parties in CK2 for possible alliance or corruption search or "clients" management, you know, the people you favor like merchants wanting road building concessions, gladiators´supply or fleet maintenance...
.
.
.
Gosh, it's cool! Paradox I want this game now!
While I don't say that we should focus to dynasties with Rome II, it could really have more character focus. When I play as tribe or kingdom I usually have clear idea who my ruler is and who are his main heirs and enemies. But when I play as republic I'm confused half of the time, when the game elects some character I haven't even heard of before as consul or when senate wants to appoint some total nobody as commander of my best armies. The experience would be more enjoyable if game would help me to keep track of the characters, so that I would know about them in advance and know that these are the new rising stars in their parties. Currently it's difficult to say if some party member is important faction leader of backbencher.
I really doubt that there would be an expansion as old as it is. I'm sure it's happened before for aging games, but it does seem rather unlikely.
Rome 2 would need to be much larger (one problem with Rome was too few playable nations/ tribes), it became too easy, since most of the map was empty. Also no game killing bugs this time, please.
Regarding dynasty focus, not sure, but certainly a greater focus on characters is needed. And the plots and factions from CK 2 (but make the faction system less moronic, please).
Regarding dynasty focus, not sure, but certainly a greater focus on characters is needed. And the plots and factions from CK 2 (but make the faction system less moronic, please).
Please no character focus! I like playing as countries, not people...
People who want more "character focus" can go play Sims.
People who want more "character focus" can go play Sims.
Yeah, I could do with no character focus myself. The thing is that it seems popular enough that if there is a Rome II, it wouldn't surprise me if they had it in some form.
But people are of vital importance to a country. What would Rome be without Julius Caesar, Octavian/Augustus, Cicero, Pompey, Mark Antony?
Compare it to EU II/FtG, where you have a monarch that has some stats that affect the game, but isn't a really a "character", so to speak. Even EU III, with its different government types and heirs, etc, doesn't really have a character focus.
I would like a character system similar to the other one, to be honest. Maybe a bit fleshed out and changed, and improved, but no major differences. It's the setup which was Rome's problem; not enough nations, and too much concentration of power towards the 5 big ones. More variety between nations, more chance for the little guy... maybe an earlier start-date would help.
New Rome need to be country-based still, however it should use more features both from EU and CK series. And ofc a bigger map with much more provinces, kingdoms, tribes and so, with much more advanced warfare, realistic weather/season system, advanced politics, culture and religion, trading and building options and expanded timeline - from death of Alexander and Diadochi wars start till the fall of Western Roman empire or even further I would say (ofc, this can be done via new DLCs over time).
if EUrome2 is to be country-based it would pretty much be a sequel of RTW2 with no 3d battles and movement by provinces. tough to sell to say the least.
I really disagree with that. I mean, if you want to put it in those terms, it could be technically accurate to a degree, but it is also so much more. Why not think of it as EU type mechanics/play adapted for a different time period? You wouldn't say, for example, that EU III (or IV) is Age of Empires III with no 3d battles and movement by provinces, so there is no reason to oversimplify a description of a possible EU Rome sequel if it isn't Crusader Kings II-ified.
It definitely needs a sequel, not an expansion.
I would also vote for it to be much more character focused whereas CKII was dynasty based, Rome II would be more like a power play (persuading the senate. Trying to become the first emperor. Putting my friends in high places while destroying my enemies.. dance puppets!!)
It would be a lot more fun than just having EUIV with a Rome skin.
I would also vote for it to be much more character focused whereas CKII was dynasty based, Rome II would be more like a power play (persuading the senate. Trying to become the first emperor. Putting my friends in high places while destroying my enemies.. dance puppets!!)
It would be a lot more fun than just having EUIV with a Rome skin.
Like I mentioned, I would be very surprised if they even considered making an expansion with the game being as old as it is.
Much as I do like CK II (though I admit I might prefer it with less of a character focus), I fear that it will inspire calls to make Paradox games in general more character focused. While I wouldn't want a new Rome to be just a superficial switch to an era further back, I really don't think it needs a character based outlook. To put things into perspective, Rome isn't EU III with Roman skin, either. Nor is it simply an RTS combat game with provinces but without a mirco-focus on individual battles.
Last edited:
Sorry, what I said about selling I didn't mean you or me or the rest of the lads in these forums but mostly the market out there
Eh, I'm not sure if the wider market would necessarily prefer something along the lines of Crusader Kings in a Rome sequel, either.
- Status