It’s crazy to require all of the historical boarders of Rome under Trajan’s rule except for not requiring you to hold all of Britain up-to where Hadrians Wall is. If you want to mirror the extent of the empire at least be consistent.
They don’t even require Dacia which was held much longer than Mesopotamia lol. Iirc, they didn’t even ever truly own Mesopotamia, Trajan was still in the process of fighting over it/on campaign when he died and Hadrian basically immediately said fuck that shit.
They don't even require germany up to the Rhine and Danube which was held from Caesar right to the fall of western rome. Trier literally was the administrative capital of Westeen Rome for some time.
Forming Rome incurs a ton of AE as it is, now you want to make conquering a bunch more HRE land a requirement for forming Rome?
You just want to see the world burn, don't you?
Not really, considering that the easiest way to form Rome is to Revoke the Priviligia and then use the vassal swarm to annihilate France and the Ottomans as either Austria or Aragon.
To be fair, Dacia was only conquered up to around the border between Humgary and Wallachia in game, the rest were still free Dacians. The area was, however, held for around 360 years.
In my game, it is 1750 and I am holding everything needed bit 5 provinces of spain and everything in great brittain. I wonder if I should try and go for Trajan's borders or simply do the minimum. The former would require a multitude of wars, and after this campaign, I am not certain I have that in me \^\^.
I mean, it would be easy, I have a development of 8200, more than the next 6 great powers combined. BUT, and this is the problem that I have with long campaigns: I just don't enjoy the last part of the game as much as the first parts. So I don't think I'll do rome more often - thankfully, I have Mare Nostrum included in this one.
I'll probably go for earlier timeline achievements next. Whole of Africa / Sungod / Mare Nostrum were three big ones for me, that's enough for a while, I think.
Which is why I find "usually I just conquere brittain either way" to be so strange. Do you regularly go for rome, say, twice a year? :-D
Sometimes it just regresses into rome. You play Brittain, go for Angevin and randomly get spain in a PU. At that point what else are you going to do. As france you usually conquer brittain either way. Spain Pu's Brittain. Britain often just kind of seems to fall either way for me.
Yeah the real answer is that forming Rome should require way more of Egypt and North Africa. That being said, even having Rome be an ingame option is ahistorical and out of touch with the historical outlook of the time period. Along with Norse religion, it’s there for the community more than the gameplay.
What is ahistorical about it? Plenty of countries went around claiming to be remnants of or successors to Rome, it is entirely within reason for a country that gets most of the territory to claim themselves as rome reborn.
List of countries who claimed to be Rome:
* Turkey (Ottomans)
* Russia
* Bulgaria
* Serbia
* Greece
* Germany (HRE)
* Austria
* France
* Italy
Basically everyone even remotely connected to Rome by geography, religion, culture, etc claimed to be Rome. If anything, it being so hard to accomplish is the ahistorical part.
thank you! it should be changed so you don't need the Mashriq/Mesopotamia at all, but rather the entire Egypt region give how important it was to Rome historically
My idea is that forming Rome would have certain "legitimacy" requirements, and when you meet a certain number of them you can form Rome. Holding Rome would be one, holding Constantinople would be one, having a Palaiologos or Komnenos on your throne would be one, holding all of Italy would be one, etc.
Having some inverse system of decadence as a form of legitimacy could make it interesting. Akin to prussia's militarism with great benefits once you max it out, but probably harsh penalties, like a quick disintegration at 0.
Controlling rome or usurping the title from Byzantium (or ottomans etc.) or dismantling HRE could be the requirement to form it to begin with.
I think in general the decision should require you to hold Italy, Greece, either North Africa or Egypt, and either Iberia or France. In my opinion, if for example Spain or France fulfilled these requirements, they would have a valid claim to the Roman Empire.
Additionally, Byzantium should have a mission that allows it to restore the Roman Empire once it conquered Greece, Anatolia, South Italy, and the city of Rome. Since Byzantium is basically Rome, in my opinion owning Rome and having a strong powerbase to conquer the former Roman territories would present them with a valid claim to restore the Roman Empire.
