Well it is nothing new. Back when we were receiving hints for Armstrong and Nero it similarly was Rome, Rome, Rome. It was the same with Truman by the way.
-
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.
Hmm maybe its classical China, Korea or Japan. Playing in Japan during the days before the rise of the samurai during the rule of the imperial court would be interesting as would a game set during Korea's three kingdom period or the Six Dynasty period of China after all. I also can't think of any grand stratagy game that was ever set in either Korea's three kingdom period or Classical Japan.
*haven't read any of the replies*
When I hear 7, all I can think is either the 7 Kingdoms of Westeros, or the Heptarchy of England. It's likely not the Heptarchy, since that would be a minor IP, and I have no idea how likely they'd get to do a GoT/SoIaF game.
for 3, I have no idea.
When I hear 7, all I can think is either the 7 Kingdoms of Westeros, or the Heptarchy of England. It's likely not the Heptarchy, since that would be a minor IP, and I have no idea how likely they'd get to do a GoT/SoIaF game.
for 3, I have no idea.
As has been mentioned over and over while they want to do a GoT game and might do so in the future, Augustus has been in development so long that it is certain it isn't a GoT game.
But EU Rome is a sorry excuse for a game that even I wouldn't play on agood dayboat. Why do you think we all want Rome 2?
Yeah, can be something else. As long as it is fun, right?
Sorry, i didn't made myself clear. I meant that i don't like anything OLDER than the Greco-Persian Wars ^.^
Mods improve the game a lot. Of course, sequels are always better, but still, i think it's better to fill up an entire time period that was left behind. "Crap" with nice mods is still better than no game at all.
A dark ages game seems unlikely to me. Depending on the concept and implementation, it could end up looking and feeling a lot like CK2.
I'm sure trying to fix up the Empire or playing the Visigoths would be fun though. The vikings were a big part of that era, and we get to do that kind of stuff with the CK2 old gods expansion.
I think there must be something to the way he typed Seven and Three, in addition to the actual numbers.
Not a bible buff, but also:
"1There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.2Seven sons and three daughters were born to him.3His possessions also were 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys, and very many servants; and that man was the greatest of all the men of the east.…"
Paradox presents: "Heavenly Procreation: The Game"
I'm sure trying to fix up the Empire or playing the Visigoths would be fun though. The vikings were a big part of that era, and we get to do that kind of stuff with the CK2 old gods expansion.
I think there must be something to the way he typed Seven and Three, in addition to the actual numbers.
Not a bible buff, but also:
"1There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.2Seven sons and three daughters were born to him.3His possessions also were 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys, and very many servants; and that man was the greatest of all the men of the east.…"
Paradox presents: "Heavenly Procreation: The Game"
Last edited:
This is "Fun" the dwarf fortress style of "Fun" which means much suffering
If it is a Victoria, then I want it to start in 1821 rather than 1836 because that is a far, far more appropriate start date.
Which makes 37 redundant.
Which makes 37 redundant.
Yep, 1821 start date, alongside being far more relevant than 1836, also makes for smooth, seamless converting. And then of course we'll transform it into HoI4 later on.
115 years of gameplay is much better than just a hundred, and there is hardly any difference between the 1821 and 1836 timeline anyway.
1821 should be the defined starting date for Vicky games.
115 years of gameplay is much better than just a hundred, and there is hardly any difference between the 1821 and 1836 timeline anyway.
1821 should be the defined starting date for Vicky games.
I apologise to the divine Johan
and ask for his revelations to be speed up.....
Ok, seeing as how we are running pretty thin on theories here, let me toss a ridiculous one out there.
What if they are working on a game that is designed to combine elements from EU: Rome, CK2, and EU4.
It is *3* games they are combining, and if you were to count up the amount of games in each series, 1 + 2 + 4, you would get *7*.
I'm not saying that this is plausible, but I do like me my dream games. =)
What if they are working on a game that is designed to combine elements from EU: Rome, CK2, and EU4.
It is *3* games they are combining, and if you were to count up the amount of games in each series, 1 + 2 + 4, you would get *7*.
I'm not saying that this is plausible, but I do like me my dream games. =)
Seven factions, third time's the charm. It's the spiritual successor/remake of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.
I still like my Delenda Est theory, but another possibility strikes - after Arthur Tudor died, Henry VII was (still) on the throne and had 3 heirs...
Eh... Dark Ages were nothing like CK. And the Vikings were not there in the Dark Ages. The Vikings appeared in Charlemagnes rule. And Charlemagne should be the end date. So... no vikings in a Dark Ages game. And actually CK has nothing to simulate real migrations like in this era. Migration era is way different than Feudal era (CK2).
Although, together with space it is the only thing many people want they have clearly not said NO to (fantasy has no base and is scattered).