Game looks feature bare. (So far)

[wetblowdryer]

Eh we don't really know much about it. Even so, look what you can do to EU4 without opening and UI elements with comparisons to 1.0 (from what I can remember. That was almost five years ago!)

 

[safe-keeper]

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.

The way it borrows features from multiple games is alone hugely interesting. Pops from Vicky/Stellaris, characters like in CK2, and so on.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

The way it borrows features from multiple games is alone hugely interesting. Pops from Vicky/Stellaris, characters like in CK2, and so on.

Specifically, pops from Vicky 1 and characters from CK 1, by the way of Rome 1. Only major shift compared to the prequel shown so far is introduction of mana from EU 4.

 

[Denkt]

Specifically, pops from Vicky 1 and characters from CK 1, by the way of Rome 1. Only major shift compared to the prequel shown so far is introduction of mana from EU 4.

They have only revealed the basic yet. The feature list show number of changes from EU: Rome and these will be revealed in the upcoming DDs.

The way it borrows features from multiple games is alone hugely interesting. Pops from Vicky/Stellaris, characters like in CK2, and so on.

It is important to point out the differences because some people seems to believe that Imperator: Rome is going to be a jack of all trades, basically second best in everything.

Pops in Vicky is a driving factor, they do not just work but they drive the whole political system as well as the economical system. In EU: Rome they do just drive the economy. Pops are in some way more similar to the development in EUIV but they do grow by themself and they can be converted into other pops.

Characters do not play the same main role as in CKII in which the character is the player unit, character in EU: Rome play a more supporting role a similar political role as pops in Victoria as well give you bonuses but also trouble.

EU: Rome is more a management game I would say compared to EUIV which is more a nation builder game. The difference is that you have to manage the internal side of you country much more. You can not just throw together an army and a general and just go conquering stuff because that army may become loyal to the general and that can pawn the way to a civil war.

Unlike Victoria EU: Rome allow for relative quick pace of conquest, conquering foreigners is not as frown upon as in Victoria and you don't have to worry about titles and such unlike CK.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

They have only revealed the basic yet. The feature list show number of changes from EU: Rome and these will be revealed in the upcoming DDs.

Obviously, I think I even wrote "so far" in my post. And sure there are few other, more minor changes that have been revealed so far. For example unhappy pops work less effectively and generate unrest and these do actually show Stellaris influence. However unless something major has changed in Stellaris in last few patches it's not a major feature there and people have been successful in the game while mostly ignoring the system (I suppose the changes to garrisoning made unrest specifically bit more important).

Not entirely sure why people felt downvoting my previous post, it's exactly as I said based on public information (hopefully they are not disagreeing based on restricted information as that would violate NDA). It was not intended to be accusative or anything. The intent was to highlight it's an existing franchise based primarily on features Paradox came up with in early-mid '00s. I:R would have pops and characters even if Vicky 2, CK2 and Stellaris were never made.