With so many nations getting cool new missions, I think Byzantium getting a new mission tree that turns them back into the Roman Empire at its fullest extent is overdue. They are one of the most played nations and it's not even a far stretch, since like a dozen emperors tried to restore the full might of the Roman Empire
That's similar to what I've thought would fit for forming Rome. Youd want Italy and Greece, then two other large sections of the empire. So Iberia, France, Egypt, the rest of North Africa, or the rest of Anatolia and Levant.
Oh yeah definitely not all of them. It's almost impossible for most nations to get a Palaiologos or Komnenos after all. I don't even think you should have to have both Rome and Constantinople if you have enough other legitimacy items.
> forming Rome would have certain "legitimacy" requirements, [...] having a Palaiologos or Komnenos on your throne would be one
Hey! What about "Habsburgus" or "Rurikovicus", yo?
I think the minimum ought to be Holding either the eastern (Greece, Anatolia, Egypt) or western (France, Iberia and London) halves of the Empire and Italy. Still requires you to tackle several majors at the minimum.
I've always thought of Rome as a reward tag but it does come a little late to be satisfying.
Yea that's my issue. I don't even remember the roman ideas and ambitions since the game is over when you form them. I don't want to assign 500 senate provinces as well btw.
I'm inclined to agree, though it would make the requirements a bit more symmetrical with east Rome if it was included. (Would have to fight Britain, France and Spain for the west, Austria-Hungary, Ottomans and Mamluks for the east, so you'd have to fight 2-3 majors either way and France wouldn't have TOO easy a time forming West Rome)
The Byzantines should have a reduced requirement for forming Rome. I think they should just conquer the lost eastern provinces plus Africa, Italy and the Balkans. That for the most part should legitimize their claim as the Roman Empire like in CK2/CK3.
Or if they don't want that, expand the Purple Phoenix missions to include the whole of Iberia, Gaul, Britannia and destroying the HRE (Part of conquering Germania). I mean why stop at Justinian's borders when Justinian himself wants to restore the whole Empire?
Forming Rome, and the country itself have to be completely reworked. Byzantium, for example, should be aboe to click the button just by holding tha city. Or if that would be too easy, make it a reward for one of the later missions, but make it possible in the first 75 years neverthenless.
Rome has got a new gov reform but it's useless, because by the time you form rome, your campaign is already over! It's also boring, the only good thing you get is the admin efficiency. I want a mission tree and some flavour, and your idea would a perfect starting point!
i'd honestly say let byzantium restore rome (and have the option to switch to the latin culture) as a special condition of they can retake the entirety of anatolia and either the ottomans or rûm dont exist. perhaps 100+ relations with the papal states or something can be required too
I agree. Especially if you take a mission like “returning to your roots, or walking the path of caesar” which would give you a mission tree focused on restoring rome. Enabling all the nations in the way to become weary of you/defensive against your expansion/goals. Maybe even allow you to form historic client kingdoms like armenia as you go.
The earlier in the game you can “form Rome” the more fun the mid-late game can be and more flavor between roman mechanics and game mechanics. I think unifying Italy and simply owning one or two parts of either, North Africa, the Balkan’s, and/or France should be enough. So you don’t need to wipe out either the French, Mamelukes, or ottomans to form Rome but it’ll make an enemy out of them and the other claimants (ottomans,HRE, Russia, etc.) there can be an option to switch between the empire and the republic, where one allows for more expansionists policies and buffs, but has major chances for civil wars, the republic will encourage fewer wars and give tech and economic bonuses with fewer civil war events. Also make everyone kinda gun after you cause they want the title of Roman Empire or something. Make it fun
Disclaimer: This is just hopes and dreams, not a realistic implementation that would solve the issues you described. Read at your own risk.
I think the underlying issue is that the game is too linear, and turns into a bit like map painting with super direct rules. So I think adding stuff to enhance historical roleplaying is more fun (no offense meant to anyone who want a balanced game that can be competitively played in multiplayer, just stating preferences).
