Rome II

[Prometheus_1]

I don't Have this game but I will wait for a Rome II ... My hope is that it will have the same size map and detail of Europa Universalis ... Allowing us to march up to china or the Americas if we should wish to and Have the possibility to play as any obscure forgotten civilization from every corner of the ancient world .

 

[luitzen]

While I definitely support Rome II, a map with both the new and old world doesn't make any sense to me. During this time period there was no communication, not even indirect, between the Americas and the rest of the world.

 

[Prometheus_1]

While I definitely support Rome II, a map with both the new and old world doesn't make any sense to me. During this time period there was no communication, not even indirect, between the Americas and the rest of the world.

That is only according to what we know so far, but actually there are scattered historical evidences of precolumbian contacts , they found roman , cartaginean , chinese and other ancient countries stuff in american territories.
Not enough for shooting out precolumbian contacts , but still existant to make the claim that there were no contacts negligible.
SO even if canon archeology and history tells us there were no contacts, it doesn't actually means its true .Teuchitlan
I would instead add the americas , because even in ancient times there were pretty interesting nations there, like Olmec or Teotihuacán ,Teuchitla, Huastec , Calima, Chavín, etc..
And random new and africa and asian world eventually .

I would really like to play as Qin Shi Huang and play the warring states campaign in 210 BC .

 

[luitzen]

That is only according to what we know so far, but actually there are scattered historical evidences of precolumbian contacts , they found roman , cartaginean , chinese and other ancient countries stuff in american territories.
Not enough for shooting out precolumbian contacts , but still existant to make the claim that there were no contacts negligible.
SO even if canon archeology and history tells us there were no contacts, it doesn't actually means its true .Teuchitlan
I would instead add the americas , because even in ancient times there were pretty interesting nations there, like Olmec or Teotihuacán ,Teuchitla, Huastec , Calima, Chavín, etc..
And random new and africa and asian world eventually .

I would really like to play as Qin Shi Huang and play the warring states campaign in 210 BC .

You didn't link to any proof of precolumbian contact the America's and the Old World. I'm really interested to see proof of Roman or Carthaginian contact with the Americas. I find that rather hard to believe.

Even when there was contact, such as the Norse settlements, this is not within the timeframe of the game, and, more importantly, it was rahter insignificant, especially on a continental scale.

And I absolutely agree that there were some really interesting civilizations that definitely deserve some lovin form Paradox, but I feel that they deserve their own mechanics in a different game. Actors in the America's in general were independent from those in the Old World, especially on a larger geopolitical scale.

 

[NoodleNaught]

You didn't link to any proof of precolumbian contact the America's and the Old World. I'm really interested to see proof of Roman or Carthaginian contact with the Americas. I find that rather hard to believe.

Even when there was contact, such as the Norse settlements, this is not within the timeframe of the game, and, more importantly, it was rahter insignificant, especially on a continental scale.

And I absolutely agree that there were some really interesting civilizations that definitely deserve some lovin form Paradox, but I feel that they deserve their own mechanics in a different game. Actors in the America's in general were independent from those in the Old World, especially on a larger geopolitical scale.

Yeah I don't think there would really be much point to Americas in a ancient world game. However having east to China would be pretty interesting. A lot of indirect interaction in the world between Europe and Asia at the time. However it would be somewhat questionable as to actual gameplay. It would be realistically so difficult to get armies from one continent to the other, as to make direct confrontation unlikely.

 

[Prometheus_1]

You didn't link to any proof of precolumbian contact the America's and the Old World. I'm really interested to see proof of Roman or Carthaginian contact with the Americas. I find that rather hard to believe.

Even when there was contact, such as the Norse settlements, this is not within the timeframe of the game, and, more importantly, it was rahter insignificant, especially on a continental scale.

And I absolutely agree that there were some really interesting civilizations that definitely deserve some lovin form Paradox, but I feel that they deserve their own mechanics in a different game. Actors in the America's in general were independent from those in the Old World, especially on a larger geopolitical scale.

One for example is the ROMAN HEAD FROM TECAXIC-CALIXTLAHUACA.

 

[NoodleNaught]

One for example is the ROMAN HEAD FROM TECAXIC-CALIXTLAHUACA.

That's a bit shaky, there's no real proof one way or another. And one head is hardly any sign of some great trend. The thing could have literally floated across the Atlantic.

A more pertinent question is whether Rome 2 or any ancient era game made by Paradox in the future would benefit from having the new world? I would tend to say no. There would be too little interaction, and therefore too little purpose in having it.

India in CK 2 is already stretching the bill of having much point gameplay wise. The only reason it works is because blobing is so easy. And that's really a sign of poorly functioning mechanics. Something I would hope a Rome 2 or ancient set game would not have.

 

[Prometheus_1]

That's a bit shaky, there's no real proof one way or another. And one head is hardly any sign of some great trend. The thing could have literally floated across the Atlantic.

A more pertinent question is whether Rome 2 or any ancient era game made by Paradox in the future would benefit from having the new world? I would tend to say no. There would be too little interaction, and therefore too little purpose in having it.

India in CK 2 is already stretching the bill of having much point gameplay wise. The only reason it works is because blobing is so easy. And that's really a sign of poorly functioning mechanics. Something I would hope a Rome 2 or ancient set game would not have.

