Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
The player character is treated as a good ruler, but absolute monarchy it is a dangerous precedent in the long-term and future emperors may not be as benevolent.
Well, with prospective emperors killing each other all the time and frequent palace coups and civil wars and stuff.
It also depends on what you're going for. If you just want to recreate history, that's fair. But in some alt-history games there's the idea of redoing history but with the outcome being "better" overall, or at least leading to modernity faster. For instance, there's this text adventure game, Choices of Alexandria, where you play a philosopher in Ptolemaic Egypt. Depending on your choices, you can get an ending where they launch the first expedition to the moon in 600 AD. And in Expeditions: Viking, you create the Danelaw a few centuries early in the best ending.
Got the ending pretty much saying I got an amazing (if not the best*) outcome, and that was beating Lurco in the trial and having him crucified, getting elected to Consul and being considered one of the greatest ever to grace Rome.
Everywhere I conquered prospered, with the minor exception of Egypt that did prosper but only for Rome.
Lost Syneros (poison) and Daeny (killed on the stand), everyone else lived happy, fulfilling lives etc.
I am extremely tempted to take the rubicon crossing next playthrough though, but I also wonder what other decisions come into play for the ending.
FWIW: I secured the evidence in the early chapter, took over proconsulship of Egypt (but did not get the evidence man out alive), conquered Gaul completely, to the extent that their culture was 100% exterminated - and I did save the evidence guy in Gaul, though he didn't seem to show up in the trial?
I wonder how things change if I don't secure the evidence next time round?
Edit: * "Best" being very subjective ofc!
I wish you could have influenced the naysayers more though. Like having those annoying politicians finally see the light. Its like dudes, every time we do it the senates way and follow the rules an innocent dies! We have a mad man who declared himself Dictator, they should be the ones begging you to bring in the Legions to kill the monster they created. Like after Act 2, we disband let Lurco rule the world, wait for the senators to come begging us back out of retirement.
Like Caeso, I was sure I could "Turn" him to my side when I killed the slave owner who tried to extort his wife. The rules are constantly being bent by the bad guys in this game. I like the quote in the ending "Rome was always a empire waiting for a emperor" or something like that.
Of course in my playthrough my incorruptible conquering hero who is Octavian, Pompey and Caesar rolled into one, it be foolish not to proclaim someone this perfect as emperor. If my character was a warlord tyrant like Genghis Khan I could see why the senate would oppose you so much.
Egypt, I couldn't, I failed. Corvinus killed him.
Then in Gaul, assuming the Gaul king takes him away, my character said 'we're not letting Corvinus kill our informant this time' and then when the siege happens, you can save him again.
Because big bad Lurco has plot armor. Seriously if they want to talk politics someone with SO MUCH DIRT and skeletons out of the closet nobody would want to align themselves with him in the senate. Lurco in the story was a nobody, he had no money or power he was just some corrupt businessman. I wish Caesar and Crassus also made an appearance along side Pompey, and you could help them campaign historically. And in a "Good" playthrough help oversee their Triumvirate and ensure it was successful, ensuring Rome has a golden age. There was no point for Lurco's character.
Don't think so, probably required by the plot so the third act can happen.
For all companions to live, you should go for Emperor ending, don't disband before entering Rome. After that your only concern would be Caeso, it seems he leaves you no matter what once you decide to enter Rome armed. It's best to have very good standing with him so you could persuade him into defying his virtuous principles later. You're going to meet him before final bossfight. Make him doubt his decision, also having persuaded Cato and Cicero beforehand seems to help as he mentions the fact even the most lawful ones are on your side. Then you should become an Emperor. Surrender to law which will be offered by Caeso is not an option as there is no way you get out of this in one piece, that's why you must become a law yourself. Congrats, everyone's alive!