Hi
I bought Pax Romana and when i try to install the last patch 1.02 it ask me for a cd key. My original game doesnt have any cd key (i think). Where should it be?
By the way, why is Pax Romana so unpopular amongst players? too much bugs?Thanks
Normally, the CD key was printed on a separate B&W leaflet included inside the game's manual.
The Starforce protection DC has emplaced on the game was a mess and, most of the time, did not work well with the patch...
The game was unpopular mostly because it was released too early ** and lacked any support, the development team having vanished (due to developper's bankruptcy) immediately after release. DC failed to keep up with the game's follow-up. They even have an improved version (1.1) of the game that was given to them by Galilea (developper) before it went down, but they never released it and sources have been lost by Galilea...
** : key isues like end game and AI were left aside by Galilea despite my opposition and never properly assessed.
The Starforce protection DC has emplaced on the game was a mess and, most of the time, did not work well with the patch...
The game was unpopular mostly because it was released too early ** and lacked any support, the development team having vanished (due to developper's bankruptcy) immediately after release. DC failed to keep up with the game's follow-up. They even have an improved version (1.1) of the game that was given to them by Galilea (developper) before it went down, but they never released it and sources have been lost by Galilea...
** : key isues like end game and AI were left aside by Galilea despite my opposition and never properly assessed.
I really loved this game and regret very much that is was never playable...
PhilThib wrote:Everything comes in due time to who knows how to wait..
Uh, oh! I wait for a Pax Romana 2 turn-based...
"Oh my lords, my brothers, my sons, the everlasting honour of Christians is in your hands."
[SIZE="1"]Αυτοκράτορ Κωνσταντίνος ΙΑ' Δραγάσης Παλαιολόγος[/size]
Now playing, testing or modding: AJE-BoR, Ancient Warfare, CMBN, CMFI, CTGW, FoG, RUS, Squad Battles, WWII-Europe
Idling: a lot of games
[SIZE="1"]Αυτοκράτορ Κωνσταντίνος ΙΑ' Δραγάσης Παλαιολόγος[/size]
Now playing, testing or modding: AJE-BoR, Ancient Warfare, CMBN, CMFI, CTGW, FoG, RUS, Squad Battles, WWII-Europe
Idling: a lot of games
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
-
Sol Invictus
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:32 am
- Location: Kentucky
I think there is a good amount of pent up demand for a Pax 2. I know I certainly would grab it immediately. I would love to see Pax 2 after VoN and then Napoleon just screams to get the AGEOD treatment. But I agree, I am a sure buyer of whatever you guys can serve us.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
"The fruit of too much liberty is slavery", Cicero
-
jimwinsor
- General of the Army
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am
- Location: San Diego, CA USA
I had this game briefly, and I really thought it would be great...but it would never run properly on my machine. Some terrible graphic glitches made it unplayable on my system, and I had to return it to the store...I stongly suspect Starforce, because shortly thereafter I had a complete hard drive failure. 
leure:
A Starforceless and improved Pax II I'd definitely be interested in, yes.
leure:
A Starforceless and improved Pax II I'd definitely be interested in, yes.
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
-
pasternakski
- Colonel
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:50 pm
Pocus wrote:the best thing would be to do a game on the whole ancient world, not only on Rome. But am I dreaming?
If you are talking about something like an ancient Europa Universalis, with 50 playable countries, that is interesting, but I would have one reservation, which is that it wouldn't make for a very good 2-player game. BoA and AACW are enjoyable for me because I can use them to play a human opponent. A game with more than two sides, even 5 or 6, means that the AI has to get involved or I have to find 5 or 6 human opponents.
So, I'd prefer a tighter design with fewer combatants. A mediterranean map with some Punic War scenarios would be my suggestion.
-
Franciscus
- Posts: 4571
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:31 pm
- Location: Portugal
Wow! This Pax Romana 2 talk is too good to be true!
Could it be time to once again crack open the Colleen McCullough "Masters of Rome" series of books?
I was SOO looking forward to Pax Romana all those years ago. As a huge fan of Roman history and a lover of the Masters of Rome series, it sounded at the time like Pax Romana would bring the politics of republican Rome to life. Unfortunately, we all know the story of the bugs, which made it unplayable.
My dream would be a game set during the early to mid Roman republic. Where (like the board game Republic of Rome) you play as a faction in the Roman senate. It would play out like a mix of Pax Romana, and EU III.
The victory conditions would be set up like in EU III, in that your goal is to gain prestige points for your faction.
When playing a Roman faction you would get these points by getting your faction members elected to positions in the government (one of the tribunes, Praetors, or consuls), and successful actions (like in EU III ). Once in those positions you could have greater influence over the actions of the senate. Even if not in those positions, your faction’s “prestige” would influence how many other senators vote with you even if they are inclined not to. Another factor could be the popularity of one of your faction's senators with the people.