Lol a Roman head stone floating ? Anyway there are a lot of other references, as I said they are not totally substancial to "prove" , but are enough to rise the "doubt" and eventually make yourself ask a question.
What I mean is that this is a game and since it is why not possibly add even the option ? It coul dbe difficult and it could be hard , but why not? Anyway on top of that I woul dlove to also play ancient civilizations of precolumbian age .

 

[NoodleNaught]

Lol a Roman head stone floating ? Anyway there are a lot of other references, as I said they are not totally substancial to "prove" , but are enough to rise the "doubt" and eventually make yourself ask a question.
What I mean is that this is a game and since it is why not possibly add even the option ? It coul dbe difficult and it could be hard , but why not? Anyway on top of that I woul dlove to also play ancient civilizations of precolumbian age .

Ancient precolumbian civilizations would definitely be interesting in their own ways. However it would be better to have them in a independent game. Paradox like everyone else has only so much energy to make their products. I would rather them focus on making a excellent "ancient" Old World game. Instead of making a mediocore "ancient" old world, and new world game. when the two would have little to do with each other.

 

[Prometheus_1]

Ancient precolumbian civilizations would definitely be interesting in their own ways. However it would be better to have them in a independent game. Paradox like everyone else has only so much energy to make their products. I would rather them focus on making a excellent "ancient" Old World game. Instead of making a mediocore "ancient" old world, and new world game. when the two would have little to do with each other.

I think adding those would make an excellent ancient universal istory game , while cutting them out would make a mediocre game , plus I think a game focused on ancient precolumbian civs will never be made as its too limited in scope and interest . So thats the only chance to see the in ...

 

[Moocats]

Yeah I don't think there would really be much point to Americas in a ancient world game. However having east to China would be pretty interesting. A lot of indirect interaction in the world between Europe and Asia at the time. However it would be somewhat questionable as to actual gameplay. It would be realistically so difficult to get armies from one continent to the other, as to make direct confrontation unlikely.

Hard yes but not implausible, consider Alexander of Macedon. Greece to Egypt to Babylon {Modern day Iraq area} and he did reach India. Romans had similarities to Conquistadors. I see no reason why we couldn't include India to China and have some exploration intrigue to go with it.

 

[VineFynn]

The Americas? You're kidding, right? Should we include the moon in Hearts of Iron 4 because we used ballistic missiles?

 

[NoodleNaught]

Hard yes but not implausible, consider Alexander of Macedon. Greece to Egypt to Babylon {Modern day Iraq area} and he did reach India. Romans had similarities to Conquistadors. I see no reason why we couldn't include India to China and have some exploration intrigue to go with it.

Implausibility wasn't quite my point.

More that if it's too easy to do it would be silly. And if it was as hard as it realistically would have been to move armies to there. Then it may not be worth including until a expansion or something, because baring a hugely prepared empire you wouldn't be able to supply the troops necessary nor hold the ground. (Something that may happen 1in15 games for non exploiters)
Of course if the game turns into any other Paradox title, then blobbing will be the name of game. At that point sure why not, it's never been difficult before.

 

[Moocats]

Implausibility wasn't quite my point.

More that if it's too easy to do it would be silly. And if it was as hard as it realistically would have been to move armies to there. Then it may not be worth including until a expansion or something, because baring a hugely prepared empire you wouldn't be able to supply the troops necessary nor hold the ground. (Something that may happen 1in15 games for non exploiters)
Of course if the game turns into any other Paradox title, then blobbing will be the name of game. At that point sure why not, it's never been difficult before.

Fair point well made. I find my self agreeing with you.

 

[nizarus]

With conclave, Rome ii is possibly at hand.

 

[icedt729]

I'd like for Rome 2 to cover India and China (especially because there's some really awesome parallels between the Roman empire and the early Chinese dynasties) but I don't think including the Americas would add much. Good material for a total conversion mod, but not useful for the main campaign.

 

[Pacius Ferox]

I would actually want to extend the game downwards, to the Greek city states and their affairs.

EDIT: And maybe the Germanic tribes.

 

[nizarus]

I would actually want to extend the game downwards, to the Greek city states and their affairs.

EDIT: And maybe the Germanic tribes.[/QUOT

I would actually want to extend the game downwards, to the Greek city states and their affairs.

EDIT: And maybe the Germanic tribes.

Maybe some hordes and the Huns invasion.

 

[SAFAO]

I think as far as the west coast of India would work, you'd need the Parthians and/or Sassanids (depending on when and the game starts and ends) in a Rome game and having the Indian coast would remove the issue with the weird sharp border suddenly bisecting Iran like CK2 had before Rajas of India, and Rome did a pretty good amount of trading with coastal Indian states. Anything further distant would be a bit of stretch in terms of relevance and would be better served by a spinoff, imo.

 

[Fjalar]

Instead of calling it "Rome II" and clumsily including a New World with no point to it, why not brand it differently, for example simply "Antiquity", to denote the time frame and then give players three (or more, or less) basic choices for a map setup when starting a new game?
You would be able to choose between the world 1. as seen by the Romans and everyone they directly interacted with, 2. as seen by the Chinese and everyone they directly interacted with, 3. as seen by pre-Columbian American cultures and everyone they interacted with. Perhaps add others, so that the game ends up depicting what was going on in the world during the time that we call antiquity, but giving us only a limited outlook depending on which setup we go with. That would be sensible, IMO.
Building the game around Rome and making it global would probably not work very well.