• 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.
I'd like to see another expansion for Rome, but the truth is that Rome needs so much work to bring it up to the quality of other recent PI games that PI probably needs to just make Rome II (and hopefully call it just Rome II and not have so little faith in the series that they need to call it EU). Using the features from PI's recent games, there's a lot of good that can be done here. Did anyone else look at the Chinese sub-state system used in AHD? Imagine how well that could work in Rome, with multiple tags de facto operating autonomously, but on paper all belonging to a single Roman state. And then you could use the CK2 systems to reflect the autonomy of governors and make it so you're not just playing a country like you are in EU3, but instead playing a character. This makes it more interesting, IMO, because you don't play as the state, but rather play as characters whom you walk with on a slowly building road to glory.

I'm sure it's already been said a million times, but that mostly empty map has to go too. What really kills EU:R for a lot of people is that the Roman campaign is basically crush Carthage, and then be bored for the rest of the game. Something has to be there to keep the player occupied and interested. I'd like Rome 2 to start just before Rome is squashed by Brennus, which should make things more interesting as you have to build a weak Rome into a much stronger one. What might also make the game more interesting is having a really large time span. Something like from the sacking of Rome by Brennus to the fall of the western Imperium. To preserve the developers' sanity, they could use bookmark starting dates only, like in Vicky2. Ultimately, I don't think Rome will ever thrive as a series if it doesn't cover the full richness of Roman history. We need to be able to experience the golden age of the republic, the Julian dictatorships, the rise of Christianity, the splitting of the empire, and the eventual decline of the empire too. You could balance out blobbing by using a combination of CK2's vassalage system and AHD's Chinese sub-state system, so your "blob" is only as strong as your ruler's ability to get the support of governors and their legions.

But these are just my opinions which would probably only please me. :p
 
I'm sure it's already been said a million times, but that mostly empty map has to go too. What really kills EU:R for a lot of people is that the Roman campaign is basically crush Carthage, and then be bored for the rest of the game. Something has to be there to keep the player occupied and interested. I'd like Rome 2 to start just before Rome is squashed by Brennus, which should make things more interesting as you have to build a weak Rome into a much stronger one. What might also make the game more interesting is having a really large time span. Something like from the sacking of Rome by Brennus to the fall of the western Imperium. To preserve the developers' sanity, they could use bookmark starting dates only, like in Vicky2. Ultimately, I don't think Rome will ever thrive as a series if it doesn't cover the full richness of Roman history. We need to be able to experience the golden age of the republic, the Julian dictatorships, the rise of Christianity, the splitting of the empire, and the eventual decline of the empire too. You could balance out blobbing by using a combination of CK2's vassalage system and AHD's Chinese sub-state system, so your "blob" is only as strong as your ruler's ability to get the support of governors and their legions.

But these are just my opinions which would probably only please me. :p

I agree, the empty map made it feel a bit barren. I also agree that CK2's mechanics would work wonders for Rome II.

Playing during the Crisis of the Third Century would bring a lot to the table.

  • The change from Principate to Dominate
  • In the next decade the rise and invasion of the barbarians (Think CK2 mongol horde mechanics)
  • A lot of competition for the Imperial Throne. Emperor's were being disposed and replaced consistantly.
  • The Roman Empire split into three competing states: the Gallic Empire, the Palmyrene Empire, and the Roman Empire.
  • The state recognized religious change from the traditional Roman Gods to that of Christianity.


What you could do during the game

  • Have 2 different starting periods; Crisis of the Third Centry (235 AD) and the Fall of Rome (476 AD).
  • Your noble roman family (Julii, Scipii, etc) could break away from Rome to establish it's own empire, or strive for the traditional Imperial title. Plot, assassinate, and manipulate your way to the top.
  • The 'crown authority' slider from CK2 could represent the Principate (far left) where the senate wields a bit more power, and the Dominate (far right) where the Emperor has absolute authority.
  • Enact various Imperial policies such as: Allowing generals to once again have triumphs, religion changes, and etc.
  • Consolidate imperial power to a single Roman Emperor, or form the Tetrarchy (by force, or choice).
 
I agree, the empty map made it feel a bit barren. I also agree that CK2's mechanics would work wonders for Rome II.

Playing during the Crisis of the Third Century would bring a lot to the table.

  • The change from Principate to Dominate
  • In the next decade the rise and invasion of the barbarians (Think CK2 mongol horde mechanics)
  • A lot of competition for the Imperial Throne. Emperor's were being disposed and replaced consistantly.
  • The Roman Empire split into three competing states: the Gallic Empire, the Palmyrene Empire, and the Roman Empire.
  • The state recognized religious change from the traditional Roman Gods to that of Christianity.


