Why do Swedes hate Romans?

[Spartanlemur]

Because the original EU:Rome wasn't very good.

Fortunately CK2 was a hit, and so a brand new Classical era ip from Paradox using those mechanics as a base (though modified to fit in with the less stringent rules of monarchy) would sell like umbrellas on a rainy day. They were probably waiting to see how TW:Rome 2 panned out. The campaign play in that game is quite poor, so there is plenty of room for a Paradox game to fill those boots.

Would rather see an Ancient World game focused on Greece vs Persia. There are already a fair number of Roman games (including EU Rome if you really want Paradox) much less covering the Ancient period

Why does there need to be such a focus? Why not have a game with start dates between 500BCE and 27BCE, giving us from the start of the Persian wars all the way forward to the dawn of the Roman Empire?

 

[skynet464]

Im pretty sure EU:Rome 2 could beat Rome 2.

 

[Teije]

Why not have a game with start dates between 500BCE and 27BCE, giving us from the start of the Persian wars all the way forward to the dawn of the Roman Empire?

Now that is a game I would pay for. Being able to play as the Achaemenians, Sparta or Epirus would be awesome. So long as naval battles were made interesting (always a weakness of PDX games).

 

[Galaahd]

If they make a Rome II, I'd like it to be dynasty based, as in you play as the dynasty.

EU: Rome was character based, but since you played as the nation it didn't really matter what happened to the various characters. You just had to keep the populists at bay and avoid giving command to disloyal generals. That's all.

 

[Kaarle XII]

View attachment 90888

Im pretty sure EU:Rome 2 could beat Rome 2.

How could it possibly beat that?

 

[insanelyapple]

Why does there need to be such a focus? Why not have a game with start dates between 500BCE and 27BCE, giving us from the start of the Persian wars all the way forward to the dawn of the Roman Empire?

I say start at 753 BCE with the birth of the Roman Republic then end with 476 CE with the fall of Rome. (Since more most people love the Empire and don't know much about the Republic)

The bookmarks could be.

Spoiler

753 BCE - The Birth of Rome
547 BCE - Cryus the Great
509 BCE - The Birth of the Republic
431 BCE - The Peloponnesian War
390 BCE - The Battle of the Allia (Gauls sacked Rome)
264 BCE - The Punic Wars
71 BCE - Spartacus's Rebellion
60 BCE - Caesar (The First Triumvirate)
27 BCE - Birth of the Empire
33 CE - The Crucifixion
121 CE - Hadrian's Wall (To play at Rome near maximum extent)
247 CE - A Millennium of Rome
284 CE - The Eastern Roman Empire
312 CE - Constantine the Great
410 CE - The Visigoths
455 CE - The Vandals

Then a Dark Ages game could be from 476 CE to 867 CE

Spoiler

476 - The Fall of Rome
527 - The Purple Phoenix (Justinian comes to power)
602 - Byzantine–Sasanian War
622 - The Birth of Islam
711 - The Invasion of Iberia (Muslims start to invade)
732 - Battle of Tours (Charles Martel stops Islamic expansion into Europe)
800 - The Holy Roman Empire (Yes, I know, but Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the Romans)

 

[Red October1984]

I don't even know how to respond to this.

I don't blame you...I mean...

Doesn't he know they all pretended to ride horses and clacked coconut halves together too? Oh! And the French had castles in England...and one time the British tried to get inside with a Trojan Rabbit...

:rofl:

 

[Spartanlemur]

I say start at 753 BCE with the birth of the Roman Republic then end with 476 CE with the fall of Rome. (Since more most people love the Empire and don't know much about the Republic)

The bookmarks could be.

Spoiler

753 BCE - The Birth of Rome
547 BCE - Cryus the Great
509 BCE - The Birth of the Republic
431 BCE - The Peloponnesian War
390 BCE - The Battle of the Allia (Gauls sacked Rome)
264 BCE - The Punic Wars
71 BCE - Spartacus's Rebellion
60 BCE - Caesar (The First Triumvirate)
27 BCE - Birth of the Empire
33 CE - The Crucifixion
121 CE - Hadrian's Wall (To play at Rome near maximum extent)
247 CE - A Millennium of Rome
284 CE - The Eastern Roman Empire
312 CE - Constantine the Great
410 CE - The Visigoths
455 CE - The Vandals

Then a Dark Ages game could be from 476 CE to 867 CE

Spoiler

476 - The Fall of Rome
527 - The Purple Phoenix (Justinian comes to power)
602 - Byzantine–Sasanian War
622 - The Birth of Islam
711 - The Invasion of Iberia (Muslims start to invade)
732 - Battle of Tours (Charles Martel stops Islamic expansion into Europe)
800 - The Holy Roman Empire (Yes, I know, but Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the Romans)

I think that's asking for a little too much. Let them create a great core game from the time of the Greco-Persian wars until the transformation of Rome into an empire and then let DLC flesh out and extend the game until 476CE and perhaps even add some start dates before. They might have to narrow the timeframe even further, depending on their workload and how deep they intend to make the game.

