-
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.
Best post I read today. :laugh:
No EU: Rome II should be more like CKII and not EUIV
That's actually not a bad idea.
I've started on porting http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...4-Rebirth-of-Rome-An-Alternative-Scenario-Mod to EU4.
About once a week I subtly suggest to him (knuckey) that it would be way cooler than that "essos" thing he's doing but alas
There's no mechanical action in RomeTW 2 that I think I couldnt script for EU4. Capturing slaves, reworking buildings, rebellions and creating a "pool" of family members and assigning them traits already have jotted down how im going to work it, still uncertain about the senate or competing families, mainly because R2 is so vague and substanceless but simply adding a variable to progress through military "promotions" and with enough reforming the republic to a dictatorship seems like it would be fun.
TLDR; R2 to EU4 totally possible and will do if time = { time = root }
About once a week I subtly suggest to him (knuckey) that it would be way cooler than that "essos" thing he's doing but alas
There's no mechanical action in RomeTW 2 that I think I couldnt script for EU4. Capturing slaves, reworking buildings, rebellions and creating a "pool" of family members and assigning them traits already have jotted down how im going to work it, still uncertain about the senate or competing families, mainly because R2 is so vague and substanceless but simply adding a variable to progress through military "promotions" and with enough reforming the republic to a dictatorship seems like it would be fun.
TLDR; R2 to EU4 totally possible and will do if time = { time = root }
This is why there has half-irony in the sentence ; POPs are great (but industries wouldn't really fit, I am not aware of any roman railway (even though greeks did discover steam power if I'm not wrong... ?)).
Industry doesn't fit in the era? Tell that to the grain millers, complexes of weapons makers, etc and so on, and instead of railways, how about roads? Rome was rather famous for those road thingies.
In fact aristocrats could be swaped by patricians and capitalists by nobiles. Republics/Democracies could let build roads/mines to nobiles while in autocracies they would be built by the state, and patricians/aristocrats could give bonuses to latifundia. Tribes/despotates could romanize/hellenize instead of westernize. Satrapies could be substates. Slaves could have their own kind of rebel and there would be different law grades of rights for them. Even the education laws could be ported as different stated had various levels of education support during classical age. Literacy levels would be much lower, of course, and would grow slower.
As far as I know, if you go from this logic, ALL eras are fit to Victoria II. EUIV had roads too. CK2 too. And you can continue like that. But the industries of Victoria II don't work that way, and even if for roads it could work well, the industry mechanism of Vicky II wouldn't work I think since it's based around the worker class which did not exist before industrial revolution.
Leningrad, I think that literacy was really high in that era. I mean, all Athens citizens of course were literate (and I don't know for the non-citizens, but since slaves were pretty much captured citizens and that a lot became teachers...). In the greek world it should be high I think.
Personally I think that a Rome-era game should be about something completely different to all the other PDS games, rather than some sort of Roman-themed version of CK2 or EUIV. Perhaps Rome would be about managing internal factions and politics, but not with Feudalism.
I'm thinking something in the vain of CK meet'S the guild in roman times.
Still wrong forum. And i don't realy want to see another rome game quite soon. I am very confused what is up with all the Roman empire fandom. On the grater scale it's quite boring. The inner workings are more the interesting thing.
But an military complex stompin on the world is quite booring.
Still wrong forum. And i don't realy want to see another rome game quite soon. I am very confused what is up with all the Roman empire fandom. On the grater scale it's quite boring. The inner workings are more the interesting thing.
But an military complex stompin on the world is quite booring.
I think the logic is that in EUIV and CK2 era, roads were common and not necessarily as big an investment as in the Roman era. Remember, population numbers in comparison; particularly in pre-Black Death Europe and mid to late EUIV time period. Lots fewer people in the Classical era, and no predeveloped transport infrastructure like medieval and later Europe inherited from the Classical era.
I actually think the political wrangling, economic development, and tech system from Vic2 is a better fit for a Rome game. Mix in the character management and development of, say, CK2's The Republic expansion but with more options on election styles and such plus a way to handle the non-elective states and you're gold. Would model the pre-feudal Germanics pretty well as well.
Thanks,
-Atma
I actually think the political wrangling, economic development, and tech system from Vic2 is a better fit for a Rome game. Mix in the character management and development of, say, CK2's The Republic expansion but with more options on election styles and such plus a way to handle the non-elective states and you're gold. Would model the pre-feudal Germanics pretty well as well.
Thanks,
-Atma
Greeks impact on the world is mostly due to their influence on Rome. We could say Greece was the teacher of Rome, but Rome was the student who surpassed the teacher. It was Rome who spread civilization, architecture, engineering revolutions and art in most of Europe and the powers that dominated the world during the medieval time like England, Spain and France were just barbarians clans before Rome conquered them. The downfall of Greece was their inability to unite as a civilization, city states were always fighting each others.
