I give up!! I hate this game!!!

[Airfixer]

Paradox is only company I buy PC games from...... Just had a pissy moment and was venting some steam.

Same here, but I also feel disappointed in EU:Rome, it just doesn't reach up to the high standards of the other paradox games. EU III wasn't really that good either, but it was better than EU:Rome. And I do not mean to flame by this, just give my opinion of tha game.

So basically, what I do not like about this game is: It doesn't have the peacetime deapth of the EU games. Diplomacy is not easy on the mind, the economy system is almost nonexistent and omens, wtf mates?
First of omens are way to powerful, sure people in those days believed in omens and stuff like that, but not that powerful (and yeah I get it, if they wern't powerful people would whine about it as a waste of time), and omens are luck based which eliminates a part of the strategy in the game.

The CB system is wierd, if an assasin is caught assasinating someone in your country, you won't get a CB, but if you send an assasin which is caught in his deed and improsoned, you get a CB ? Would make more sence if only the first, or maybe both gave a CB (might be changed in some upcoming patch)

The character system is fine in theory, but theory is a treacherous thing. It is way too much micromanagement with the characters and the die like flies and you don't know if it was someone important or not. And sure it is interesting to see which characters who will join in against you in civilwars and which will be your heir and so on, but in late game you have way too many characters and everything falls into a blurr. The characters stats also have way too little influence of things when tey are governors, rulers or if they hold offices.

The research system is plain booring. There is not much you can do except appoint the researchers. (I know, you can't do much in the EU games either and that's one of the poor things about them). You can't even choose which tech you want to prioritize except by giving bad and good finnese persons the responsibillity over that tech. The least I think you whould be able to do is to set what path you're going to take in the different techs

The millitary system is basically the same as in the other EU series, therefor not much to say about it, it is neither good nor bad.

So here you have it, a paradox fan review of this game, and I hope you don't take it as if I hated this game, it is much better than most of the games made by other developers, but it doesn't match the standard of the other Paradox games (which I of course love). And I hope you take this as constructive critisism and that you try to do someting about this.


I'm praying that your next game will be better

Best Regards
/Airfixer

 

[DarthJF]

The CB system is wierd, if an assasin is caught assasinating someone in your country, you won't get a CB, but if you send an assasin which is caught in his deed and improsoned, you get a CB ? Would make more sence if only the first, or maybe both gave a CB (might be changed in some upcoming patch)

This was fixed already in 1.2, so that victim gets CB if you get caught, tough you still get CB if they execute/imprison your agent.

 

[Alfred Packer]

I would also like to see less stab hits for warring. Back in this time period, there was zero outcry for starting wars, most leaders would feed the people a lie anyway, and unless they were losing badly, wouldnt even be a concern of the public. Soldiers were mostly mercs and paid after victories, so unless they werent getting paid, they wouldnt revolt.

to sum it up, please change stab hit until after the war progresses, I dont recall Roman people getting upset for Caesar destroying the Gaullic tribes or Trajan for conquering Dacia or Partha, in fact the people were completely supportive of these campains, why the stab hit for a victorious war?

I always read this argument and I must respectfully disagree. Caesar's successful Gallic Wars were a direct cause of the Civil War against Pompey.

On top of that, for most of these monarchial dynasties, the army, government and state were one, so if the army marched off to war, the government left a large power-vacuum that potential usurpers were sure to take advantage of (I know - over simplification, but still true - more than one Persian Royal Sibling was executed just over fears they might try to usurp in the King of Kings' absence).

For the city-states, the core of the army was made up of the citizens of the polis - the farmers, craftsmen, senators, ephors, what have you. Sending them off to war for extended periods of time so that a general could pick up some glory was a quick road to execution or exile.

The Spartans did make extremely heavy use of mercenaries, but that is because an earthquake and strict laws on citizenship left them with only about 700 available manpower during this period.

When I think of stability in this period, I do not consider the populous - freemen and slaves, who mattered very little in this regard, but rather other powerful people - whether individuals hankering for power or conquered peoples yearning for freedom. The stability hit, I think, is the government's attempt to keep them in line and their own manueverings for power as well as the rivalries generated by successful campaigning and the hatreds generated by failed wars.

 

[palmus]

This is a bit off topic but anywaays...
Saw someone mention a mod for vicky with new factories and such.
Never heard of it, could someone please post me url or something?
Looked through the vicky mod forum and found nothing

 

[unmerged(56754)]

I have four critisim's or else the game would be very good.

The AI, it refueses decent peace offers, can't control navies and on the whole diplomacy is pretty poor.

Seluecid Empire and carthag. Way too strong, they prevent the real historic powers (Rome, Egypt and to a lesser extent Macedon) from evolvng. Carthage controls western Med, Seluecids the East, in every game. Rome is usually the Italian penisular to Poland.

Colonising. It makes Massila control France, and Rome go to Roma to Sweden, with Macedonia filling in the gaps. (Although Im using MODs to prevent this now)

The final, biggest concern is the 'lack' of gameplay. Yes, theres hours of it,nt of time can be spent doing soemthing, however, it lacks a gameplay feel to me. In RTW (two completely different games I know, bear with me) it didn't matter which of the 5 played as, the battles is where the game was played. In EUIII it was the hundreds of nations playable, throughtout the world over 400years, ever game could be different.


