Anyone feel worried about direction?

[Jak9090]

I have been a long time advocate for a some 2 but as more and more information about the game present itself I can't help but feel it's heading towards more of a static and sterile map painter than a dynamic and exciting simulation of the era with a strong rpg element ala ck2 (which i believe many expected)

I will provide some examples.
-one singular Republican government type with only one head, sacrificing intrigue and political depth for clean and simple mechanic
-civil wars/independence wars defined by culture, why couldn't Egyptian culture overthrow Hellenic in civil war with enough support? Why could an ambitious Punic general dissatisfied with answering to carthagd establish a monarchy in Spain (one of my fav play thru in original rome)
-no assassinations within state, we are meant to just imprison and execute. But where are the opportunities for intrigue, role-playing and immersion.in that a game based on the rise of Roman republic.
-Missed opportunities to flesh out political system, I don't just want to give title to people to appease them, would instead love to.see each have a unique and varying.level of authority and roles within government. Someone mentioned in comment about a hypothetical totle for example that decides punishment for prisoners, that sounds amazing.

Maybe I'm wrong about some of this and welcome correction on it.

It just felt in rome to me you played a state -and- a character/dynasty if you so wished, the perfect balance of ck and eu

But it seems imperium will be eu heavy and ck light/fluff which personally is disappointing.

Hope no one is offended just wanted to share my view and gather othérs . Apologies for the odd writing style I'm writing on my phone.in bed and I'm in no way fluent with a phone lol, may edit once back on pc.

 

[Darth.]

But it seems imperium will be eu heavy and ck light/fluff which personally is disappointing.

It's prequel is Europa Universalis: Rome after all, so I don't know why you're so surprised by that. A game can't be focused on both internal and external mechanics without both being terrible or needing a LOT of extra development which will be provided by PDX DLC Policy. Sure a more detailed political system at launch would be nice, but I don't want CK2 level intrigue which appears to be what you and a lot of others are asking for.

 

[cristofolmc]

Hopefully they will polish those things in in future DLCs.

The tribune of the plebs was one of the most powerful offices in the roman republic, but because it didnt have Imperium it wasnt as prestigious as the consulate or praetor, but it was in fact more powerful in many cases. Its too late to represent that but I hope in a future DLC the tribune of the plebs represent something more than a stupid modifier. Also, most of those office but Id settle just for the tribune of the plebs, shouldnt be appointed by the player, but by the plebs in elections.

So yes hopefully in a future DLC they will remove the tribune of the plebs from the government office and create a separate feature for it and the Assembly of of the plebs where laws were passed that overuled the consul or the Senate itself.

Maybe the senate should be in charge of appointing governors (the player shouldnt be able to), and diplomatic actions. And the Assembly of the plebs should be the one to approve the laws

It would add another layer of depth and intrigue and more fun gameplay to the game.

 

[Chipmunk216]

It's prequel is Europa Universalis: Rome after all, so I don't know why you're so surprised by that. A game can't be focused on both internal and external mechanics without both being terrible or needing a LOT of extra development which will be provided by PDX DLC Policy. Sure a more detailed political system at launch would be nice, but I don't want CK2 level intrigue which appears to be what you and a lot of others are asking for.

EU: Rome actually had a (for the time) highly interesting internal politics system though. It even had a simplified version of the Roman cursus honorum: You had to worry about things like whether you had sufficient ex-praetors or ex-consuls to serve as military commanders, you could only appoint former consuls to the office of censor, and so on. It actually made you pay attention to many of the important characters in your realm, at least as much as (in my experience) CK II does. I agree that we don't need event chains about your pet cat or about making your character immortal, but I do hope that the devs don't simplify things too much. This is such a fascinating period and worth basking in the flavor a bit.

 

[Denkt]

-one singular Republican government type with only one head, sacrificing intrigue and political depth for clean and simple mechanic

From what I have heard, the dlc will likely focus on specific regions and thus may give each country or Culture more fitting governments.

-civil wars/independence wars defined by culture, why couldn't Egyptian culture overthrow Hellenic in civil war with enough support? Why could an ambitious Punic general dissatisfied with answering to carthagd establish a monarchy in Spain (one of my fav play thru in original rome)

The simple answer is because it make civil war much more effectful. If characters could simply take their own path you would likely not get civil wars at all and rebellions would be weak instead of United.

-no assassinations within state, we are meant to just imprison and execute. But where are the opportunities for intrigue, role-playing and immersion.in that a game based on the rise of Roman republic.

Characters can assassinate their rivals inside the state. It is just that the player can not assassinate characters inside their own country.

 

[Cahokia]

I believe they are just building the foundation for the game right now which is why they have done a lot of work on the pop system and combat. I'm hoping this will allow them to make DLC that doesn't feel tacked on (additional buttons you can press from another game) but integrated into it. The political system will most definitely get fleshed out and it will feel a lot better with a well developed base to build from which are the character families and the pop system.

I'm hoping at least.

 

[MaP_Prime]

No.

 

[MohawkWolfo98]

From what I have heard, the dlc will likely focus on specific regions and thus may give each country or Culture more fitting governments.


The simple answer is because it make civil war much more effectful. If characters could simply take their own path you would likely not get civil wars at all and rebellions would be weak instead of United.


Characters can assassinate their rivals inside the state. It is just that the player can not assassinate characters inside their own country.

Where do the dev diaries talk about character assassinations? Would love to read it, I’m abit confused. So AI can assassinate other rival characters within the realm, but the player can’t assassinatw anyone at all within the realm? Or can we assassinate our rivals too?

 

[Denkt]

Where do the dev diaries talk about character assassinations? Would love to read it, I’m abit confused. So AI can assassinate other rival characters within the realm, but the player can’t assassinatw anyone at all within the realm? Or can we assassinate our rivals too?

It is mostly based on how EU: Rome work and im very sure they have such events in Imperator: Rome. In EU: Rome characters can trigger events that give them a chance to assassinate rivals at a cost of Money. It is not the nations that make the assassinations but the characters within the nation.

You do not play as a character.

 

[MohawkWolfo98]

It is mostly based on how EU: Rome work and im very sure they have such events in Imperator: Rome. In EU: Rome characters can trigger events that give them a chance to assassinate rivals at a cost of Money. It is not the nations that make the assassinations but the characters within the nation.

You do not play as a character.

Oh I see, thanks for the reply Hopefully these same events will be in Imperator. In EU:Rome did u gain tyranny if the assassination failed?

 

[Denkt]

Oh I see, thanks for the reply Hopefully these same events will be in Imperator. In EU:Rome did u gain tyranny if the assassination failed?

No because it is not the player that make the assassinations. Tyrrany is about player actions, so it don't make that much sense for the player to be punished then a random character assassinate Another character.

 

[Austregisel]

We are not the characters, we are the realm, we are a entitity

 

[alvaro]

I am not worried that the game is a clone of EURome as I complained a few months ago. Still I would like to see more politics on the game, more characters interacting with the gameplay and among themselves, but I think the game is looking good/very good. anyway, I have only seen a couple of alpha gameplays.

 

[LoLLarN]

I am not worried about the game as of yet, I think it looks great so far as it is not meant to be a CK2 clone. It is Eu4 map painting with Victoria2 style population and CK2 with characters to create a game interesting on all fronts.

This is just my take, could perhaps have more to say if I had played it myself instead of watching somebody else play it.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

@OP: Yeah, I would rather they had set the Game Design Slider further towards CK2 than EU4.

But It does look like they are pretty deliberately set up a game with lots of vanilla systems that can be easily expanded by DLC as per CK2.

Also, any 'worries' are only in comparison to what I know PDS can do with other games. If I was seeing Imperator previews coming from some other company I wouldn't be worrying that they should do this or that... I'd just be hyped.

 

[caesarian]

Despite there being a couple of things I am worried about I would say that overall I have faith that Paradox will do well, they have honestly earned my trust with their previous titles.

 

[Jak9090]

It's prequel is Europa Universalis: Rome after all, so I don't know why you're so surprised by that. A game can't be focused on both internal and external mechanics without both being terrible or needing a LOT of extra development which will be provided by PDX DLC Policy. Sure a more detailed political system at launch would be nice, but I don't want CK2 level intrigue which appears to be what you and a lot of others are asking for.

