Imperator Dev Diary - 20/03/23

[Todie]

gold

I dont like to lump in gold with manpower on this issue. Gold can be used in so many ways. Abundant gold is a synptom of the game being too easy or the player themself being passive and not challanging themself enough to push their resources closer to their limits.

The same can NOT be said about manpower. Im not saying that it should be that way, but having manpower be so ”enough” or ”not enough” in such a binary way is on another level from any problem with gold abundance - and its not good design.

... all this has been said before and i guess it’ll be said again. Iirc even @Jamor mentioned that he & the other devs want to have a look at manpower later. Its just a matter of how and when.

 

[Denkt]

Yes the fact that Manpower have only one use in the game (research have similar problem but I ignore that for now and I have suggested how the research resource can be given multiple use Before). The issue with resources that have 1 use is there is not real spending tradeoff, this mean the only strategy with Manpower is to build up an army, if Manpower had more uses it would make stuff alot more interesting since losing Manpower maybe mean you can't build building for example, this mean there is a bigger tradeoff between the military development, warfare and economic development than seen right now.

 

[Synen]

The developers have said the military system is going to be reworked, which according to the plan seems to be in autum. The issue with the phalanx is pretty clear, it is dependent on alot of stuff, right terrain, cavalry advantage, protected flanks and so on while the roman system generally worked no matter what which is a huge advantage which is quite clear given the many battles the romans won against such formations. I feel the more ifs a formation need the more weakness it have.

EUIV time period is more than a thousand years away and have technological development not available during Imperator: Rome time period which gave the pike phalanx an renaissance.

If anything I think CK3 have a better military system with their idea how men at arms will work. Each men at arms have their own counters and terrain bonuses and penalties, this way it would be easy to make roman legionaries different from macedonian phalanx, also CK3 have a much better idea about combat width which is based on the terrain and size of the defending army instead of being the same everywhere.

What you could do instead of tactics countering eachother is that each tactic gives terrain bonuses or penalties to certain units depending on the terrain the tactic is used in. For example phalanx could give you terrain bonusses for heavy infantry and cavalry when fighting on even ground like plains and farmland while it would give you a penalty for heavy infantry and cavalry when fighting on uneven ground like mountains and hills.

 

[Denkt]

What you could do instead of tactics countering eachother is that each tactic gives terrain bonuses or penalties to certain units depending on the terrain the tactic is used in. For example phalanx could give you terrain bonusses for heavy infantry and cavalry when fighting on even ground like plains and farmland while it would give you a penalty for heavy infantry and cavalry when fighting on uneven ground like mountains and hills.

Yes it can be done but I kinda feel like the tactic system should be overhauled.

My idea for military traditions is that everyone could eventually get each other military traditions, I think making it work on a circle which connects all 7 military tradition trees, so latin tree could for example be placed next to barbarian and greek tree making it rather easy for the romans to get the greek and barbarian traditions but harder to develop persian or indian traditions. Barbarians would have easier access to latin traditions than to greek traditions in such system.

I think that would make military traditions alot more interesting and also give alot more possible combinations than can be done right now.

 

[Lord Lambert]

You are overthinking this.

I'm really, really not. But I'm also quite done with re-re-re-explaining my point so, whatever.

 

[Marinakis]

Phalanx wasn't outdated, I remember you that in the few two centuries of EU4 the Phalanx was reborned. If the Greeks lost to the roman in the battlefield was because they didn't use enough cavalry to do as Alexander with the tactics of the anvil and the hammer, if you watch these battles in Kings&Generals you will see the lack of cavalry was their doom and why was easily beaten for a soldier who may flank them when the Phalanx formation is broken due to bad terrain.

Couldn't agree more. Prior to firearms, a properly trained phalanx was always the best formation at holding a line or holding a position, and, if trained well enough, was extremely effective at methodically forcing an opposing force off a position. People like to glorify and overrate the Roman legionnaire and larger legion formation due to the success of the Roman Empire. But please don't act like the phalanx was some archaic formation which was outclassed by the Roman Legion. It is extremely notable that the phalanx formation came back into popular use in the centuries prior to firearms completely taking over warfare. Conversely, the Roman Legion was never seen again following the fall of the Ancient Roman Empire. Even the Vikings utilized a pseudo-phalanx to great effect, dominating European war for some time.

The Roman formations defeated the Greek ones of the time due to the successor state's de-emphasis on exceptionally trained cavalry, internally fragmented states, poor leadership, states seriously lacking of manpower, etc. Not some super human Roman soldier or formation.

