Anyone feel worried about direction?
- Thread starter Jak9090
- 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.
For me, the rebellion mechanics look way more interesting. Rebellions in eu4 are quite blah and ck2 the rebellions are usually a mess in terms of borders
Yes in CK 2 Rebellions are a mess , but this feature alone doesn't make a new game or mechanic.
Tying troop loyalty to characters and balancing by having troops loyal to a character not cost the state maintenance are potential interesting
Yes but its one single thing and is very small ... I would expect more big features like CK II system of interbreeding , socializing and interactions between characters.
What worries me:
- Governments from Eu: Rome work mostly the same. There is strict, clear division between Republics and monarchies. Republics have senate, monarchies court. It shouldn't be the case, government should be more customizable. Some monarchies of the era still had senate or other kinds of popular assembly. I would like for them to exist in game next to court. Even without much power it would be good for flavor to be able to observe factions in the senate. I remember my disappointment when I established dictatorship followed by Empire in Eu:Rome and Senate just vanished replaced with court. It's completly immersion breaking, senate still existed during disctatorships and Empire. Rome was transformed into monarchy while keeping appearances of the Republic after all, August was smart enough to not call himself a king, he was defender of the Republic.
- Disloyal generals and governors of your culture will only seek civil war not independence. I think that ambitious characters, even of ruling culture, should be able to try establish their own separate state. That should also be a possibility during a prolonged stalemate during civil war when rebels control whole region but they didn't manage to take capital.
- So far I saw that characters don't have place of birth in information window or button to open character history. I loved those features in Eu: Rome.
- I don't know if cursus honorum will be in game as it was in Eu:Rome. In Eu: Rome also every character that held some position in the past had special trait like "former ruler" "former censor" etc. I didn't see that.
- Spending power points to support faction in the senate or reduce war exhaustion - I don't like things like that. One shouldn't be able to turn a river around with just a few magic clicks.
- Divinations are no longer real divinations where result may be bad. They are just bonus you buy from time to time. I liked the gambling aspect of divinations in Eu:Rome, it made sense. Making them always be succesfull is immersion breaking and boring.
-I only saw an diplomatic option "marry to the ruler". So far it looks like we won't have control over marriages of other members of ruling family. That would be really strange and immersion breaking.
- If I understood correctly to make families more significant their number will be somehow limited, I hope it's soft cap that can be exceeded when we for example conquer another nation.
- You can manually set governors policy without incurring tyranny - Dealing with unruly governor would be fun, especially in republics where senate could nor agree on governor's dismissal.
- Military traditions - I think that there should be something else in their place. Usually in games with national ideas players quickly discover best combinations and always take them. For example morale bonus is no brainer. But I don't have counterproposal so it's just a minor issue.
-Forts are blocking paths like in EU. It's of course better than old system where fortresses had no significance but I would prefer a solution where you can still choose to march above the fort and leave it behind but doing so would have severe consequences like no reinforcements and doubled attriction.
- Governments from Eu: Rome work mostly the same. There is strict, clear division between Republics and monarchies. Republics have senate, monarchies court. It shouldn't be the case, government should be more customizable. Some monarchies of the era still had senate or other kinds of popular assembly. I would like for them to exist in game next to court. Even without much power it would be good for flavor to be able to observe factions in the senate. I remember my disappointment when I established dictatorship followed by Empire in Eu:Rome and Senate just vanished replaced with court. It's completly immersion breaking, senate still existed during disctatorships and Empire. Rome was transformed into monarchy while keeping appearances of the Republic after all, August was smart enough to not call himself a king, he was defender of the Republic.
- Disloyal generals and governors of your culture will only seek civil war not independence. I think that ambitious characters, even of ruling culture, should be able to try establish their own separate state. That should also be a possibility during a prolonged stalemate during civil war when rebels control whole region but they didn't manage to take capital.
- So far I saw that characters don't have place of birth in information window or button to open character history. I loved those features in Eu: Rome.
- I don't know if cursus honorum will be in game as it was in Eu:Rome. In Eu: Rome also every character that held some position in the past had special trait like "former ruler" "former censor" etc. I didn't see that.
- Spending power points to support faction in the senate or reduce war exhaustion - I don't like things like that. One shouldn't be able to turn a river around with just a few magic clicks.
- Divinations are no longer real divinations where result may be bad. They are just bonus you buy from time to time. I liked the gambling aspect of divinations in Eu:Rome, it made sense. Making them always be succesfull is immersion breaking and boring.
-I only saw an diplomatic option "marry to the ruler". So far it looks like we won't have control over marriages of other members of ruling family. That would be really strange and immersion breaking.
- If I understood correctly to make families more significant their number will be somehow limited, I hope it's soft cap that can be exceeded when we for example conquer another nation.
- You can manually set governors policy without incurring tyranny - Dealing with unruly governor would be fun, especially in republics where senate could nor agree on governor's dismissal.
- Military traditions - I think that there should be something else in their place. Usually in games with national ideas players quickly discover best combinations and always take them. For example morale bonus is no brainer. But I don't have counterproposal so it's just a minor issue.
-Forts are blocking paths like in EU. It's of course better than old system where fortresses had no significance but I would prefer a solution where you can still choose to march above the fort and leave it behind but doing so would have severe consequences like no reinforcements and doubled attriction.
Last edited:
It is not the same in Imperator: Rome. Principate is a law which makes your leader stay in Power for 50 years while the government is still a republic with the senate holding the same Power (I think) as in normal republic. Dictatorship do not exist, you can make a character a dictator which allow you to ignore the senate while this character is a dictator.
if i may add some thoughts
- Disloyal generals and governors. In civil wars I would add some penalties that really screws the social balance so that you do care if a civil war triggers and the actual result of it (increase the revolt risk for affected pops by region or alligiance, automatic political prosecution-enprisonment-exile-assasination of losing characters that you may find useful, families vendetas, stability hits,...). Usually in EU I do not care much because it has not much political or gameplay consecuences, the country moves on very quickly and the war is never very challenging.
- characters don't have place of birth in information. Interesting
- cursus honorum. I would like to see cursus honorum affecting greatly what a character do and what can be elected to. no teenager generals please. Also put something on the portrait where I can see his level so that I can understand at a glance what offices can he access and making him a threat to other families if his stats are better that their members' candidates (ie. a youngster from another family with more charisma than an appointed governor member)
- Divinations. I want to see politics in omens. populist pigs do not support other factions' politics
. I mean, if you choose a pontifex that hates the consul, or from a faction that opposes the consul's prepare to find a twisted liver in that pig. Moreover, if would be nice that pontifex office or any other is not completely chosen by the player but in some cases (you may not have the "political capital") other factions may overrule the candidate preferred by the player. This, or some other mechanic alike that if your mana points (civic?) are not enough the state will start to behave more organically.- limited number of families. I do not have a problem necessarily with the number of them but their possible passiveness. I would like to see them competing with the player to take control of offices, generals, governors. Also, I want to see clearly in the interface what are the families' objectives, alligiances, who they want to assasinate, what wars they want to start or to end, games or buidings they want to pay for to increase their popularity/influence... I am quite happy to see the new family interface but I think Paradox has a very good opportunity to really make the game feel like a different "animal" and not just a reboot of EU. I think this can be achieved with a dedicated interface to each family stating their ambitions, resources they have, their connections, their offices or regions of influence and your available interactions. I think that would give a better taste of what politics is about, dealing with groups that you do not fully control and have their own initiatives.
Last edited:
Correct me if I am wrong, in case of a civil war and the player loses, he loses the game too? in the US: R when we lost a civil war, we started to play with who won.
Not sure "interesting" can be applied, when comparing to ck2. Huge improvement over eu, and I like that, but in ck2 you can get different kinds of factions, with different kinds of demands, etc. Several can exist at the same time. Here you get only one and it's immediate civil war, without any demands. On the upside, it's the only game (besides eu:rome) where you get revolts of standing armies, and not vassals.
THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. We haven't seen much of the gameplay so we can't know, but in EU Rome there were cool events from the senate compelling you to give a certain office to a character or you'd get +1 populist senastor. Now, a populist majority doesn't trigger civil wars anymore like it did in EU Rome, but it could give +1 tyranny in this game like it did in Wiz' mod Reign of The Ancient if you oppposed it, so most times you ended up agreeing with the senate and give the office or governorship to an ambitious character who had that objective even if he sucked at it. I hope this is still in game in some form to somewhat represent corsus honorus and you dont have total and complete power without opposition and groups of interests and characters pushing you from the senate to give them offices. @Johan @Trin Tragula
I second this. To me it just doesn’t make sense that I can appoint governors/public offices when I’m in a Republic. If I wanted to do that, I’ll flip to a Monarchy.
Perhaps as a compromise for now, when selecting candidates for a governorship/public office, why don’t u have the Senate “vote” for each character and show the breakdown to the player, similar to how the Senate votes for laws etc? So u can force the guy u want through, at the cost of tyranny.
Hopefully this would be durable/ have a dev answer these concerns
Last edited:
But how would you balance republics and monarchies if monarchies can chose the best people while republics cant do that?
There is nothing that point towards monarchies having an higher level of competence than republics and Rome clearly outdid the monarchies around the mediterranean.
