Does anyone know if Rome II is anywhere in the realm of possibilities for Paradox? If not, is there anyway for us to show support for its development?
-
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.
In the realm of possibility, definitely yes.
As a matter of fact Rome.2 and Vic.3 are the most expected games from the paradox fans. But what are they really developing (and for sure they are already planning their next game) nobody but the devs knows.
I think that at the early of December they will announce something...
As a matter of fact Rome.2 and Vic.3 are the most expected games from the paradox fans. But what are they really developing (and for sure they are already planning their next game) nobody but the devs knows.
I think that at the early of December they will announce something...
- 2
Rome should be Imperator Dictators. The character interaction was the best part of that game too.
Given that rome is a EU spin off that wasn't particularly successful I think not. I think they'll make a roman era game eventually, but I think when they do they'll go back to the drawing board and start an entirely new series.
well, rome was not very sucesfull, but face it, it have realy clumsy design and some veird features, and to make it spin of from eu3 was not greatest decision, i think way better it will to make rome 2 spinoff from ck2 mechanick than from eu4 one.
If you want to try a Rome II style mod for EU IV try:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...universalis-beta-mod-in-the-antiquity.925703/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...universalis-beta-mod-in-the-antiquity.925703/
I definitely think it would be for the best if Paradox started from scratch and did justice to antiquity with new game mechanics - a whole new game series, with a new title. Ideally, I think they would really try to expand the game's focus beyond just the world of the Roman Empire, and really give us a view of the entire ancient world. I know that's a lot to ask for, and in all likelihood Paradox would want to do Vicky III first, before trying something so ambitious, but still, I think everyone would be willing to be more patient for a game with such massive potential.
- 3
I couldn't agree more. The whole idea of Europa Universalis: Rome had two major flaws: the Europa Universalis part and the Rome part.
I may have lost some readers, so I'll explain myself.
- For the Europa Universalis part, I mean that it was too focused on adapting EU mechanics to another time period while the Crusader Kings, Victoria and Hearts of Iron franchises are all unique in their mechanics while still keeping the Paradox trademark.
- For the Rome part, while I think limiting the game to the Roman expension time period was understandable (it's really different from earlier and later time periods), the game was too much centered toward playing Rome. Although the diadochi kingdoms and Carthage could be fun to play (the barbarian tribes, not so much), the artworks and mechanics pointed heavily toward Rome, as if you weren't expected to play as something else. Not to mention the eastern border of the map making the Seleucid/Parthian Empire fall into darkness. Expending the map to cover India and China would be way more relevant in this timeframe than in CK2. And I would totally see 323 BC (death of Alexander) as a legitimate start date instead of something centered around Rome.
Agreed fully, the limmit in starting date and map is a big reason for me not to ever play EU:Rome (as well as it being old when I finally got into PDS GSG's. The start date of Alexander's death would be a decent moment to start (as long as there's some mechanic allowing to play different Diadochi in a hellenistic empire that is falling appeart). Both in Europe as in China and to a lesser extend even in India. Alexander's conquest might be a great DLC focus.