 

[Denkt]

Couldn't agree more. Prior to firearms, a properly trained phalanx was always the best formation at holding a line or holding a position, and, if trained well enough, was extremely effective at methodically forcing an opposing force off a position. People like to glorify and overrate the Roman legionnaire and larger legion formation due to the success of the Roman Empire. But please don't act like the phalanx was some archaic formation which was outclassed by the Roman Legion. It is extremely notable that the phalanx formation came back into popular use in the centuries prior to firearms completely taking over warfare. Conversely, the Roman Legion was never seen again following the fall of the Ancient Roman Empire. Even the Vikings utilized a pseudo-phalanx to great effect, dominating European war for some time.

The Roman formations defeated the Greek ones of the time due to a de-emphasis on exceptionally trained cavalry, internally fragmented states, poor leadership, states seriously lacking of manpower, etc. Not some super human Roman soldier or formation.

Actually you can say that the formations focused on mobility developed by people like the Dutchs and the Swedish (I have even heard that the Dutch was inspired just by the roman army) was the spirital successors to the roman legion even though the Equipment was very different give the massive time gap but so applies to the phalanx formations of that time as well as they was not equipped identical to how the macedonian phalanx was. Also it is possible that gunpowder was actually a reason why pike formations became popular because it worked well with guns Before bayonet and other gun inventions made guns so effective that armies started to equip their infantry with firearms. Also I talked about specificaly the pike armed phalanx since phalanx is such general Word you can as well say the romans fought in a phalanx but quite different from the larger phalanxes employed by the macedonians and differently equipped.

Also the roman army did not just use gladius armed legionaries but it had also various auxilia units, including pike phalanx formations. Also the romans changed their Equipment alot over time due to experience with what worked and what did not work.

I don't know if you can say the greeks/macedonians was on a military decline, to me it sound like a whitewash and I think the greek armies was pretty capable if not more so than they had been during Alexander but they did have weakness and the romans was quite good at exploiting those weakness which lead to the romans eventually conquering them. For example the greek cavalry was about equal to the roman cavalry and the roman cavalry was not undertrained by any means so neither can the greek cavalry have been and the romans did have trouble with fighting the pike phalanx head on but eventually they managed to outflank them or exploit the gaps in the phalanx which was something other armies was generally unable to do.

I think the two important things the roman military developed was small unit leadership and a focus on smaller but more mobile formations. I don't think the Equipment is particular important factor in the roman army's success, alot if not every Equipment they used was copied from others, like their famous sword actually came from spain. Eventually the romans stopped equipping the legions with their most famous Equipment so why nobody used that Equipment later may have to do with it was considered obsolete Before the end of the roman empire but it was not the Equipment that made the roman army.

I think the romans and others was quite rational when it came to the military and developed their militaries based on experience about what worked and did not work and often they copied stuff from each others, like the romans at some Point started to use cataphracts.

 

[Marinakis]

Actually you can say that the formations focused on mobility developed by people like the Dutchs and the Swedish (I have even heard that the Dutch was inspired just by the roman army) was the spirital successors to the roman legion even though the Equipment was very different give the massive time gap but so applies to the phalanx formations of that time as well as they was not equipped identical to how the macedonian phalanx was.

Respectfully, I don't even know that that means.

romans fought in a phalanx but quite different from the larger phalanxes employed by the macedonians and differently equipped.

I mean, I guess. Not sure what this contributes to the overall point.

Also the roman army did not just use gladius armed legionaries but it had also various auxilia units, including pike phalanx formations. Also the romans changed their Equipment alot over time due to experience with what worked and what did not work.

Again, respectfully, the Greek/Macedonian army was also not just a pike phalanx. The Alexandrian variation of the army was extremely flexible and adaptive. That is why the army conquered much of the known world. The post-Alexander Greek/Macedonian army was much more dependent on the pike phalanx and de-emphasized the cavalry/auxiliary units.

Alexander was constantly looking to reform his army and was not married to any particular style of fighting. Conversely, the successors, with a few exceptions, failed to adapt their militarys and/or politically solidify/stabilize their kingdoms. The Roman army suffered a number of catastrophic defeats from Alexandrian-styled armies. The strength of the early Roman state was its ability to learn from its mistakes and, more importantly, have the manpower to quickly replace routed armies. This was a luxury the Epirot, Macedonian, Seleucid and/or Ptolemaic Kingdoms did not benefit from by the time the Romans came knocking.

 

[Ramiro564]

Love the artwork

 

[Denkt]

Respectfully, I don't even know that that means.

