Yeah I can understand that and agree. I'm just saying they have to pick somewhere to start. And Rome pulls much more in the public imagination of Europeans, and their off shoots.
-
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
Yeah I can understand that and agree. I'm just saying they have to pick somewhere to start. And Rome pulls much more in the public imagination of Europeans, and their off shoots.
Eh no China's technological and populational superiority really only came about in the Song Dynasty in the timeframe of early Ck2. Before that they were just another river valley civilisation like Egypt, meopotamia, the Indus valley civilisation, an advanced civilisation no doubt but not the leaps ahead of everyone they are during the Song.
From the 5th century BC china is in the warring states period, before that there are only confederate dynasties. It's only when the Qin dynasty climbs to the top at the end of the warring states period is the second century BC that there even is a China, in fact even our word China comes from Qin(a).
But I agree that the entire world should probably be in the game, atleast any part of the world that is intresting. Making diffrent games makes things much harder for the people who want to make/use converters.
Last edited:
- 2
Please oh please. Even some sort of optimised version would be nice (the game becomes really unstable with Dictatorship or with the quick way I got to it by killing lots of prisoners). The insights and advances from the later games (CK2 obviously) would work really well. The politics uses a stereotyped optimates and populares political party way of representing Roman politics when competing families and family alliances would perhaps be truer to history. My conception would almost be a Roman CK2, but however the developers do it, it would be great, so great. Please.
- 1
well if you include china here, it will not be rome 2 game, but more like ancient civilizations 1.
Rome 2 ought to be "Rome: A Crusader Kings Game" just as Rome 1 was "Rome: An Europa Universalis Game".
- 1
- 1
Well as we all know the Nazis built a secret base on the dark side of the moon and reside there to this day. I'm really hoping Paradox confronts this by adding in a colonizable moon where you can wait and gather your strength for your eventual return to conquer your rightful homeland.
- 1
Adding the New World in CK2 would already be beyond ridiculous, adding it to Rome would just be another degree of magnitude beyond even that.
- 2
Well I am sure that intresting things were happening in the new world in both the Ck2 and rome eras.
Things that had absolutely nothing to do with the Old World whatsoever, within a completely different and unrelated context.
- 2
I don't see how that is relevant. If they can find enough information to have faction west of the antlantic then ofcourse they should.
- 2
Once the devs see how uninterested you are in a game centred on the ancient Old World they really are going to get to work on Rome II straight away.
- 1
In Silverberg's novel "Roma Eterna", Rome does eventually "discover" and then attempt to invade Central America. They do however get their ass kicked and never try again. Traitors!
I already kind of approached this in another thread, so I'll start by quoting what I said:
The reason I chose 626 BC rather than something later is that the balance at that moment in history is very interesting: the Assyrian Empire is on its hind legs, fast receding into nothing-ness, while the rest of the Near East is splitting up into a large number of small but powerful mini-states - Babylon, Persia, and Media, just to name a few. There are no major empires in the near east at that point, with the exception of Egypt, which is highly insular, not very expansionist, and will likely prove a paper tiger as it falls technologically behind all of their neighbors. Greece is divided amongst a multitude of city-states, opening up an interesting diplomatic game, while Italy is broken up into a large number of small but strong cultural factions - the Etruscans, Romans, Latins, Samnites, etc. It's a very interesting moment to start at and would make a great balance.
As for the game's scope (which is what most people are discussing here), I think the game should include most of the Old World but not the New World. Most of Russia could be ignored, though I think the northern boundary of the map would run approximately from just above the southern coast of Scandinavia all the way to just below Siberia and south-eastern Russia. I'm not sure if Australia and the East Indies would need to be included, but if you're going to include India and China you might as well include all of mainland southeast Asia. Japan could also be excluded, but China and Korea should definitely be a part of the game. Africa is somewhat trickier - given how little a role most of the African continent played in influencing the rest of the ancient world, it might make sense to exclude everything south of Nubia from the game, especially since that would probably make the map look a little neater.
