new paradox game: Rome
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Gaming and Information Technology
Forum Discription: Technology and Computer-related discussions; PC and Video Games…
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21944
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 09:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: new paradox game: Rome
Posted By: Temujin
Subject: new paradox game: Rome
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2007 at 19:56
|
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=324871 well, was about time. but if only Rome is playable, i'll skip it... |
Replies:
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2007 at 21:30
| Fantastic, I will look forward to play as Pontus, Dacians or Carthage. Down with Roman empire and Successor states. |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2007 at 23:47
Well technically Pontus was a successor state. But, I also am most intrigued by this announcement. The only concern I have is seeing the map stop in persia. The one thing I always loved about paradox was that their games had a world map. I don't want that for this game but what I would truely love to see added to that map would be central asia and... CHINA!------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 04:59
|
Thats right, Pontus was a successor state. I just hope that this game will distinguish itself from other "Rome" games, and bring more fun to the table. If not, than it will suck. |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 05:30
|
^^^ Agree. Hopefully with historical events and realistic armies numerically (tens even hundreds of thousands) it will be better than Rome Total War. Which was fun for a while but got boring very quickly, I don't think I ever finished one campaign all the way through. I own europa universalis II and just love that, very addictive with a very high replayable value. If this new game is anywhere near the level of EUII I will be most pleased. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 08:52
Given their track record, you're probably be able to play most little unimportant backwaters as well. |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 15:46
|
I don't really know why they keep developing the same game again and again, I mean can someone tell me how many differences would be there between this game and games like Rome:Total War, Medieval:Total War 1/2 and many other.
The theme is the same and if someone has or have played Rome:Total War (which is the best in the race) then I don't see any interest in this game from there side.
But still that's what I think maybe others have a different taste. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 16:01
One of the reasons they continue to "develop the same game" is becuase people actually like these games. Many people prefer certain time periods of war, such as the "classical age" or "medieval age" more so than modern warfare. I must admit, i find no interest in warfare if it involves gunpowder.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 16:45
my thoughts exactly. at the moment it looks more like a Crusader Kings in antiquity. i always hated Crusader Kings for only having a map of Europe and only Christian factions playable. therefore i assume only Rome is playable since in the announcement they only talked about managing Rome and not about 120 playable nations as is common slogan for their game advertisment.
are you familiar with Paradox games at all? the game mechanics of the paradox game owns any Total War game on the strategical map mode. the only thing Total War games have is the battle mode, and it's not exactly the best i know... ------------- |
But, I also am most intrigued by this announcement. The only concern I
have is seeing the map stop in persia. The one thing I always loved
about paradox was that their games had a world map. I don't want that
for this game but what I would truely love to see added to that map
would be central asia and... CHINA!Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 18:12
|
actually it seems 50 nations are playable, including small gallic tribes. but i'm still curious as to which paradox game this will be more closely to.
------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 19:29
|
Another important consideration is if the game will be bug tested and corrected when released or if we'll have to wait a year or two, getting update patches to stabilize it. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2007 at 13:09
Not the same type of game at all. Paradox games are grand strategy with abstracted battles; Total War is a tactical battle game framed in a simple strategy mode. |
Posted By: Gharanai
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2007 at 16:19
|
Well I guess I had learned wrong about the game as when I say replies of you people I searched a bit more about the game and come to know that yes there is difference between Total War series and it.
-------------
|
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2007 at 23:33
|
It must be based on the EU3 engine but it would be a shame if the map was as small as it seems from the early screens. The density of provinces seems, if anything, less than EU3's so it's not like mapping the whole world would strain processing power, but I guess it would be hard to decide what parts should be permanent terra-incognita or how much contact various parts of the map should ever be able to have. I hope it's good but I'm not optimistic. It might just end up that all nations play the same (with few or no nation specific historical events) like EU3 and Nap's Ambition. ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2007 at 18:56
|
they already said the game will have no historical events, so that means there will be no nation-specific events....and its a big letdown that there is no Asia, i seriously doubt they will make a warring states game...
