Rome 2: A CK2 Game

[franbatista]

I have been playing CK2 for a while now and i love it, though it took a while to learn it, and i used to play EU: Rome that my father had on his PC. And i've been thinking if a new Rome 2, which seems to be very requested by the community, wouldn't work great if it was based on CK2 rather than in EU. The mechanics of CK2 just seem better fitting (and i dont even have the expansions yet) and would work great in a Roman Setting. Do you agree?

PS: i couldn't find a thread already created about this in here, but if missed it, please point it out.

 

[Killzerslaul]

I have been playing CK2 for a while now and i love it, though it took a while to learn it, and i used to play EU: Rome that my father had on his PC. And i've been thinking if a new Rome 2, which seems to be very requested by the community, wouldn't work great if it was based on CK2 rather than in EU. The mechanics of CK2 just seem better fitting (and i dont even have the expansions yet) and would work great in a Roman Setting. Do you agree?

PS: i couldn't find a thread already created about this in here, but if missed it, please point it out.

Rome has some things in common with CK2, but more in common with EU, imo. The vassal system of CK2 is not wholly appropriate for Rome, yet the faceless nations of EU are not characterful or deep enough for the small map, and some things unique to Rome's time period are not represented by anything in either game. If our prayers are answered and it is made, it should be its own game with its own distinctive features. (maybe more than in the original Rome, which you could claim did not quite fulfil its potential)

But yes, I imagine a character system with many similarities to CK2s would be seen in Rome 2 just as in the original.

 

[Galaahd]

In Rome II, though, I'd like to play as a dynasty, not as the state.

I didn't really care about having this or that character in power in Rome as long as they weren't populists and the generals didn't have low loyalty. I didn't care about the dynasties and relations between chars. That's why I hope Rome II will be dynasty based.

I want to play as a roman dynasty, with my palace, economic interests, landholds, and do the cursus honorum. Then, eventually, take over and become Emperor! \m/

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

I think there should be a mixture of the two: one thing that I loved about Rome was the Senate, which should be expanded to be more characters- and factions-(parties-)driven.

On the other hand, more than feudal systems the Roman as well as other states in the area had more of bureaucratic system to appoint governors and such. Also, the manpower concept fits well that age.

I am sure the devs will do a great job with that!

 

[ChildeR]

I would buy this. More generally, I would buy pretty much any character oriented Paradox game (i.e. "strategy RPG") set in an era outside the CK2 timeline. Assuming, of course, it had mechanics appropriate to the era and not just a shoehorned version of CK2's mechanics with flavor on top.

 

[keynes2.0]

While the character interactions with CKII work very well, the dynasty mechanic doesn't fit the era. In the republics, dynasties didn't really exist until the last generation or two of the republic (hence the end of the republic). In the eastern empires, the same dynasties ruled uninterrupted for the entire game period. So the first question is what entity does that player play as? Playing as nations in the first game didn't really use the character dynamics all that well. Dyansties don't make sense. Characters are short lived for such a long period. Factions were typically transitory and might not make sense to be controling a hereditary empire. So I'd love to see rome 2 with CKII influences, but something would need to be changed up.

 

[gela1212]

Problem with vanilla Rome (and I played a LOT of Rome, it's what got me into this community) was that it got boring after a while. I'd say something to better simulate internal politics would be awesome, especially for the republics (mainly Rome, obviously). I need something to do besides colonizing barbarian provinces. I was really excited for Vae Victis for this reason, but it was more of a way to slow down the player than anything else, wasn't actually a very fun simulator of internal politics.

I feel like what you do externally like wars, etc. should only be half the game or even less, considering how incredibly simple it was to do all that.

 

[Hootieleece]

Rome the original was an attempt to merge Ck1 and EU3. It sorta worked but since it was niche game within a niche market. It was shelved soon after release......like Sengoku.

I hope that Paradox makes a Rome2 in the future......I understand why they are not making one for this year. (Don't want direct competition with Rome:Total War) The reason they went back to Europa Universalis is that they want to expand on the sucess their most mainstream project CK2. And since EU3 was about to run out of shelf-life.

I think they may re-try HOI again.....it's the second most popular Paradox title and the 75th anniversary of the start of World War II is next September.

So maybe we will see a Rome2 in late 2014 or early 2015. The only thing I hope for is that they continue to release stable not too buggy games upon release.....That was a definite killer to Rome1.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Moved to the Rome forum.

 

[DominusNovus]

I do think that, with serious tweaking, the CK2 engine can simulate the classical mediterranean pretty well. Rome would most likely be modeled somewhat on the Patrician Elective system from The Republic (again, with *major* tweaking). Heck, maybe that was one of their goals with The Republic: test out how dynastic play and elective republics mesh.

