The annoying thing about Rome-era games is that they pretend the period between the Pax Romana and Aurelias never happened. They either cover from the Republic to the Empire, or just the decline.
What did you do last night, Bob?It's an interesting era, but mostly for internal politics. It'd be pretty lame to have a grand strategy game as Rome in like 100 AD.
I'm actually complaining that more often than not they exclude that period from the gameplay altogether- Rome Total War and EU Rome being good examples.It's an interesting era, but mostly for internal politics. It'd be pretty lame to have a grand strategy game as Rome in like 100 AD.
Actually, yes please on the CK2 kind of Rome.
But don't call it EU: Rome 2, please?
Make up something new. :3
It's an interesting era, but mostly for internal politics. It'd be pretty lame to have a grand strategy game as Rome in like 100 AD.
i want.
and I don't want EU: Rise of Rome, I want EU: Rome
So I mean cover the period from city state to collapse of the empire.
Pretty please.
And it would be glorious!So from 753BC to 1453AD? That's a very long time and CK2 and EU4 already cover the final parts.
So from 753BC to 1453AD? That's a very long time and CK2 and EU4 already cover the final parts.
While I like the precisation of Byzantium's existence until the 1453 AC, "The Fall of Roman Empire" is generally considered Romolus Augustolo's dethroning by the hands of Odocres in the 476 AC, not Costantinople's Fall (that is usually the end of the Middle Ages.)
While I like the precisation of Byzantium's existence until the 1453 AC, "The Fall of Roman Empire" is generally considered Romolus Augustolo's dethroning by the hands of Odocres in the 476 AC, not Costantinople's Fall (that is usually the end of the Middle Ages.)
So from 753BC to 1453AD? That's a very long time and CK2 and EU4 already cover the final parts.
I'm not talking about the Byzantine Greek empire (yes yes I know they claimed to be Roman even though they were less Roman than the Holy Roman Empire which was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire). I am talking about the Latin-speaking empire whose capital was Rome.
So from 27BC to 330AD? That's the Roman Empire. If you want 'Rome' as a political term, it's 753BC to 1453AD
Thats not what my post said. It said from the days of Rome as a city state to the collapse of its empire. The collapse of Rome's empire, not Constantinople's.
There is a reason that the ERE is referred to as the Byzantine Empire in most of the great works of history, and that is because it is NOT the empire of Augustus.
To say that it is would be the same as asserting that the Soviet Union had political continuity with the Muscovite Tsardom.
In fact, I would be inclined to say that since Byzantium did not speak the language of Rome, adopt the aesthetics of Rome, or share the same essential international characteristic of the Classical Roman Empire, it has even less continuity than the aforementioned Russian states.
HG Wells' Outline of History explains very well the dividing line between the Rome of Classical Antiquity and the Medieval State that most contemporary historians refer to as the Byzantine Empire.