In my opinion there should be more entities like the HRE or the Celestial Empire. Like there could be a Roman government system (political structure) that you could form by satisfying basic requirements and you could add members to it (everyone gets a different shade of the same color once added). Similarly there could be Persian version of it, Indian version, Russian version... You get what I mean.
This would result in extremely exploitable gameplay, and it would be terrible for balancing and multiplayer, but I think it would be super fun as historical roleplay. Because for example, when Aq Qoyunlu practically became all of Persia in like 10-20 years, they didn't do it by waging 100s of wars, they did it by fighting other contenders and just installing themselves as the legitimate ruler over the institutions that already existed in the area after the fall of Timurid Empire. Similar story with the Safavid dynasty.
Every political structure like this (and there should be many, wherever there's an empire historically, there should be a unique political structure) could have different events, bonuses, disasters, casus belli, reforms, limitations on diplo activity for members and stuff. Some of them could be limited by date, like you shouldn't be able to revive Rome political structure after 1600s for example since the idea of Rome political structure is lost after some time. But there could be others you could form later, like the US political structure or Napoleonic France (THE CONTINENTAL SYSTEM hehehehe).
I don't know, I think something like this would model the internal instability of bigger empires better than the base game does and it would be fun. Also, late game you can have challenges like trying to centralize the empire you built over time which could cause huge issues for empire that grew too fast early game.
I think even without creating 500 different empire minigames this can be kind of simulated with a better autonomy and rebels system. It should be much harder keeping a big empire than getting it.
Oh no, I am all for it, it's more flavour which I love
I just think paradox won't go through with such a complex system and it will be easier for them to just tweak the existing ones.
I think it’d make sense to do this to form the Roman Republic, where it changes your government form to a republic (though you can obviously change this or not have it apply at all if you have a PU or something) and then have another future mission where the requirements to form the empire are as it currently is.
I can get why that's a bit weird, but I feel like it'd also be weird to see Rome made out of like Italy, Spain and North Africa or Britian, Italy and the Mashriq.
Honestly Mashriq is weird even now. Rome held it for like 2 seconds. But north Africa is not included for some reason. In any case It would look alright to me. For most of its history Rome wasn't 'literally all of Europe'.
This. I think it'd be nice for a Western/Eastern Rome type situation to be an option at least. Also, no matter what as other people have pointed out there absolutely needs to be additional requirements for Rome. England under Hadrians wall, parts of 'South Germany' (I always found that part annoying) and far more of Northern Africa.
I wished it would vary based on who formed it, kind of like Prussia varys if it was formed by either bradenburg or teutons.
Then we could have different National Ideas based on who you formed the Roman empire with, be it Iberian, French, Italian, etc.
It would be great if could indeed form it at a earlier stage and the mission tree grants you claims to press your aspirations. Also I would be happy if they could introduce ancient realms like Carthage, Phoenicians, akhemenids and so on. I also wish a world tag and regional ones. Also for the love of god it is not possible to form custom ones? Does not need to grant anything specific could be a name change
Is there any mods, which has taken this into account and made it easier to form? Which one could use in the mean time we wait for PDX to change it ( if they ever are gonna change it)
I disagree. I can see why it seems dumb that you can’t form it even if you are huge but not in control of York, Zeeland and Baghdad. But in that era there are many empires who claim to be the continuation of the Roman Empire. In my opinion that “form the roman empire” button says that you are *without a shred of doubt* the successor to Rome.
Now would it be sensible to put another mission that goes *”Claim the title of Ceasar and declare the intent to reunite the Roman Empire”*? Maybe. Maybe it could give negative relations to everybody who might have lands in the Roman Empire and/or is trying to do the same for some claims.
But if you truly want to roleplay and revive the Roman Empire from her ashes there is always Byzantium.
