I would love to see it. CK2: Rome or EUIV: Rome(2?). Perhaps a new game from the ground up. The roman era rocks and all the nostalgic bits of Rome in both CK2 and EUIV point to the interest in this time period.
-
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
I'd rather it not have a Rome focus.
Either a Hellenistic Age game like Europa Barbarorum or maybe even 8th century BC so we can have things like the founding of Rome, the rise of Persia, classical hoplites, etc
Either a Hellenistic Age game like Europa Barbarorum or maybe even 8th century BC so we can have things like the founding of Rome, the rise of Persia, classical hoplites, etc
Since the first game was EU: Rome, the subsequent ones should obviously be CK: Rome II, then, HoI: Rome III, and finally V: Rome IV. I mean what...
I want to control the senate and keep the might of Rome alive!
Come on, Paradox!
Come on, Paradox!
Anything would be better than the original game Paradox made with rome in the title... I'm a very roman fanboy so I got it and i have to say its on my list of roman theme games that I have buyers remorse for.
I am really, really craving for a proper Rome game by PDS. And they can definitely make a great game if only they just tried. EU-Rome was a bad excuse.
After watching HBO Rome series again, I really cannot hold on. The level of intrigue there is marvelous, and I want to play the lives of Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Antony and Octavian. Really, it would be fun to assassinate Brutus and Cassius before they assassinate Caesar. Besides is a highly civilized era compared to CK2, and an age of famous people and heroes. You don't have levies for many powers, but professional (and semi-professional) armies that have the numbers that put CK era armies to shame.
Not to mention interesting civil wars that go on a grand scale in both map and number of people and soldiers involved.
After watching HBO Rome series again, I really cannot hold on. The level of intrigue there is marvelous, and I want to play the lives of Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Antony and Octavian. Really, it would be fun to assassinate Brutus and Cassius before they assassinate Caesar. Besides is a highly civilized era compared to CK2, and an age of famous people and heroes. You don't have levies for many powers, but professional (and semi-professional) armies that have the numbers that put CK era armies to shame.
Not to mention interesting civil wars that go on a grand scale in both map and number of people and soldiers involved.
Last edited:
Rome was my first step in to the Paradox universe of grand strategy.
Pls make a second one and give me another chance to break these yellow blob with egypt!
Pls make a second one and give me another chance to break these yellow blob with egypt!
Hey! This thread is still going!
Cool!
Just to clarify, the Byzantine Empire is not the Roman Empire so the game should definitely end in 476
Oh and I agree that Rome should receive as much coverage as all other major factions in the game. I'd like to finally have a detailed Seleucid or Ptolemy playthrough!
Cool!
Just to clarify, the Byzantine Empire is not the Roman Empire so the game should definitely end in 476
Oh and I agree that Rome should receive as much coverage as all other major factions in the game. I'd like to finally have a detailed Seleucid or Ptolemy playthrough!
Hey! This thread is still going!
Cool!
Just to clarify, the Byzantine Empire is not the Roman Empire so the game should definitely end in 476
Oh and I agree that Rome should receive as much coverage as all other major factions in the game. I'd like to finally have a detailed Seleucid or Ptolemy playthrough!
Why is the Western Roman Empire the 'Roman Empire' while the Eastern Roman Empire is not?
I don't want to start a war here, but many say that the Byzantine Empire wasn't Roman simply because it was more Greek than latin/Roman. I personally consider that the Byzantine did carry the legacy of Rome, but culturally, they weren't exactly Romans.
take cover
I go for roman. if it was roman empire in the first century (and I guess we all agree on that) it was more roman in the fith.
In any case this is not a discusion you might want to have with justinian unless you are backed by a gothic army
Byzantine is a modern name given to the post 480 AD Roman Empire by the HRE's (a stupid fake barbarian kingdom) fanboys who just couldn't accept that HRE was actually a nation built by migrating unwashed barbarian tribes who first destroyed civilization and then claimed to be a part of it. And then went on to force the little slave bishop with a funny hat named Leo III to crown their warlord the emperor of a power their ancestors helped in destroying. ALL THE WHILE the real empire survived in the east, severely weakened, but still alive.
Kind of like some Somalian man crowning some Sudanese terrorist as the president of USA, or Premier of China and then claiming that the real one is not the real one, just because it is not populated by the same people as their own nation.
Yeah, shots fired.
Kind of like some Somalian man crowning some Sudanese terrorist as the president of USA, or Premier of China and then claiming that the real one is not the real one, just because it is not populated by the same people as their own nation.
Yeah, shots fired.
In my opinion the whole dispute is silly. Personally I see the Eternal Rome as a cultural continuum or as a series of different political entities which all claimed to share the same (idealised) origin. Also we must remember that there are many states, which didn't directly claim the imperial title to themselves, but claimed their right to the Roman heritage in other ways. Even states which weren't part of the original empire claimed that they were it's cultural and ideological successors. Some states imitated Roman institutions, like senate, or used Roman symbols like fasces and eagle.
- Status