Regardless, after the shambolic release of RTW2 and its awful campaign mechanics, Paradox don't have too large a job to do to trump CA on the grand strategy side of the game.

 

[justin6477]

I think that's asking for a little too much. Let them create a great core game from the time of the Greco-Persian wars until the transformation of Rome into an empire and then let DLC flesh out and extend the game until 476CE and perhaps even add some start dates before. They might have to narrow the timeframe even further, depending on their workload and how deep they intend to make the game.

Regardless, after the shambolic release of RTW2 and its awful campaign mechanics, Paradox don't have too large a job to do to trump CA on the grand strategy side of the game.

Yeah, 1,200 years of gameplay is a bit absurd. Especially if one wants the game to actually be interesting for those thousand years.

The start of Rome wouldn't really be a good time to start a game... Too much chaos. 509 is more realistic, Rome's government is more less set for the next 500 years. The death of Caesar doesn't have the same oomph as the capture of Constantinople, so I'd maybe stick the end date at 284 CE. The partitions of the Empire are really where Rome begins her slow decline. A Dark ages game should also pick up around there, placing the Roman Empire in a position not unlike the Chinese Empire in Victoria 2. You've got a centuries old great power with a lot of potential, but a lot of internal issues as well. Everyone else is coming to eat their lunch.

 

[insanelyapple]

I think that's asking for a little too much. Let them create a great core game from the time of the Greco-Persian wars until the transformation of Rome into an empire and then let DLC flesh out and extend the game until 476CE and perhaps even add some start dates before. They might have to narrow the timeframe even further, depending on their workload and how deep they intend to make the game.

Regardless, after the shambolic release of RTW2 and its awful campaign mechanics, Paradox don't have too large a job to do to trump CA on the grand strategy side of the game.

I didn't mean immediately. I was imaging the base game would be 509 BCE - 60 BCE. Then, an expansion would push the start date back to 753 BCE and another would push the end date to 476 CE.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

I'm sure RTW2's cornered the market too well for Paradox to feel like they can compete with it, at least for the time being... It'd be nice though ^_^

I'd have thought it'd do quite the opposite, especially with the disastrous reception RTW2 has received from many fans.

 

[Gnufan]

RTW2 is a broken mess at the moment.

 

[NapoleonI]

Paradox fans mostly want to recreate Rome. And that is obviously not possible in a game where Rome already exists.

Forming Rome in CK, EU, Vicky or HOI is what makes our panties wet.

 

[justin6477]

Paradox fans mostly want to recreate Rome. And that is obviously not possible in a game where Rome already exists.

Forming Rome in CK, EU, Vicky or HOI is what makes our panties wet.

But we could form anti-Rome, or recreate Alexander's Empire as some crappy Greek rump state. Or, create Charlemagne's Empire six hundred years too soon. And then of course there's Sparta, who doesn't want to make Sparta into sprawling empire it never was?

 

[Jak9090]

Paradox fans mostly want to recreate Rome. And that is obviously not possible in a game where Rome already exists.

Forming Rome in CK, EU, Vicky or HOI is what makes our panties wet.

i much prefer playing as rome and FORMING the empire, rather then creating some ahistorical thing.

 

[Spartanlemur]

I didn't mean immediately. I was imaging the base game would be 509 BCE - 60 BCE. Then, an expansion would push the start date back to 753 BCE and another would push the end date to 476 CE.

Ah fair enough. I agree that such expansion would be awesome. The timeframe would of course depend on how accurately Paradox think they can represent tech and culture advancement (or change), but if they can manage such an early start date (and late end date) then why not?

Paradox fans mostly want to recreate Rome. And that is obviously not possible in a game where Rome already exists.

Forming Rome in CK, EU, Vicky or HOI is what makes our panties wet.

First thing I'd do is forge a Spartan Empire

Because I'm heavily influenced by fictional media portrayals of historical societies

(and then I'll go on to conquering Europe with the elve- I mean, druidic Briton Empire)

 

[CatKnight]

Because in Roman times everyone fights in formation and what not, whereas in the Medieval period there's a focus on duels between knights and chivalry. Also plate armor is cool.

???

Wow... You uhm... really... Uhm... You might want to do some research on that.

 

[User29]

who doesn't want to make Sparta into sprawling empire it never was?

people who hate (proto-)fascism...

 

[ray243]

I would prefer a paradox: Rome game that balance out between role-playing as a ruling dynasty and as the empire itself.

I will not want my campaign to end just because all the members of the imperial dynasty are dead. I would want to continue playing the game as the Flavians after the Julio-Claudians are wiped out. It would be fun to play a game whereby you need to fight against every other rebelling generals in order to win the throne.

Additionally, I would want to play a game that offer balance between feudalism and centralism. The CK 2 model does not accurately portray centralised Empires like the Byzantine. You need a game that is a good mix of EU IV mechanics and CK 2 mechanics.

 

[Zarine]

Biggest problem with the Rome period is... Rome.

If you want to make a somewhat realistic game, then most nation will simply be dull to play.