Not having the game or expansion, I want to know what the players of it think about it, as well as things they would like added.
-
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.
Peace resolutions. The AI is incredibly stubborn and places too high a value on provinces even when they control a huge empire, making it hard to defeat countries like the Seleucid Empire and such. It's fine as a challenge for the player, but gets annoying that the "end boss" is always one country, and that a decades-long war will just result in the cessation of 3 provinces. But this is where Total Conquest comes in 
Alliance cascading issue. This only started in the 2.32 patch, where all countries involved in a war will call their allies into the war. Those countries will then call in their allies, who will call in their allies, etc until you have half the world fighting the other half. This might have been accurate for the 20th century but not for antiquity.
Those are my main issues. There are other things I'd love to see in terms of game mechanics, like expanded diplomatic (and peace) options, more variety in units and buildings, a revised religion/omen system, etc. But Rome has kept me entertained more or less since day 1 of its release, so it can't be all bad
Alliance cascading issue. This only started in the 2.32 patch, where all countries involved in a war will call their allies into the war. Those countries will then call in their allies, who will call in their allies, etc until you have half the world fighting the other half. This might have been accurate for the 20th century
but not for antiquity.Those are my main issues. There are other things I'd love to see in terms of game mechanics, like expanded diplomatic (and peace) options, more variety in units and buildings, a revised religion/omen system, etc. But Rome has kept me entertained more or less since day 1 of its release, so it can't be all bad
There's already plenty of threads about what should be added, so I'll just say something about what I don't like.
- The first thing that comes to mind is the interface. It is every way much more primitive than the interface in EU3. The most annoying thing that I can remember about it is that the tooltip for armies only shows how many units are in the stack, not how many troops there are. It sounds like a small thing, but there can be 17 units with only 300 troops if they've been walking around in barbarian-land for a while. The interface is my main concern, I had plenty of complaints about it, but it's a long time since I played the game, so I really don't remember. If there ever is another expansion for Rome, I have hopes that this is the first thing they will fix, just look at how they're adding UI elements from Victoria II into Divine Wind.
- I don't like the awkward gamey things you have to do to get a CB.
- While in EU3 you spend your time thinking about what to do about other states, in Rome you spend your time colonizing.. and colonizing is boring.
- Getting new technologies is too simple and boring.
- There's a lot more I'm annoyed about, but again, I haven't played the game for several months, so I can't really remember them all.
If they ever did something about these things, it would have to be a major overhaul. Like IN, HTTT and DW combined, and I'm not sure enough people care about Rome to make money on an expansion. Maybe the fashionable concept of a "stand-alone expansion" is the way to go?
Before Vae Victis, Rome was just EU3's little brother. It has a smaller map, fewer features, worse interface, shorter timespan.. and it still does!
VV did give the game some character.. some features to call its own; but it's still EU3's little brother.
- The first thing that comes to mind is the interface. It is every way much more primitive than the interface in EU3. The most annoying thing that I can remember about it is that the tooltip for armies only shows how many units are in the stack, not how many troops there are. It sounds like a small thing, but there can be 17 units with only 300 troops if they've been walking around in barbarian-land for a while. The interface is my main concern, I had plenty of complaints about it, but it's a long time since I played the game, so I really don't remember. If there ever is another expansion for Rome, I have hopes that this is the first thing they will fix, just look at how they're adding UI elements from Victoria II into Divine Wind.
- I don't like the awkward gamey things you have to do to get a CB.
- While in EU3 you spend your time thinking about what to do about other states, in Rome you spend your time colonizing.. and colonizing is boring.
- Getting new technologies is too simple and boring.
- There's a lot more I'm annoyed about, but again, I haven't played the game for several months, so I can't really remember them all.
If they ever did something about these things, it would have to be a major overhaul. Like IN, HTTT and DW combined, and I'm not sure enough people care about Rome to make money on an expansion. Maybe the fashionable concept of a "stand-alone expansion" is the way to go?
Before Vae Victis, Rome was just EU3's little brother. It has a smaller map, fewer features, worse interface, shorter timespan.. and it still does!
VV did give the game some character.. some features to call its own; but it's still EU3's little brother.
The gangbang problem Cheexta said is really annoying, then AI peace things, a country can be gangbanged by 6 nations and it has one fifth of it's provinces non-occupied but still, AI manages to make white peace with 4 of the nations, make 1 pay tribute to THE LOSING COUNTRY even if they were epically losing and then it's only me against them.