But I agree all of Rome did wouldn't have been possible without Greece influence in the first place, so Greece is up there too.
All in all it's pretty much the same thing, romans are just greeks of Italy. But greeks did have a huge influence on the Eastern world too, on Egypt, North Africa, Persia and so on and so forth. So actually you'd have Rome which are pretty much just greeks who civilized most of Europe, and Greece that greek-ized (well you can't say Arabia, Persia and Egypt were barbarians
) the Eastern world.
In my mind EU: Rome had the perfect setup and balance between character vs realm management. In EU3/EU4 I find myself missing the character aspect, there just isn't as much happening as there is in CK2. In CK2 I find myself missing the ideas and the larger picture stuff (I'm also not too fond of titles, endless vassal wars and levy micromanagement). In EU: Rome a new dynasty/barbarian tribe/consul could come to power in your realm and you would assume control of him, which to me is the single best feature of EU:R. This gives you an incentive to try and keep good rulers on the throne while also allowing for barbarian invasions/coups etc to happen.
EU: Rome also had some brilliant features like general loyalty, governor corruption, interesting civil wars and ideas (which CK lacks, a big mistake in my mind). To be honest I think the EU3/4 franchise would improve a lot by adopting a few of EU:R's ideas. By having a couple (10-15) characters for big nations like Castille and France which act as your generals/court advisors/royal family members/crown agents (spies/conquistadors etc) and have them gain traits (improvements to tax eff., trade power etc, missonary chance etc) would increase playable content by a lot (think CK2 light, no marriges, no titles).
EU: Rome also had some brilliant features like general loyalty, governor corruption, interesting civil wars and ideas (which CK lacks, a big mistake in my mind). To be honest I think the EU3/4 franchise would improve a lot by adopting a few of EU:R's ideas. By having a couple (10-15) characters for big nations like Castille and France which act as your generals/court advisors/royal family members/crown agents (spies/conquistadors etc) and have them gain traits (improvements to tax eff., trade power etc, missonary chance etc) would increase playable content by a lot (think CK2 light, no marriges, no titles).
inb4 thread-lock.
EU: Rome II is a must! Think of how beautiful a love child it would be from the parent franchises EU and CK.
EU: Rome II is a must! Think of how beautiful a love child it would be from the parent franchises EU and CK.
(well you can't say Arabia, Persia and Egypt were barbarians
Yes you can. Barbarian just means all non-Greeks, Persians were called Barbarians all the time. Maybe not Egyptians so much, but that was only because the Greeks kept claiming they were descended from Egyptians because they thought it would boost their street cred.
Greek civilisation was highly influential, but it was also highly influenced. Much of the basics of its mathematics and art came from Egypt and the fertile crescent. In the era of their highest dominance, the centres of Greek learning were in Alexandria and Asia. The Greeks couldn't escape the pull of the east even when they were theoretically overlords over it. Just because someone writes in Greek doesn't make them Greek, it shows a strong Greek influence but only due to conquest and the Greek language was dropped like a hot potato the moment the Arabs came along.
You can talk all you want about who was more influential, but you have to keep in mind that everyone is constantly influencing everyone else and things that seem to belong to one culture may actually be complete imports.
It would be fun to see a Paradox game without ANY warfare. War might exist, but you cannot take part directly. You head a nation, and if war breaks out, you care for the financing and the supplies and the public opinion and revolts and shortages and production, but the war happens "by itself", aka the outcome is calculated by taking in factors such as technology, army reforms, manpower, supply, wealth, familiarity with the terrain, distance, etc.
It would be interesting to me because then Paradox would have to come up with peace-time/peaceful content, without having warfare overshadow the game so much that most design and programming resources go into that. If your main focus is administrative and diplomatic and organizational, then there would have to be massive content for that.
I'd also love to see less sandboxy, more historical "attributes" of cities, regions and cultures / nations. Playing TW: Rome 2 atm, every city is basically the same. I'd love to have regional differences that really express themselves in play, and tons of info and special stuff for each city.
It would be interesting to me because then Paradox would have to come up with peace-time/peaceful content, without having warfare overshadow the game so much that most design and programming resources go into that. If your main focus is administrative and diplomatic and organizational, then there would have to be massive content for that.
I'd also love to see less sandboxy, more historical "attributes" of cities, regions and cultures / nations. Playing TW: Rome 2 atm, every city is basically the same. I'd love to have regional differences that really express themselves in play, and tons of info and special stuff for each city.
there is a mod being developed you might like. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?720007-MOD-Urbis-Aeterna