Europa Universalis: Rome

[Zaknafien]

well, it does say ALPHA, you know. Some of us from EB have offered to help Paradox with research and development, we will see how they respond, they're generally pretty open to suggestions and their games are incredibly moddable, anyway.

[Bellum]

What about other factions from that era? (Never played EU, so I don't know how their usually set up)

[Zaknafien]

in EU games you can play as any faction at any start date in the game period. Johan (one of the lead developers) has said at least 50 factions.

Johan on Rome having "a significant character system":
Quote:
it will


Johan on Kurek's hope of Rome having "actual CKesque characters, generals and politicians and all that republican era sexyness that goes along with it.":
Quote:
I dont want to give out all the information yet, but your hopes sounds close to our design document.


Johan on what calender will be used in Rome:
Quote:
The dates are in AUC


Johan on what AUC is, and when the game starts:
Quote:
474 Ab Urbe Condita (years since the founding)
And that is a about a decade or so before the 1st punic war.


Johan on the conclusion of C.N. that the start of Rome is before the 1st Punic war:
Quote:
Thats the intent


Johan on the chance that there will be a tactical map:
Quote:
Won't happen.


Johan on whether we'll be allowed to play as Ultima Thule(Sweden) or not:
Quote:
no


Johan describing Rome:
Quote:
A detailed strategy game with great scope. The entire game is centered on the characters featured in the game, and diplomacy is completely character-driven. People have learnt to expect a game rich in warfare from us, and they will not be disappointed this time around either. Religion also plays a big part, as [religion was] much more [important] back then.


Johan on events and starting dates:
Quote:
There are no historical events as such, but players will be able to experience the creation of empires and the rise of Rome. Players will be able to start at any date, and at the beginning of each game, [conditions] will closely replicate history, but once the game evolves, characters develop and the game will develop with them.


Johan on playable nations:
Quote:
There will be more than 50 playable nations ranging from Rome itself to smaller Gallic tribes. Of course, we have nations like Carthage, Egypt, and Macedonia as well. We chose 280 BC as our starting point because there was a type of balance between several major nations at that time, and essentially any of those major nations could have created an empire similar to that of Rome. Players will have different resources, geographical locations, characters, and governments at their disposal, which will define their strengths and the capabilities of the nations.


Johan on the possibilities for the players to customize their countries:
Quote:
Players can set up trade routes to get access to other resources, appoint characters to various positions in their nation, elect different national ideas depending on their government type...and [they'll have] many more options. The outcome of Europa Universalis: Rome will completely depend on players' strategic and tactical choices.


Johan on what sort of forces Rome will have:
Quote:
There are six different units available in the game: militia (standard peasant levy); heavy infantry (such as the legionary); archers (missile troops, such as slingers); cavalry; horse archers (Parthians); and elephant cavalry.


Johan on the map's influence on the game:
Quote:
The 3D map and improved terrain adds substantially to the look and feel of the game, and in some instances it will play into [certain] strategies. It's more difficult to open trade routes if your nations are separated by mountains, or to wage war over sea, unless you have a strong fleet. What will be visible to players will depend greatly on the strategies applied.


Johan on the mentioning of POPs:
Quote:
Well... :P I wouldn't say "no pops".. We do differences of slaves, freemen and citizens in provinces.

[Lusitan]

What about other factions from that era? (Never played EU, so I don't know how their usually set up)

"factions" is something Paradox games are never short of. Imagine for ex eu3, where you can play with any country in the planet, real or hypothetical, from 1453 to 1793.

Or Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday, with again any country on Earth, during ww2, plus some fictional nations (scandinavia, arab federation...)

If you're curious about how that works, try to find EU2 in the bargain bins - still the greatest game ever IMO (sory CA & EB teams) and with the mods avaliable at the Pdox forums, it will probably remain so for years to come.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
So, do you favour EU2 over EU3? I heard that many fans do so. Do you think I'll enjoy it as much as I do EU3? (Stupid question but anyway... )
.

[Underhand]

.
So, do you favour EU2 over EU3? I heard that many fans do so. Do you think I'll enjoy it as much as I do EU3? (Stupid question but anyway... )
.

I preferred EU2 to EU3, with the caveat that I played many dozens of hours on the former and few on the latter. I found that states seemed too similar to each other in EU3, with the differences more or less being how big and wealthy you were, your religion and government type and how hindered by tech groups and other variables you were. In EU2, on the other hand, states that were important enough really felt different, due to their unique events, leaders and monarchs, and unique situations shaped by such things as cultures and cores (in EU3, these are quite mutable; you can gain or lose any culture if its provinces make up a sufficiently large or small proportion of those you own, and you can gain cores on your border in a random event). I should note that I didn't much like playing the minor states with few or no events and leaders, for basically the same reasons I didn't like EU3. I will freely admit that I don't think I have given EU3 a fair shake yet, however.

I think that EU:Rome could end up as bland as I think EU3 is, but I really hope that it doesn't. I've dreamed of Paradox doing a game covering this period for years, and I hope that they'll use their ingenuity, as well as the experience gained from EU3, to strike a good balance between allowing many possibilities and making the different states feel different. Having the different societies and military styles affect each other and other aspects of the game and be very hard to change would go a long way towards this, I think.

[Bava]

Whoa, nice, finally a paradox game in an interesting timeframe - everything since the 1800´s is just...gah. And EB is taking care of it, too. Makes me all warm and fuzzy


But this really makes me wonder if there´s ever going be a game with good strategic and battle map AI. I mean, the concept´s around since the eighties (Def of the Crown, North&South). Since "The freakin´EIGHTIES" (tm) !!!

[Sakkura]

Whoa, nice, finally a paradox game in an interesting timeframe - everything since the 1800´s is just...gah. And EB is taking care of it, too. Makes me all warm and fuzzy


But this really makes me wonder if there´s ever going be a game with good strategic and battle map AI. I mean, the concept´s around since the eighties (Def of the Crown, North&South). Since "The freakin´EIGHTIES" (tm) !!!

I couldn't agree more. I love paradox's grand strategy games (especially EU2), but it would be even more awesome combined with battles like you get in EB.

And, let's face it, the grand strategy aspect of RTW is really not that good. EB does the best it can with it, but it's nothing compared to EU2.

[Mouzafphaerre]

I preferred EU2 to EU3, with the caveat that I played many dozens of hours on the former and few on the latter. I found that states seemed too similar to each other in EU3, with the differences more or less being how big and wealthy you were, your religion and government type and how hindered by tech groups and other variables you were. In EU2, on the other hand, states that were important enough really felt different, due to their unique events, leaders and monarchs, and unique situations shaped by such things as cultures and cores (in EU3, these are quite mutable; you can gain or lose any culture if its provinces make up a sufficiently large or small proportion of those you own, and you can gain cores on your border in a random event). I should note that I didn't much like playing the minor states with few or no events and leaders, for basically the same reasons I didn't like EU3. I will freely admit that I don't think I have given EU3 a fair shake yet, however.

I think that EU:Rome could end up as bland as I think EU3 is, but I really hope that it doesn't. I've dreamed of Paradox doing a game covering this period for years, and I hope that they'll use their ingenuity, as well as the experience gained from EU3, to strike a good balance between allowing many possibilities and making the different states feel different. Having the different societies and military styles affect each other and other aspects of the game and be very hard to change would go a long way towards this, I think.

.
Thanks. It seems like I'll give EU2 a try.
.

[Big_John]

Mouz, i think that strat game buffs generally consider Victoria and Hearts of Iron 2 to be the best of the paradox games. i've never played Victoria, myself. might want to look into those.