I believe they will do Rome II eventually, it's just a lower priority than Victoria III.
-
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.
I believe they will do Rome II eventually, it's just a lower priority than Victoria III.
I actually wouldn't mind a Rome II considering I haven't played a game set in that era for a long time.
And then they release Victoria 3 with a DLC that creates a bookmark at 1 AD.
- 6
My thoughts. Can't go wrong regardless of game chosen.
through I still want Pdox to make a decent 4X space game, and turn based.
- 1
Why not a real time space game in the style of CK, EU, HOI? Ever play Star Wars: Rebellion? That was a pretty great game, despite it's flaws. Let Sid Meier's studio crap out another space 4X and slap his name on it.
Speaking of which, did you hear they are re-making MOO? I think it's the studio that did War of Tanks oddly enough.
It depends on the setup of the game. Rebellion worked because it was a scenario.
on the other hand you have games like Distant Worlds where, by the time ship went from X to Y population of planet A doubled, as if people are bacteria :/
That's why I think turn based is better, it's a little less silly and allows battles to be more tactical instead of clickfest.
on the other hand you have games like Distant Worlds where, by the time ship went from X to Y population of planet A doubled, as if people are bacteria :/
That's why I think turn based is better, it's a little less silly and allows battles to be more tactical instead of clickfest.
Yeah, the tactical battles in Rebellion were pretty lame. But I really liked the faction, personnel, army and fleet management. I think you could leave out the tactical all together and have battles be akin to what is currently in PDS games.
You're right about the success being due to the scenario. It would certainly be an ambitious project for PDS as it would forces them to create a whole universe of lore.
You're right about the success being due to the scenario. It would certainly be an ambitious project for PDS as it would forces them to create a whole universe of lore.
Where did you hear the MOO rumor? I think MOO3 was my biggest game disappoint of all time. I followed its development closely and I think it ended up too ambitious for video game maker/PEZ dispenser, EA Games.
I'm gonna go with Roma Victoria! or, however it would be said in that latin talky talk.
Yeah. Additionally, calling it 'Europa Universalis: Rome' would be a major misstep, as many would overlook it as being merely an expansion to Europa Universalis IV. In addition, simply calling it 'Rome II' would very likely cause legal troubles (even if there's no guarantee that Creative Assembly's case will be upheld,) but would additionally cause confusion with a title which would have to be at least a few years old, and sounds rather bland.
To be honest, I'm fairly tired of Rome as a setting, as well. The game's senate mechanic is fairly interesting (being something more substantial than Creative Assembly's envisioning,) but 'paining the map' as the Roman Republic just isn't particularly interesting to me. After all, it's both the historical outcome (as the map itself consists mostly of Rome's empire) but an outcome that's not exactly challenging to achieve (at least by Paradox Grand Strategy standards.) Playing as one of the other states is inherently a less cohesive game, because the game simply isn't designed for them.
That's not to say a name needs to necessarily describe the game itself. Victoria's gameplay is clearly designed foremost around the United Kingdom, but apart from a few aesthetic touches, the gameplay works just as well for any medium-to-large Western nation.
They could call it something else. "Rise of the Republic" or something. Even Greek themed names work although to most audiences and customers (i.e. Europeans) Rome makes for a bigger attraction point. Besides, this would not be a sequel but an entirely new game and they could safely develop it without having to make 'EU-Rome II'.
To say though, this is a nice time for Rome games. After the huge trainwreck that was Total War Rome II, they could've easily earned the profit considering there was a huge crowd wanting a decent strategy game based on the era and the vacuum was available to be plugged. The game won't have that much demand now, but still a considerable market is there.
Since this won't be a sequel, they could implement a new gameplay style and system that prevents expanding through the map so easily. And they should give equal attention to all areas and not just Rome, and THAT'S where the problem of original EU-Rome, i.e. being too focused on Rome who can expand like crazy while other factions being boring, would be eliminated. That way, players would play lots of factions.
Honestly, EU-Rome was developed half-heartedly just like Sengoku, and both were abruptly halted in development. If they had put some attention and real effort into them, both could've been as big hits as CK2 or EU4.
There needs to be a game based around the Ancient time periods before a Vicky III. There are so few games, let alone one that is as historically modifiable as a paradox one that can feed many of our historical tastes. We need an Ancient Eras game asap. If "Rome" isn't acceptable make a game that starts off with Cyrus invasion of Mesopotamia and ending around the hight of the Roman Empire. DLC or create a game that features the Roman Empires collapse. Total War series only has a grip on this time period because it is the only game that has focused on this time period and honestly it isn't that well done and the gaming community isn't happy with all the DLC content either.
I would rather they made their Rome game so that only the Roman Empire is playable. While the other countries are not playable and specifically scripted to fulfill their role as setpieces.
But I don't mean that Rome should be playable as one country like one would expect from EU. I would expect something akin to the early CK II where only the christian countries were playable. So that the Pope is the Senate and the entire chrisendom is the Roman Empire(with date appropriate province distribution). Do you get where I am going with this?
- 1
I have a huge, huge plans ready to be built, a new game on Roman Empire era where you can play as anyone from city magistrates and minor centurions to senators, ministers, governors and even emperor himself. I also have a full economic model in mind about game, alongside trade and currency, all based on realistic situations. And then there are battles where you can be a minor centurion or a grand Legate, fighting real time battles, also with a supply model. And there is a detailed character management system along with relationships, families, intrigue (especially that famous Roman bribery and assassination thing) and so on.
I have a huge game plan written and ready, but sadly I lack programming and game graphic skills right now. Tried making it once, but the project is too ambitious for one man.
Not really relevant since Victoria 2 is Clausewitz. However I would say they've probably stopped any development of games that pre-date the new DLC business model and Steam-only distribution.
- 2