that's more a product of (bad?) design than timeframe. Rome is given ahistorical advantages to ensure its expansion.
-
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
that's more a product of (bad?) design than timeframe. Rome is given ahistorical advantages to ensure its expansion.
I say Rome. It's way too early for a Victoria 2 expansion to be considered (as has been said before, give it time to reveal the areas that need expanding... and for the kinks to be ironed out), and the same can be said for EU3 and HOI3 (two expansions one one the heels of the other is just weird).
So that leaves Rome. And I've always wanted to try it, but I didn't have the computer for it when it came out and then everyone said it still needed work... Give me a reason to buy the game, please.
So that leaves Rome. And I've always wanted to try it, but I didn't have the computer for it when it came out and then everyone said it still needed work... Give me a reason to buy the game, please.
Well to be fair, Rome Gold is pretty much picture perfect as far as stability goes.
It's just, the game plays more like an EU-Lite than a complex grand ancient strategy game where you're watching the rise and fall of empires.
It's watered-down, simplified, but fun.
I'd like to see it rival Vicky or EU3 in terms of complexity.
At the game's timeframe things such as religion were nowhere near as crucial as your culture, your policies as a nation, etc.
Hell, I'd pay at least $10 just to be able to have 2 consuls, an accurate Roman Republic (both Pre-Marian and Post-Marian), and the Spartan dual monarchy (to say the least of making the map bigger so we can get more city-state goodness).
If they push the timeline back to pre-Alexander, or even right before the death of Phillip, I could imagine being a city-state like Thebes and having to form a League of like-minded and similar cultures to band together to try and repel Macedonian aggression. Things like that.
Or to be able to have complex political and/or military interaction, such as Pyrrhus briefly taking over command of the forces of Magna Graecia, before moving on to Sicily, and then heading back to Epirus.
There's so much potential for cool stuff. All one has to do is read a little Xenophon, Herodotus, or Polybius to get some inspiration.
No it isn't. Besides, Rome itself is a peripheral player in the grand campaign.
Every Paradox game discourages playing minors, and for good reasons. Not enough stuff to do - incidentally, Rome is better than most, since there are always internal politics and incestuous affairs to deal with.
It blows EU3 away in terms of complexity. It's just that the complexity is emergent, it isn't there because there are 50 diplomacy options or 500 countries on the map. Depth comes about because when the Antigonid king who just stabbed you in the back 2 years ago gets overthrown by his Thracian general with almost unanimous backing of his subjects, and sneaks across the border into your country (ruined, as we recall, by combined Illyrian, Macedonian and barbarian invasions), you get to apprehend him, put his head on a pike outside the royal palace, and confiscate his money. A handful of simple features combines to create dramatic political events.
Or, how about the perennially disloyal governor of Seleucid Mesopotamia, disloyal because his wife apparently cheated with the ruler? Yeah, that's depth
Let's not get into the abstractions Victoria or HoI make about the way government runs - even though the former is positioned as a political simulator, too.
Too micro. They should keep it to Alexander, not push it back to Philip and the era when Greek city-states actually mattered.
Bah, don't be such a wuss!
We'll be able to appoint AI leaders for vast swaths of territory and let them worry about the Micro.
We'll be able to appoint AI leaders for vast swaths of territory and let them worry about the Micro.
No, as a matter of fact, I am not. They offer you an option to play them, but invariably it's either an exercise in futility, or tediousness, depending on the game. Majors also get all the events, attention to their setup in the scenario, special graphics and whatnot.
Bah, don't be such a wuss!
We'll be able to appoint AI leaders for vast swaths of territory and let them worry about the Micro.
I think that the Greek city-state era belongs in a different game altogether, otherwise you're just opening a can of worms regarding map setup, scale, etc.
oh really? Maybe if "paradox games" for you means what "paradox games, except for CK and EU" means for the rest of the world.
boy this thread is funny.
That only happens to be true because of character development, same as Rome, however with the two biggest franchises - EU and HoI (and Vicky, although it's hardly anywhere near those two), playing as poor minors is just tedious.
And, this still hold true for Rome. Minors have stuff to do, but actually taking on the big boys is a different story altogether.
Well, while I see what you are trying to say I don't think I agree with how absolute you are making it sound.
If you say that generally Paradox's games, even though they offer a large array of playable countries, have a bias towards the "majors", I'd agree with you.