The other nations would play more like EU III without the domestic politics of Rome. Each country would just have a prestige level, not the additional factional prestige of the Roman Republic.
I think you really need to have read that Masters of Rome series and to have played EU III to follow what I mean.
Alex
Could it be time to once again crack open the Colleen McCullough "Masters of Rome" series of books?
I was SOO looking forward to Pax Romana all those years ago. As a huge fan of Roman history and a lover of the Masters of Rome series, it sounded at the time like Pax Romana would bring the politics of republican Rome to life. Unfortunately, we all know the story of the bugs, which made it unplayable.
My dream would be a game set during the early to mid Roman republic. Where (like the board game Republic of Rome) you play as a faction in the Roman senate. It would play out like a mix of Pax Romana, and EU III.
The victory conditions would be set up like in EU III, in that your goal is to gain prestige points for your faction.
When playing a Roman faction you would get these points by getting your faction members elected to positions in the government (one of the tribunes, Praetors, or consuls), and successful actions (like in EU III ). Once in those positions you could have greater influence over the actions of the senate. Even if not in those positions, your faction’s “prestige” would influence how many other senators vote with you even if they are inclined not to. Another factor could be the popularity of one of your faction's senators with the people.
The other nations would play more like EU III without the domestic politics of Rome. Each country would just have a prestige level, not the additional factional prestige of the Roman Republic.
I think you really need to have read that Masters of Rome series and to have played EU III to follow what I mean.
Alex
runyan99 wrote:If you are talking about something like an ancient Europa Universalis, with 50 playable countries, that is interesting, but I would have one reservation, which is that it wouldn't make for a very good 2-player game. BoA and AACW are enjoyable for me because I can use them to play a human opponent. A game with more than two sides, even 5 or 6, means that the AI has to get involved or I have to find 5 or 6 human opponents.
So, I'd prefer a tighter design with fewer combatants. A mediterranean map with some Punic War scenarios would be my suggestion.
Have you played EU III with the newest patch? I find the AI to be quite good!
It all depends on the skill of the programmer I think. We have to trust AGEOD's coding skills.
In EU III, I play with a friend against all the AI players.
I honestly prefer to play co-op with a friend rather than against him.
Alex
-
jimwinsor
- General of the Army
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am
- Location: San Diego, CA USA
I'd keep it away from being a 100% real time game though.
Either go all turn based, or at the very least a hybrid real/turn based system, like the Ageod series. The EU real time engine never really appealed to me; with turns spanning 100s of years, a real time engine just does not feel right IMO.
Plus, turned based would probably be easier to code, I would think.
Either go all turn based, or at the very least a hybrid real/turn based system, like the Ageod series. The EU real time engine never really appealed to me; with turns spanning 100s of years, a real time engine just does not feel right IMO.
Plus, turned based would probably be easier to code, I would think.
jimwinsor wrote:The EU real time engine never really appealed to me; with turns spanning 100s of years, a real time engine just does not feel right IMO.
I don't really understand that sentence. Perhaps you mean with "games" spanning 100s of years.
Well, personally I don't really care that much about real time vs turn based.
In fact, I think EU III would work just as well as a turn based game as it does as a real time game. In real time, you just speed the game up in periods where the action is slow. If you were playing turn based, you would just be hitting the "turn" button. Almost the same thing.
However, I don't want to go off topic and get into a turn based vs real time debate.
This is a Pax Romana thread after all.
Alex
Korrigan wrote:Pocus, please stop teasing our poor customers!!
You perfectly know that the game we are about to announce this month is not about the Ancient world!!:
I know it, I know it !!!
[CENTER]The Grand Campaign project[/CENTER]
[font="Georgia"][CENTER]Commander-in-chief of the Confederate forces in the east[/CENTER][/font]
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[font="Georgia"][CENTER]Commander-in-chief of the Confederate forces in the east[/CENTER][/font]
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]-
jimwinsor
- General of the Army
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am
- Location: San Diego, CA USA
Alex2000 wrote:I don't really understand that sentence. Perhaps you mean with "games" spanning 100s of years.
Well, personally I don't really care that much about real time vs turn based.
In fact, I think EU III would work just as well as a turn based game as it does as a real time game. In real time, you just speed the game up in periods where the action is slow. If you were playing turn based, you would just be hitting the "turn" button. Almost the same thing.
However, I don't want to go off topic and get into a turn based vs real time debate.
Alex
Yeah, games is what i meant I guess. Point being, when a clock is running, that creates an illusion of time pressure...even taking into account the pause key. And with a game spanning 100s of years, time pressure should be the least of your feelings in a game.
Return to “General discussions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest