I was torn between EU3 and Rome, too, but I think of all Paradox games, Rome actually needs an expansion.
The game has a lot of potential, but most of that potential has yet to be realized. I'd love to see an expanded, more detailed map, and more in-depth gameplay for that title.
I agree, but I don't think it will be enough to make Rome interesting. For me it took until HttT to actually get into EU3, now I love it. My reasoning is thus,
A Rome expansion is needed but I just can't get into it, I've tried. I've finished a game and I can't actually remember much about it. It is utterly boring. An expansion of course is vital, but slapping makeup onto a donkey still gives you a donkey. You can give it breat implants, but you still have a donkey.... a weird one nonetheless.
Eu3 doesn't need an expansion, but with the rotw expansion we will finally have it all wrapped up and two years down the line an EU4 with the graphical covering of Viccy2 and the base rules from Eu3 and all its expansions (including the Rotw) for those without ancient computers like me.
On top of which more people will buy the eu3 expansion and as has been mentioned rubberstamps this final expansion (which is unlikely if Rome gets it). Rome can still get its expansion after the EU3 one, it probably will not be the case vice versa.
Someone said they don't care for a rotw expansion as they only play in Europe. I only play European countries too, but there is a reason for that, I have more options, gameplay and immersion there; give the rotw some love and it will open up the game for me to play a hell of a lot more nations and a hell of a lot more time playing Eu3.
A Rome - Alexander expansion will just see me nervously apprehensive but hopeful. Install, load-up, play, feel nothing, play Eu3.
Or
A Rome - Alexander expansion will just see me nervously apprehensive but hopeful. Install, load-up, play, feel that it is an improvement, prefer to spend my time on Eu3, play Eu3.
Aye.
