• 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.
Why does Rome 2 need to use claims??

Ultimately, if your kid wasn't up to the task, he'd be ousted by someone who felt themselves stronger and that was pretty much that. So you can only rule the faction you are a member of or declare independence; you won't be able to "press a claim". Si vis pace para belum: In the Roman world, might was pretty much all that mattered, and if you wanted a throne, you could simply try and take it, provided you had the skill and backing. Clearly the son of a king would have a lot of support, but if they didn't have at least enough personal skill to retain support of the military alongside the rest of the aristocracy, they would simply be ousted in a coup or civil war.

And there's no pope to tell you off for attacking fellow Christians. This is Roman vs tribe or Sparta vs Athens without some central laissez-faire authority (which the pope was).
Feudalism doesn't exist ergo claims don't exist. Just conquest, internal and external in a world where might made right.
That has nothing to do with the discussion we had ;D
 
I'm starting to think that if Rome 2 is going to cover a bigger amount of time - possibly even starting in 500 BC - it shouldn't even be called "Rome". It could be renamed to something related to the ancient world in general.

And until Paradox does not announce such game, I can only dream of playing as Athens in 448 BC and building an empire from them.
 
Ah, why does that remind me of my glorious Athenian and Spartan empires from various Rome Total War mods. I would love to try it out in a Paradox game about ancient era.
 
Ah, why does that remind me of my glorious Athenian and Spartan empires from various Rome Total War mods. I would love to try it out in a Paradox game about ancient era.

Of course a Spartan Empire can only really end in a bloody revolutionary mess when the number of helots skyrocket and the number of Spartiates remain constant.:D
 
Of course a Spartan Empire can only really end in a bloody revolutionary mess when the number of helots skyrocket and the number of Spartiates remain constant.:D

Athenians were 40,000 to 100,000 while their slaves were 200,000 to 300,000 and they scarecely had issues. It's all down to management :D
 
Well, there were citizens and non-citizens but not all non-citizens were slaves.

non-citizens were 20,000 to 60,000 so not much of a difference
 
I'm starting to think that if Rome 2 is going to cover a bigger amount of time - possibly even starting in 500 BC - it shouldn't even be called "Rome". It could be renamed to something related to the ancient world in general.

I'd prefer it if it wasn't called Rome 2 as well.

It needs a broader focus, and calling it "Rome 2" is inevitably going to lead to complaints when Paradox do things with factions other than Rome, especially on these forums (how many times have we heard "but it's called Crusader Kings" before").
 

Various. From Isocrates to Aristotle. It's pretty much the same ones that mention all population groups of Athens, including the slaves. It was generally said that the non-citizens were the half of the Athenian citizens and that slaves outnumbered the citizens by 3 or 5 times (but were over 200,000)
 
He didnt say that, he said that in the next 3 or 4 years thats not happening. Which is a different thing to saying that it will NEVER happen.

But it really makes sense, making map for Rome2 would be crapload of research, unless you wanna go phantasy land.

"Also my favorites that we'll never do. [...] EU:Rome 2" doesn't leave much room for misunderstanding. Then he said that what they are going to make in next 3-4 years is going to everyone but Rome fans happy.
 
"Also my favorites that we'll never do. [...] EU:Rome 2" doesn't leave much room for misunderstanding. Then he said that what they are going to make in next 3-4 years is going to everyone but Rome fans happy.
If what they do is those games he names, I'm sure that almost all of the fanbase (that likes strategy games) won't be much pleased.
 
Yes I definitely wouldn't mind, after the total failure known as TW: RomeII
It was obvious that that was never going to live up to the hype since ETW was released. Especially when you realize the only reason people idolize RTW so much is nostalgia. It's really not that great of a strategy game. Probably the only thing they did well was the civil war, and even that's incredibly easy to game.
 
It was obvious that that was never going to live up to the hype since ETW was released. Especially when you realize the only reason people idolize RTW so much is nostalgia. It's really not that great of a strategy game. Probably the only thing they did well was the civil war, and even that's incredibly easy to game.

RTW was really good fun, and has better politics than TWR2. The only reason TWR2 doesn't live up to the hype after the heavily patched battles is the shambolic political mechanics and the removal of much-loved features (the loss of the family tree in particular made a LOT of people angry, as evidenced by the poll which scored over a thousand votes in favour on the TW forums (around 92%); also the lack of event videos).

If Paradox make a Rome 2, they can automatically make a better game than TWR2 by including deep, complex politics, family trees and overall immersion on the campaign map level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.