But saying that in HOI or EU playing minors is tedious is just your opinion and with just a bit of observation you can see that it this opinion isn't as common as you'd think.
Just a bit of browsing through the AAR forums would net you an observation of just how many people take minor countries into greatness.
In EU this is even more the case, minors are a lot of fun, actually I can't even remember the last time I played France or England.
I'd admit of all Paradox games HOI is the one that is more "major" centered, which is understandable, although haven't you heard of WC Tibet or Haiti?
Last edited:
Why am I the only one who's a bit mad they're considering another EU expansion? I've spent $80 on EU 3 and it's expansions. Seriously, I mean there's been 3 expansion! It's not like our complaints suddenly shifted, people have been complaining about the lack of attention to the rest of the world since Vanilla. If there are still serious issues after 3 expansions then I feel ripped off and I'm obviously not getting my money's worth if you have to keep fixing stuff.
Nubia can inherit France and then go on to conquer Europe.
In Rome, not so much. If you're a barbarian, you spend the duration of the game civilizing and colonizing.
there is a big difference between "fixing" stuff and adding new features/content...
You're not understanding my point. I'm saying there's been 3 expansions already, they should of added it in one of those 3. 3! 3 Expansions! Heir to the Throne 4.1 isn't even done yet and already you want another expansion. Get in line they've paid enough attention to the EU franchise for now, they should focus on something else. As I find HoI 3 not to my liking and I've never played Vicky(Though I plan on buying Vicky 2 to see what all the fuss is about) I would prefer they focus on EU Rome and do the time period some justice.
CK had lineages, Victoria had pops, and HOI had tactics. It was the EU series that was the most simplistic of the lot. It has taken a number of expansions (and mods) to bring it to the point where it has anywhere near the complexity of the other games. Fighting wars is fun, but there needs to be something to manage when you are at peace. Otherwise, you just sit around until the next war. EU3 has come a long way from the beginning to HttT. Another expansion would bring it one step closer to being on par with Victoria.
That said, I would still prefer a Victoria expansion. Victoria II looks like it will be incredible. However, the goal appears to be a refined version of the original Victoria, adapting it to the Clauswitz engine and adding most of the innovations developed for EU3 and HOI3. An expansion pack would mean adding the new features that we have been dreaming about for years.
well, apparently there are scores of people out there that DO want a 4th expansion. It´s not exactly paradox´s fault
Rome. The game has seen little attention and over all lacks the possibilities beyond the character interaction. It doesn't need to be massively in-depth just something more for balance and interaction. Right now I feel like I spend most of my time assigning titles and offices which makes it feel more like work and so less like I'm actually interacting with characters (I presume that's one of the points in it).
EU3 on the other hand just got a new expansion and its patch isn't official yet which says to me PI believes there's still more work to be done.
HoI3's first expansion isn't out yet and time is necessary to see what kind of experiences the players will have with it. Patches from PI possess many tweaks and the occasional extra (mini-)feature which could change player's priority somewhat.
Victoria 2 isn't out for another two months so that isn't a consideration to me right now.
To me Rome's the sensible option because of the timing for the others. That said I'll probably get the expansion no matter what game it's for.
EU3 on the other hand just got a new expansion and its patch isn't official yet which says to me PI believes there's still more work to be done.
HoI3's first expansion isn't out yet and time is necessary to see what kind of experiences the players will have with it. Patches from PI possess many tweaks and the occasional extra (mini-)feature which could change player's priority somewhat.
Victoria 2 isn't out for another two months so that isn't a consideration to me right now.
To me Rome's the sensible option because of the timing for the others. That said I'll probably get the expansion no matter what game it's for.
The most obvious advantage being control of the Italian peninsula
In Rome there are less than half a dozen nations that are really playable and Asia Minor is really the only stage available for turning a small nation into a mighty empire. For me this has severely limited the game's replayability
What are you talking about? There are countless players (myself included) who have spent hours upon hours playing with minors - big and small, rich and poor - in most Paradox games. Rome and HoI2 are the only games (I've not played HoI3 and the original was actually pretty minor friendly) in which playing as a non-major is pretty futile. Now you may not enjoy creating the Netherlands as Holland or fighting off the BBB as Mexico but that's your experience and one that is certainly not universal amongst Paradox playersAlexander Seil said:
- Status