Yesso you're enhancing my point by initially calling it bs?
Not everything has to be written just for the sake of arguing There is no data aside from some roman historian, known because they made up stories-
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
Not everything has to be written just for the sake of arguing There is no data aside from some roman historian, known because they made up stories
Yes
are you talking about romans or historians ?
We? Making up stuff? Oh, c'mon!are you talking about romans or historians ?
Well, turns out he was right. A year later, and we still dont know much about Rome 2
Tacitus' Germania? I've got it right here and it says that they cheered on their husbands (or insulted them when they weren't fighting hard enough), but not that they actually took up arms themselves.That's BS. A roman historian (Tacito, I don't care about the english name
Spanish translation
Which means they get into the battles to help and support their retreating fellowmen (not active fighters).
Then I got it wrong. Modern historians thought that Tacitus said that...
My fault
I can understand why. This thread itself sort of demonstrates why a Rome game at a macro/strategic level would is hard to conceive. But I'd settle for anything that wasn't character based or more or less cut from the cloth of CK II.
I don't think it's hard at all - devs have said that they just don't think a Rome sequel would sell very well
As far as people arguing over mechanics, there's a lot of that in every game PDX has made including CK2 and EU4, and it hasn't stopped them proceeding
As far as people arguing over mechanics, there's a lot of that in every game PDX has made including CK2 and EU4, and it hasn't stopped them proceeding
Not mechanics, per se. It's the manner of approaching the time period. Rome was enough of a dominant power for much of the period overall that balance, mechanics, and all else is more of a problem. There was enough pluricentricity of power/hegemony in the other games' eras that this was not as much of an issue.
don't want to bother reading 53 pages of posts, so are we gonna get Rome 2 or not?
Omg what? that's merely assumptions by members. Just wait for around a week and we'll have the announcement.
you are spoiling all the hype, mate. enjoy it while you can
just don't want to get my hopes up over something that could be nothing...
I'd probably laugh for about 2 minutes if Project Armstrong ends up to be the Rome sequel (or an ancient era game) and Project Nero is something around Victoria or something random
Well, I don't know about that. I can see another problem though, this being that the time period evolves drastically. Before the punic wars, you have a mix of mild internal pressures and moderate external pressures. You have the senate and it's inherent stability, but much more important is the conflict between nations, Rome vs Carthage, Rome vs the Seleucid.
But after the Empire is created, Rome has no real enemies. So now those internal pressures are hyper-exxaggerated, new internal pressures come into play, and external pressures are nonexistent.
Maybe they should make two games? Or just focus on either the Empire OR the Punic Wars period?
I don't think it's inherently more difficult to represent the internal pressures in a state vs the competition between states, but I think that they have to spend a lot of money and time to create an in-depth simulation which covers both europe/med during the Punic Wars AND during the Roman Empire. Everything totally changed in those few centuries.
Last edited:
Johan said yesterday in the CoP-Livestream, they are actually NOT working on Rome 2!
Empire period is more or less destined to have Rome in a position to manage a fairly easy game. And that sort of deflates the fun of being Rome. Even after the Punic Wars, a competently managed Rome isn't going to be too much of a challenge (just like Rome I) unless the game features fairly contrived mechanics to add difficulty, like the pirates in EU III that show up in your very first New World colony, even though it's isolated and has no economy to speak of.
I'm honestly not sure of the best way to go about it. They could have an earlier start date, but things could go in a bizarrely ahistoric direction, again, unless something was added to keep powers into reasonably historic borders, but then there's the problem of straitjacketing the player of following a more or less set pattern. .
It is a trick. They've called their new totally revamped ancient world game something else. I hope.
- Status