-
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.
He just said there's no sacrificial pigs. If it was set in that era, Rome would have to be included.
This just means no Rome 2, we knew that already. Can still be a game set in the Ancient age.
If I'm not mistaken, Fredrik II is Fredrik Wester, the CEO of Paradox. So I guess he's worked on everything, depending on how you define "worked on".
Or it could be a new Rome franchise - as said before, "there will be no badboy" was a hint for EU4, and badboy/infamy had been a huge thing, in EU3 and before.
Either that, or it could point at something closer to EU:R, but not EU:R. Migration Era or Archaic/Classical Greece, in either direction.
The only thing we can't say for sure... this hint was useless too. It can mean anything.
Well, this either means that Augustus is not Rome 2 or that Augustus is Rome 2 and that its stability mechanic just got revamped.
If it isn't Rome II it's probably around that ballpark, though - it's a pretty specific hint.
That this wasn't going to be EU: Rome 2 was clear since the first hint.
However, it is not unlikely that EU:R is being replaced by another Ancient Age Grand Strategy in which case no stabbing of pigs would be one of reasons why EU:R would be replaced by another game: a poor and nonsensical mechanic is being replaced by a proper mechanic.
Maybe
Hehe, I had the same thoughts. And some evil German Empire might be denied to stab them.
Hehe, I had the same thoughts. And some evil German Empire might be denied to stab them.
It's not Rome 2, this clue is clearly saying that. Feel free to quote me on this if I'm wrong.
It would be like saying, there will be no Matriarchal Engagements, would make it clear it wasn't CK3, a mechanic exclusive to that game series not being in the game, is confirmation it's not that game.
The idea of it being a Rome 2 but not called Rome 2, so everything about Rome but not, makes no sense, why would they abandon their brand.
It would be like saying, there will be no Matriarchal Engagements, would make it clear it wasn't CK3, a mechanic exclusive to that game series not being in the game, is confirmation it's not that game.
The idea of it being a Rome 2 but not called Rome 2, so everything about Rome but not, makes no sense, why would they abandon their brand.
I will be incredibly disappointed if this game does not turn out to be a historical (i.e. no fantasy bs) grand strategy game set at some point before the medieval era of Crusader Kings. I think that most people would agree that this period of history could do with some serious love from Paradox, regardless of which specific time point it will be set in.
Personally, I would love to see a game set in the last days of the Christianized (i.e. no pagan pig sacrificing) Western Roman Empire, fighting off new hordes from the east as they migrate into western Europe and bring about the dark ages. That said, I would still be happy with a game set in the ancient or classical era.
Personally, I would love to see a game set in the last days of the Christianized (i.e. no pagan pig sacrificing) Western Roman Empire, fighting off new hordes from the east as they migrate into western Europe and bring about the dark ages. That said, I would still be happy with a game set in the ancient or classical era.