Because as described I felt rome 1 was the perfect blend of ck and eu, rpg mingled with strategy. To be blunt imperium is seeming to be an eu4 clone, what sengoku was to ck2 same game with some fluff. I'm hoping I've just missed something or not enough reveal yet,

edit: dog to rpg, writing on my phone is painful

 

[cristofolmc]

Because as described I felt rome 1 was the perfect blend of ck and eu, dog mingled with strategy. To b blunt imperium is seeming to b an eu4 clone, what sengoku was to ck2 same game with some fluff. I'm hoping I've just missed something or not enough reveal yet

What are you talking about characters didnt matter one bit in EU Rome. Didnt matter who died or who killed who. Who had money or not who had an office or not. As long as people were loyal you didnt care a bit who was who, so no, it was way worse than I:R on that regard, where they are making efforts to make families matter and also charcters, pointing out who is who and how are characters related and linked to each other.

I do hope though they find a way to make them more important, so that they are not only important for the bonus they give. That means taking away power from the player for things like appointing governors, allowing for characters intregue and politics, in which you may influence to get away with the candidate you want, or just stick with whatever shitty governor they choose as a result of intregues between characters and that kind of thing.

But yes, it definitely seems a step forward from EU Rome characters which boiled down to random boring events of just some character killing each other or asking you to appoint someone as governor, which didnt really matter if you didn't. The UI was also terrible which didnt help to fully know the consequences of those events but...
Character related events seem to be way better than in EU Rome, which were always the 3 same events.

 

[Prometheus_1]

-one singular Republican government type with only one head, sacrificing intrigue and political depth for clean and simple mechanic

I expected to see more intrigues and struggle between political parties like Populares and Optimates.

-civil wars/independence wars defined by culture, why couldn't Egyptian culture overthrow Hellenic in civil war with enough support? Why could an ambitious Punic general dissatisfied with answering to carthagd establish a monarchy in Spain (one of my fav play thru in original rome)

This would be not only cool but historically correct as History has samples of events such those :

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/files/TheGreatRevoltoftheEgyptians.pdf

-no assassinations within state, we are meant to just imprison and execute. But where are the opportunities for intrigue, role-playing and immersion.in that a game based on the rise of Roman republic.

This is another big problem , without assassinations , intrigues and politics the game looses much of historicity and immersion.

-Missed opportunities to flesh out political system, I don't just want to give title to people to appease them, would instead love to.see each have a unique and varying.level of authority and roles within government. Someone mentioned in comment about a hypothetical totle for example that decides punishment for prisoners, that sounds amazing.

I totally Agree on that also but this links to the first I guess...

I am also totally disapointed by the Representation of Romans and Greeks like a US tv stereotype with dark olivaster skinned people.
While Romans and Greeks were described always as fair skinned and many had also blue eyes and some even blond or reddish.
The same you can see if you visit Italy and Greece today!
Just Reading Ancient Sources we go from the House of Alexander featuring fair skinned and blonde people to the same Augustus first Emperor that was as well fair and blonde."blond-haired" (subflavum).
I want to see properly represented phisical traits and not invented ones based on stereotypes.

 

[Strigoi Tyrannus]

EU: Rome actually had a (for the time) highly interesting internal politics system though. It even had a simplified version of the Roman cursus honorum: You had to worry about things like whether you had sufficient ex-praetors or ex-consuls to serve as military commanders, you could only appoint former consuls to the office of censor, and so on. It actually made you pay attention to many of the important characters in your realm, at least as much as (in my experience) CK II does. I agree that we don't need event chains about your pet cat or about making your character immortal, but I do hope that the devs don't simplify things too much. This is such a fascinating period and worth basking in the flavor a bit.

I hope they include a similar system in this game, it was quite awesome and engaging.

Regarding the direction of the game: for me it has been quite a opposite. At some point it seemed that there is almost nothing new in this game and it was basically just Classical EU. However the DDs of last few months have actually made me interested in the game and it seems there are quite a lot of interesting new (= different than EU) mechanics in the game.