Do you play as one character at a time like CK2?

[BIG RON]

Hi guys, I am pretty new here so don't judge my silly question too harshly.

I have already pre-ordered the game but one piece of info I am struggling to find a solid answer on is are we playing as one specific character at a time abit like CK2 and you have an heir, dynasty ect.? or are you more like an overseer for a large group of people from different families if that makes sense?

Thank you in advance for any replies

 

[BensiB]

To the best of my knowledge you play as the "spirit of the nation," so you will be controlling multiple characters at once including your leader, generals, etc. Your leader can change, for example based on elections.

 

[Nyrael]

To the best of my knowledge you play as the "spirit of the nation," so you will be controlling multiple characters at once including your leader, generals, etc. Your leader can change, for example based on elections.

Actually, in Imperator you play the Government. Difference is that in a game where you play the Government, you lose the game if that government is taken down by a Civil War.

 

[monstermash]

you don't play as the ruler(thats why you can imprison the ruler)

 

[Rider_of_Doom]

You are playing the government of a country, which can be represented by "your" family.

 

[BIG RON]

Ah makes sense, thanks for the replies guys, so it's kind of like EU4 but with a little bit of CK2 thrown in I guess

 

[DuxBellorum]

Exactly.

 

[toroltao]

You play as the "spirit of the nation" yet the game ends when u lose a civil war. The heck is that about?

 

[AdAstra]

You play as the "spirit of the nation" yet the game ends when u lose a civil war. The heck is that about?

Gameplay mechanic in place to create artificial sense of a challenge.

 

[Big Bad France]

You play as the "spirit of the nation" yet the game ends when u lose a civil war. The heck is that about?

It always feels a bit too gamey to me in other games like EU4 where intentionally losing to rebels in order to switch religion or go revolutionary is the best tactic. From my understanding, there will be some way to lead the rebels to victory, which seems better to me. Intentionally losing a war shouldn't be good strategy in an ideal game.

 

[BensiB]

Actually, in Imperator you play the Government. Difference is that in a game where you play the Government, you lose the game if that government is taken down by a Civil War.

II was quoting Johan Andersson from an interview he did along time ago with Giant Bomb. It wasn't even about Imperator Rome. I just liked the way that he described the gameplay mechanics.

I agree that your description is more apt and succinct.

"So, even though you are playing as some sort of ruler or “guiding spirit of the nation”, you need to listen to the voice of the people. So, for the Victoria games, we needed to come up with interesting gameplay mechanics around social causes and political factions. I guess, to answer your question, it’s a little bit of both; necessity and immersion; it’s necessary to put the population at center stage for a game set in the era, but it is also immersive to represent the various ideologies, class, religions and cultures. It gets you more invested as a player, whether you like to play as a democrat or a tyrant."

https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/ge...s-with-johan-andersson-of-paradox-de-1459951/