Why Imperator Rome was going to be a far better game than other Paradox titles we have now

  • 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 think each new title deserves to be seen as a new game. Also, it would not make sense to make Crusader Kings III if it plays exactly the same as Crusader Kings II, so I am not sure if we really disagree on that. I want I:R, because EU IV, to me, feels a bit dated. Same with CK 2. There are lots of improvements in CK 3 that makes it a better and more up to date game than CK2. Even if it at this point don't have the same amount of content I still think it is a better game overall.

I don't agree with you about what you are saying about the company. This is based on assumptions. In a perfect world you are right. This is how the perfect company would be run, but in my experience it is not how it happens in practice with most companies. A lot of small companies grow quickly and the infrastructure of the company does not follow that growth. This is especially difficult when growing from a mid-sized company to a large sized company where people no longer know everyone. Communication gets more difficult across the organization the larger the company gets. I have experienced this twice in two different companies (although in a different type of business), and perhaps something similar has happened with Paradox. I just don't think these expectations people have to companies in general are very realistic.

Besides a company does not sit on perfect information on how to act. It is a bit a process of trial and error. Especially when it has not been done before. Do they know exactly how many developers they need? Probably not. The more advanced the game gets they probably need more, but without having done that process before you cannot just go ahead and "do it". And you need to balance that with economy and expected sales, which you also do not have perfect information on. And these processes I am talking of have been in very succesful companies, otherwise they wouldn't be having that kind of growth. Sure more resources get invested, but it is not as simple as you make it seem.
I agree with you that CK3 is far more better than CK2 even in it's current state with all it's dlcs.However,for Imperator,i disagree,the issue with Imperator was not the lack of content compared to other games,even if some are pushing this false narrative that CK2 and EU4 were not so funny in 1.0 as well,that i disagree with since i played both myself,the issue with I:R is that the gameplay was not good until 1.2.Before 1.2,it was even worse than EU:Rome at release for me.I know my opinion won't be popular.And the current game has still things that are worse than in EU:Rome.The civil war are less dangerous and frequent than they were in EU:Rome for example.On all the other things,I:R is better,but the Civil war are not very well designed in my opinion.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I did enjoy I:R pre-1.2, but I do agree with you that the game received a massive improvement after that.

EU Rome is one of the titles I never played, so I don't know how it works there, but I think the Civil War mechanic in I:R is a bit annoying. I am not sure if I would want more frequent and more dangerous Civil Wars, but at least I would have liked to see some different mechanics to how they start. It feels a bit like I am playing a minigame of "whack-a-mole" on top of everything else going on in the game.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I wish they had given the team another year to improved trade and internal management. Two big patches would be enough to make IR the best PDX game. Unfortunately, no matter how amazing the team's work has been, the launch pretty much killed it in the cradle. Just imagine how people would have reacted if 2.0 was the state of which the game was released in.
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I agree with you that CK3 is far more better than CK2 even in it's current state with all it's dlcs.However,for Imperator,i disagree,the issue with Imperator was not the lack of content compared to other games,even if some are pushing this false narrative that CK2 and EU4 were not so funny in 1.0 as well,that i disagree with since i played both myself,the issue with I:R is that the gameplay was not good until 1.2.Before 1.2,it was even worse than EU:Rome at release for me.I know my opinion won't be popular.And the current game has still things that are worse than in EU:Rome.The civil war are less dangerous and frequent than they were in EU:Rome for example.On all the other things,I:R is better,but the Civil war are not very well designed in my opinion.
I disagree CK3 was my IR. IMO CK3 had nothing going for it and was just a watered-down version of CK2. At best it can become a 'slightly' better version of CK2, but it doesn't even come close to the potential of Imperator. IR felt like a new experience and way closer to PDX's older titles, it was already better than HOI4 and CK3 and needed just a bit more tweaks to even surpass EU4 and CK2.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I wish they had given the team another year to improved trade and internal management. Two big patches would be enough to make IR the best PDX game. Unfortunately, no matter how amazing the team's work has been, the launch pretty much killed it in the cradle. Just imagine how people would have reacted if 2.0 was the state of which the game was released in.
The biggest shame of all is that you still can't use your leader as a commander in your legion. That levy/legion system could have been so much better in the future.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I wish they had given the team another year to improved trade and internal management. Two big patches would be enough to make IR the best PDX game. Unfortunately, no matter how amazing the team's work has been, the launch pretty much killed it in the cradle. Just imagine how people would have reacted if 2.0 was the state of which the game was released in.

