Game looks feature bare. (So far)

[PanzerCorps]

For me enough was enough in 2.0.4
Luckily, Paradox allows me to roll back to that version though, so I can enjoy my game even if I can't keep up with the crazy release schedules. Only issue is mods stop working, but that's okay, considering I don't use that many anyway.

Still, I LIKE actually keeping up with the game, and I'm sure Paradox wants us to be able to as they can't really sell DLC to someone like me that is playing in an earlier version anyway(stopped even reading what the DLCs are about somewhere around the steppe one). And for that you need less of overhauling major mechanics every DLC, forcing the player to spend dozens of hours just relearning the game every month.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

With each dev diary, my hype dissipates. I mean I should be crazy hyped for a rome game with complex systems like victoria style pop system, characters, trade but the more I see the more the game looks bare with only a few basic simple features.

Paradox please don't release a bare unfinished game just to milk us on dlc for years before the games features fill in.

You can't reasonably expect a game with Victoria POPs in this era. There's no way to get that kind of demographics information.

What does suck is that the pops work like Stellaris, where they're just pieces that you can do whatever you want with. Instant conversion is ridiculous even compared to EU4, as is the fact there's no way to assimilate, and the gamey way the social classes work.

 

[Rhaegar1]

You can't reasonably expect a game with Victoria POPs in this era. There's no way to get that kind of demographics information.

What does suck is that the pops work like Stellaris, where they're just pieces that you can do whatever you want with. Instant conversion is ridiculous even compared to EU4, as is the fact there's no way to assimilate, and the gamey way the social classes work.

I kinda agree. The Victorian age was a period of great social change as a result of political and technological breakthroughs. The comparative sizes of the different classes actually did shift as a result of this throughout this age. A system with a variety of pops and a full on dynamic system for them to change fitted that age really well.

In all honesty I really don't feel that in antiquity you could say the same. There where great changes in Rome throughout the age with respect to the politics and the rights of different classes. However I don't feel that the comparative size of the different classes really changed that much. Slaves made up around 30% of the population throughout the period. The noble class was a small minority and stayed a small minority, etc. In the end until the industrial Revolution the vast majority of the population was simply need to do dumb work in order to produce simple products largely attached to basic needs like food clothes and housing. Only until technological breakthroughs allowed more people to spend time on doing other stuff then producing basic needs could society really start to shift.

I never played it but Vic's po system seems really fun. However this is not Imperator:Victoria. This is it's own game.

 

[Eldoran]

Look, the acknowledgement has been great. We're just exhausted from the unending monsoon of DLC's across the board. Start by laying CK2 to rest and let us focus on the other games. It's all just too damn much.

Speak for yourself

 

[safe-keeper]

Paradox gamers are funny. They take games that need dozens of hours to learn, that they play for hundreds of hours, and they say "Oversimplified and dumbed down. No replayability value."

We'll have people put 400+ hours into a game and then come over to the forums to decry it as "unplayable" without a hint of irony. Apparently it was playable enough to warrant literally weeks of your time.

I loved these observations so much that I kidnapped them and put them in my sig. Well said .

 

[PanzerCorps]

I loved these observations so much that I kidnapped them and put them in my sig. Well said .

I'm flattered, ha. Thank you

 

[doccarnby]

My problem with the DDs is that a lot of it is super basic information, and a lot of it is mechanics that's shared with other games so we already have an idea of how they work. Of course, there's bits of new info scatted throughout the DD threads, but they feel pretty small. Honestly I wouldn't have minded waiting for the DDs until the game was a bit closer to release and they could have gotten these features done in just a couple of diaries.

That said, I liked DD #2 and how it offered a peek into the decision making process of making the game. Explaining why they chose the start date and why they chose the map was great, I also wouldn't mind if the DDs kept being as they were but had more insight into the dev process and choice-making like there.

 

[RELee]

My problem with the DDs is that a lot of it is super basic information, and a lot of it is mechanics that's shared with other games so we already have an idea of how they work. Of course, there's bits of new info scatted throughout the DD threads, but they feel pretty small. Honestly I wouldn't have minded waiting for the DDs until the game was a bit closer to release and they could have gotten these features done in just a couple of diaries.