May be Worth to take a look here. It is not really the Equipment that is important since both the roman and greek Equipment would be mostly obsolete a thousand years later. The more interesting thing is the similarties in the formations and such which would probably not have changed much over the same time period which indicate that the ancient people already had a good idea about optimal formations and how they should be used.

Again, respectfully, the Greek/Macedonian army was also not just a pike phalanx. The Alexandrian variation of the army was extremely flexible and adaptive. That is why the army conquered much of the known world. The post-Alexander Greek/Macedonian army was much more dependent on the pike phalanx and de-emphasized the cavalry/auxiliary units.

Well the romans did defeat Antiochus III the Great, king of the Seleukid Empire who had alot of military experience fighting in all corners of his empire and I think his army was pretty varied given his large empire, not just pike phalanx and Macedonia clear had cavalry that was good enough to tie down the roman cavalry. Given how much war the greek states waged and how much they was inspired by Alexander's success it seems strange that they would make their armies worse than what Alexander had, it don't make any sense to me.

The romans could have copied Alexander's army but they did not which to me indicate that the romans did not consider that style to be the optimal way of fighting (and I trust the romans here), however they did copy the greek siege weapons and many other stuff. On the other hand I think the Seleukid Empire and others tried to copy the roman way of fighting but without much success which maybe indicate they lacked something the romans had, or simply did not have that much experience with that fighting style, it took the romans alot to reach the level they eventually did.

The Roman army suffered a number of catastrophic defeats from Alexandrian-styled armies. The strength of the early Roman state was its ability to learn from its mistakes and, more importantly, have the manpower to quickly replace routed armies. This was a luxury the Epirot, Macedonian, Seleucid and/or Ptolemaic Kingdoms did not benefit from by the time the Romans came knocking.

The romans suffered major defeats against pretty much everyone but Macedonian army was also defeated by people like the celts just around the start date of the game. Even Casear lost once to the gauls. But when they should not forgot that the romans also defeated like everyone they could reach. In the first Punic war they went from basically having no navy to defeating the greatest naval Power at the time which is impressive.

 

[lunelune2413]

Does it mean there will be no achievements coming together with this patch? Usually they are revealed right before the release of a new Paradox DLC.
(not that it's high in my list of priorities, I just wanted to be sure)

They are already on the achievment list on Steam

Good stuff, however any word on making manpower something you have to worry about again? In my games as Egypt and crete manpower was something I dont have to worry about much at all anymore.
As crete....

That is most likely gonna be fixed in the war rework coming here in around half a year (Which is sad).

 

[Marinakis]

Well the romans did defeat Antiochus III the Great, king of the Seleukid Empire who had alot of military experience fighting in all corners of his empire and I think his army was pretty varied given his large empire, not just pike phalanx and Macedonia clear had cavalry that was good enough to tie down the roman cavalry.

And the Romans repeatedly suffered military defeats to Pyrrhos and Hannibal, generals who heavily leaned on Hellenistic tactics. I am not sure why people look at one battle and infer that the winner of that battle was clearly the superior military. Sometimes things just happen and larger conclusions should not be drawn from a single event.

I am not saying Hellenistic tactics were superior than Roman, just they the systems were different and had differing individual advantages/disadvantages. It is silly to claim that the Roman one was better than the Hellenistic ones just simply because the Romans ended up winning battles and conquering the Hellenistic peoples. Sometimes a state just ascends at the right place at the right time. The Roman Republic of 387-200 B.C.E. was just that state.

The Roman state of 387-200 B.C.E. had a highly effective military, economy, innovative/inclusive culture and and larger political machine for the time period. But so did other civilizations. If Rome of 387-200 B.C.E. found itself in open war against the Macedonia of 323 B.C.E., or even Diadochi of Antipatros/Antigonos soon after the partition, history may have unfolded much different. The Diadochi of 200+ B.C.E. were rump states suffering from extreme war exhaustion, terrible economies (excluding Ptolemy) and increasing internal strife.

Please remember, the Hellenistic system of war also took a minor and, at the time, little known, Greek Kingdom based in the hinterlands of the Greek peninsula to conquer the largest and most powerful empire the world had ever seen up to that point - that empire being Persia. *Something Rome was never able to accomplish*

 

[Temudhun Khan]

They are already on the achievment list on Steam

Oh, right, thanks!

 

[Quimera]

The developers have said the military system is going to be reworked, which according to the plan seems to be in autum. The issue with the phalanx is pretty clear, it is dependent on alot of stuff, right terrain, cavalry advantage, protected flanks and so on while the roman system generally worked no matter what which is a huge advantage which is quite clear given the many battles the romans won against such formations. I feel the more ifs a formation need the more weakness it have.