There'd definitely need to be a way to simulate the fact that, for all its problems, the Roman Republic and its non-monarchial contemporaries did allow for the common people to have a legitimate voice in the government.

Just to brainstorm how the gameplay and government of the Roman Republic might look in its own game:
- The various Patrician families operate pretty similar to the Patrician families of The Republic. Rather than building tradeposts around the map, however, they can have personal estates in various territories that would function somewhat similarly. Latifundia and the like. Each family would also have a number of citizen clients bound to them for elective purposes (not represented by actual characters, just "The Julii have 2,000 clients, the Scipii have 1,500 clients, etc. etc.). The dynastic game in this case would be a struggle to gain valuable estates across the Republic/Empire, obtain as many clients as possible, and utilize both to attain magistracies for your family (in order to get more estates and clients, of course).
- The assemblies could work as such:
* The Curiate Assembly would be composed of the head of each Patrician family, with each family head getting one vote.
* The Centuriate Assembly would be composed of all the military eligible Patrician male characters (or perhaps just all veterans), organized by wealth, rather than family, with a variable number of votes being cast randomly to represent the Proletariate Centuries (the common foot soldiers, possibly just represented by the client citizens), which would vary depending on the laws passed by the Republic (hint for players: the inability of the soldiers to have a meaningful vote in this Assembly gravely undermined the Republic).
* The Tribal Assembly composed of all male Patricians, organized by family, with each family (and its clients) getting one vote (determined by the majority of the family votes)
* The Plebian Council, where all those client citizens get together and vote for their own laws, which may or may not be in the interest of the Patrician families.

Each assembly would be responsible for electing various magistrates, and which assembly elects which could change over the course of the game, providing families various ways to get to power. The Curiate assembly might start off electing the Consuls, but your family happens to have more sway in the Centuriate Assembly. So, better get to work on bestowing that power upon the Centuriate Assembly instead. The Senate, meanwhile, would be composed of any Patrician that had been elected to a magistracy (to simplify matters). Other than declaring war, I'm not certain what the best role for the Senate in-game would be.

Moved to the Rome forum.

Bummer. Almost as effective as a locked thread.

 

[Darky]

Problem with vanilla Rome was that it got boring after a while.

Yes, because EU:Rome lacked content in every part of gameplay. While it being a good game still, it was using like 10-15% of possible potential only and the main idea for EU:Rome 2 will be to fill it up to 100%, adding HUGE portions of "missing" gameplay.

 

[Maraxus]

Yeah, just as Ceasar let a Crusade against The Celic Tribes and then created the Kingdom of Gaul for himself ... no really.

I guess the combination is the best: It is character/dynasty based but the whole "de jure duchies/kingdoms" concept must fall and instead you need the bigger diplomacy/decision system like EU3. I'd like that combination. The bad thing about Crusader Kings is, that if you work yourself up in the holy roman empire to become emperor, it's basically the same, whether you start as a Breton and conquer France or whether you start as the King of France. With all expansions, there are a few different options but Rome, a time of such different cultures and people should have even more of that.

 

[DominusNovus]

Yeah, just as Ceasar let a Crusade against The Celic Tribes and then created the Kingdom of Gaul for himself ... no really.

I guess the combination is the best: It is character/dynasty based but the whole "de jure duchies/kingdoms" concept must fall and instead you need the bigger diplomacy/decision system like EU3. I'd like that combination. The bad thing about Crusader Kings is, that if you work yourself up in the holy roman empire to become emperor, it's basically the same, whether you start as a Breton and conquer France or whether you start as the King of France. With all expansions, there are a few different options but Rome, a time of such different cultures and people should have even more of that.

Actually, I think the De Jure system could be used in some fashion. After all, EU:R did use the idea of grouping multiple provinces together into larger districts for administration; thats basically the idea of De Jure duchies right there, in a very rudimentary form. As for the idea of De Jure kingdoms, you could utilize it in the sense that everything within the De Jure State of your country is governed directly, whereas anything outside the De Jure would be under the administration of appointed governors, as Provinces.

Take the Italian Peninsula, for example. As the Roman Republic expands across the Peninsula, everything is part of the k_italy (to use CK2 terms, but here, we'll say that it includes southern Italy, and only goes as far north as the River Po) and so is under direct rule of the Senate. However, as Roman territory expands to include Sicily (k_sicily), Cisalpine Gaul (k_transpadana), and Corsica and Sardinia (k_corsica), the need for governors will arise. Of course, these will be positions that the families of the Republic will jockey over, due to the prestige, experience, and wealth they can confer upon the governor and his family.

