• 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.
Well no-one has explained yet, WHY Paradox are represented at the stand of Turtle Entertainment GmbH ?

Would a big company like Paradox not have their own stand? Is space that tight in Cologne Gamescon ?

http://www.gamescom-cologne.com/gam...9802&values={"stichwort":"Paradox","start":0}

When you check out the Turtle website, this is what you get: http://www.turtle-entertainment.com/we-deliver-amazing-gaming-experiences/

With today's clue with "terrain being important" what STILL are the chances of a sports game ?

I don't understand why, can you explain this to me please?

EDIT: Did someone forget to book the Gamescon event area for Paradox? Is this why they look a little squeeeeezed?

EDIT 2; DO YOU THINK THIS NEW IP WILL BE A PC GAME..... or a console game?

sorry I posted this in the wrong thread (yesterday's ) I'll repost in today's thread.
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected, and slightly embarrassed. Thank you good sir. Being cheeky it could be called Sus Hostia Imperium just to troll us.
Always happy to enlighten the peasant rabble.:p
 
Troll is trolly.;)
 
Oh, does he mean the Holy Roman Empire? That was around until 1806.

By Rome, I meant the Roman Empire.
The capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople in 330 AD and stayed there until 1453 AD.
The term Rome and Roman really took on a life of their own apart from the actual city of Rome.

I believe that the term Byzantine Empire was one which was made up by scholars much later and that at the actual time of the Byzantine Empire it was just known as the Roman Empire.

I heard from Stephen Fry that even modern Greeks call themselves Ρωμιός (Rhomaios) -- "Romans".

Also, after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans, even the Ottoman Sultans called themselves, among other things, "Caesar of Rome" (Kayser-i-Rûm).

This was one of the reasons for the deadly animosity between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs - the Habsburgs by claiming themselves the Holy Roman Emperor were, as the Ottomans saw it, proclaiming themselves as pretenders and usurpers to the title rightly held by the Ottoman Kayser!

So.... that's what I meant when I said the real fall of Rome was 1453.
 
Last edited:
It would not. WtWSMS is an overhaul mod for CK2, and unrelated to separate game projects. Also, I think the other people in the team share the idea that it would be better to have a game made by the professional paradox. And then, nothing prevents me from modding that game onwardsin case I disagree on some things... ;)
thank god:D
 
I think I should mention that one of the hints for Project Truman (EU4) was 'no badboy system'. People knew this referred to infamy in EU3 and discounted the possibility of Truman being EU4. All the hint meant was that the infamy mechanic was changed. Something similar may be happening here.
 
It makes more sense to use the "no stabbing pigs" to point out "it's Rome" than to rule out 1 specific scenario. That's not a good hint. So yeah, like the "no badboy system" hint.
 
By Rome, I meant the Roman Empire.
The capital of the Roman Empire was moved from Rome to Constantinople in 330 AD and stayed there until 1453 AD.
The term Rome and Roman really took on a life of their own apart from the actual city of Rome.

I believe that the term Byzantine Empire was one which was made up by scholars much later and that at the actual time of the Byzantine Empire it was just known as the Roman Empire.

I heard from Stephen Fry that even modern Greeks call themselves Ρωμιός (Rhomaios) -- "Romans".

Also, after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans, even the Ottoman Sultans called themselves, among other things, "Caesar of Rome" (Kayser-i-Rûm).

This was one of the reasons for the deadly animosity between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs - the Habsburgs by claiming themselves the Holy Roman Emperor were, as the Ottomans saw it, proclaiming themselves as pretenders and usurpers to the title rightly held by the Ottoman Kayser!

So.... that's what I meant when I said the real fall of Rome was 1453.

You don't have to "believe" scholars made up that term much later, it's widely accepted as historical fact that you are right.