EU: Rome 2 is Needed

[FlorianDeckard]

EU: Rome had great potential, everything the game had was very good, but not enough to be a good game. But they have experience, potential, new mechanichs and new game engine. So... why not? May be a single Rome game, without EU title. May be it can start from ancient era, Greek city-states, Persians, Alexander The Great and include Rome... Why not? CK+EU=EU Rome, and I trust in Paradox that they can achive a perfect Rome game this tome.

 

[Wessexking]

I haven't played the first one, but its a period that interests me. Would the states function like EU4 but with CK2 politics? is every where already 'taken' or do you get to colonize? It seems like it would be a fun age to play with similarities too the other games I know and love yet with a nice part of its own which is more than a re fleshing.

 

[Traianus the Great]

I imagine some areas will be uncolonised, but most will, and the game'd revolve around colonialism very little, in my opinion.

 

[Tormodius]

I haven't played the first one, but its a period that interests me. Would the states function like EU4 but with CK2 politics? is every where already 'taken' or do you get to colonize? It seems like it would be a fun age to play with similarities too the other games I know and love yet with a nice part of its own which is more than a re fleshing.

It's true that politics in Rome works a little bit like Crusader Kings. The RP-character galleria was invented in Rome, but mastered in CK2.
But the states didnt work like EU3 or 4. The game engine was based out off EU3 anyway. Provinces, resources, pops, and so on had a unique system, where also uncolonised land could be settled. This was kinda neat, with barbarian hordes clearing them and killing pops. These pops were very basic in functions. Not like Victoria at all.

Resources and trade were extremely basic and that would need improvement in a new release.
Pops worked like slaves, free citizens, and nobles, each adding to different parts of the mechanics. Everything politically was related to the era and events in combat related to characters who you chose as generals, so all warfare and politics etc. related to eachother with the character system, but provinces just had resource and pops of the classes i mentioned, so it could been worked on for new features. But its been a long time since i played it, so i can't remember everything. I just think it needs a revamp with all the nice experiences and features that PDX now have thru the other titles they made.

Anyway I have played all the PDX games since EU1 and i loved them all in one way or another.
But a new version of Rome is what I want most now. Also Victoria 3, because that series needs improvement too.
(the other series have almost been perfected, and they just add DLC, patches and expansions that slightly improve them now)
So I think Rome 2 is needed as soon as possible!
It's DEFINITELY needed now as years have passed since this thread was posted

 

[mrwrong]

if you ever look at the Paradox events that they stream they often times wear ROME shirts ...They know that a certain segment has been begging for a Rome 2 for years ...at this point i think it's just a running gag now ...

but i really really want to see it happen .

 

[Thrake]

Pops worked like slaves, free citizens, and nobles, each adding to different parts of the mechanics. Everything politically was related to the era and events in combat related to characters who you chose as generals, so all warfare and politics etc. related to eachother with the character system, but provinces just had resource and pops of the classes i mentioned, so it could been worked on for new features.

Well... Provinces also had governors... Whose traits and attributes would contribute to the outcome of those provinces (more rebelions if the guy is corrupted, better events if he is good at what he's doing or he could build buildings if he's rich and that would increase his prestige and make him more likely to rebel while you also directly benefit from the buildings).

The RP-character galleria was invented in Rome, but mastered in CK2.

Well... Rome surpassed CK2 at least until conclave on that part. That was very RPish to assign a general to half your army just to find that he got loyalty over most of that army and slap a rebelion on your face when you try to give control of the army to another guy, and then have half of the characters of your government join him and slowly see the rebelion grow bigger as he sieges your provinces...

Plus prominent characters getting angry against you if you give them no important place in the government (the longer the worse so neglecting one guy would mean he would hate you forever). CK2 is limited to relationship but Rome goes deeper with also loyalty, popularity, corruption and prominence. You also had many ways to handle every guy (like 20 council positions) as you could appoint a prominent but really incompetent guy govern some backwater provinces at the edge of your empire, or another dangerous but skillful guy could well be appointed to develop technology, or even take the risk to let him lead an army if you're desperate (and placate him temporarily as best as you could, holding triumph for his victories and bribing him). And then all that mess would reset once you die, sometimes leading to a shift in power, as unlike in CK2 where a vassal is bad because he has ambitious trait or good because he's content, in Rome loyalty would reset upon ruler death while relationships would of course differ too.

Conclave added the idea that one guy could have expectations and not fulfilling those would cause you trouble, but that's still a good deal behind Rome as in CK2 councilors would sit their ass on chairs and stay silent as long as their ass is sitting on said chair (they would also forget that you denied them the chair for 20 years the very moment their ass would come in contact with the chair); in Rome characters would hate you if they don't sit on the chairs, but if you make them sit on the chairs, then they'll use that power to slap it on your face if you don't keep an eye on them as relationships are an elegant mix of popularity, loyalty, corruptness and prominence which all interact one another (too much popularity means that loyalty will decrease until the guy rebel as he realize he has enough support to become the new ruler for exemple).

The only thing that CK2 does better in characters interactions is plotting but the AI is to bad at using this to its full potential to make a serious difference. Factions are also interesting as it allows vassal to shape their kingdom's politics but in practice there is so little king/vassals interactions that there is no point in plotting to have another dude take over the crown unless the king is your rival or he's of a different religion, otherwise there is no good to expect from a king.

 

[Tormodius]

Now that you mention that Thrake, I also recall how I found those mechanics you mentioned to make the game very challenging. The rebellious guys causing me to get weakened when in a war with some other tribe that fielded a very competent general, also causing me to lose alot, in republic mode. Partly due to some senate party, that would get dominant and not give me good general pool of competent ones. Those i rarely got that could beat enemies at some point died or rebelled. This might have turned out differently if I reformed to imperial administration perhaps.

It was a very neat design, but I also recall the huge impact of the general in combat, relative to number of troops and composition. I could lose every battle if the enemy with a weaker army had a better general. Combat system was way more primitive back then also. This would need rethinking if they make a new game. Allthough I really like a challenge!

I never won any EU-Rome games because of this. At the largest I defeated only Carthage and Gaul and some other tribes around mediterranean coast, but never managed to get into Greece and eastwards. Started losing alot of battles vs. kingdoms with super generals and weaker armies. That was a bit annoying, but historically it's ok. Roman legions in the republic era really had some leadership issues. (many many incompetant consuls in real history, if you look to the books and not only see the few famous consuls that we all heard about)

 

[Capage]

I think Rome 2 would have a good dlc potential too. The period could be prolonged both ways from some basic frame like 200 B.C. - 200 A. C. and include fall of Rome and pre-Rome era focused on Greece and some other nations (you can go back here a plenty).
There were different systems, which could be unlocked via dlcs in similar fashion to CK2 (nomads, various barbaric tribes).

 

[kemmy23]

Increase it even further with DLCs and give a Save Game converter for CK2

 

[Gurkhal]

Increase it even further with DLCs and give a Save Game converter for CK2

I'd love that but then the game would need to run up to 768/9 and I don't know if the engine could handle both ancient tribes, city-states, kingdoms, mega-empires as well as the migration period and early Middle Ages with all the extra stuff that went on there. Now if it could it would be awesome, but there would require a very good engine and alot of DLCs to expand the time period and introduce new mechanics for new things that comes along.

 

[kemmy23]

I'd love that but then the game would need to run up to 768/9 and I don't know if the engine could handle both ancient tribes, city-states, kingdoms, mega-empires as well as the migration period and early Middle Ages with all the extra stuff that went on there. Now if it could it would be awesome, but there would require a very good engine and alot of DLCs to expand the time period and introduce new mechanics for new things that comes along.

Paradox is a company whose purpose it is to create games that the public want. I believe it's well within their capacity to make such a game; the burden is on us to ensure that they know we want such a game (if that is indeed what you want).

 

[Gurkhal]

Paradox is a company whose purpose it is to create games that the public want. I believe it's well within their capacity to make such a game; the burden is on us to ensure that they know we want such a game (if that is indeed what you want).

I'd love such a game yet I'd also love a game that's good and working. But if they can pull it off I will most certainly be buying it.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Hey guys, there are two threads with the exact same purpose going on, so I am soft merging them.

Please continue the conversation over there -> https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/rome-ii.905208/