Quick Question - starting Date

[Rorarii]

When is Rome 2 suppose to be starting, for the sandbox version?

Thanks

R

[Sol Invictus]

I would guess around 220 B.C. but haven't heard a definite date.

[Biggus Splenus]

I think the earlier the starting date, the better

[Enyalios]

Rome 1 was 270BC right? Around that time, right after the Pyrrhus invasions is a nice starting point, unless you want something different. How about 510BC after they overthrew the Monarchy?

[Rorarii]

I think starting at 500 BCE for Rome 2 would be too much .. better to break it up into 2 games - "Rome 2" and "Rise of Rome" (All Italic states, Greek states, Persia, Alexander, phoenicians etc) .. and finally "Fall of the Roman Empire" (Byznatine, etc)

R

[monsterlord]

I think starting at 500 BCE for Rome 2 would be too much .. better to break it up into 2 games - "Rome 2" and "Rise of Rome" (All Italic states, Greek states, Persia, Alexander, phoenicians etc) .. and finally "Fall of the Roman Empire" (Byznatine, etc)

R

That would actually be a really nice date for DLC

[Biggus Splenus]

That would actually be a really nice date for DLC

Well, looks like it's decided, the DLC will will be set in 510 BCE

The Greco-Persian wars wouldn't be too far off either

[Rorarii]

hmmmm, i think 510 BCE with all Italic States, Greece, persia etc would be toooooo large for a DLC I suspect .. just make it another game!

I don't care how many Roman games CA releases .. 3 - 12 , i'll buy them all like a outofcontrol druggie!

R

[Biggus Splenus]

Rome 1 was 270BC right? Around that time, right after the Pyrrhus invasions is a nice starting point, unless you want something different. How about 510BC after they overthrew the Monarchy?

510 BCE seems like an amazing date, maybe not for the release, but for a DLC or something.

But if it was going to be around 270 BCE, I would rather it during the Pyrrhic invasion, gives Rome a massive challenge at the beginning of the game

[AngryTitusPullo]

231 bc.

[Voodo chile]

I just hope we dont end up with the problem with 'Generals' dying within a few turns, of old age like we had in Rome and Medieval 2. Might just be better to leave those sorts of people out.

[Xerrop]

I just hope we dont end up with the problem with 'Generals' dying within a few turns, of old age like we had in Rome and Medieval 2. Might just be better to leave those sorts of people out.

What problem are you talking about?

[Raimeken]

What problem are you talking about?

Pretty much all the faction leaders were 50/60+ when the game started in Rome, a bit annoying.

[Rhaegar1]

I hope for 272 BC, Pyrhus is still alive and kicking (sort of). Turns should be 5 seasons long, that way we we have sort of a 4-turns-cycle covering 5 years in actual time. It's not perfect but it would make expansion a bit realistically (no entire world domination in 50 years) there is a winter once every 4 turns you have to keep in mind and at the end of a campaign a reasonable time has passed so lorica segmentia and republic -> empire transition can take place at a reasonable point in history.

The only problem is that army movement will be ridiculously slow when you look at the amount of years it's going to take to march up and down italy. However that's only a problem if you look at the year number, if you pretend it to be just 1 season instead of 5 your good to go.

[Xerrop]

I hope for 272 BC, Pyrhus is still alive and kicking (sort of).

Well in 272 his only ingame-task would be avoiding roof tiles.

[Rhaegar1]

Well in 272 his only ingame-task would be avoiding roof tiles.

exactly

[Xerrop]

And?
The game is about three centuries and whole dynasties. The death of your starting faction leader is not the end.
And with new matured members you can easily play 90 turns until they die of old age. So nothing wrong I think.

edit: the age is probably this high for all factions because these people should have matured sons to rule some starting towns or armies. Otherwise it would be quite challenging to start with a 16 year old faction leader and no heirs - this could end your campaign very soon after a single devasting battle.

[Raimeken]

And?
The game is about three centuries and whole dynasties. The death of your starting faction leader is not the end.
And with new matured members you can easily play 90 turns until they die of old age. So nothing wrong I think.

It wasn't a bad problem, just an annoyance. You asked for what was the problem, not whether it was actually that important or not.

[justme]

I have argued in the suggestions thread in favor of a "Fall of the Republic" campaign for RomeII, starting about 109BC at the time of the Jugurthine War and the beginning of the Marius/Sulla civil wars (that would give us an entirely new challenge for both Rome and the other powers in the word, something to distinguish the game from Rome 1, plus it fits better with what we've seen in the first trailer that looks like it's a cutscene taken out of HBO's Rome series)

But I could live with a 222BC start date at the beginning of the Second Punic War ...provided that we get realistic looking Polybian units and no Caesarian legionnaires for the Battle of Carthage (the historical accuracy bit worries me greatly for Rome 2 - I don't want to see imperial legionnaires fighting Carthaginians and Greek hoplites from the time of the Persian Wars )

Oh ...and I'm definitely against a 280-270BC starting date - as I said, it's too similar to the campaign (and the challenges) we had for Rome 1.

PS: 510BC sounds nice, but it wouldn't be "Rome" Total War, as Rome was a secondary power in the Etruscan sphere of influence at the time. Perhaps 510BC would be a nice starting date for the next Total War game, Total War: Greece (or something)

[Rorarii]

I have argued in the suggestions thread in favor of a "Fall of the Republic" campaign for RomeII, starting about 109BC at the time of the Jugurthine War and the beginning of the Marius/Sulla civil wars (that would give us an entirely new challenge for both Rome and the other powers in the word, something to distinguish the game from Rome 1, plus it fits better with what we've seen in the first trailer that looks like it's a cutscene taken out of HBO's Rome series)

But I could live with a 222BC start date at the beginning of the Second Punic War ...provided that we get realistic looking Polybian units and no Caesarian legionnaires for the Battle of Carthage (the historical accuracy bit worries me greatly for Rome 2 - I don't want to see imperial legionnaires fighting Carthaginians and Greek hoplites from the time of the Persian Wars )

Oh ...and I'm definitely against a 280-270BC starting date - as I said, it's too similar to the campaign (and the challenges) we had for Rome 1.

PS: 510BC sounds nice, but it wouldn't be "Rome" Total War, as Rome was a secondary power in the Etruscan sphere of influence at the time. Perhaps 510BC would be a nice starting date for the next Total War game, Total War: Greece (or something)

It doesn't have to be called "Rome : birth of the Republic", the most important event to happen at that time was probably "Athens : Birth of Democracy" .. The very first "Arab Spring" (well maybe not the first) that spread around the known world like a wildfire, destroying Aristocratic Rule in many places, replacing it with Democracy (except Rome).

R