-
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
The annoying thing about Rome-era games is that they pretend the period between the Pax Romana and Aurelias never happened. They either cover from the Republic to the Empire, or just the decline.
It's an interesting era, but mostly for internal politics. It'd be pretty lame to have a grand strategy game as Rome in like 100 AD.
What did you do last night, Bob?
I played the new Roman Empire strategy game. Total waste of time.
How come?
I sat staring at the screen for three hours while nothing happened,. Then I decided to capture a province, but it tanked my economy, so I had to withdraw from it again and build a defensive wall instead. Then I got inflation and rebellions broke out, so I had to play whack-a-mole for half an hour. Then my character was murdered and it was game over.
I'm actually complaining that more often than not they exclude that period from the gameplay altogether- Rome Total War and EU Rome being good examples.
Rome 2 would be great as long as they don't turn it into CK2 with all the characters. I would love Rome 2 to be a Rome game and not just CK2 Rome edition. Making Rome 2 more character based would make me so sad.
Actually, yes please on the CK2 kind of Rome.
But don't call it EU: Rome 2, please?
Make up something new. :3
But don't call it EU: Rome 2, please?
Make up something new. :3
But i want Rome to be it's own thing and not just CK2's shadow. EU:Rome had so many interesting features that would be great if Paradox tried to do them a second time.
Also the mix between EU and CK is the best thing ever. But your opinion is yours and not mine so you can choose what you want.
Yes, but it is generally completely ignored by most games that focus on the rise of Rome/ the fall of the Republic instead (even if I'd like to have a game starting in the Pax Aureliana, if only to see the Parths, the chinese and the Romans in the same Grand strategy game.). If everything is done right, it's unlikely that everything will play out the same as in our history, meaning that it may not be so boring after all.
i want.
and I don't want EU: Rise of Rome, I want EU: Rome
So I mean cover the period from city state to collapse of the empire.
Pretty please.
and I don't want EU: Rise of Rome, I want EU: Rome
So I mean cover the period from city state to collapse of the empire.
Pretty please.
So from 753BC to 1453AD? That's a very long time and CK2 and EU4 already cover the final parts.
While I like the precisation of Byzantium's existence until the 1453 AC, "The Fall of Roman Empire" is generally considered Romolus Augustolo's dethroning by the hands of Odocres in the 476 AC, not Costantinople's Fall (that is usually the end of the Middle Ages.)
I feel that saying that "The Fall of the Roman Empire is in 476 AC" is a bit of a misnomer. It's more the Fall of Rome(the city) than the Fall of the Roman Empire, which only trully occured with the fall of Constantinople, since the "Byzantine Empire" truly was a continuation of the ancient one.
And let's not forget Justinian
I'm not talking about the Byzantine Greek empire (yes yes I know they claimed to be Roman even though they were less Roman than the Holy Roman Empire which was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire). I am talking about the Latin-speaking empire whose capital was Rome.
So from 27BC to 330AD? That's the Roman Empire. If you want 'Rome' as a political term, it's 753BC to 1453AD
So from 27BC to 330AD? That's the Roman Empire. If you want 'Rome' as a political term, it's 753BC to 1453AD
Thats not what my post said. It said from the days of Rome as a city state to the collapse of its empire. The collapse of Rome's empire, not Constantinople's.
There is a reason that the ERE is referred to as the Byzantine Empire in most of the great works of history, and that is because it is NOT the empire of Augustus.
To say that it is would be the same as asserting that the Soviet Union had political continuity with the Muscovite Tsardom.
In fact, I would be inclined to say that since Byzantium did not speak the language of Rome, adopt the aesthetics of Rome, or share the same essential international characteristic of the Classical Roman Empire, it has even less continuity than the aforementioned Russian states.
HG Wells' Outline of History explains very well the dividing line between the Rome of Classical Antiquity and the Medieval State that most contemporary historians refer to as the Byzantine Empire.
Rome's Empire collapsed in 1453 though. That's a historical fact.
Rome was sacked in 410, 455 and 546. The WRE(capital: Ravenna) fell in 476. Something is missing, don't you think?
- Status