In Rome, its choose one of like 15 nations, then its tme game, either try and try and try and try and try and tr to get Carthage to settle peace, or colonise Liguria before Massila every time.

 

[unmerged(11375)]

can you give us a quick rundown on why you are displeased. maybe a helpful modder will take your request up and make it

Basically what others have said here. Peace time is like watching paint dry. It bugs me that you spend so much time on research, and lots of time, you get nothing for it, and just move to the next level. I still think the IA cheats a bit, and since I find the IA very good (when fighting wars) I see less requirement for this. What I'm speaking of is I just started a war with 2 one Prov nations, they didn't have anymore than about 20 armies each at the start, and in no time, they have like another 35 armies each, attacking my "back door" so to speak. Good tactics on their part, but were the hell did all the troops come form??? Their counties had very high Civ value, so if they are like me, there would have been almost no Mercinaries to hire, yet POOF I was getting over run. Oh yea, I was playing as Roma and had a half decent Empire already.

 

[Duke of Bavaria]

Again, I just told you why. If you replace the dying governor with the best available slob (3-4 mouse clicks), you'll wind up putting a guy who is -20% tax income in a high-tax province because you don't have anyone else available. If you want to optimize at all, then you have to go to the ledger, find out a bad province to stick the slob in, move the guy he's replacing to a good province, and move the good guy in the good province to your really high-tax province.

Only you can't just do that whenever someone dies. While you weren't looking, 2 of your governors caught the plague, one decided to be cruel, one became an inventor, and one is schizophrenic. Now you gotta go shuffle all of them around, too.

I dont think the Romans could send a Governor from Gallia to Asia with a mouseclick either everytime they wished.

 

[unmerged(41034)]

I tried only micro managing the important provences and legions. let the event replace govenors in your outlying provences and just replace your frontier legions with good leaders for barbarians.....then wait for war to set leaders for your others. that way youll have a fresh list to use

 

[Dinsdale]

Basically what others have said here. Peace time is like watching paint dry. It bugs me that you spend so much time on research, and lots of time, you get nothing for it, and just move to the next level. I still think the IA cheats a bit, and since I find the IA very good (when fighting wars) I see less requirement for this. What I'm speaking of is I just started a war with 2 one Prov nations, they didn't have anymore than about 20 armies each at the start, and in no time, they have like another 35 armies each, attacking my "back door" so to speak. Good tactics on their part, but were the hell did all the troops come form??? Their counties had very high Civ value, so if they are like me, there would have been almost no Mercinaries to hire, yet POOF I was getting over run. Oh yea, I was playing as Roma and had a half decent Empire already.

Militia builds very quickly. The AI is in love with militia, so you can often see very rapid increase in their numbers. Particularly if there are recruitment bonuses in a province or two

 

[Crookback]

I think I've played it twice. I was disappointed by the fact I couldn't get past the bookmark screen until 1.2 was released - this now fixes the initial problem I had, but has served only to show me what a boring game I find Rome to be.

Still, I've bought it and I intend to keep it so I shall await further patches and mods and see what becomes of what is it at present an immense example of wasted potential.

 

[Eber]

I can understand your frustration with the game, especially with the argument of governors dying off too quickly. I remember when I first played the demo, I absolutely hated the game because I continued to get pop-ups of people dying every few days it seemed. However, I chalked that up to the reason that we were only playing a scenario. If you start at the beginning, dying doesn't occur as frequently as it did in the demo.

Long Lee, one thing I recognized about your statement was that you thoroughly enjoy Victoria. Now Victoria is a good game, but I must say that out of all the Paradox games, Victoria is the most frustrating for me. EU series have always been my favorite and I also enjoyed CK quite a bit. It's all a matter of opinion on what type of gameplay you want.

Also I find that many people have differences because of the era. Some people are completely fascinated with the Roman era and all that it comes with (quick and rampant death, small amount of civilizations...etc.). I truly believe that though the game definitely could use some fixes, Paradox did a great job with giving the game a historical and entertaining flavor.

 

[johnbecool]

I already purpose some changes in the game:

1 more playable countries
2 when a barbarian province gets 50% civ value it must be created a new country
3 to colonize, YOU must vainquish the barbarians, and make diplomatic issues for there submission ( they must accept it) with a system like in EU 3 if they are too much aggressive it could be submit only if they think they gonna all dies...( if you have enough armies). So when they don't accept your authority, you must fught again...

in fact i want to suppress colonization from this game, just replace it by the conqest: they will accept more easily if your borders provinces are well civ and if they are not too much aggressive...

So i think the war between the great nations will be more often, and massilia won t be the master of the world...

4 more contries on departures, and more possibilities to create new in the map, i explain, if roma let too much time a province under rebels control, i want the possibility for them to create Etruria... and so on, for every country... not automaticaly start a civil war, wich i think must be started by generals or governor, not by the people in this era...

