Is EU: Rome Any Good?

[Cheimison]

I am an old hat at Europa Universalis, which is why I immediately got EU: Rome when it came out. However, despite some interesting features like rebellious generals and more troops types than standard EU, the game was not super impressive. The map was very small, which would be OK if there were more provinces or at least more going on in the provinces, but no dice. I haven't really played it much since then, partly because I know EU games get geometrically better as DLCs are released; but there's only one DLC for EU:R - probably because it didn't do too well.
What's your guys' opinion on EU: Rome with Vae Victus? Worth playing, or should I just learn how to play Alea Jacta Est?

[mikeck]

I think AGEOD's Rome game is phenomenal. But it is completly different from the EU style games. AGEOD games are Operational vs Grand Strategy. That said, the VV DLC for EU:Rome vastly improved the game. I don't think it's anywhere close to as deep as EU IV but if your looking for ancient era grand strategy games, I'm not sure what else there is

[Jarhead0331]

EU: Rome is one of the weakest paradox releases, rivaled in disappointment only by Sengoku. Although not terrible to play, I recall feeling like there just wasn't that much for the player to do. It never felt nearly as grand as the EU titles, or the Victoria, Crusader Kings and HOI series.

You're complaining about purported inaccuracies in interest rates and pre-payment penalties of loans in EUIV, so something tells me, EU: Rome isn't going to scratch any of your itches. Just a hunch...   

[Nefaro]

EU: Rome?

No, it was lacking. 

After they added the expansion, it kinda helped flesh it out with something more than just dull troop building & invasion.  Although it still wasn't much, sadly.  After a long time, it still never got to where it should've, and I vaguely recall waiting on a patch for ages to fix some really annoying bug(s).


Getting an EU: Rome 2, featuring a proper mix of CK2 character/family plotting, along with an expanded treatment of EU Rome's national political faction system, would be great.  The mix of family plus clan or gov't faction voting, favors, etc could be amazing.  I want to see that sequel more than anything else!  But the portrayal of both those facets (characters & political factions) in the first one was almost non-existant.  Left EU:Rome feeling like you were just watching the timer slide by while little was happening. 

EU:R's trade goods system was crap & annoying, too.   

That's not to say there wasn't a nice kernel of possibility in EU:R.  It was just never reached.  This was back in the old Paradox days when their EU games were never quite finished.  Before the change in direction that happened right before CK2.  I imagine an EU:R sequel would get a far better treatment & reception today.


Just like EU:R, I also though their Sengoku Jidai title deserved a lot more depth a la CK2.  Hell, I was kinda hoping they would just do it with CK2, as a standalone even, since the feudal family-centric system fits the Sengoku Japan period pretty damn well but for all the flavor changes, some minor cultural switches & a big map.

[SirAndrewD]

I really really disliked EU Rome, even with VV.   The military side is distinctly lacking and the political side is handled far better in games like Crusader Kings II. 

I generally love Paradox games but for me this one was a hard miss.

[Cheimison]

Hell, I was kinda hoping they would just do it with CK2, as a standalone even, since the feudal family-centric system fits the Sengoku Japan period pretty damn well but for all the flavor changes, some minor cultural switches & a big map.

I wish they would release a CK2 game without all the RPG management stuff, lol. I like how almost everything in that game works except for the eugenics freakshow.

You're complaining about purported inaccuracies in interest rates and pre-payment penalties of loans in EUIV...

Heh, that's a pet peeve because medieval and ancient finance are relatively well documented. People will argue for thirty hours about the performance of cannons that no living person has ever seen, yet no one bothers to pick up a single journal article on loan markets in medieval Iran, which was probably far more important to the success of an ancient dynasty than their battlefield toys' minor functional quirks. Historians are often accused of being hyper-specialized, but gamer nerd wanna-be historians usually know nothing outside of their niche of #bestarmyever arguments. Including stuff that's actually far more functionally important than equipment or tactics (like logistics or population demographics in Anatolia).
In any realistic game your monarchy would almost always be in debt.

I've had people argue with me that there weren't loan markets in medieval europe before 'the rise of capitalism' (whatever that is). I don't know what the emoji code for a crack pipe is, but that's where it belongs.

[Phantom]

Any Rome game (I've got both mentioned above) would be better if it could incorporate Pax Romana's political machinations. Pax was a great concept but unfortunately badly flawed game from Philippe Thibault I think. The game struck me as an attempt to computerise AH's excellent board game Republic of Rome, and its a shame it didn't pull it off - I always lived in hope that Phillippe would try & re-do it someday.