Don´t know man... Parthia, Seleucids, Carthage and Macedon/Greece are too cool to make a game where you can´t play as them.
-
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.
Don´t know man... Parthia, Seleucids, Carthage and Macedon/Greece are too cool to make a game where you can´t play as them.
They could always be expansion material. Note that I said expanion not DLC. Paradox could basically do it as follows:
They do their Rome game with only Rome with its sub-divisions playable. Then they make an expansion pack, which makes another country or a set of similar countries playable like for example Creek states. But instead of the CK II approach where they just bend the base west european feudalism mechanics, they would ditch the Rome mechanics entirely and build the expansion pack specific system from the ground up. All the while also greating DLC's about stuff that don't require a whole new set of new mechanics and can be modelled by bending mechanics from base Rome faction or an existing DLC.
For example, after base game is out, devs could start developing an expansion to add Creek city states in. After that they could make a DLC for Carthage(just for the sake of this example lets assume that Carthage was very similar to Creeks, but not similar enough to fit into the expansion pack). That DLC would require the Creek expansion.
Smth like that.
Not PDS though . . . you'd need to convince the publishing arm for that.
I'd rather see something set in the diadochi period than something set in the same tired rise of rome or fall of rome scenarios.
A time where rome was rightful greek clay and where warlords sought to claim the glory of alexander. The map would stretch from Iberia to persia and go as far north as the bosphorus. Could have different scenarios like the galatian migration or the phyrric war
A time where rome was rightful greek clay and where warlords sought to claim the glory of alexander. The map would stretch from Iberia to persia and go as far north as the bosphorus. Could have different scenarios like the galatian migration or the phyrric war
Last edited:
Starting with the death of Alexander would provide a good timeframe. You have the Macedonian empire that is breaking up and all the Diadochi are still at war, and there are no decided borders yet. Rome would be conquering city states in Italy at this point. And in the east you have the rising Mauryan Empire, born out of the grand and huge old Nanda kingdom of Magadha, and it controls the entire northern India, and tensions will soon lead to war with the Seleucid Empire for entire eastern Persia.
That start date can be interesting because firstly, there can be alternative history because Diadochi are still not fixed rulers of a particular area, they are still fighting for existence and control and there are many of them. This can be prevented. Secondly, Mauryans historically defeated the Seleucids and took entire eastern Persia from them, resulting in Seleucids losing all eastern territories but will then have a defensive ally who isn't threatening them, leaving them free to focus on the Ptolemies in the west. This too can be prevented, and may result in alternative history because Mauryans had an extremely capable and organized army and could've expanded westwards in Persia and Mesopotamia easily.
Thirdly, there will still be Samnites (probably), and you can prevent Rome from rising entirely. Or probably kill the Italians as Greeks and reestablish their waning rule there. And finally, you have the chance to play Brennus and take your Gallic warriors on a huge rampaging campaign set to destroy all the Greeks. Historically if Brennus had succeeded, he'd have become an emperor of a huge land stretching from western-central Anatolia to the French coasts and northern part of Iberian peninsula.
And then there was Carthage who could've tried and got involved in the Diadochi wars. The whole scenario is interesting in my opinion, because like Charlemagne date in CK2 things can turn out differently from history.
But I think this could be an expansion material too if not in the base game. Pulling back start dates and implementing new ones is nothing new in PDS games.
That start date can be interesting because firstly, there can be alternative history because Diadochi are still not fixed rulers of a particular area, they are still fighting for existence and control and there are many of them. This can be prevented. Secondly, Mauryans historically defeated the Seleucids and took entire eastern Persia from them, resulting in Seleucids losing all eastern territories but will then have a defensive ally who isn't threatening them, leaving them free to focus on the Ptolemies in the west. This too can be prevented, and may result in alternative history because Mauryans had an extremely capable and organized army and could've expanded westwards in Persia and Mesopotamia easily.
Thirdly, there will still be Samnites (probably), and you can prevent Rome from rising entirely. Or probably kill the Italians as Greeks and reestablish their waning rule there. And finally, you have the chance to play Brennus and take your Gallic warriors on a huge rampaging campaign set to destroy all the Greeks. Historically if Brennus had succeeded, he'd have become an emperor of a huge land stretching from western-central Anatolia to the French coasts and northern part of Iberian peninsula.
And then there was Carthage who could've tried and got involved in the Diadochi wars. The whole scenario is interesting in my opinion, because like Charlemagne date in CK2 things can turn out differently from history.
But I think this could be an expansion material too if not in the base game. Pulling back start dates and implementing new ones is nothing new in PDS games.
EU: Rome circa 330 A.D, please. (Continuing my one-man campaign for the gaming industry's recognition of Constantine the Great. It's not going well...)
Victoria 3 please. V2 is my favourite game by PDS and a V3 could be amazing.
- 2
I hope they don't scrap the Vicky franchise.
What is this fuss about Rome 2? How many people actually played Rome 1? Just recently I got back to it, hoping I was wrong about the game earlier. But the game still sucks big time. Is this "inevitable Rome 2 myth" driven by Total war Rome 2 fans or where does it come from? I would like to see a new IP but please do not revive EU:Rome - it is deader than dead. World war 1 or 30-year war game would be great. Even a sequel to the half-baked MoTE would imo be better than Rome 2.
What is this fuss about Rome 2? How many people actually played Rome 1? Just recently I got back to it, hoping I was wrong about the game earlier. But the game still sucks big time. Is this "inevitable Rome 2 myth" driven by Total war Rome 2 fans or where does it come from? I would like to see a new IP but please do not revive EU:Rome - it is deader than dead. World war 1 or 30-year war game would be great. Even a sequel to the half-baked MoTE would imo be better than Rome 2.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
I'm having an internal conflict about whether I want Vicky 3 or Rome 2.
But hey, what if...
Project Augustus is a sci-fi game? Like Crisis of the Confederation?
But hey, what if...
Project Augustus is a sci-fi game? Like Crisis of the Confederation?
More people would've played EU-Rome IF ONLY Paradox put some effort into it. Even the modders did a better job making the game decent to play than the devs themselves.
That game had a huge potential, as large as CK2 if not more, but was plagued by lazy and uninspired development.
- 2
rome 2 comes from everyone wanting a decent antiquity era game
I'll make a deal with you, Paradox. Give us all a V3 and a Rome 2 and I'll have all my hair cut off.
- 3
They will make a game where Victorians travel back in time to explore and colonize ancient Rome.
- 2
For those saying that a Rome game would work if you could only play as 'Roman style' nations. I would point out that Paradox has said they were displeased with locking playable nations behind DLC in CKII and prefer the EU or Vicky system of DLC adding features, flavor, or mechanics for nations lacking them in the basegame.
the ancient era is fully covered by the total war franchise and it's mod, so Vicky 3
paradox always aims for niche markets, nothing covers the 19th century like victoria 2.
also the ancient era is way too awesome in terms of battles to be played europa universalis style.
paradox always aims for niche markets, nothing covers the 19th century like victoria 2.
also the ancient era is way too awesome in terms of battles to be played europa universalis style.