EU Rome vs Imperator Rome

[GLENN]

What is the difference between these two games?

EU Rome was not as good Total War Rome II.

Is Imperator just as good as Total WR Rome II?

Is it better?

 

[Herennius]

Despite all it flaws, IR is probably better than EU Rome (I say probably, because I have never played EU Rome - so my judgement is based on wiki etc.).

For the comparison to Total War Rom II - honest question: Is it really possible or does it make sense to compare those games? Of course you are free to do so, but given how real-time-battle focussed the Total War series is, my feeling is that the games differ too much. It is for me a bit like comparing pdx grand startegy games with the Civilization series or Old World. Everything strategy, but already too different because of belonging to a different sub ganre. Of course only my 2 cent; others may deliver you the desired comparison.

 

[Brynjar]

The answer is obious, Rome: Total war is better than all those three games.

 

[Victor1234]

I think RTW did do characters better, ironically enough, or at least make you care about them more. I also liked the way they split Rome into sub-factions but that was one of the most hated features of the game so...

I think there's too many characters popping up that you don't care about in both Paradox games, and in any future game in this series, I'd like to have the ability to sort characters, demote and promote them between these groups.

One group are my active characters (limited to a max size based on your empire size, like in TW) who work like characters normally do, sort of like the main cast of a film.

Then I'd like a box where my 'supporting actors' go, these are the guys I care about but not that much. They still age and maybe minor things happen to them, but I definitely don't interact with them as much, and they generally stay in the same circumstances as I left them, ready to move up if something happens to one of the main cast.

The third category is the characters I'm done with. I don't expect to see them ever again, but once in a while the game wants to pull a surprising plot twist and reintroduce them much later on with an interesting story of what happened, I'd consider taking them back into the cast.

The fourth category is my prospects. These are where the game presents new characters (of whatever age and situation) that I might be interested in. Sort of like my actors guild that I can pick my cast from. A permanent 'man of the hour' pool from RTW, again limited by some game variable.

As an aside, I find it really amusing the way people use the term grand strategy/grand strategy game. If you ask on Taleworlds, Mount & Blade is a GSG. Total War forums...yep, GSG. The Steam user defined tags are even better.

City Bus Manager - GSG
Conqueror's Blade Colosseum (a Roman ninja slasher game) - GSG
Beaver Clicker (a clicking game to collect logs....) - GSG

It's just a silly category. It's basically every game that has strategy and isn't Starcraft or a game like that, but I'm sure you'll find someone who says Starcraft is a GSG too.

 

[moscal]

Rome TW2 and EU Rome have better Civil Wars.
EU Rome is very outdated so for new types of players can be strange.
Rome TW is main nostalgy. I remember few stupid mechanisms and bugs, that I had to change in saves to REAL save game
Imperator Rome have many fun mechanisms and options to good play.
Rome TW2 have many flat mechanisms, but still general this is good game

Every game is different and it is impossible to say that it is absolutely better or worse.

 

[GLENN]

After watching a few Youtube videos and then a play through...

I remember I have this game. Need to go to the archives to find it.

 

[Will Steel]

EU Rome had a far better character system.
Characters could run for office on their own via events (especially in mods), taking out the forced micromanagement (you could still manually appoint anyone you wished, but republics actually felt like republics). Characters had events that allowed them to live their life on their own - barebones in vanilla but could be expanded a lot in mods.
I remember things like the time when a rich patrician in my Rome helped a famous general of my eastern legions get elected to Consul. Then that rich patrician used the same friendship to ask the new Consul (i.e. me, the player) to appoint him to a position. That was a good political move...and I've never seen anything like it in Imperator Rome.

Imperator had its already limited character system destroyed for no reason in a patch, with a borked 'major-minor' family system introduced in its place. That system was never fixed before they abandoned the game.

Besides that, EU Rome was an old game - the first prototype towards CK2 (the second and main prototype was Sengoku). It could be excused for not having proper portraits. Imperator's portraits were just low effort - for example for clothing they had a headgear system apparently (just like CK3), but never decided to use it, so Imperator characters all look boring and generic. So many beautiful helmets, hats, caps and crowns of this era, actually shown in game artwork, never made it into the game.

They tried way too hard to turn Imperator into a weird duplicate of EU4. An unfortunate decision lol, since that pleased neither role players who wanted deeper gameplay and were repeatedly ignored, nor the map painters who didn't care much for the era or mechanics and went back to EU4.

Imperator Rome is an improvement is most other ways. But yes, for me personally, the dead, intentionally worsened character system turned me off.

 

[Napoleon1971]

What is the difference between these two games?

EU Rome was not as good Total War Rome II.

Is Imperator just as good as Total WR Rome II?

Is it better?

EU Rome is a well aged game, quite in Paradox' past. It was a build-off from EU I I believe (perhaps EU II). Despite this, it had some interesting features that were superior to Imperator Rome's, for example the character system. However, it also had some issues with things like "bad boy score" and every country on the map assassinating every character you had if you played with much aggression.


Imperator Rome appeared to be heading in a good direction when Paradox abandoned it. I guess I can expect their next iteration of a classical era game in 10+ years. Hopefully it is even better than this one was.

TW Rome was a lower depth project from the start. It may have executed its objective better than either Paradox game. But, it was a less ambitious project, so, less kudos given for success.

 

[Johan]

EU Rome is a well aged game, quite in Paradox' past. It was a build-off from EU I I believe (perhaps EU II). Despite this, it had some interesting features that were superior to Imperator Rome's, for example the character system. However, it also had some issues with things like "bad boy score" and every country on the map assassinating every character you had if you played with much aggression.

eu rome was built on eu3 with the ck1 character code adapted into it.

funnily enough about 6 months into the project, we lost and had to replace 4 people (50% of the team) and the current CEO Theo slashed our dev time by half a year so it was rushed out.

imperator was by idea of making a better version of that game with great mechanics. Sadly i looked too much to eu4 and not enough to v2.

 

[Napoleon1971]

eu rome was built on eu3 with the ck1 character code adapted into it.

funnily enough about 6 months into the project, we lost and had to replace 4 people (50% of the team) and the current CEO Theo slashed our dev time by half a year so it was rushed out.

imperator was by idea of making a better version of that game with great mechanics. Sadly i looked too much to eu4 and not enough to v2.

I hadn't stabbed into playing the EU series yet at that point, so, I'm happy to be educated on which EU version it was and what you guys added to it.

From what you're describing, it feels like EU:Rome and Imperator:Rome both suffered from lack of support from the central firm sufficient to get the game really well established and viable.

I loved the progress in Imperator from 1.0 to 2.0. The game was really progressing nicely. Thanks for the work that was done with it. I know the chances of brining development back are quite slim. But, I feel like if Paradox could do half of what they did between 1.0 and 2.0, Imperator would actually pick up quite a few players over time. The bad launch scared some people off. But, those people bought a classical era game for a reason. Fix things and many will come back.

Thanks for the reply as well Johan. Despite my account saying "2014", I've actually been buying the firm's games since HOI (1). I do appreciate you guys.

 

[Telenil]

I hope there will be an Imperator II coming some day. Years into the future, sadly, but still.

 

[Baalzamon85]

I usually play games based on what historical mood or other theme I'm in at the moment. . My go-to roman empire game has been Rome 2, which was much improved over time similar to Imperator.. I think total war games can scratch some of the same itches with paradox but total war will always be better for immersion and GSG's will be better for empire management. I think they can be compared but they are not mutually exclusive , you can play both

 

[roxxin]

imperator was by idea of making a better version of that game with great mechanics. Sadly i looked too much to eu4 and not enough to v2.

I recently discovered Imperator Rome, playing the last version 2.0.3. with DLCs, and just wanted to say that I really enjoy a lot of the game mechanics and found not few of them to be quite innovative. E.g. Illoyal characters lead to losing control of parts of your army. The way politics and pops work and grow and the ways you can manipulate your population/state. It's like you took good parts from eu, crusader and vic and gave them a new twist fitting to the era. And the map and the weather effects are really gorgeous. It's right now my favourite paradox game. I think a lot of people thought that game had no depth because it is comparably easy to acquire new territory, especially if you been used to the amount of work you have to put into a conquest in eu4. But this is fitting to the historical era and the challenges lie elsewhere, in keeping a large empire together. Only the AI is sadly at times quite erratic in war and as a ally.

 

[gianlucad]

eu rome was built on eu3 with the ck1 character code adapted into it.

funnily enough about 6 months into the project, we lost and had to replace 4 people (50% of the team) and the current CEO Theo slashed our dev time by half a year so it was rushed out.

imperator was by idea of making a better version of that game with great mechanics. Sadly i looked too much to eu4 and not enough to v2.

I always imagined a grand strategy game taking place during the classical age being about you following a single character around in a blend between CK and M&B with long-distance interactions taking place via messengers with the time it takes for orders to be dispatched depending on the distance. The player being able to play any particular character or family and bringing them into the forefront of Roman politics by one way or another. The nations themselves being ruled by AI until you as the player take over, at which point you can either play as a frontline emperor or rule from Rome, dispatching armies, emissaries, etc. to the provinces (but always as a character, not particularly tied to a family). Vic2-style mechanics would rule how the world develops with pops and the like, a world that evolves without you necessarily being involved, while your characters play a role but are not necessarily needed. The role-playing possibilities would be pretty much endless.