Other thing I really hate is that AI cheats and does things that can't be done, I've been DoW'd by nations who are paying tribute and because of that CAN*T declare war on anyone. And with that we come to one more thing, you can't do almost any diplomatic actions (with ANYONE) if you are at war.
Other thing I really hate is that AI cheats and does things that can't be done, I've been DoW'd by nations who are paying tribute and because of that CAN*T declare war on anyone. And with that we come to one more thing, you can't do almost any diplomatic actions (with ANYONE) if you are at war.
I don't like that many aspects that make the ancient world unique hasn't been exploited by the game to make Rome feel much different and unique from EU series.
But about the actual game in its current state, what really annoy me are mostly AI issues like those described by Wave and Cheexsta. The alliance cascade bug is horrible and I can't understand why a hotfix hasn't been released yet. The problem with ai and peace deals has always been there and it didnt get better. And the AI tributaries bug, I dont know if its old or new, but it's definitely an issue.
But about the actual game in its current state, what really annoy me are mostly AI issues like those described by Wave and Cheexsta. The alliance cascade bug is horrible and I can't understand why a hotfix hasn't been released yet. The problem with ai and peace deals has always been there and it didnt get better. And the AI tributaries bug, I dont know if its old or new, but it's definitely an issue.
Rome has many problems
1) I am disappointed by the small map scope of the game. With a map only centered in Europe I expected twice the european provinces in EU3, but it actually has less.
2) Because of 1) the game feels like there is no space to breathe. In Eu3 you have space to grow your country and later deal with the blobs. In Rome you must blob early on to survive. And in few time the world is filled with 3 countries fighting for supreme blobbing.
3) Rome seems to be neglected. There are many things in EU3/HOI3/Victoria II that were drawn from each other, polishings, while Rome, that can get those things too, didn't. This can be as small as small interface changes that made things much better. There are many things that could be solved by this.
4) Technology is mostly (totally?) useless so the early/late game is the same. By late game I mean the mano a mano versus the other blob.
5) National Ideas are completely ramdom in usefulness. Some are too good to be true (even early on), while others (even later ones) are completely useless - worse, some are negative (Character popularity bonus? Say civil war before it happens).
6) War score/Peace demands are very bad. This is caused by 3) as EU3 has been reworked to plausible things.
7) I know this is conquests times but the AI does nothing else really. They attack everything that moves, including the tributaries. Also 3).
1) I am disappointed by the small map scope of the game. With a map only centered in Europe I expected twice the european provinces in EU3, but it actually has less.
2) Because of 1) the game feels like there is no space to breathe. In Eu3 you have space to grow your country and later deal with the blobs. In Rome you must blob early on to survive. And in few time the world is filled with 3 countries fighting for supreme blobbing.
3) Rome seems to be neglected. There are many things in EU3/HOI3/Victoria II that were drawn from each other, polishings, while Rome, that can get those things too, didn't. This can be as small as small interface changes that made things much better. There are many things that could be solved by this.
4) Technology is mostly (totally?) useless so the early/late game is the same. By late game I mean the mano a mano versus the other blob.
5) National Ideas are completely ramdom in usefulness. Some are too good to be true (even early on), while others (even later ones) are completely useless - worse, some are negative (Character popularity bonus? Say civil war before it happens).
6) War score/Peace demands are very bad. This is caused by 3) as EU3 has been reworked to plausible things.
7) I know this is conquests times but the AI does nothing else really. They attack everything that moves, including the tributaries. Also 3).
It's been several months since I played Rome, as my laptop has regressed and can no longer run it, but I always thought Rome's greatest failing was it had the framework of a brilliant game but little else. The first release didn't even feature the Senate, and that in a game called Rome set during the Roman Republic. It took VV to add the Senate, and it did it well, but it was a staggering oversight. It didn't take long after noting the lack of the era's most important institution for it to dawn that nations were depressingly similar. A different character name file, faction flag and government type and little else. There was and to a certain extent still is a lack of flesh on the bones, firmly preventing you from becoing immersed in the game. Play one Greek despotic monarchy, played them all. Played one tribe, played them all. Even the geopolitical situation changed little from nation to nation, you were either a blobbing superpower or you were near a blobbing superpower. Time was largely meaningless, because the absence of historical events and the decision to use AUC instead of BC (a tooltip date convertor was added at some later date) meant for most players you might as well have a clock counting down from 1000. And diplomacy? Why bother, beyond the heavily simulated court life of your own state, the world was seemingly empty, and years, decades could pass without a single transaction or newsworthy incident to report in the lands beyond your borders.
Ah, but Rome is a fun game, still. It has a truly great character system (glorious fun following the rise and fall of great families) and some enjoyable if highly simplified warfare. The flaws are just so obvious and frustrating because so much else is excellent. It's been said many times before, but Rome could have been a tremendous game if it had half as much attention lavished on it as other Paradox releases do.
Ah, but Rome is a fun game, still. It has a truly great character system (glorious fun following the rise and fall of great families) and some enjoyable if highly simplified warfare. The flaws are just so obvious and frustrating because so much else is excellent. It's been said many times before, but Rome could have been a tremendous game if it had half as much attention lavished on it as other Paradox releases do.
Someone help me understand this. As carthage I build a huge navy to make sure that the fledging Rome will pay a steep price if they mess with me.
I have 75+ ships. Two 25 ship stacks guard choke points while the rest of the Navy blockades EVERY Roman port. The next thing I know...I receive a message that I lost some ships and I noticed that one of my 25 stacks now only has...one ship. The rest of my beautiful 100% fleet as been trashed and needs to return to base for repair.
Rome had a negligible Navy so they didn't detroy me. So what happened to my Uber Navy?
This experience has made me reluctant to EVER play Carthage or any other Naval based power in this game.
I think this is true with most Paradox games. They have lots of brilliant ideas mixed with some fatal flaws which makes the game disappointing.
I have not gotten the Vae Victus expansion yet... I may eventually get it but...it doesn't sit well with me to buy an expansion just to make the original game fun...
My beefs include:
*Foreign relations are too simplified.
The world has two camps. Those that will automatically reject your proposals and those who will listen...and then they may or may not accept your deal.
The concept of the "enemy of an enemy is a friend" is not represented in any Paradox games. Using the "enemy of an enemy" angle should at least give you a big diplomatic bonus.
*Mystery destruction of giant navies.
As Carthage I was proud of my 75+ ship Navy...until my uber navy gets mysteriously trashed. I'm still doing a post mortem to figure out what happened. It wasn't the Romans because their Navy was maybe 6 ships at the time.
*I would like to see advisors added to the game to give us some forewarning of a potential civil war coming.
*It would be nice to see each country get there on type of Heavy infantry. The Roman legion was unique and the game should show that.
The technology of the game is a bit silly. An army at tech 30 is better but not much better. I think the tech advances should be tweaked so that you gain better abilities.
I love the barbarian raids and the civil wars.
I love the ability to mod though I find Rome MUCH more tedious to mod than HOI2.....
I love the tracking of manpower.
This is way off topic. But unlike EU3, ships often get a lot of attrition even when blockading. Could that be it?
I agree.... Perhaps, I should have made the disappearing Navy a separate topic.
But...I consider it a game flaw where I go from 75+ brand new shiney triremes to trashed navy.
And what was my warning? I get a message that I lost a ship and when I inspect my fleets, they are all crippled.
Attrition could explain my predictament...but...My war with Rome was EXTREMELY short. Once my Navy got trashed...I hurriedly took the white peace offered by Rome.
But...I consider it a game flaw where I go from 75+ brand new shiney triremes to trashed navy.
And what was my warning? I get a message that I lost a ship and when I inspect my fleets, they are all crippled.
Attrition could explain my predictament...but...My war with Rome was EXTREMELY short. Once my Navy got trashed...I hurriedly took the white peace offered by Rome.
the OP seems to be thinking about buying a new Paradoxplaza game. IMHO, EU Rome is incomparable to EU3, EU Rome has bad colonizing, small maps and little nations. EU3 on the other hand, has enormousness maps, nicer graphics and awesome gameplay.
I suggest you get EU3, and maybe if you've got some spare change, buy EU rome complete.
I can only speak for EU but i hear Victoria and Hearts of Iron are also quite good.
I suggest you get EU3, and maybe if you've got some spare change, buy EU rome complete.
I can only speak for EU but i hear Victoria and Hearts of Iron are also quite good.
My couple of Rome games were interesting... for a little while. I got tired of dealing with loyalty issues and scanning my "people" list to make sure everyone had a job of some kind. That got pretty tedious pretty fast.
Are any other modders aside from myself taking notes?
Much of this stuff is moddable, and a lot of that has actually already been addressed in mods. I strongly suggest to anyone who has issues with the game to check out mods like Epigoni, Magna Terra, Lofmod, Reign of the Ancients, etc. All of these mods add a lot to the game.