The biggest shame of all is that you still can't use your leader as a commander in your legion. That levy/legion system could have been so much better in the future.
Gotta be honest, I'm with Limbojack here. The current military system as at about 85% - not perfect, certainly, but a really solid system just a bit of minor tinkering away from being incredible. Trade is kind of in the place the military was right before 2.0 - the reworks of the food and pop system feel like they're just waiting to be tied into a major trade rework to all flow together (and "flow" is the word when it comes to what trade needs, isn't it?).
 
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Let's face it, Arheo was streets ahead of Johan. The wrong guy was leading it from the start.

That's not personal or an attack. It's just the reality of v1.0 Vs 2.0.
I just wanted to take a moment to clarify my own comment; I heard in one of Lambert's videos that Johan was behind the pop system.

So credit where credit is due, that's a great (and meaningful) system. No mana. No button press reward.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I just wanted to take a moment to clarify my own comment; I heard in one of Lambert's videos that Johan was behind the pop system.

So credit where credit is due, that's a great (and meaningful) system. No mana. No button press reward.
Yes, Imperator's dynamic population is much more interesting and complex than an abstract number like development in EU4. Especially since it grows organically and EU4 is in a place where you can get 140 Development capital in a couple of wars right now. That kind of a thing is impossible to pull off in Imperator. Old EU games also had population mechanics as well. Not to mention Victoria II. It's a shame it's not going to be expanded upon.
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, Imperator's dynamic population is much more interesting and complex than an abstract number like development in EU4. Especially since it grows organically and EU4 is in a place where you can get 140 Development capital in a couple of wars right now. That kind of a thing is impossible to pull off in Imperator. Old EU games also had population mechanics as well. Not to mention Victoria II. It's a shame it's not going to be expanded upon.
It is kinda possible to quickly reach a large pop count in your capital through war and enslavement. But unlike in EU4 the new mechanics are uniformly beneficial in IR there are potentially long term and adverse effects for you to deal with. Slaves produce no science, their culture and religion is likely different and belligerent and you have to consider food. EU4 is very simple by comparison.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
That was not the point I was arguing.

Lets say a game about WW2 comes out named "Dictator: Germany". It has some problems on launch, people are disapointed. But just as the devs start adding things like factories, divisions and equipment production along with events focused on the historical aspect of the game ranging from the annexation of Czechoslovakia to the invasion of the USSR in 41. How much of a let down would it be if management canned the game in order to save their own failing DLC spam for their older games? Would you be satisfied with a WW2 game with almost no WW2 in it? I wouldn't be.
Judging by what the HOI4 dwellers write on steam forums, Dictator: Germany has a bright future ahead...

Edit: it's a joke, im just here to drop some likes not to derail the thread
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I disagree CK3 was my IR. IMO CK3 had nothing going for it and was just a watered-down version of CK2. At best it can become a 'slightly' better version of CK2, but it doesn't even come close to the potential of Imperator. IR felt like a new experience and way closer to PDX's older titles, it was already better than HOI4 and CK3 and needed just a bit more tweaks to even surpass EU4 and CK2.

Personally, I found CK3 a bit underwhelming. I was always under the impression that the big strength of CK2 was the natural story development of the characters. While I am not a big fan of CK2, I do remember crazy shit happening to my main character or their children, etc., which have been consistent with my character. CK3 is weaker in this department, suffering from a lack of events, etc., allowing for trade-specific interactions. However, many mechanics are much better and more engaging than in CK2, and I can see why many people are fine with the trade-off and some do not like it.

Out of curiosity, I revisit IR over the last few days. While the last patches did improve the game, it still suffers, in my opinion, from the same problem as for release. Rather than a specific mechanic (like "mana"), it feels for me that there is a lack of a clear "game philosophy". IR has many different mechanics (which might be the reason, why people see a lot of potential in the game) but provides often fairly little reason to care about them.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
It is kinda possible to quickly reach a large pop count in your capital through war and enslavement. But unlike in EU4 the new mechanics are uniformly beneficial in IR there are potentially long term and adverse effects for you to deal with. Slaves produce no science, their culture and religion is likely different and belligerent and you have to consider food. EU4 is very simple by comparison.
"It is kinda possible to quickly reach a large pop count in your capital through war and enslavement." - to be fair, that's a legit strategy and once again a direct result of the players actions. I love that.

Especially in my latest Bosporan run where I'm playing with a small integrated population of the natives. Pursuing their promotion to Noble seats and full citizenship. Whilst enslaving everyone else who cares to get in the way!

It could all end terribly.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It keeps happening over and over with the Paradox titles. That people hold the games up to the standards of previous games with lots of DLC's and continued development. It was the case for Imperator Rome and people expected a game as fleshed out as EUIV from the beginning. The same can be said about Crusader Kings III. And to be fair CK3 probably has been the most fleshed out base game by Paradox ever. Still people complain about it. People are being way too impatient with these games. It is something else entirely to develop a complex grand strategy game and for example a platform game. Even strategy games from other developers like Civ 6 follow a model that is not too far off from Paradox' model. Therefore I do not think it makes much sense to compare to strategy games to games of other genres. Strategy games require a bit of patience and they do take a lot of testing to balance right.
I don't think any new PDS title can ever compete with the sheer amount content of its predecessor who has nearly decade worth of DLCs for a variety of reasons :)
  1. The team steadily grows during development. If a game has spent 3-5 years in development dosn't mean it would have a full complement of content designers churning out content from day one.
  2. Game mechanics takes programming time to finish. Even if you plan out the content it's gonna take awhile until you can implement, test and tweak them.
  3. Mechanics are iterated on during development. Sometimes a whole mechanic might get scrapped and so may any content made for it. Has happened atleast once on my project.
  4. Porting old content is atleast as time consuming as writing new content. The engine/script system evolves between franchise cycles. Features gets added or removed. Content has to align with new design & art vision. If CK3 released with CK2 content wouldn't it be strange if no events ever referenced Lifestyle choices?
  5. Provinces, resources, flags, pops, units, national ideas, lifestyle and tech trees, countries, characters, etc has to be setup and continously rebalanced for a whole world, sometimes from scratch
  6. Time spent planning & laying the groundwork/guidelines for how years of future DLC is going to be written
Hopefully this gives you some insight! Also this is from a programmers perspective so feel free to correct me @Snow Crystal ! :D
 
  • 22
  • 8Like
  • 7
Reactions:
Hopefully this gives you some insight! Also this is from a programmers perspective so feel free to correct me @Snow Crystal ! :D

I don't think there's anything to correct here, as I think we feel quite similarly about most of these things, but I can add some things from a CD perspective.

The team steadily grows during development. If a game has spent 3-5 years in development dosn't mean it would have a full complement of content designers churning out content from day one.

This is very true. The later you are in development (before release), the more people you have on the project. So you'll see a larger upswing of things being added later in development, as all the puzzle pieces come together. This is particularly true of content, who often struggle to do very much (of super visible content, a la events, missions, etc) when most of the systems are missing, design hasn't been finalized, etc.

Game mechanics takes programming time to finish. Even if you plan out the content it's gonna take awhile until you can implement, test and tweak them.

This can be an absolute struggle when things actually come together. More than once I've spent just as much time going back to content, fixing them when the systems have actually been put into place, to make them work with the final version of systems. Too often I have had people ask me how things can take as much time as they do, and the answer is "iterations". The example I always come back to, is the deity system we ended up with in Imperator, that had (I believe?) 5-6 different iterations for patch 1.4. Every single time that happened, I manually went through our whole list of deities and had to tweak/add/remove a small piece of Script, to make it work with the new system.

Mechanics are iterated on during development. Sometimes a whole mechanic might get scrapped and so may any content made for it. Has happened atleast once on my project.

Jupp, I've had to cut events/content because of changes made previously. Of course, we try to make these cuts early, but it's not always it works out as we would have liked. Also, there are times when content just makes less sense, and we cut it for that reason, even though we could have tweaked it to still work. More content isn't always better, if the content ends up being sub-par.