EUIV time period is more than a thousand years away and have technological development not available during Imperator: Rome time period which gave the pike phalanx an renaissance.

If anything I think CK3 have a better military system with their idea how men at arms will work. Each men at arms have their own counters and terrain bonuses and penalties, this way it would be easy to make roman legionaries different from macedonian phalanx, also CK3 have a much better idea about combat width which is based on the terrain and size of the defending army instead of being the same everywhere.

It do show an issue with Imperator: Rome technology system, either you are advanced in Everything or you are not, there is nothing inbetween or specialization. The military tradition system don't make all that much sense since it assume a nations military development is predetermine 300 years into the future and given that the romans Changes their military quite alot just decades Before the start date should tell that these states was capable of quite major military reforms.

Anyway I think the technology system would be better if you could have cases such as rome being 10 in military technology but just 5 at religious technology, so some ability to prioritize certain areas over others.

Yes i understand your statement, but you are giving so much hope to the rework when we barely know anything about, if the Hellenic states lost, not was only to the effective but rigid Phalanx formation, the formation maybe weak at flank and depend a lot on the cavalry, something that few Diaochi take care. I will show you a few examples, where you can check that the Romans won more not because the infantry or formations but good leadership, cavalry, terrain, good luck and the Diaochi depending a lot of foreign weapons as chariots and elephants.

Lost because of the lack of cavalry, not anvil and hammer (Alexander favourite formation)

On the first battle he let rookies and inexperienced troops to take care of his army flank. The second one depended a lot of useless chariots that then broke their army.

Again, the lack of cavalry.

Unexperienced troops and lack of internal support against the Romans.

 

[Todie]

I was considering some more details in this dd again when hearing the rundown of @Lambert2191 on youtube.

we’ve added a special ‘supply phase’ once all fighting units are eliminated in a combat, where the victorious troops will begin laying waste to enemy supply trains.

This caught my attention in particular. How will this work? How will this interact with retreat orders?

I would hope / assume that this new combat stage is triggered and ”seen to its conclusion” regardless of if one side performed and orderly retreat.

im also curious how morale / str damage will be handled in this combat phace ... (presumably reduced morale dmg and increased str dmg?) i guess we’ll find out next week!

 

[Synen]

I was considering some more details in this dd again when hearing the rundown of @Lambert2191 on youtube.



This caught my attention in particular. How will this work? How will this interact with retreat orders?

I would hope / assume that this new combat stage is triggered and ”seen to its conclusion” regardless of if one side performed and orderly retreat.

im also curious how more / str damage will be handled in this combat phace ... (presumably reduced morale dmg and increased str dmg?) i guess we’ll find out next week!

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing battles getting divided into multiple phases. A skirmisher phase followed by a battle phase and a supply phase for example. To me it would make battles and army composition more interesting while also encouraging mixed armies instead of mono armies.

 

[Marinakis]

Yes i understand your statement, but you are giving so much hope to the rework when we barely know anything about, if the Hellenic states lost, not was only to the effective but rigid Phalanx formation, the formation maybe weak at flank and depend a lot on the cavalry, something that few Diaochi take care. I will show you a few examples, where you can check that the Romans won more not because the infantry or formations but good leadership, cavalry, terrain, good luck and the Diaochi depending a lot of foreign weapons as chariots and elephants.

Lost because of the lack of cavalry, not anvil and hammer (Alexander favourite formation)

On the first battle he let rookies and inexperienced troops to take care of his army flank. The second one depended a lot of useless chariots that then broke their army.

Again, the lack of cavalry.

Unexperienced troops and lack of internal support against the Romans.

Yeah, the Romans did a great job of exploiting the weaknesses of an Alexandrian styled army largely due to good leadership on the Roman side and bad leadership on the Greek side (Credit to the Romans of the time). But for those who seem to think that battles like the Battle of Magnesia proves that Alexandrian styled warfare was outclassed by Roman, please read up on how bad the Macedonian armies of the 200+ B.C.E. timelines were compared to those prior to 300 B.C.E. The Seleucid Empire's army in 190 B.C.E. commanded by Antiochus III does not compare to the soldier's/armies commanded by Alexander, Eumenes, Antigonos, etc.

 

[Todie]

We need a stickied compilation of all the dev diaries leading up to 1.4

 

[Palando]

We need a stickied compilation of all the dev diaries leading up to 1.4

Here you go:
https://imperator.paradoxwikis.com/Developer_diaries

 

[Kylethe777]

Is there any chance for the ability to client state/make into a tributary a nation while also taking some territory?