There is nothing that point towards monarchies having an higher level of competence than republics and Rome clearly outdid the monarchies around the mediterranean.
There can be such event in monarchies as well. Just like in CK2. Important families in your realm asking you for positions. Instead of tyranny, you'd get a loyalty penalty with that character and family.
In fact I hope thats in game as well, it would be very cool and would give more depth and importance to characters as people are asking for.
Using my way, U can still pick the best people in a republic if the senate is supportive of ur decision. As the pool of acceptable candidates is now smaller, this will prevent you from always picking the faction that is not the populist faction all the time, like what Johan did in his stream. U have to balance competence and factionalism at the same time.
Currently, it just seemed a little too gamey in my view - I can imagine Pompey would have loved to fire Mark Anthony for literally no tyranny at all in real life
Would be nice if playing a republic was more like herding cats internally. On the downside your ability to appoint people without penalties is limited, with the upside that you have a larger pool of potentially competent people taking office. They are also more loyal unless spurned or populist.
On the flipside a monarchy has more direct control over who does what but ignored and side lined characters will actively work against you.
Now it seems both are a bit similar. Hope it can change in the future.
On the flipside a monarchy has more direct control over who does what but ignored and side lined characters will actively work against you.
Now it seems both are a bit similar. Hope it can change in the future.
I for one never cared for CK2, which is rather strange since I love RPGs and I love strategy games. One would think that one who tries to marry them both would be ideal for me. I think my main problem with CK2 (last time I played it) is that unlike in RPGs, the "person" you are RPing as is constantly changing; and furthermore, you have very limited control over the traits of the one you are RPing.
To me, the RP aspects of CK2 were dreadfully lacklustre and quite repetitive towards the end. Better to either go heavy down the RPG route (something Paradox have yet to do) or to go heavy down the strategy route. CK2 got greedy and tried to do both with the endresult that both aspects felt lacking to me. I would much prefer Imperator to feel more like EU4 in terms of overall gameplay (with a bit more detailed characters) than CK2.
To me, the RP aspects of CK2 were dreadfully lacklustre and quite repetitive towards the end. Better to either go heavy down the RPG route (something Paradox have yet to do) or to go heavy down the strategy route. CK2 got greedy and tried to do both with the endresult that both aspects felt lacking to me. I would much prefer Imperator to feel more like EU4 in terms of overall gameplay (with a bit more detailed characters) than CK2.
What worries me about Imperator is how streamlined so many aspects seem in the dev diaries. I suppose as pointed out this allows for DLC to flesh out various states, but I do find it disappointing to see the game lurch heavily in the direction of EU4's mana and tri-button map painting extravaganza for the base game. I think that, should I buy Imperator, I'll likely end up never playing vanilla. On that note, I will say the potential for amazing mods with Imperator remains outstanding, so excited for that much, at least. Have to love how moddable Paradox games are.
Last edited:
In all honesty, I'm worried about the direction of the game mostly because it's hewing so closely to EU:Rome, and I did not find EU:Rome all that fun or engaging.
A lot of the things I found annoying about EU:Rome (having only played about 15 hours, mind you), are probably not going to be a problem, mostly through Paradox's improved ability to make information available to the user. But some of the problems look to still be in the game, including:
A lot of the things I found annoying about EU:Rome (having only played about 15 hours, mind you), are probably not going to be a problem, mostly through Paradox's improved ability to make information available to the user. But some of the problems look to still be in the game, including:
- Random barbarian invasions. I understood the intent of this to mimic the constant threats that Rome would face from tribal peoples invading en masse. But now we have tribal nations on the map, who can even uproot their entire population and invade at once, so why are there still barbarian hordes appearing from nowhere that you have to quell with standing armies?
- I never cared about characters. Every so often I'd get an alert that some dude with three names all ending in "us" was my new consul or tribune, or censor. And I never once cared - they were unwelcome and largely meaningless distractions from my goal, as a player, of expanding the country. Now there's a monarch point value that I'd ostensibly have to care a bit about, but I have a feeling the only characters I'm going to pay real attention to in any way are my generals, and even then it will just be to ensure they have a high enough loyalty and low enough popularity to not be a problem. I know some players will love characters and I'm happy it'll work for them, but personally I find it an underwhelming mechanic that's frustrating more than engaging.
- Trade micro-management. I really can't tell if this will be a lot better in I:R than EU:Rome, but the whole distribution of trade between provinces and then your capital is confusing and min-maxing it in any way sounds like a lot of micro-management. In my mind they should simplify the trade system to be national - you get as many trade routes as you have complete provinces, and then each import provides a much smaller bonus to your entire nation.