 

[Alexander Seil]

The problem with this game is that the game is basically about war and characters. Well, the specific problems are -

War - it's TOO ABSTRACT. No weather effects, strange relative unit strengths (although I do like the concept of strictly relative strengths), simply not enough going on at war except for those same old battles and sieges that I have seen a thousand times since Europa Universalis the FIRST. Seriously, check out how many massive multi-page threads there are in the HoI2 forum about fleet compositions, proper waging of submarine campaigns and use of alpine troops in East Asia. In Rome, on the other hand, there's scarcely anything to talk about, it's just too bland. Even CK had a more interesting system (with different stages in battle, events related to sieges, etc.).

Characters - well, it's the old CK, except that these characters are all flat. There aren't enough events to make the system come alive like it does in CK, there are no defectors, back-stabbing schizophrenic bastard uncles, bishops, popes, etc. They're just generic, boring, and don't do much except for contributing their Charisma/Finesse to a few events.

And what else is there? Basically nothing. Some trade here, some espionage there, but nothing that makes me go "Oh, that was cool." Because it wasn't, it isn't and it won't be. I understand why people would like this game, especially in multiplayer, but it just lacks the detail I need to get into it. Ironically, I went back to playing Great Invasions after getting Rome on the day of release...

 

[unmerged(47103)]

The problem with this game is that the game is basically about war and characters. Well, the specific problems are -

War - it's TOO ABSTRACT. No weather effects, strange relative unit strengths (although I do like the concept of strictly relative strengths), simply not enough going on at war except for those same old battles and sieges that I have seen a thousand times since Europa Universalis the FIRST. Seriously, check out how many massive multi-page threads there are in the HoI2 forum about fleet compositions, proper waging of submarine campaigns and use of alpine troops in East Asia. In Rome, on the other hand, there's scarcely anything to talk about, it's just too bland. Even CK had a more interesting system (with different stages in battle, events related to sieges, etc.).

After playing a few times, I found myself comparing it with HoI2. The results weren't flattering. I think others have hit the main notes as to to what they find disappointing, and there are some common views.

Perhaps it's due to the time period in which the game is set that there is so little effective points of difference between states. HoI2 did this really well through the different land doctrines, leaders and the highly significant HQ unit. Similarly, other research was detailed and significant. OK, it's obvious there's much more scope for technological points of difference in a game set in the mid-20th century, but I also think 'Rome' suffers from the excessive abstraction of combat and little/no difference between countries.

Characters are tedious in general, I find. They end up with 15 different traits, some of which are contradictory, they don't seem to matter too much, and they system for viewing/controlling them is pretty poor when compared with something like MTW2. Even within HoI2 the commanders were significant and you could see their improvement based on combat experience (in fact I think the whole 'command and control' and 'skill/trait/rank' system in HoI2 is brilliant).

I'd like to see what elements of other Paradox games could be implanted successfully. I've not played any EU, so I'm not sure how well it worked, but it seems a shame to me Paradox hasn't accessed more of the excellent tech research/government/commander systems in HoI2.

Will await developments, but my initial assessment is this wasn't worth the $100 it cost in Australia, certainly not when compared with MTW2 or HoI2 for examples.

 

[unmerged(68318)]

EU3 was much more playable from the start. EU3 bugs were simply exploits and crashes, and fundamental gameplay remains unaltered in my opinion.

The thing about Rome is its a mad dash to take EU3 and throw it in combination with CK. The reason both of those games were great to begin with is that they were built from the ground up, and not some sort of frankenstein monster. Honestly it feels like if CK and EU3 were to hook up... and maybe EU3 got pregnant, Rome would be the baby. And unfortunately sometimes babies are born autistic or downright retarded.

The real problem is that there are all of these characters floating around, and they have no storyline. If you have characters... you need a storyline. It doesn't have to be an amazing one, just anything to make you care. If over the course of a ruler's life a complex story unfolded it would be interesting, and it could be tied with your nation's development therefore adding the needed depth in that aspect. So I guess fewer characters... more depth.

The development of law and governmental structure would be nice as well.

 

[Alexander Seil]

The storylines in CK were amazing. My Byzantine Emperor, a guy who outlived two of his sons (both of whom were killed in battle!) became King of Bulgaria by deposing his own father-in-law. How more dramatic can it get? Just remembering that makes me go and buy Deus Vult right now...

 

[unmerged(68318)]

yeah, its exactly that kind of interesting situation that makes characters worthwhile. I think there needs to be a smaller number of them as well so that you can focus on a few and their relationships. Maybe most provinces have no defined governor and you just place them in what you deem to be key provinces.

When I played the demo I was rome and carthage and there were some things to tend to because of that... but if I were to play as a minor what would I do? Assign my single trade route.... then what?

 

[jalapen0]

I guess I was expecting alot of political intriege. Stabbing people in the back (sometimes literally), clawing for power, decenting opinions, political followings, and kissing the ruler's butt. There is none of that. There aren't even that many events to stir things up. And since war, research, peace, government, and society are all extremely simple it makes for a snoozer.

I've had the honor of owning several PI games. This is the first one I'm like wth.

 

[whosthebestcop]

I like Rome more than EU3. I like being a warmonger and not worrying that much about BB in this game.

 

[spl]

"To each his own"