What you could do during the game

  • Have 2 different starting periods; Crisis of the Third Centry (235 AD) and the Fall of Rome (476 AD).
  • Your noble roman family (Julii, Scipii, etc) could break away from Rome to establish it's own empire, or strive for the traditional Imperial title. Plot, assassinate, and manipulate your way to the top.
  • The 'crown authority' slider from CK2 could represent the Principate (far left) where the senate wields a bit more power, and the Dominate (far right) where the Emperor has absolute authority.
  • Enact various Imperial policies such as: Allowing generals to once again have triumphs, religion changes, and etc.
  • Consolidate imperial power to a single Roman Emperor, or form the Tetrarchy (by force, or choice).

i don't think the game should go further than what it is now... especially with such as small map. You can add internal politics and features as much as you want, but playing as the roman empire from 0 to 400 CE would be a bore... the empire was overall very stable, with great emperors, etc. It would make no sense. Plus there is no way the same game coould model such different periods as the ones before and after CE. Better to have 2 games, Rome II for the same time period, or maybe starting a bit earlier, and a game spanning the dark ages like Great INvasions. I for one, would not buy a paradox game covering the 400 years of a stable roman empire, not much happening and the empire was far too stable and powerful. Even if the map was the whole eurasia, there would be just 4 empires to play in this period, no fun really...
 
I am very glad to read the comments and discussion here. After playing Sengoku and CK2 I too have been thinking that scrapping the original EU: Rome and creating a new game called Rome 2 would be the best idea. Rome was a fun game, but it also seems like it was a learning experience. With the new DLC in-game store and other features I think it is time to start looking at the Rome franchise again from a new perspective.
 
Something dating back to ancient Egypt would be awesome. Stab hit for not having your pyramid ready before death (pyramid tech levels!), pleasing the priests, occasional assassinations of young rulers...
 
I agree that after the release of the СК2 the time for Rome2 has come. Here are many interesting topics of potential innovations, but I want to focus on a few especially important features.
- The number of provinces and difficulty the map. Playing in the crucially important regions of the Mediterranean, such as the Peloponnese, was a bit ridiculous because of only three provinces. The colonization of the entire map - also nonsense for this period.
- Social development of empires. Empires should arise and decline - something lacking in many of Paradox games.
- The period is not particularly important.
 
I am very glad to read the comments and discussion here. After playing Sengoku and CK2 I too have been thinking that scrapping the original EU: Rome and creating a new game called Rome 2 would be the best idea. Rome was a fun game, but it also seems like it was a learning experience. With the new DLC in-game store and other features I think it is time to start looking at the Rome franchise again from a new perspective.

To be honest my feelings are exactly the opposite. I feel greatly saddened because so many are ready to abandon Rome like it was a sinking ship. It's a great game by it's own right and with little polishing it could be even better. If even the fans are willing to abandon it so easily, then it's no wonder that Rome isn't 1st priority when it comes to patching and expansions.
 
...You can add internal politics and features as much as you want, but playing as the roman empire from 0 to 400 CE would be a bore... the empire was overall very stable, with great emperors, etc...

Well, I wouldn't call the period of 0-400 AD a very boring period for the Roman Empire, with the Crisis of the Third Century and all.

A game covering that period would IMO best suited if it was about managing some dynasty within the empire instead of steering the empire itself. You could for example start as a freedman and work your way upward to get a dynasty member as Princeps!
 
A game covering that period would IMO best suited if it was about managing some dynasty within the empire instead of steering the empire itself. You could for example start as a freedman and work your way upward to get a dynasty member as Princeps!

Seeing as Rome owned practically all the 'known' world by that time that would be a really good idea.
 
Well, I wouldn't call the period of 0-400 AD a very boring period for the Roman Empire, with the Crisis of the Third Century and all.

A game covering that period would IMO best suited if it was about managing some dynasty within the empire instead of steering the empire itself. You could for example start as a freedman and work your way upward to get a dynasty member as Princeps!

but that's not what rome is about, in rome we play countries, not characters, and it should remain that way. Characters are important for internal politics, and could be made even more important, allowing for dynastic marriages, etc. But ancient empires were pretty much centralized. What I love about Rome is the mix of CK and EU, Rome should not be a CK of the ancient times.
 
I feel like there's not much to do in Rome as it is right now. The map is small, there's few countries to play and play against. There are a lot of paths it can take but it has to take some path because as it is the game is not really replayable.
 
Well, I wouldn't call the period of 0-400 AD a very boring period for the Roman Empire, with the Crisis of the Third Century and all.

A game covering that period would IMO best suited if it was about managing some dynasty within the empire instead of steering the empire itself. You could for example start as a freedman and work your way upward to get a dynasty member as Princeps!
I think you're talking about a completely different game focused on the Pax Romana.
 
Every subsequent Paradox developers comment should immediately be flooded with: "Is this Rome II?"

Precedent shows that this is the only way.
 
Every subsequent Paradox developers comment should immediately be flooded with: "Is this Rome II?"

Precedent shows that this is the only way.

That's been an extremely effective strategy. With huge outcomes: I love CKII though CK was my 'less favourite' of the catalogue.
 
considering what they achieved with CK2 Rome is ripe for an update. Building a system to represent the murderous politics would be excellent. CK2 dynasty system would well as Roman politics was driven by families if without the empathizes of claims etc. but rather how many members had a consulship.

So in may eyes it would be best to make a game centers on Rome and its politics (namely to maximize detail) and add other nations through expansions.
 
considering what they achieved with CK2 Rome is ripe for an update. Building a system to represent the murderous politics would be excellent. CK2 dynasty system would well as Roman politics was driven by families if without the empathizes of claims etc. but rather how many members had a consulship.

So in may eyes it would be best to make a game centers on Rome and its politics (namely to maximize detail) and add other nations through expansions.



I pretty much down with Idea, in republic you have dystansty , got keep weath throught land awesome governerships, and promiment by them keep active in politic and the military.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.