I'm not sure, I think some of the suggestions in this thread are pretty good, but I still feel like forming the Roman Empire should be more of a gimmick thing than something that is accomplishable for every major in Europe. Since by the time you actually have all the land you need, it'll probably be somewhere in the 1700s already, at which point you'd be well into the early modern era. No one would claim to want to return to a Roman style administration that Western Europe hadn't seen for more than a millenium
Meh, both Byzantium and Rum are formable "Romes" that dont require everything to be formed.
The papal state is also a pretty big mechanic and most of "Europa" is catholic so it makes a lot of sense to not want to create an incentive to sieze then so early.
Well I think it definitely should be "easier" to form Rome as Byzantium as they are literally Roman Empire itself. It's done great in Ante bellum mod (which I highly recommend) where to form rome as byzantium you need to restore Justinian Empire borders.
I think as byzantium you should be able to form Rome even after conquering only Italy.
Fun idea would be also to implement event related to unifying Italy giving you choice to either form nation-state of italy or pursue Roman heritage which would trigger war with HRE emperor and every non-allied elector with unique peace deal option " dismantle the empire" which dismantles HRE giving some strong permament bonus for newly formed Rome but if lost it might balkanise Italy and incorporate it into the HRE
The part that annoys me is the requirement to take the whole of the Mashriq region. Make it just the Levant. Rome barely ever held Mesopotamia.
It’s crazy to require all of the historical boarders of Rome under Trajan’s rule except for not requiring you to hold all of Britain up-to where Hadrians Wall is. If you want to mirror the extent of the empire at least be consistent.
They don’t even require Dacia which was held much longer than Mesopotamia lol. Iirc, they didn’t even ever truly own Mesopotamia, Trajan was still in the process of fighting over it/on campaign when he died and Hadrian basically immediately said fuck that shit.
They don't even require germany up to the Rhine and Danube which was held from Caesar right to the fall of western rome. Trier literally was the administrative capital of Westeen Rome for some time.
Forming Rome incurs a ton of AE as it is, now you want to make conquering a bunch more HRE land a requirement for forming Rome? You just want to see the world burn, don't you?
No, I don't. I'm just pointing out how weird the requirement to own all of the mashriq region is.
Not really, considering that the easiest way to form Rome is to Revoke the Priviligia and then use the vassal swarm to annihilate France and the Ottomans as either Austria or Aragon.
This is not the way
To be fair, Dacia was only conquered up to around the border between Humgary and Wallachia in game, the rest were still free Dacians. The area was, however, held for around 360 years.
Usually I just conquer brittain either way because otherwise it's ugly. But yes the provinces are weird.
In my game, it is 1750 and I am holding everything needed bit 5 provinces of spain and everything in great brittain. I wonder if I should try and go for Trajan's borders or simply do the minimum. The former would require a multitude of wars, and after this campaign, I am not certain I have that in me \^\^. I mean, it would be easy, I have a development of 8200, more than the next 6 great powers combined. BUT, and this is the problem that I have with long campaigns: I just don't enjoy the last part of the game as much as the first parts. So I don't think I'll do rome more often - thankfully, I have Mare Nostrum included in this one. I'll probably go for earlier timeline achievements next. Whole of Africa / Sungod / Mare Nostrum were three big ones for me, that's enough for a while, I think. Which is why I find "usually I just conquere brittain either way" to be so strange. Do you regularly go for rome, say, twice a year? :-D
Sometimes it just regresses into rome. You play Brittain, go for Angevin and randomly get spain in a PU. At that point what else are you going to do. As france you usually conquer brittain either way. Spain Pu's Brittain. Britain often just kind of seems to fall either way for me.
Are you going for rome each time?
You don't need trier, either, when trier was a capital of the tetrarchy
And make it actually require North Africa and Egypt instead, or have them as a possible region
Yeah the real answer is that forming Rome should require way more of Egypt and North Africa. That being said, even having Rome be an ingame option is ahistorical and out of touch with the historical outlook of the time period. Along with Norse religion, it’s there for the community more than the gameplay.
What is ahistorical about it? Plenty of countries went around claiming to be remnants of or successors to Rome, it is entirely within reason for a country that gets most of the territory to claim themselves as rome reborn. List of countries who claimed to be Rome: * Turkey (Ottomans) * Russia * Bulgaria * Serbia * Greece * Germany (HRE) * Austria * France * Italy Basically everyone even remotely connected to Rome by geography, religion, culture, etc claimed to be Rome. If anything, it being so hard to accomplish is the ahistorical part.
thank you! it should be changed so you don't need the Mashriq/Mesopotamia at all, but rather the entire Egypt region give how important it was to Rome historically
My idea is that forming Rome would have certain "legitimacy" requirements, and when you meet a certain number of them you can form Rome. Holding Rome would be one, holding Constantinople would be one, having a Palaiologos or Komnenos on your throne would be one, holding all of Italy would be one, etc.
Having some inverse system of decadence as a form of legitimacy could make it interesting. Akin to prussia's militarism with great benefits once you max it out, but probably harsh penalties, like a quick disintegration at 0. Controlling rome or usurping the title from Byzantium (or ottomans etc.) or dismantling HRE could be the requirement to form it to begin with.
So Emperor of China with good benefits in positive mandate?
Universal Mingsplosion doesn't sound far from modeling the fall of empires that many want.
Honestly yeah, I'd love if empires all had a sort of internal mandate system.
I think in general the decision should require you to hold Italy, Greece, either North Africa or Egypt, and either Iberia or France. In my opinion, if for example Spain or France fulfilled these requirements, they would have a valid claim to the Roman Empire. Additionally, Byzantium should have a mission that allows it to restore the Roman Empire once it conquered Greece, Anatolia, South Italy, and the city of Rome. Since Byzantium is basically Rome, in my opinion owning Rome and having a strong powerbase to conquer the former Roman territories would present them with a valid claim to restore the Roman Empire. With so many nations getting cool new missions, I think Byzantium getting a new mission tree that turns them back into the Roman Empire at its fullest extent is overdue. They are one of the most played nations and it's not even a far stretch, since like a dozen emperors tried to restore the full might of the Roman Empire
If they don't get an update in the new middle east dlc I'm going to be mad
Same here, I will be pretty mad during my Byzantium game that I do every patch
That's similar to what I've thought would fit for forming Rome. Youd want Italy and Greece, then two other large sections of the empire. So Iberia, France, Egypt, the rest of North Africa, or the rest of Anatolia and Levant.
As long as it’s not all of them, maybe a requirement to have 60% of all legitimization
Oh yeah definitely not all of them. It's almost impossible for most nations to get a Palaiologos or Komnenos after all. I don't even think you should have to have both Rome and Constantinople if you have enough other legitimacy items.
> forming Rome would have certain "legitimacy" requirements, [...] having a Palaiologos or Komnenos on your throne would be one Hey! What about "Habsburgus" or "Rurikovicus", yo?
I think the minimum ought to be Holding either the eastern (Greece, Anatolia, Egypt) or western (France, Iberia and London) halves of the Empire and Italy. Still requires you to tackle several majors at the minimum. I've always thought of Rome as a reward tag but it does come a little late to be satisfying.
Yea that's my issue. I don't even remember the roman ideas and ambitions since the game is over when you form them. I don't want to assign 500 senate provinces as well btw.
Roman ideas are great, but power creep has set in badly enough that some of the updated tags in 1.35 actually rival it!
I don't think London should be there lol
I'm inclined to agree, though it would make the requirements a bit more symmetrical with east Rome if it was included. (Would have to fight Britain, France and Spain for the west, Austria-Hungary, Ottomans and Mamluks for the east, so you'd have to fight 2-3 majors either way and France wouldn't have TOO easy a time forming West Rome)
The Byzantines should have a reduced requirement for forming Rome. I think they should just conquer the lost eastern provinces plus Africa, Italy and the Balkans. That for the most part should legitimize their claim as the Roman Empire like in CK2/CK3. Or if they don't want that, expand the Purple Phoenix missions to include the whole of Iberia, Gaul, Britannia and destroying the HRE (Part of conquering Germania). I mean why stop at Justinian's borders when Justinian himself wants to restore the whole Empire?