------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 05:47
|
^^ That sucks. No historical events? That is what makes EUII the great game it is. (I have not played EUIII) Yes, sadly asia is constantly neglected whether the maker be Paradox or Activision/sega etc. Ironic considering even a game that was just about the warring states would be beyond awesome. This would have been one of the greatest games ever made if it had included the roman world and also china. I've yet to find a game that covered both during the ancient world. With the realistic army sizes, historic events and such paradox allows, oh what could have been... ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 08:35
That seems a little unfair considering there was Shogun: Total War. The Steppe peoples also make a few appearances. I do agree that it does need to be included a bit more though ------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 17:11
I agree, these companies should definately give the same amount attention to the asian theater. Games like Shogun:Total War left us all wanting more, and we have yet to get it. There were hundreds of warring asian and steppe states back then.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2007 at 17:50
yeah, exactly my thoughts... ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 00:17
However they have said that EU: Rome is going to be more like EUIII and Crusader Kings, which is better without historical events (CK that is).
What would be the point? So you could take your "uber" Roman army and conquer China, or your Chinese forces to the pillars of hercules. IMO Europe didn't go after Asia because they didn't have the capability (and wouldn't in this time period). And China didn't conquer Europe because it would've been too expensive for some "backwater provinces". The way the game could handle this is have a "foreign trader" event and that would be about the interaction between Rome and China. Of course it would be kinda neat to have an EU: China game based around East Asia, but the developers have their own personal preferences in history and it seems to be European based. Personally I'm a bit upset that they have no desire to make a Modern-Era/Futuristic game, but C'est la Vie, at least be glad they are incorporating another historical period. I mean eventually if they are successful they could make EU: Rome 2 which could include China. So don't lose all hope. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 03:37
|
Cool. I will check this out. Ah, that sucks. No thermonuclear warheads? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 04:03
Oh, thats true Crusader Kings was great. Though a lot of that was because of the detailed dynastic characters and such. Have they said whether they are having historic generals and admirals? That would make up a lot for the shortened map. Imagine leading armies with Caesar... or HANNIBAL!
Mainly for efficiency. The probability of them making a seperate game for just china is slim. Also it would be cheaper; you could play an asian campaign with china or quit that game and play one as rome. Versus buying a whole new game, installing it and switching between the two. Of course the opportunity to have both in the same game would be intriguing.
Excellent advice which I will try to take. I will admit that after playing hearts of iron I have thought about what it would be like if they made a modern era game. That would be fun, I suppose there just hasn't been enough interest for them to do that. No yet anyway... Honestly, after watching the prequel star wars I have had a hope they would come up with a futuristic game that involved space; battles, conquering planets and such. They would have plenty of room for innovation and imagination there. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: jayeshks
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 13:35
|
Ah ok. It looks like this is going to be the unofficial successor to CK. That's good, because at first it seemed like it would just be EU3 with a mod that restricted the map and changed the interface. ------------- Once you relinquish your freedom for the sake of "understood necessity,"...you cede your claim to the truth. - Heda Margolius Kovaly |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2007 at 19:35
as justinian said, no need for two games about the same period, also, even though i agree that it is unrelaistic and unfeasable to conquer the "world", some of the countries had itneraction with eahc other. i mean Rome interacted with Persia, Persia with the Steppe, the Steppe with China. full circle. just because China and Rome did never directly interact (as in wars) doesn't mean they were on two different planets. limiting the game to the mediterranean will automatically limit playability for Seleucids and subsequent Parthians, which naturally would be my favoured nation. what i disliked about CK are above all, the limtied map and non-playable Muslims, and that the games develop greatly unrealistic over time. what i've liked to see most as new paradox game was a seriously polished victoria 2 or a CK with the Eu2 map and playability. ------------- |