Meanwhile, De Jure Drift can be incorporated as well. After enough time has passed (or some other determining factor), the government can incorporate a seperate kingdom into the territory of their kingdom, elevating its inhabitants to full equality with their own. This was done when Cisalpine Gaul was incorporated into Italia proper (though, admittedly, this was done by Caesar). While this would remove one playing field for the Game of Honors (I'm so trademarking that) among the families, it could make the local administration more efficient and more tolerated by the locals.

Speaking Italy in particular, you could also use the concept of De Jure borders to simulate Caesar crossing the Rubicon. In game, the Roman Republic (and others, should they so choose) could have a law that prohibits their commanders from marching armies into the De Jure territory of Italy (or whatever the home de jure is). Any armies in Italy would have to be leaderless, unless the Republic was in a defensive war (and now that CK2 is handling rebellions as proper wars, that fits even better for situations like Spartacus' revolt). Of course, in this situation, the game would both have to confer greater benefits to armies with leaders and prohibit the player from just assigning commanders at will (since leadership of an army would be another positions that the families would compete over).

The more I think about it, the more well suited CK2 is to this idea. And given how good the records from the time period are, we'd even have a fairly accurate portrayal of the characters that make up the game (we'd know, at the very least, almost every magistrate, and certainly every Consul, during the game period).

Besides: think of how many of the borders of the de jure kingdoms in CK2 are descended, ultimately, from Roman administration.

 

[ray243]

The important thing they need to change is non-heredity governorship, and landless characters to the game. At the same time, they need to allow your generals to rebel against you if they think their army is stronger than yours.

The game cannot be a CK2 clone with added mechanics though.

 

[DominusNovus]

The important thing they need to change is non-heredity governorship, and landless characters to the game. At the same time, they need to allow your generals to rebel against you if they think their army is stronger than yours.

Of course, but thats all fairly simple. Add in appointed succession into the game, with specific terms of rule for various positions. As far as landless characters are concerned, I don't really think thats much of an issue. Its not as though there were any Patrician families without estates roaming around; they were, after all, the nucleus of what became the European nobility of the middle ages anyway.

 

[unmerged(79411)]

I'd love to to create my own religion!

Also the priority should be on the Empire, and on the second point about characters and factions.
The political rivalries between Empires is what made this time period special.

The Trade system could be made more unique aswell.

In the end I'd like to see an AI that is able to conquer the whole map if uncontested.
(and have nice looking borders while doing so) :wub:

 

[diegosimeone]

I think there should be a mixture of the two: one thing that I loved about Rome was the Senate, which should be expanded to be more characters- and factions-(parties-)driven.

On the other hand, more than feudal systems the Roman as well as other states in the area had more of bureaucratic system to appoint governors and such. Also, the manpower concept fits well that age.

I am sure the devs will do a great job with that!

A mixture would be the best. But I'd rather it not be much like CK2 as it was a much different system back then. And empires of antiquity have nothing to do with the kingdoms of the middle ages. EU:Rome was pretty basic, but it was spot on with the characters' role.

 

[DominusNovus]

A mixture would be the best. But I'd rather it not be much like CK2 as it was a much different system back then. And empires of antiquity have nothing to do with the kingdoms of the middle ages. EU:Rome was pretty basic, but it was spot on with the characters' role.

Well, Romans certainly conceived of loyalty to the family as being relatively as important as the people of the middle ages did, so there's certainly room for some sort of dynastic gameplay, so long as it also incorporates state-based gameplay (as the Romans also valued loyalty to the state, which obviously is a relatively absent concept from medieval society).

 

[ray243]

Of course, but thats all fairly simple. Add in appointed succession into the game, with specific terms of rule for various positions. As far as landless characters are concerned, I don't really think thats much of an issue. Its not as though there were any Patrician families without estates roaming around; they were, after all, the nucleus of what became the European nobility of the middle ages anyway.

Yeah, but the mechanics of ck2 will not be appropriate for the early Roman period. You do not have political and military control over the lands you own, and you aren't allowed to levy your workers as your private army.

 

[DominusNovus]

Yeah, but the mechanics of ck2 will not be appropriate for the early Roman period. You do not have political and military control over the lands you own, and you aren't allowed to levy your workers as your private army.

You mean as a private citizen? Correct. But, if there was appointed succession in the game, and new successors could be elected at set terms, rather than at death, it could work out pretty well, as you'd only have access to those troops when you actually are in office.