 

[Meraun]

Meh. It's EU4 with Rome reskin. Nothing special. 4 buildings to be built in a city over course of hundreds of years. Repeat for all the provinces. Repeat for all the nations. Might be a game you wait for all DLC's to stop being produced before buying.

Wait, you dont own EU IV, how do you know?

 

[wielkiciensteam]

Wait, you dont own EU IV, how do you know?

But you know that you can choose not to display game icons if you want? That doesn't mean that he didnt buy or know EU4. I somehow agree with him and I play EU since second installment, if it is important to you.

 

[Thure]

Does it still look feature bar with the new DD? Characters are great.

 

[Parzival2211]

I would expect the game to be deeper on characters than EU4 and deeper and statecraft than CK2. But I would not expect it to be as deep as CK2 regarding characters and as deep as EU4 when it comes to statecraft. I can't compare with Vic2, since I haven't played that, but I did enjoy EU: Rome, which followed the same concept.

 

[Mindfield]

What will be really new in Imperator: Rome?
So far it just looks the same thing we already have, just in different setting.
Stellaris had new things, HoI4 tried new things.

And Imperator: Rome?
My interest so far is quite low atm.

 

[Thure]

What will be really new in Imperator: Rome?
So far it just looks the same thing we already have, just in different setting.
Stellaris had new things, HoI4 tried new things.

And Imperator: Rome?
My interest so far is quite low atm.

Internal politics, civil wars, governeurs in a centralist government...

 

[Rhaegar1]

What will be really new in Imperator: Rome?
So far it just looks the same thing we already have, just in different setting.
Stellaris had new things, HoI4 tried new things.

And Imperator: Rome?
My interest so far is quite low atm.

So far it pretty much seems to be EU:Rome with more and deeper mechanics, modern UI, larger scope, less Rome-centric, better start date. Pretty much everything they've shown except that there are less types of buildings (the most unengaging aspect of any PDS games I've encountered anyway) is also a step up from EU4 as well, my most played steam game since last month.

Anyway for me the dream was a modern EU:Rome with still great internal mechanics and a better scope so far they seem to deliver that so I'm happy.

 

[hsuzy1987]

So far it pretty much seems to be EU:Rome with more and deeper mechanics, modern UI, larger scope, less Rome-centric, better start date. Pretty much everything they've shown except that there are less types of buildings (the most unengaging aspect of any PDS games I've encountered anyway) is also a step up from EU4 as well, my most played steam game since last month.

The value of a fleshed out building system often lies in verisimilitude. Immersion is important to a large section of the player base. Whether it is important enough to make sacrifices in other aspects of game design is the controversial bit.

 

[Rhaegar1]

The value of a fleshed out building system often lies in verisimilitude. Immersion is important to a large section of the player base. Whether it is important enough to make sacrifices in other aspects of game design is the controversial bit.

Then do you have an example of a more fleshed out building system in a PDS GSG that actually managed to add this immersion? for me (but I might be weird) in EU4, CK2, Stellaris and HOI4 (as far as it has building with their infrastructure, civil and war factories) for me the building system had pretty much no added value not in engaging gameplay and not in immersion. From that starting point for me having only 4 buildings gives pretty much no downside and might even help some by giving me a decently easy way to specialize provinces.

 

[Sabotage13]

What will be really new in Imperator: Rome?
So far it just looks the same thing we already have, just in different setting.
Stellaris had new things, HoI4 tried new things.

And Imperator: Rome?
My interest so far is quite low atm.

Hopefully, iRome will have a domestic politics system of sorts.

 

[Kremla]

How on earth can you possibly be jumping to these conclusions at this point? It's so incredibly baffling to me that people are judging a game they have only seen a dozen or so screenshots from and read six forum posts about. It's, like, physically impossible. Or should be, at least.

I mean, it's one thing to take issue with how a particular feature is (seemingly, as far as you know) being implemented, but to at this point jump to the conclusion that the game as a whole is bare (or non-bare, or fantastic, or terrible, or...) is quite frankly absurd.

 

[RELee]

Meh. It's been a slow day.