What don't you like about Rome?

[Dagda]

It should have been more Ckish (character focused) to begin with instead of a dumbed down EU III + hacked senate mini-game. The expansion made Rome 1000% more playable but I felt those features should have absolutely been in the game at release. Even then I usually don't get that "one more month" addictive feeling like in other PI games.

 

[unmerged(213178)]

My only real gripe is that this game feels so empty compared to other Clausewitz engine (and defintely Europe engine) games.

Try reign of the ancients, it fills the map with playable nations.

I would probably say the thing i dislike the most about rome is the cascading alliances. Most other issues can be modded.

 

[Dominatus]

I don't like how army composition and tech seem to matter little in a battle, nearly always it's just the general with high martial who wins. And the lack of countries is rather depressing. I must try this reign of ancients you speak off. But other than that I do enjoy the game a great deal.

 

[wolffrnd]

Personally, I hate that Rebel Leaders and Pirate Leaders are all level 7 martial. It is idiotic. When playing as a republic, I feel lucky to have leaders with a 7, and often have to use generals and admirals with a lower martial. At the very least, they should be more like Barbarian Horde Leaders, and be random. To me, this really takes away from the game.

 

[Jia Xu]

My only real gripe is that this game feels so empty compared to other Clausewitz engine (and defintely Europe engine) games.

This was my problem with the game too. It's really hard to go from EU3 to Rome because EU3 is such a rich and full game, while Rome by comparison is relatively empty. If they ever make another expansion, they should take the horde mechanic from the upcoming Divine Wind expansion for EU3 and apply something similar to this game. Barbarians should real players in the game and not just represented by uncolonized provinces as if they were like EU3 natives.

 

[Blastaz]

That they haven't patched in, or made us pay, to add in all the love that EU3 has got since Rome was released. Naval patrol range and blockades. An inventive, or even semi present, CB system. etc etc etc

War Exaustion that made sense.

Infamy actually having any effect at all.

 

[vanin]

What I don't like? That the developers spent so much time on adding history files to the game, which I believe has impaired the rest of the game's quality. Now, I don't think that it is bad per se, I love history and clicking the startdate back and forth to then pick a fun one is a very nice feature that I endorse, but considering Paradox's later titles, where they have decided upon just a few (or in Vicky2's case, just one) startdate and the game's base (though maybe not tweaked or refined enough, see the HoI3 forums a year ago) has been fairly weel developed. Rome's problem from day one was a lack of things to do, which I track to the developers spending too much time on adding additional historical dates and the characters that came with them, out of which most most likely are never played.

 

[Blastaz]

What are you people going on about "is empty" ? There are many features EU3 is missing (plentiful character system with their interaction and all - proper rulers and heirs etc., civil wars, proper parliaments, fully rotatable camera, more detailed map (less provinces though), more unit types, trade routes, barbarian hordes, civilisation level, different classes of people, omens - and all this just from top of my head, i'm sure i have not mentioned all of them) ! Only thing is that the map is smaller and it takes maybe less time to conquer the "world". But even that is understandable, it's called "Rome" afterall and they didn't discover americas for at least another millenia.

And about the map. There are some people who are actually doing something about it and extending the map and not just whining "omg, omg i can't conquer the india". I would say that Rome took less expansions to make it better than EU3. I like EU3 too, but there is much less to do there, already because of the lack of characters. All you do there really is supress rebels, sink pirates and conquer. While you wait the truce to expire - you conquer someone else. I'm not saying that every Paradox game should be the same. No. You can convert any game to your favorite time period anyway. Just don't expect PI to be motivated to make another expansion for Rome by your whining "it's empty".

I think your getting the wrong end of the stick here, especially as this a thread intended for criticsim. And the criticsim that Rome is 'empty' has quite a lot of truth in it. There is no real way to manufacture a CB, no working diplomacy, very few countries to play as, not too many opening strategies, really clunky war and peace system. A lot of what Rome has that EU doesn't, trade routes and omens for example is just more micro for the player to manage, to a large degree the governor system, while awesome is more of the same. The best bit of Rome is the character system and trying to control a Republic. If you play a monarchy you are sucked into the same game of expansion in order to be able to stand up to the Selucids, Egypt Rome and Carthage.

What it really needs is some of the love that EU3 has got, naval range and rebels from IN, CBs from HTTT and some variant on the horde mechanic from DW would really give the game a lot more character. VV really improved the base game but another expansion pack would be pretty great, there is no need to rage about it.

 

[Nobby]

Don't get me wrong, i wouldn't mind another expansion for Rome, on the contrary. I don't rage, i would just expect some meaningful argumentation and not some simple statements like "it's not like EU3" or "it's empty" ... It only creates further questions and answers none. In your second post you are actually making some points i could agree with . It might be my problem, but if this would be a friendly suggestion thread instead of a whining one i would understand better. That's why when you say "more love for Rome" sounds more like "Rome sucks big time" to me.

I don't mind having discussions or even constructive criticism, but i do mind bashing games i like. Sure, there are many things that could be improved in any game, that's why some details should be expressed. I'm glad to see you actually taking the time, respect, but most people just say "more of ..." or "like in ..." but haven't said anything really. Peace !

It seems as if you have not read the thread thoroughly. It is full of people who have played the game for hundreds of hours setting out exactly why and how the game feels 'empty'. In essence, the argument runs that the only parts of the game that feel fully fleshed out are the character system and republics (with the overlap that entails). War, religion, technology, construction, diplomacy and historical immersion are where the game falls down, and the extent to which the game experience rests on what type of government your nation has, and not which nation you are or what is happening in other nations, renders the experience far more repetitive than any other Paradox game.

 

[UniversalWolf]

It seems as if you have not read the thread thoroughly. It is full of people who have played the game for hundreds of hours setting out exactly why and how the game feels 'empty'.

I think the "empty" claim is extremely unjustified, especially considering how often it's repeated. The problems with the game have to do with the things that are already in it not working correctly or as well as they should, and not much to do with a lack of options.

If you think the game is empty, you really haven't tried doing things differently from the most obvious way. For example, I've successfully played an entire game as one-province Rhodes without ever conquering anything else, and it was workable and extremely fun.

Could it be better? Unquestionably.

 

[Hardradi]

We will always want more, just like Alexander did.

One thing I will say is that the patching for Rome has been pretty good to date. Its a shame the last patch included the alliance spam issue.

Meanwhile, HOI3 gets modding support.

 

[Nobby]

I think the "empty" claim is extremely unjustified, especially considering how often it's repeated. The problems with the game have to do with the things that are already in it not working correctly or as well as they should, and not much to do with a lack of options.

If you think the game is empty, you really haven't tried doing things differently from the most obvious way. For example, I've successfully played an entire game as one-province Rhodes without ever conquering anything else, and it was workable and extremely fun.

Could it be better? Unquestionably.

Rhodes is a republic, and obviously republics are unique in having a deep and engrossing domestic side to them. Try playing a monarchy and saying the same. Still, what difference was there in playing one-province minor Rhodes and playing any other one-province minor republic? I would argue none, because there are no differentiating factors other than government type, culture and flag. Which, in an era as rich as antiquity, is a shame. Of course, everyone has their own opinion on this, but if you look at how quiet the Rome forum is relative to other Paradox games, then there is no doubt the game was not widely well received, and since the game world being 'empty' is the most common complaint I think it has some validity.