Much of this stuff is moddable, and a lot of that has actually already been addressed in mods. I strongly suggest to anyone who has issues with the game to check out mods like Epigoni, Magna Terra, Lofmod, Reign of the Ancients, etc. All of these mods add a lot to the game.
I dunno, it's hard to muster up enthusiasm for mods if the base game wasn't the most enjoyable. I keep coming back and giving Rome another try, though. Maybe one day it'll all click. ^^
Try Reign of the Ancients. It's a really good mod that makes the game much more interesting, fun, and playable. No more dumb colonizing mechanic, the rest of the world has been filled with various kingdoms and tribes of the time. Wiz did a lot to flesh out the game the point that it's nothing like the original. There's a nice features thread in the mod section so take a look.
My main gripes about Rome is the stunning lack of information and details in the tooltips. You can't see what each level of stability does for you, for example and it makes the game feel dumbed down or that you have vague information to work with.
edits: sorry awful typos and grammar from typing via cellphone
My main gripes about Rome is the stunning lack of information and details in the tooltips. You can't see what each level of stability does for you, for example and it makes the game feel dumbed down or that you have vague information to work with.
edits: sorry awful typos and grammar from typing via cellphone
Last edited:
OK....The Rome Strategy Guide answered my navy question.
500 miles from friendly base + salt water + wooden triremes = Lots of attribution damage.
HOWEVER, there should be a feature like in HOI2 where when a navy drops below a certain point, the navy automatically returns to base.
In HOI2 you can set the return-to-base feature from 1% damage to 100% damage.
Otherwise your 25 x ship navy can get smashed if you miss one message...
500 miles from friendly base + salt water + wooden triremes = Lots of attribution damage.
HOWEVER, there should be a feature like in HOI2 where when a navy drops below a certain point, the navy automatically returns to base.
In HOI2 you can set the return-to-base feature from 1% damage to 100% damage.
Otherwise your 25 x ship navy can get smashed if you miss one message...
I think you should be able to deny battles if someone enters your zone.
Also food should be considered. So if you dump 100,000 men in one zone, once the food is consumed they will need to allocate a portion of their men to forage. I remember the crusaders won one battle against Saladin, when Saladin got too "food greedy" and sent too many of his men foraging, the Crusaders attack and beat Saladin.
Attackers should get more foraging penalties since the peasants working the land are more lilkly to deny help to invaders...
Harvests:
In the old days there was a war season for campaigning. The reason being you needed people to go home and plant/harvest the crops (and weather considerations as well).
Somehow it doesn't seem right to be crossing mountains during the winter. Usually armies make their winter camp and start fighting again in the spring.
Also I would like to see a defensive alliance option. So you are only obligated to help if your ally is attacked.
Also on the negotiation screen. PLEASE color-code the terms.
Green = good term e.g. They are paying YOU tribute.
Red = Poor term e.g. You are paying THEM tribute.
I once misread a negotiation screen as I had the game set on very fast speed.
Having a color code would be great.
Also food should be considered. So if you dump 100,000 men in one zone, once the food is consumed they will need to allocate a portion of their men to forage. I remember the crusaders won one battle against Saladin, when Saladin got too "food greedy" and sent too many of his men foraging, the Crusaders attack and beat Saladin.
Attackers should get more foraging penalties since the peasants working the land are more lilkly to deny help to invaders...
Harvests:
In the old days there was a war season for campaigning. The reason being you needed people to go home and plant/harvest the crops (and weather considerations as well).
Somehow it doesn't seem right to be crossing mountains during the winter. Usually armies make their winter camp and start fighting again in the spring.
Also I would like to see a defensive alliance option. So you are only obligated to help if your ally is attacked.
Also on the negotiation screen. PLEASE color-code the terms.
Green = good term e.g. They are paying YOU tribute.
Red = Poor term e.g. You are paying THEM tribute.
I once misread a negotiation screen as I had the game set on very fast speed.
Having a color code would be great.
My only real gripe is that this game feels so empty compared to other Clausewitz engine (and defintely Europe engine) games.
It's fun the first few times, but eventually I want to play people other than the Romans, Greeks or Carthage.
Rome is still one of my all time favorite PI games, it just doesn't have the replayability of the other games.
It's fun the first few times, but eventually I want to play people other than the Romans, Greeks or Carthage.
Rome is still one of my all time favorite PI games, it just doesn't have the replayability of the other games.