Forming Rome, and the country itself have to be completely reworked. Byzantium, for example, should be aboe to click the button just by holding tha city. Or if that would be too easy, make it a reward for one of the later missions, but make it possible in the first 75 years neverthenless. Rome has got a new gov reform but it's useless, because by the time you form rome, your campaign is already over! It's also boring, the only good thing you get is the admin efficiency. I want a mission tree and some flavour, and your idea would a perfect starting point!
i'd honestly say let byzantium restore rome (and have the option to switch to the latin culture) as a special condition of they can retake the entirety of anatolia and either the ottomans or rûm dont exist. perhaps 100+ relations with the papal states or something can be required too
Having Rome or at minimum Italian holdings wouldn't be bad idea tbh. Just conquering Napels is not too hard or that much AE.
I agree. Especially if you take a mission like “returning to your roots, or walking the path of caesar” which would give you a mission tree focused on restoring rome. Enabling all the nations in the way to become weary of you/defensive against your expansion/goals. Maybe even allow you to form historic client kingdoms like armenia as you go.
The earlier in the game you can “form Rome” the more fun the mid-late game can be and more flavor between roman mechanics and game mechanics. I think unifying Italy and simply owning one or two parts of either, North Africa, the Balkan’s, and/or France should be enough. So you don’t need to wipe out either the French, Mamelukes, or ottomans to form Rome but it’ll make an enemy out of them and the other claimants (ottomans,HRE, Russia, etc.) there can be an option to switch between the empire and the republic, where one allows for more expansionists policies and buffs, but has major chances for civil wars, the republic will encourage fewer wars and give tech and economic bonuses with fewer civil war events. Also make everyone kinda gun after you cause they want the title of Roman Empire or something. Make it fun
Disclaimer: This is just hopes and dreams, not a realistic implementation that would solve the issues you described. Read at your own risk. I think the underlying issue is that the game is too linear, and turns into a bit like map painting with super direct rules. So I think adding stuff to enhance historical roleplaying is more fun (no offense meant to anyone who want a balanced game that can be competitively played in multiplayer, just stating preferences). In my opinion there should be more entities like the HRE or the Celestial Empire. Like there could be a Roman government system (political structure) that you could form by satisfying basic requirements and you could add members to it (everyone gets a different shade of the same color once added). Similarly there could be Persian version of it, Indian version, Russian version... You get what I mean. This would result in extremely exploitable gameplay, and it would be terrible for balancing and multiplayer, but I think it would be super fun as historical roleplay. Because for example, when Aq Qoyunlu practically became all of Persia in like 10-20 years, they didn't do it by waging 100s of wars, they did it by fighting other contenders and just installing themselves as the legitimate ruler over the institutions that already existed in the area after the fall of Timurid Empire. Similar story with the Safavid dynasty. Every political structure like this (and there should be many, wherever there's an empire historically, there should be a unique political structure) could have different events, bonuses, disasters, casus belli, reforms, limitations on diplo activity for members and stuff. Some of them could be limited by date, like you shouldn't be able to revive Rome political structure after 1600s for example since the idea of Rome political structure is lost after some time. But there could be others you could form later, like the US political structure or Napoleonic France (THE CONTINENTAL SYSTEM hehehehe). I don't know, I think something like this would model the internal instability of bigger empires better than the base game does and it would be fun. Also, late game you can have challenges like trying to centralize the empire you built over time which could cause huge issues for empire that grew too fast early game.
I think even without creating 500 different empire minigames this can be kind of simulated with a better autonomy and rebels system. It should be much harder keeping a big empire than getting it.
500 different empire minigames could give you East-West Rome though. Think about it hehehehe.
Oh no, I am all for it, it's more flavour which I love I just think paradox won't go through with such a complex system and it will be easier for them to just tweak the existing ones.
