Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Who wants Rome 2?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
takedown47 said:
Yeah it's a tricky one but one approach is to make one game focusing on 330 to 27 BC and then add some expansions extending the timeline beyond that to say 767 (up to CK2 Charlemagne). Add in a converter tool and prepare for a mega campaign 330 BC - 1821 AD.
Click to expand...

Personally I much rather have game starting from 753 BC, so that we can play the interesting empire building part of the Roman (or Greek or Carthagian) history. I don't see much point of going past the early Roman Empire, because playing as Trajanus or Hadrianus will probably be rather dull, because no one has strength to oppose the Roman might. And playing as other factions is probably a suicide.
 
takedown47 said:
Yeah it's a tricky one but one approach is to make one game focusing on 330 to 27 BC and then add some expansions extending the timeline beyond that to say 767 (up to CK2 Charlemagne). Add in a converter tool and prepare for a mega campaign 330 BC - 1821 AD.
Click to expand...

I think the game could only really successfully model up to 400AD without over-expanding itself thematically and mechanically. I also think half of the fun of a Rome game comes from the, you know, decline and fall. That should be something that is eating away at the player at all times. The concept of failure and regression is also something that Paradox games have been touching on lately with CKII and EU IV ironman, and I think that is a huge part of the Roman story that wasn't present in EU: Rome at all, given that Rome at the end of the timeline of that game is supposed to be a superpower that has only grown since the game's start.

Also, I think the migration period/dark ages or whatever you want to call it is worth its own game to explore.

Love the grand campaign idea, but frankly I always though CKII was overexpanded by The Old Gods (both in terms of mechanical accuracy to history, and the ability of the dev team to troubleshoot and bugfix the sheer amount of content in that timespan), and I rather hope that doesn't happen with newer Paradox games.

because no one has strength to oppose the Roman might.
Click to expand...

I think that if real administrative modelling is something Paradox were ever to get serious about, this would no longer be a problem. It seems to be something they are doing with CKII and EU IV, and I think a Rome game would be a great chance for them to have a clean slate, free from limiting and simplistic mechanics, and develop on their current ideas.
 
Last edited:
How about this. Rome II (or a separate IP as spiritual successor) covering the Roman Republic period and a whole new separate game during the Anno Domini Period/Common Era with the Roman Empire in it (instead of being central to it). Of course, post fall of Western Roman Empire could be a whole new game (so-called "Dark Ages" game). Then, have converters for all of them resulting in this:

Rome II -> "Anno Domini Period" -> "Dark Ages" -> Crusader Kings II -> Europa Universalis IV -> Victorai III -> Hearts of Iron IV -> "Cold War" -> The Sims
 
I don't think there were enough fundamental differences between the BC and AD periods of the Roman Empire to justify two different games.

I'd also like to see Paradox develop on the theme of genuine administrative mechanics and decision making, and the inevitable fall of empires, ideas which they are getting much more serious about in recent patches to their flagship titles, as opposed to just blobbing in short games. And I think a full coverage of 330-450 AD would be necessary to accomplish that.
 
DerOstkonig said:
I don't think there were enough fundamental differences between the BC and AD periods of the Roman Empire to justify two different games.
Click to expand...

But the BC period (until 37BC) was a period of an actual Republic instead of a nominal one of the later AD periods.
 
LumberKing said:
How about this. Rome II (or a separate IP as spiritual successor) covering the Roman Republic period and a whole new separate game during the Anno Domini Period/Common Era with the Roman Empire in it (instead of being central to it). Of course, post fall of Western Roman Empire could be a whole new game (so-called "Dark Ages" game). Then, have converters for all of them resulting in this:

Rome II -> "Anno Domini Period" -> "Dark Ages" -> Crusader Kings II -> Europa Universalis IV -> Victorai III -> Hearts of Iron IV -> "Cold War" -> The Sims
Click to expand...

I would probably never finish such a megacampaign. I have CKII -> EUIV converter, but I don't really use it. Instead of converting my CKII game to EUIV, I rather build a new empire in EUIV. The phase which I enjoy the most is starting as CKII count or EUIV OPM and slowly building your empire. And the most enjoyable part of the empire building are the early days when you're really weak and larger powers could easily wipe you out if you make even a single mistake.
 
Olaus Petrus said:
I would probably never finish such a megacampaign. I have CKII -> EUIV converter, but I don't really use it. Instead of converting my CKII game in EUIV, I rather build a new empire in EUIV. The phase which I enjoy the most is starting as CKII count or EUIV OPM and slowly building your empire. And most enjoyable part of the empire building are the early days when you're really weak and larger powers could easily wipe you out if you make even a single mistake.
Click to expand...

