Paradox, promise that the next game is Rome 2 with the whole of Asia and on the map and I will keep supporting u.
Kthanksbye
Kthanksbye
-
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.
Yes. I want to play the dark lord in a star wars mod and the Borg in a star trek mod.
Victoria III comes now. And then Crusader Kings III. And then Europa Universalis... 5. And then Europa Universalis: Roma...nia. And then maybe Rome. Or better yet, no Rome 
Victoria III comes now. And then Crusader Kings III. And then Europa Universalis... 5. And then Europa Universalis: Roma...nia. And then maybe Rome. Or better yet, no Rome
Victoria III will never come, it's come and done with, I demand Rome 2!
I don't want the whole of Asia to be added to be honest.
I'd rather prefer they focused on a smaller area, for more details and more depth.
I'd rather prefer they focused on a smaller area, for more details and more depth.
That said, Rome 2 could have a huge potential. Think of the possibilities. If they make it correctly, they can expand both onwards (imperial era, early dark ages) and backwards (Alexander the Great, Peloponnesian war, and even earlier).
No we need more playable nations, that was the biggest flaw of Rome 1. Whole of Asia would include the Chinese warring states, the migrations of husiung nu and tocharians, etc. it would be so diverse and so much fun
Apparently we have different opinions on a lot of things, don't take it personal
I would say that the biggest flaw of EU: Rome, a game I immensely enjoyed despite its many flaws, was a bland and unattractive system, not bad per se but too ambiguous and unpolished to be truly enjoyable: technologies practically didn't exist, all countries felt almost the same, religion was dumb and unrewarding, the character system was too basic, everyone and their mother had the ambition to be the Emperor and disloyalty amongst generals and governors was a given in pretty much every case. Vae Victis did a lot to make the game more attractive, but still, the core problems persisted and the new mechanics also lacked polish and finetuning (the Senate was really cool, at first, but managing it became a chore eventually and the limitations it imposed on you were too many and too important). And, because of that, I think that an extension of the map may do more harm than good: the mechanics would need an even wider scope to acommodate a lot of new, very different nations, and the game wouldn't be as polished and "special" (á la EU4's national ideas, a great way to make each playthrough feel different) as it could with a smaller area.
I would say that the biggest flaw of EU: Rome, a game I immensely enjoyed despite its many flaws, was a bland and unattractive system, not bad per se but too ambiguous and unpolished to be truly enjoyable: technologies practically didn't exist, all countries felt almost the same, religion was dumb and unrewarding, the character system was too basic, everyone and their mother had the ambition to be the Emperor and disloyalty amongst generals and governors was a given in pretty much every case. Vae Victis did a lot to make the game more attractive, but still, the core problems persisted and the new mechanics also lacked polish and finetuning (the Senate was really cool, at first, but managing it became a chore eventually and the limitations it imposed on you were too many and too important). And, because of that, I think that an extension of the map may do more harm than good: the mechanics would need an even wider scope to acommodate a lot of new, very different nations, and the game wouldn't be as polished and "special" (á la EU4's national ideas, a great way to make each playthrough feel different) as it could with a smaller area.