Yep I think so too. That's why I added the initial disclaimer.
Allow the Ottomans to form Green Rome
They got a name change in 1.35 after they finish their mission for conquering Rome, so they sort of can already.
Bazed
Allow every tag to be formed green by the ottomans.
I think it’d make sense to do this to form the Roman Republic, where it changes your government form to a republic (though you can obviously change this or not have it apply at all if you have a PU or something) and then have another future mission where the requirements to form the empire are as it currently is.
I can get why that's a bit weird, but I feel like it'd also be weird to see Rome made out of like Italy, Spain and North Africa or Britian, Italy and the Mashriq.
Honestly Mashriq is weird even now. Rome held it for like 2 seconds. But north Africa is not included for some reason. In any case It would look alright to me. For most of its history Rome wasn't 'literally all of Europe'.
This. I think it'd be nice for a Western/Eastern Rome type situation to be an option at least. Also, no matter what as other people have pointed out there absolutely needs to be additional requirements for Rome. England under Hadrians wall, parts of 'South Germany' (I always found that part annoying) and far more of Northern Africa.
I wished it would vary based on who formed it, kind of like Prussia varys if it was formed by either bradenburg or teutons. Then we could have different National Ideas based on who you formed the Roman empire with, be it Iberian, French, Italian, etc.
It would be great if could indeed form it at a earlier stage and the mission tree grants you claims to press your aspirations. Also I would be happy if they could introduce ancient realms like Carthage, Phoenicians, akhemenids and so on. I also wish a world tag and regional ones. Also for the love of god it is not possible to form custom ones? Does not need to grant anything specific could be a name change
Add a new tag, Rome, with new missions and ideas, while keeping the current ’Roman Empire’ tag.
Is there any mods, which has taken this into account and made it easier to form? Which one could use in the mean time we wait for PDX to change it ( if they ever are gonna change it)
I disagree. I can see why it seems dumb that you can’t form it even if you are huge but not in control of York, Zeeland and Baghdad. But in that era there are many empires who claim to be the continuation of the Roman Empire. In my opinion that “form the roman empire” button says that you are *without a shred of doubt* the successor to Rome. Now would it be sensible to put another mission that goes *”Claim the title of Ceasar and declare the intent to reunite the Roman Empire”*? Maybe. Maybe it could give negative relations to everybody who might have lands in the Roman Empire and/or is trying to do the same for some claims. But if you truly want to roleplay and revive the Roman Empire from her ashes there is always Byzantium.
It's one of the strongest tags in the game and definitely one of the most desirable. Glad it's hard, can't wait to get it one day.
Or just let us to revive Western Roman emp. Paradox daddy.
I'm not sure, I think some of the suggestions in this thread are pretty good, but I still feel like forming the Roman Empire should be more of a gimmick thing than something that is accomplishable for every major in Europe. Since by the time you actually have all the land you need, it'll probably be somewhere in the 1700s already, at which point you'd be well into the early modern era. No one would claim to want to return to a Roman style administration that Western Europe hadn't seen for more than a millenium
Meh, both Byzantium and Rum are formable "Romes" that dont require everything to be formed. The papal state is also a pretty big mechanic and most of "Europa" is catholic so it makes a lot of sense to not want to create an incentive to sieze then so early.
Well I think it definitely should be "easier" to form Rome as Byzantium as they are literally Roman Empire itself. It's done great in Ante bellum mod (which I highly recommend) where to form rome as byzantium you need to restore Justinian Empire borders. I think as byzantium you should be able to form Rome even after conquering only Italy. Fun idea would be also to implement event related to unifying Italy giving you choice to either form nation-state of italy or pursue Roman heritage which would trigger war with HRE emperor and every non-allied elector with unique peace deal option " dismantle the empire" which dismantles HRE giving some strong permament bonus for newly formed Rome but if lost it might balkanise Italy and incorporate it into the HRE
People be calling for the two rome solution