Imperator Dev Clash - Tuesdays 15:00 CET
- Thread starter Groogy
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'm back in the office now, so should be fine on Tuesday. Haven't looked at the save yet, still too salty to do that.
.png){kind=avatar}
It will make period between wars super boring. Best power management will be sitting and stockpiling till AE reduced to 0 and then spend all power at once just before new war. It was always annoying when you wait for AE to pick down but you could at least focus on internal management while you waiting. Now spending power with high AE will be inefficient so most of internal management is blocked.
Could you balance AE in another way without making waiting for AE to drop more and more boring?
AE effects should rely on ruler popularity and character loyalty.
The more popular a ruler, the happier citizens would be, if the ruler isnt popular they would be very scared.
(Ie: yay we trust this good leader because he wins! What a hero <=> oh uh this dumbass is in charge and everyone hates us, were gonna die).
With high AE loyalty should v much be either 100 or 0 for characters, again because they are either giddy at "all the victories" or are scared at an inevitable death in war, wheter they win or lose.
Natural pop migrations should increase too, or at least events forcing you to pay power to stop people from leaving or lose them.
Tribal chiefs taking some pops and migrating away with their retinue...
Lots of waysbto show the total polarisation in a country that AE brings.
The more popular a ruler, the happier citizens would be, if the ruler isnt popular they would be very scared.
(Ie: yay we trust this good leader because he wins! What a hero <=> oh uh this dumbass is in charge and everyone hates us, were gonna die).
With high AE loyalty should v much be either 100 or 0 for characters, again because they are either giddy at "all the victories" or are scared at an inevitable death in war, wheter they win or lose.
Natural pop migrations should increase too, or at least events forcing you to pay power to stop people from leaving or lose them.
Tribal chiefs taking some pops and migrating away with their retinue...
Lots of waysbto show the total polarisation in a country that AE brings.
This. Exactly this. This sounds tedious and boring, and punishing players for expanding harshly in game optimization terms.
I don't really see why AE should affect your own country in a negative way other than diplomatically. AE is not war exhaustion. Conquered people should be unhappy because they were conquered & have wrong culture & religion. Not because some other country on the other side of the world they never even heared about was also conquered resulting in more AE. Successfull wars that were not a massive drain on economy and manpower should rather result in massive popularity boosts and positive modifiers. The age of rome was an age of large scale conquests. What was possible historically should also be possible in game, not be nerfed into oblivion.
Last edited:
It is important to note that aggressive expansion, like in other Paradox games is much more punishing to your diplomatic relations/reputation in sp than mp. The relation penalties actually seem pretty harsh and will likely make it difficult to ally with any ai, while players don’t really care much about aggressive expansion.
For example, player Egypt and Kush had a long-term alliance and good diplomatic relations. AI Egypt broke that alliance and attacked. I have a feeling that poor relations due to aggressive expansion had something to do with this. If the game was left to play out by the ai in observer mode I have a feeling most of the current alliance blocks would break up due to these relation penalties.
For example, player Egypt and Kush had a long-term alliance and good diplomatic relations. AI Egypt broke that alliance and attacked. I have a feeling that poor relations due to aggressive expansion had something to do with this. If the game was left to play out by the ai in observer mode I have a feeling most of the current alliance blocks would break up due to these relation penalties.
Actually AE in this game is much more punishing than AE in EU4 for the purposes of MP. In EU4 AE is basically a non-factor. In This game AE continues to hurt you even in MP harshly.
Because players are able to blob too fast too easily right now, as the dev clash has demonstrated.
Except the Devs answer to that is to make it more costly to reduce AE. Which seems overly simplistic. Blobbing very fast should result in real issues: cultural clashes, powerful opposition families, revolts, generals gaining cohort loyalty faster. But none of those things seemed to happen in the dev clash. There seems to be too much button pushing to make problems disappear. Spend some religious points to change pops, spend some power to reduce AE.
Im sure writing code for all of that is time consuming and then you need to test it all again. And the simplistic way means the player doesn't have to micromanage every province. But it sure takes out the immersive quality of the game.
can I point out that Rome wasn't built in a day, the Roman Republic grew fairly slowly, it took them 250 years to go from owning Italy to owning the coastline of the Mediterranean and they spent most of that time at peace, if there was no consequence to taking large amounts of land all at once then players would go from war to war defeating each of Romes historical enemies in less than 100 years.
Yes there were empires that grew very quickly during the time period, many of the empires of the Diadochi gained large amounts of land during one lifetime and then disintegrated afterwards but if it was a game mechanic that good leadership held together fast growing empires people would complain that the game is balanced around a pot luck of if you get a good leader or they would manipulate the game to always give them good leaders in order to go from war to war and defeat each of Romes historical enemies in less than 100 years.
Not sure if your example truly counts as growing "slowly" or not. In-game, that would be many hundred of cities and a massive part of the game world (even more if installing client state buffers was included).
Even if it did, Rome expanded in large bursts after winning wars against major enemies like Carthage. If Rome had won a war against Carthage like the Fourth Punic War in this devclash (full occupation, 100% warscore) I have no doubt that Rome would have completely obliterated Carthage, annexing their land or doling it out to friendly client kingdoms (basically Second and Third Punic Wars in our time line put together since Carthage actually fell).
So the question is then this, Why didn't @KaiserJohan completely eliminate Carthage from the map in the most recent dev clash? Either Full annexation to himself or splitting up Carthage lands with another country?
I am almost positive that Paradox have play tested that Rome can take over something like its historical empire within the time period considering the game is about Rome gaining its historical empire
No paradox game has ever accurately shown how costly it was to successfully siege a city like Carthage and Imperator is no exception, if it were you could have full annexation wars, but as it is having full annexations wars would make expansion far too easy
I don't know what war score costs will be like, but I imagine they are tied to population and so what Carthage owned of Spain may look large on the map but it probably has not that much population and would have even less after Carthage sacked all the settlements in the area, so it might be feasible to ask for what the Romans gained in the 2nd Punic war in the game
Having said all of that the date the dev clash ended last week is the year before the 2nd Punic war, so even in the multiplayer version of this game a player with little experience can conquer land faster than the historical Rome