Great evolution of the game - Feedback

[Lumppy]

The purpose of this post is to share my gaming experience after 2.0. I hope it can make people give a go to this promising game.

My background prior to this playthough is:
* Large Paradox background (nearly all games since CK2), mainly on EU4
* A first IR experience after the 1.3 release. I had fun but was annoyed by the lack of polishing, and decided to have a 2nd experience a year of so after this one. Basic attitude to have with PDX games at release

My 2nd playthrough objective was:
* Tribal to republic. I was curious about the new senate mechanics.
* Northern Gaul tribe (Rotomagus, my current city) in order to ease early expand
* Mainly a diplomatic expand

I had a great fun on this playthrough. Many improvements were added and are very satisfying:
* The technology trees give a very rewarding feeling, and permits a great specialization of the state. Very good job, and a great idea for Viky3!
* The Senate mechanics are great. I could focus on democrats by oppointing right people at the right places. I like this new trade-off between politics, loyalty, families and skill. I gives great dynamics to appointments. That's an excellent job you did there.
* The culture system is OK. I started by giving too much rights before I realized most of my characters had a great loyalty penalty. However I think the penalty should fade with time. At least introduce inventions to lower the penalty for each integrated culture.
* I finaly had great wars (with Rome ofc), which was completely lacking in my first playthrough. The generals loyalty management is OK but could be improved. I would be nice If you were forced to reward generals with political functions after a successfull war: I feel some mechanics are lacking there. Auto missions are great and prevent annoying micro management. A great addition for other games...
* The economy feels OK now. I like the trading system, although it could still be improved. I'm very glad that you dropped the mana system, and I hope EU5 will be more money-focused. By the way I like the most recent Stellaris economic system, when policies make your economy, and sometimes make you fall into decadence spirals. In IR laws should be expanded: you should be able to decide how much you tax each pop, cultures, with the appropriate trade-off (research, morale...)
* The new building system feels right.
* The stability system (since 1.3) is good, and should be expanded in all games. The instant stability drops and increase depending on magical points is really stupid and gamey.

In my mind there are also several opportunities to improve this game. Some points I noted:
* Too much micro management in the late game (provinces management) . Governers should have auto-missions to develop there regions past Great Power status, or even from the start... Stellaris probably have a nice foundation on this topic now.
* The generic mission system is broken when you expand with vassals: the system keeps on proposing missions in areas where every province is already under control. The last 2 missions (when you select a governor) are sometimes impossible when the territory is owned by vassals. Super frustrating.
* The missions options are too few, it is superfrustratring because they represent 80% of by CBs
* The missions should be tied with Senate mechanics, and selecting non senate-backed missions costing tyranny. We can imagine traditionnalists focusing inland, while democrats and oligarchs respectively focus on war with neighbour monarchies and republics.
* A federation-fusion mechanic could be awesome in the future (I think Gaul unification ofc)
* Slave revolts were absent of my playthrough.
* Civil wars are still a bit easy to manage. Their should be an hysterisis threshold (once you go above 20% threshold, you need to go below 10% to crush the civil war idea). Stability penalties could be included also above the threshold. The concessions you have to make should be larger than a single bribe to that 32 loyalty character. War must be a valid option compared with those large concessions. In the current state you avoid war mainly because it is annoying...
* The imperial challenge CB needs improvements.
* I like the Paradox event based mechanics. Events should be expanded, particularly religious ones, in order to give more flesh and background to this timeline.

I will probably edit the post if new ideas come to my mind.

I really liked this playthrough and I am looking forward playing again in the future. Thank you for keeping the job done on this game and congratulations to the team.

 

[Augustulus91]

Fully agree with these ideas. Funny enough, I had the same idea to come back after 2.0 to play a Gaul tribal to republic mechanic with the idea of rather a 'federation' instead of just painting the map in my colour.

I do think the game is much more fun to play with now, and some ideas are really good! I like the rework of the army/levy mechanics a lot, as it is more a realistic interpretation of the actual human cost of military expansion.

I also thought it quite gamey to avoid civil war, you just give 1-2 bribes to improve character's loyalty, drop just below the threshold ,and all issues are solved.

 

[commander_todd]

* Slave revolts were absent of my playthrough.

Slave revolts are no longer a thing. They are removed from the game.

 

[Lumppy]

I am pretty sure that Celtic flavour is a long-term objective, and I fully agree that the priority is Rome, Carthage and the Diadochi. I am convinced also that the formers will receive extra polish before the Celtics.
There are a lot of opportunities to introduce rich mechanics that remain compliant with history (and I mean History, not the French ideal of their supposed ancestor). The Celtics (of Gaul at least) were far from being united, although some kind of unity was actually achieved during Caesar's invasion. There was also attested Druid gatherings from all over the current French territory. Unity could come either from Druidic reformation, or through a charismatic leader, as history demonstrated.
To my mind, to be more realistic, an expending/aggressive tribe should face larger defensive alliances. Those large alliances actually occured in my playthrough, but too late: in the first years I managed to blob with minor AE penalties, and then I was too big to be challenged.