Porting old content is atleast as time consuming as writing new content. The engine/script system evolves between franchise cycles. Features gets added or removed. Content has to align with new design & art vision. If CK3 released with CK2 content wouldn't it be strange if no events ever referenced Lifestyle choices?

Also, look back at what was said earlier about tweaking content even in a single patch cycle. Now imagine that, but with thousands of events. It's honestly a pointless endeavor to bring back content from older games wholesale, when you could focus your efforts on writing new content instead. And my personal opinion is also that events we write these days, for the most part, are better than events that was written in our earlier games. I sure as hell wouldn't want anyone to start porting over dumb things I did in CK2 to CK3, as an example.

Provinces, resources, flags, pops, units, national ideas, lifestyle and tech trees, countries, characters, etc has to be setup and continously rebalanced for a whole world, sometimes from scratch

This is incredibly time consuming. The amount of time and effort that goes into actually crafting these worlds are massive, and they are massive for every single game we make. It means that the few CDs who are on a project, often spend the first half a year/year just making the map and the base stuff (unless they are an actual robot, like Arheo who did it in an incredibly short amount of time).

Time spent planning & laying the groundwork/guidelines for how years of future DLC is going to be written

The planning phase is substantial on every project I've been, and it is a bit of an on-going thing. The simple fact is that if we had continued to develop a game until we were out of ideas for a release, we'd never be done with it. So knowing that a scope has to be limited, you often come up with a large amount of ideas for what can be done later down the line. E.g we knew about the naval changes we'd make for 1.1 a long time before we released the game, even though that meant the naval game at release would be worse off.
 
  • 22
  • 5Like
  • 3
Reactions:
I don't think any new PDS title can ever compete with the sheer amount content of its predecessor who has nearly decade worth of DLCs for a variety of reasons :)
  1. The team steadily grows during development. If a game has spent 3-5 years in development dosn't mean it would have a full complement of content designers churning out content from day one.
  2. Game mechanics takes programming time to finish. Even if you plan out the content it's gonna take awhile until you can implement, test and tweak them.
  3. Mechanics are iterated on during development. Sometimes a whole mechanic might get scrapped and so may any content made for it. Has happened atleast once on my project.
  4. Porting old content is atleast as time consuming as writing new content. The engine/script system evolves between franchise cycles. Features gets added or removed. Content has to align with new design & art vision. If CK3 released with CK2 content wouldn't it be strange if no events ever referenced Lifestyle choices?
  5. Provinces, resources, flags, pops, units, national ideas, lifestyle and tech trees, countries, characters, etc has to be setup and continously rebalanced for a whole world, sometimes from scratch
  6. Time spent planning & laying the groundwork/guidelines for how years of future DLC is going to be written
Hopefully this gives you some insight! Also this is from a programmers perspective so feel free to correct me @Snow Crystal ! :D
Hope at least that has some team on Imperator for correct bugs. As the one that I had in my game which a Baby was governing, making friends and send orders all over the Kingdom hehe.:D
Screenshot_20210513_162812.png
I think this was well knowing bug from previous versions of the game 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5. I don't remember exactly but even some youtubes videos show this.
 
  • 5Haha
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Hope at least that has some team on Imperator for correct bugs. As the one that I had in my game which a Baby was governing, making friends and send orders all over the Kingdom hehe.:D
But is it as good as Lustful Baby, who isn't two years old but already has illegitimate offspring aplenty (as per the description)?
 
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
Honestly ridiculous if this game doesn't get resurrected at some point with all the work that's gone into it. The systems are all there, it's state of the art, just need a bit of hype...
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
More than once I've spent just as much time going back to content, fixing them when the systems have actually been put into place, to make them work with the final version of systems. Too often I have had people ask me how things can take as much time as they do, and the answer is "iterations". The example I always come back to, is the deity system we ended up with in Imperator, that had (I believe?) 5-6 different iterations for patch 1.4. Every single time that happened, I manually went through our whole list of deities and had to tweak/add/remove a small piece of Script, to make it work with the new system.
modders:
“These patches are rough. We have to update our script and even deal with reorganizing folders.”

Snow Crystal:
“Hold my beer.”
 
  • 1
Reactions: