Why Rome 2 shouldn't be designed so that you play as a character!

the cool guy · Jul 19, 2014

I do not feel like EU:Rome 2 should be designed like CK2 where you play as a character.

A reason for this is that in the EU series you played as a nation and you had to think about that nation.
For CK you play as a character and you manage your land and how your vassals are building up power and how to murder your heir because you want better stats.
For EU:Rome you played as a nation but there were still people like in CK.

There is so much more that can be done with this feature.

I personally feel that it should be like EU but with feudal aspects as a deep peacetime activity that would be key to maintaining national stability.

Imagine the possibilities!

Lord Finnish · Jul 19, 2014

EU model is bland. That's all the reason I need to not want it.

Daxn · Jul 19, 2014

Lord Finnish said:
EU model is bland. That's all the reason I need to not want it.

The current model with EUIV? Then I agree with you.

EUII's? Not so much. I know that it was the odler coding and everything, but there is nothing that stops me from hoping that an hypotetical Europa Universalis: Rome II will feature a truly improved EU system.

wthomas · Jul 19, 2014

I don't think there is a danger of playing as a character. In EU Rome, you didn't really play as the character, especially in Republics.

One of the fun things about the game was picking my general that had the right stats to become my first dictator, and nurturing his career while punishing his enemies, all the while conquering and settling in every direction. You almost assume the role of a deity, guiding the nations' future and granting your favor on the strong. And planning who gets what positions and when to ensure I have a steady supply of decent generals. I just wish it was easier to rotate governors and other officials.

ray243 · Jul 19, 2014

You should be able to play a mix of managing the nation and the dynasty. As a player you should be able to switch dynasty if someone launch a rebellion, forcing you to chose between sticking to the old and dying dynasty or the rebels.

Joemit · Jul 19, 2014

I was thinking maybe something like controlling a faction within the country.

unmerged(783304) · Jul 25, 2014

I would like Rome II if it is like Crusader Kings II because I tried the EUIII and EUIV demos and don't understand what is going on, while I found CKII to be very intuitive.

ozmono2005 · Jul 26, 2014

Playing as a nation when that nation is a superpower isn't so fun. During the time period in question there are only so many significant nations and most are large empires. In EU it works better because there are lots of nations that can rise to significance and lots of nations that can rival each other. It's not so much the case for Rome.

Also with Rome you'd be missing out on so much if you didn't have the personal intrigues between families and factions like you can have in CKII.

I'd like to see it look far more like CKII than EUIV but more importantly I'd like to see it be a game in it's own right.

ringhloth · Jul 26, 2014

Paradox wants to tell stories with their games. The thing is, without characters, you can't tell stories. I think it's one of the reasons why EU4 isn't really ever going to be entertaining for me, and why I'm really excited to see HoI4 limit the usage of leaders (too many characters means that no one stands out). Rome has so much potential for characters. Playing as a family in Rome, even if it isn't that historical, has so much potential for stories. Working through the Senate, to get power for your family, starting your own civil war, and balancing the popularity of other characters resulting in dissent amongst soldiers and the populace with giving them too much power.

the cool guy · Jul 26, 2014

ozmono2005 said:
Playing as a nation when that nation is a superpower isn't so fun. During the time period in question there are only so many significant nations and most are large empires. In EU it works better because there are lots of nations that can rise to significance and lots of nations that can rival each other. It's not so much the case for Rome.

Also with Rome you'd be missing out on so much if you didn't have the personal intrigues between families and factions like you can have in CKII.

I'd like to see it look far more like CKII than EUIV but more importantly I'd like to see it be a game in it's own right.

ringhloth said:
Paradox wants to tell stories with their games. The thing is, without characters, you can't tell stories. I think it's one of the reasons why EU4 isn't really ever going to be entertaining for me, and why I'm really excited to see HoI4 limit the usage of leaders (too many characters means that no one stands out). Rome has so much potential for characters. Playing as a family in Rome, even if it isn't that historical, has so much potential for stories. Working through the Senate, to get power for your family, starting your own civil war, and balancing the popularity of other characters resulting in dissent amongst soldiers and the populace with giving them too much power.

But seriously playing as a nation with CK2 style families (where you are the nation and is focusing on the nations good) would tell stories.

Will Steel · Jul 26, 2014

If there was a Rome II without character management, it would be blander than any quasi-game Paradox has ever released (looking at you, Sengoku, which wasn't too bland). EU model works as long as you have a huge map of earth with hundreds of different countries with at least 400 years of timeline, and provided that the player doesn't blob (or else even that got boring).

Character management is necessary to represent anything from the classical-era timeframe. There were lots of famous characters from that time, probably even more than medieval era, and they were not necessarily kings or emperors or rulers. They led some unique and interesting lives which made them famous, for better or for worse. They bring a huge lot of flavour in the game, help in creating stories, and keep the small, CK2-scale map from becoming bland.

What else would the player do once his Roman Empire spans the length of the map? Map painting gets boring after a while, but character intrigues are almost always fresh. And lastly, they make characters memorable, fondly or not. I recall one of my ERE emperors from CK2 who had lots of bad traits and jealous mistresses, so much that I edited the save files and named him Caligula, but I still don't recall so many bad kings and emperors from Eu3/Eu4.

Demarque · Jul 26, 2014

Will Steel said:
If there was a Rome II without character management, it would be blander than any quasi-game Paradox has ever released (looking at you, Sengoku, which wasn't too bland). EU model works as long as you have a huge map of earth with hundreds of different countries with at least 400 years of timeline, and provided that the player doesn't blob (or else even that got boring).

Character management is necessary to represent anything from the classical-era timeframe. There were lots of famous characters from that time, probably even more than medieval era, and they were not necessarily kings or emperors or rulers. They led some unique and interesting lives which made them famous, for better or for worse. They bring a huge lot of flavour in the game, help in creating stories, and keep the small, CK2-scale map from becoming bland.

What else would the player do once his Roman Empire spans the length of the map? Map painting gets boring after a while, but character intrigues are almost always fresh. And lastly, they make characters memorable, fondly or not. I recall one of my ERE emperors from CK2 who had lots of bad traits and jealous mistresses, so much that I edited the save files and named him Caligula, but I still don't recall so many bad kings and emperors from Eu3/Eu4.

I agree, but while I want Rome 2 to have some character management, I don't want it to be almost entirely about the characters, like it is in CK2. I prefer it to continue as the first Rome, with a fusion of EU and CK.

ringhloth · Jul 26, 2014

the cool guy said:
But seriously playing as a nation with CK2 style families (where you are the nation and is focusing on the nations good) would tell stories.

But why would it be better? I'd argue that constantly shifting around between characters, and being able to pick and choose the most successful ones takes the struggle out of clawing your way to the top.

the cool guy · Jul 26, 2014

Will Steel said:
If there was a Rome II without character management, it would be blander than any quasi-game Paradox has ever released (looking at you, Sengoku, which wasn't too bland). EU model works as long as you have a huge map of earth with hundreds of different countries with at least 400 years of timeline, and provided that the player doesn't blob (or else even that got boring).

Character management is necessary to represent anything from the classical-era timeframe. There were lots of famous characters from that time, probably even more than medieval era, and they were not necessarily kings or emperors or rulers. They led some unique and interesting lives which made them famous, for better or for worse. They bring a huge lot of flavour in the game, help in creating stories, and keep the small, CK2-scale map from becoming bland.

What else would the player do once his Roman Empire spans the length of the map? Map painting gets boring after a while, but character intrigues are almost always fresh. And lastly, they make characters memorable, fondly or not. I recall one of my ERE emperors from CK2 who had lots of bad traits and jealous mistresses, so much that I edited the save files and named him Caligula, but I still don't recall so many bad kings and emperors from Eu3/Eu4.

What do you think about my idea with families that you don't play as because you are the nation but the family intrigue can cause huge internal trouble?

ringhloth · Jul 27, 2014

the cool guy said:
What do you think about my idea with families that you don't play as because you are the nation but the family intrigue can cause huge internal trouble?

It just removes you from the action. Why not be in the turmoil?

the cool guy · Jul 27, 2014

ringhloth said:
But why would it be better? I'd argue that constantly shifting around between characters, and being able to pick and choose the most successful ones takes the struggle out of clawing your way to the top.

I never said this did you quote the wrong guy?

ringhloth said:
It just removes you from the action. Why not be in the turmoil?

You would be the nation that then suffers from what the characters do. Then you would be able to intervene but the characters would get angry because the nation intervenes with their plan. You would also have to judge people guilty of crime. It would also eliminate the "EU has no peacetime stuff" some people use because families would be huge.

ringhloth · Jul 27, 2014

the cool guy said:
I never said this did you quote the wrong guy?

That's how it worked in EU: Rome, and you're arguing for a style like that, right? When you wanted to pick a character who would become dictator, it's just whoever happened to be ruling. There's much less of a connection between him and the player.

the cool guy said:
You would be the nation that then suffers from what the characters do. Then you would be able to intervene but the characters would get angry because the nation intervenes with their plan. You would also have to judge people guilty of crime. It would also eliminate the "EU has no peacetime stuff" some people use because families would be huge.

You're still more distant from the action. Its better to be the main player in the story than it is to be someone watching from the sidelines. Plus, they're tons of gamey stuff you could pull that way. Want a civil war to be easy? Pick the side you want to lose, then disband all your armies and let the enemy siege you down. You aren't playing to win or lose in politics, and that's bad for the story.

the cool guy · Jul 27, 2014

ringhloth said:
That's how it worked in EU: Rome, and you're arguing for a style like that, right? When you wanted to pick a character who would become dictator, it's just whoever happened to be ruling. There's much less of a connection between him and the player.

You're still more distant from the action. Its better to be the main player in the story than it is to be someone watching from the sidelines. Plus, they're tons of gamey stuff you could pull that way. Want a civil war to be easy? Pick the side you want to lose, then disband all your armies and let the enemy siege you down. You aren't playing to win or lose in politics, and that's bad for the story.

Penalise the player for losing. And i think it would be interesting to watch from the sidelines being able to intervene a limited so you have to plan what you intervene in.
If you disagree then that is fine.

newtlord · Jul 27, 2014

As for me, I would much prefer a more developed version of the original EU:Rome than a CK style system. Partly its just preference (when I read about the middle ages, I can follow with interest the history of the Hohenstaufens or the Angevins, but when reading the history of antiquity, I find myself caring far more about the fate of Athens or the Roman Republic than the fate of the families therein), but I think there are certain non-personal-preference points that need to be considered. In this time period, a significant portion of the "important" nations are republics. Now, there is a CKII DLC dealing with playing republics, but it leads a lot to be desired. Specifically, the republic is modeled by choosing a single character to be "leader" of the republic, who rules it using the same mechanics as a king rules his kingdom. The result is that, for the duration of each term, one faction has absolute power over the republic, and the other factions cannot influence the nation's policies at all. This does not mirror reality at all, and I would argue it makes for very poor gameplay- apart from anything else, it means the player usually feels obligated to make his player characters be always elected as leader for the duration of the game if possible (and it usually is), which is both deeply ahistorical, and also raises the question of why one is not simply playing as the nation.

It is possible that a better method of gameplay could be devised (perhaps different families/factions accrue 'influence' from how many officials they have in office, and can 'bid' influence to change their nation's policy), but it would be difficult, and would be very difficult to get right on the first try- and I, for one, have waited too long for EU:Rome II to see it come out marred by shoddy underlying mechanics.

EDIT: Another point. As far as I can determine, the families of the period this game would cover seem to have been less "international" in character than the medieval nobility. One doesn't hear about Romans marrying non-Romans to secure political alliances or inherit foreign lands (Marc Antony did something of the sort, but the fact that he was doing so allowed Octavian to paint him as "betraying traditional values" and so forth, so clearly it wasn't a widely accepted practice). Other nations might be somewhat less limited- a Greek might marry a Greek from a different city state or kingdom-, but the fact remains that the world of Antiquity was in many ways more insular than Medieval Christendom. Would playing as a family seem so cool in CKII if one was limited to interacting with characters in a few nearby provinces (which is all Rome will consist of at the start, and is more than many nations ever will consist of)?

Spartanlemur · Jul 27, 2014

Lord Finnish said:
EU model is bland. That's all the reason I need to not want it.

This 100%

And who says it'll be "EU:Rome 2"??? What's to say they're not just going to create a new "Rome" based IP with a character model instead?

Looking at my Steam stats I have 637 hours in CK2 and only 8 hours in EUIV, so as I'm likely to skip Rome 2 if they do it like EUIV, I have to pray to Thor, Belenus and Zeus that they do a character-based game.

Much of the ancient world ran on a system of part-hereditary rule where a king would adopt an heir if they thought their own children unsuitable, as failing to see capable succession would quite often result in a coup or civil war. Even in ancient China this was the form of succession.

Edit (had to find the video): IMO a cross between CK2 and this (ability to play as a non-ruler to make different systems of government more fluid) should be what they're aiming for. It's a shame they never did an English port of RoTK X; it's probably the closest game there is to CK2.

[video=youtube_share;om6u5umPidM]http://youtu.be/om6u5umPidM?t=6m59s[/video]

Why Rome 2 shouldn't be designed so that you play as a character!

Major

A man of science and culture.

Second Lieutenant

Captain

Colonel

Major

Private

ozmono2005

Guest

Field Marshal

Major

Centurion First-File

Benevolent Save Scummer

Field Marshal

Major

Field Marshal

Major

Field Marshal

Major

Colonel

The Bad Guy