Just my two cents.
The reason I chose 626 BC rather than something later is that the balance at that moment in history is very interesting: the Assyrian Empire is on its hind legs, fast receding into nothing-ness, while the rest of the Near East is splitting up into a large number of small but powerful mini-states - Babylon, Persia, and Media, just to name a few. There are no major empires in the near east at that point, with the exception of Egypt, which is highly insular, not very expansionist, and will likely prove a paper tiger as it falls technologically behind all of their neighbors. Greece is divided amongst a multitude of city-states, opening up an interesting diplomatic game, while Italy is broken up into a large number of small but strong cultural factions - the Etruscans, Romans, Latins, Samnites, etc. It's a very interesting moment to start at and would make a great balance.
As for the game's scope (which is what most people are discussing here), I think the game should include most of the Old World but not the New World. Most of Russia could be ignored, though I think the northern boundary of the map would run approximately from just above the southern coast of Scandinavia all the way to just below Siberia and south-eastern Russia. I'm not sure if Australia and the East Indies would need to be included, but if you're going to include India and China you might as well include all of mainland southeast Asia. Japan could also be excluded, but China and Korea should definitely be a part of the game. Africa is somewhat trickier - given how little a role most of the African continent played in influencing the rest of the ancient world, it might make sense to exclude everything south of Nubia from the game, especially since that would probably make the map look a little neater.
Just my two cents.
- 2
Before anything else: Paradox - Make the freaking game already....
I don't know about this as part of the base game, but I'd like to see it back to ~1400 BC. This gets us the Trojan war (both real and fantasy versions), along with the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and most interestingly to me the Assyrians. With all of the ancient civilizations around, it'd make an awesome Expansion for the base game. Lots of waves of barbarian migrations for those civs to worry about, along with the rivals. I mean the Greeks alone had what? Three? Four? major waves of invaders prior to the age of Rome? I mean think about a Minoan civilization lasting long enough to contest control of the Med with Rome, or Carthage...
Thoughts?
I don't know about this as part of the base game, but I'd like to see it back to ~1400 BC. This gets us the Trojan war (both real and fantasy versions), along with the Hittites, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and most interestingly to me the Assyrians. With all of the ancient civilizations around, it'd make an awesome Expansion for the base game. Lots of waves of barbarian migrations for those civs to worry about, along with the rivals. I mean the Greeks alone had what? Three? Four? major waves of invaders prior to the age of Rome? I mean think about a Minoan civilization lasting long enough to contest control of the Med with Rome, or Carthage...
Thoughts?
- 1
I think there's simply not enough historical information about that time in order to make a really good game including that period. 753 BC is probably the earliest you could set the game's start, and even that is stretching it a little. But, if the game extends all the way forward to, say, 117 AD, then that would give you up to 870 years of gameplay! That's a lot to cover, especially if the game includes all of India and China. I imagine they might want to start with a somewhat smaller focus (say 626-23 BC without the Far East), and expand the timeline and/or map through DLC/patches, but it would still be awkward for them to ever include gameplay going back to the 1000s BC.
- 4
I am not sure that they will go back to 1 A.U.C(753 BCE) at least not at first anyways. I think a good time frame for the base game would be from the founding of the Roman Republic in 245 A.U.C(509 BCE) to 900 A.U.C(147 CE); a good long time, but nice to end on a good clean number. The date can obviously be extended forwards or backwards.
Side note: should we use the ab urbe condita Calendar or not? I would include in parentheses the more common calendar date, but use the roman one, tis just my opinion.
As for geography in the base game, I would generally include most of europe; though perhaps not Russia or Scandenvia. Though I would extend it as far as india(mostly to reflect Alexander the great's empire and the eastern successor kingdoms). I would include most of north africa and all of Arabia.
for what i know, the program has a problem to switch between negative and positive years. I don't remember exactly what the devs have said, but i recall the game can't handle. That's why they used Ad Urbe Condita calendar
- Status