It really is just a wet dream. Most people don't even finish a single campaign. It's just the potential that is there that makes it awesome.
 
LumberKing said:
But the BC period (until 37BC) was a period of an actual Republic instead of a nominal one of the later AD periods.
Click to expand...

But the power of the senate was still very much real after the accession of Augustus and even up to the last days. This is quite clear. It is a common misguided perception of the Roman state to believe that the Emperor at any point within the life of the Empire managed to turn it into a completely authoritarian hereditary monarchy.

There would of course need to be a mechanic to determine the efficacy of Senatorial power, because the power of the senate could have grown or shrunk at any point in Roman history, given different circumstances, as opposed to there being a set line of demarkation between the days of the Senate and the days of the Emperor.
 
regarding the BYZ is not Roman Empire discussion

Does an empire(who always consists of numerous nationalities and ethnicities) depend just on 1 ruling ethnicity ?Or on it s capital ?

The USA,will soon be under 50% white majority,with the south american ethnicities becoming a majority in let s say 50 years.Does that mean,the USA will no longer be the USA because the white population ,who founded it,is no longer majoritary ?

Or if,it will move it s capital from Washington,to let s say New York,does it make it less USA ?

Do you think,the Roman Empire,was the same as the Roman Republic ?That the culture and people,where the same ?

The Roman Empire,span almost 2000 years,if we date it from the founding of the City(753bc) and over 1000 years,if we date just the founding of the Eastern side(330 for the City,and 395 for the official split).

In this huge,timespan the empire was bound to be hugely modified,ethnically,linguisticually,from an econ. and tehnological pov etc. bending and flexing from time to time,to keep up,thus being modified irreversebly.

Altough,we still have to keep in mind,that the Eastern Roman Empire,was also a greek majority one,and can also be seen as part of Grecce s history,it is witouth doubt the only real and viable Roman Empire(not succesor,or continuator)
 
LumberKing said:
But the BC period (until 37BC) was a period of an actual Republic instead of a nominal one of the later AD periods.
Click to expand...
Which can be done with government change and law change without making a new game and so that other countries benefit from the mechanic as well.
 
I'm not a fanatical Rome-series fan, but I too would like to have it, even if it is CK:Rome instead of EU:Rome.
 
loup99 said:
I'm not a fanatical Rome-series fan, but I too would like to have it, even if it is CK:Rome instead of EU:Rome.
Click to expand...

well the original EU:Rome was more of a hybrid of both those two games (more or less).
 
takedown47 said:
well the original EU:Rome was more of a hybrid of both those two games (more or less).
Click to expand...
True, atleast from what I experienced while playing the Rome: Gold version. It was more of a mix between the original CK (with less than CK2) and EU3 vanilla so the next could be mainly based on the latest CK2 version (2.2) with DLC and partially on the latest EU4 (1.8) with DLC to have a more acessible game and morr moddable than in the original one.
 
If Paradox makes a Rome game, have it focus on either the rise of Rome or the Empire--not both. There were fundamental differences between the two entities at the economic, social, cultural, administrative and military levels... hell, you could divide the "stereotypic" Roman period from 0 AUC to the fall of the West in 480 into so many different games it's unreal. I just don't want a situation where one game (*cough*CK2*cough*) tries to model a time period where its mechanics simply do not make sense.
 
PseudoCatfish said:
If Paradox makes a Rome game, have it focus on either the rise of Rome or the Empire--not both. There were fundamental differences between the two entities at the economic, social, cultural, administrative and military levels... hell, you could divide the "stereotypic" Roman period from 0 AUC to the fall of the West in 480 into so many different games it's unreal. I just don't want a situation where one game (*cough*CK2*cough*) tries to model a time period where its mechanics simply do not make sense.
Click to expand...

EU Rome for the Rise of the Republic-Augustus and CK Rome for Empire-Fall of idem seems like a reasonable compromise full of possibilities.
 
Well, just now I noticed this thread was started in 2012... So much time since people have been begging for Rome. But instead of making me lose hope, I'm actually happy to believe we're getting close to its hypothetical announcement. Still a few years away, but closer than it was in 2012 nonetheless.
 
Re the title of this thread; I think the question now should be "Who DOESNT want Rome II?"

I'm pretty sure Paradox sees by now that there is a pretty big market out here for Rome II. They dont seem to be stupid, so I have to believe that it is in the pipeline somewhere.

I hope its a mix of EU4 & CK2 mechanics. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back