• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Prometheus_1

General
71 Badges
Feb 9, 2015
2.350
909
www.deviantart.com
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
Personally I find it quite complicate to understand, but apart that what strikingly annoyes me is the UI , the white red and black just doesn't fit to me...
I think something like CKIII UI would be nicer and better looking.

Then I would revamp the gameplay totally overhauling it basing it on CKIII , with focus on families and their struggle for powers, to feel more attached to particular characters and legacies.

The map is one of the best done to date so it would be a pity to leave this game barren and undeveloped.
 
  • 32
Reactions:
Then I would revamp the gameplay totally overhauling it basing it on CKIII , with focus on families and their struggle for powers, to feel more attached to particular characters and legacies.
This would be an excellent way to remove the unique experience the game offers. I:R is a game about ruling people and peoples, not about the rulers.
 
  • 19
  • 6Like
  • 2
Reactions:
And thats exactly why nobody plays it.
No, the biggest reason is the failed launch. The game at launch and 2.0 are very different. And EU4 is closer to I:R in terms of management, although I:R has a bit of CK and Victoria in it as well.
 
  • 18
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
And thats exactly why nobody plays it.
An opinion not borne out by the significant improvement in people's opinion on the game after 2.0, by which point pop management was redone to make it more central to the game and the development of the settlement/city/metropolis system again focused on pop dynamics.

While I can't pretend to be an accurate representative of the playerbase as a whole, I personally have played more I:R than CK3 since the release of CK3, despite the medieval period being far more my cup of tea (to the point where I got a graduate degree studying it). It's precisely due to its focus on populations as opposed to dynasties.

Well, that and the map. We can both agree on that at least.
 
  • 11Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
When you're ingame press ESC there is a Button named "Save game" press on it and you can save youre game

And please stop starting every week a new thread that remind us that the game isn't developed at the moment
 
  • 16Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
An opinion not borne out by the significant improvement in people's opinion on the game after 2.0, by which point pop management was redone to make it more central to the game and the development of the settlement/city/metropolis system again focused on pop dynamics.

While I can't pretend to be an accurate representative of the playerbase as a whole, I personally have played more I:R than CK3 since the release of CK3, despite the medieval period being far more my cup of tea (to the point where I got a graduate degree studying it). It's precisely due to its focus on populations as opposed to dynasties.

Well, that and the map. We can both agree on that at least.
Lets agree also that the UI is really not immersive and appealing?
 
  • 12
Reactions:
Lets agree also that the UI is really not immersive and appealing?
I'm generally quite happy with the UI's look, as it is a nice attempt to balance the perception of Classical architecture (lots of bland white, as it was originally) with something more accurate to the period.

However, I will absolutely concede the point that far too many symbols in it aren't properly descriptive (cool painting-like icons and all, but I can't for the life of me keep most of them straight save that nice green economy tab, and I still don't intuit the tech icon).
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Lets agree also that the UI is really not immersive and appealing?

This is really subjective. I feel that the UI coloring is not bad. On the other hand from the lets play and free weekend I felt that the CK 3 felt too dark and gloomy (not many share this opinion I know). I much preferred the coloring in CK 2, maybe I have gotten used to it. So it is different for each one especially on this topic (coloring).
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
This is really subjective. I feel that the UI coloring is not bad. On the other hand from the lets play and free weekend I felt that the CK 3 felt too dark and gloomy (not many share this opinion I know). I much preferred the coloring in CK 2, maybe I have gotten used to it. So it is different for each one especially on this topic (coloring).
No, the biggest reason is the failed launch. The game at launch and 2.0 are very different. And EU4 is closer to I:R in terms of management, although I:R has a bit of CK and Victoria in it as well.

An opinion not borne out by the significant improvement in people's opinion on the game after 2.0, by which point pop management was redone to make it more central to the game and the development of the settlement/city/metropolis system again focused on pop dynamics.

While I can't pretend to be an accurate representative of the playerbase as a whole, I personally have played more I:R than CK3 since the release of CK3, despite the medieval period being far more my cup of tea (to the point where I got a graduate degree studying it). It's precisely due to its focus on populations as opposed to dynasties.

Well, that and the map. We can both agree on that at least.
what is IR?

The map is great , I firmly believe its the best ever done by Paradox , I hoped it to be taken into CKIII too but they didn't , anyway I feel very detached from sentiment from the nation I am playing and it feels cold and detached sequence of numbers, stats and windows to manage, If is not what I have written above then I dunno what can be the reason but in all other games I played by Paradox I always felt immersed to the point that I could play days in addictive way , Rome just doen't work ... dunno why , I would really like to enjoy that game but ift feels so void and soulless...

What I believe would have really improved the game is the CKIII system of controlling people, I do not mean that it needs to have all the inhereditary traits game, but to have a way to control peoples and families, the Rome game was kind of a game of Thrones , where families competed for honors and charges in the Republic, all that competition is what moved Rome from beeing a small town of raiders to a massive empire conquering a kingdom after the other.

What you think could be a fair list of improvements to make the game :

A more immersive and enjoyable by the player

B more friendly as interface

C more interesting to keep you addicted?

Rome is my favourite historical period and more my cup of tea of historical expertize, yet I find more fun playing other paradox settings rather than this one in particular.
this opinion I know). I much preferred the coloring in CK 2, maybe I have gotten used to it. So it is different for each one especially on this topic (coloring).
I feel it very disturbing and close to a Dos window or very uninspired, I think that a UI very much more similar to the one of Crusader Kings III would be much more immersive and help apreciate the game more. I tried playing after 2.0 and that feeling of boredoom among several numbers and stats in unestetically pleasant windows just made me refuse to keep playing. Also its missing informative subwindows like CKIII does.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
There are tooltips if you mean that by subwindows.
I agree that characters could be expanded somewhat, but they shouldn't be the main focus.
There are other systems and mechanics that could be improved first as well imo, trade and diplomacy in particular as well as tribes. Obviously every mechanic (culture, war, characters, religion ...) could use more content, but that is a lot of work (I should know, I am modding I:R) and thus not something that can be added fast.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Restarting the technical support so they can get rid of game-destroying CTD bugs would be a good start, so that people CAN actually play it.

(No, I'm NOT going to let that go, PDX, until it happens, and I'm going to keep saying so.)
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
There are tooltips if you mean that by subwindows.
I agree that characters could be expanded somewhat, but they shouldn't be the main focus.
There are other systems and mechanics that could be improved first as well imo, trade and diplomacy in particular as well as tribes. Obviously every mechanic (culture, war, characters, religion ...) could use more content, but that is a lot of work (I should know, I am modding I:R) and thus not something that can be added fast.

I'm kind of curious about trade in particular, because it seems to come up in threads for this game a lot and the consensus seems to be to keep it as is but automate as much as possible (or at least not break existing trade routes so often).

Why? Not why it should be automated (if it's like EU: Rome, it's a micro mess), but why bother having a trading system at all, or at least one that the player needs to directly control?

You get the ability to get more money than if the AI handled it off screen, I guess, but players are swimming in money anyways in every single Paradox game, because that's how the game progression works.

You can also stack bonuses/modifiers/enable troop types, but the first 2 are also something that there's way too much of in every Paradox game, and the 3rd really should be locked behind something else.

So why have a hands on trade system with these resources? From Paradox's point of view, it's a great time sink to keep you clicking and doing something in the game to get your payoff, but from your player's perspective, what's the point besides getting the payoff?

How would it take away from the game if it was something that you could look up if interested and indirectly influence like in Total War games (I blockade this province/exports halted/enemy loses money/resources) but otherwise you set something like a trading tax that increased or decreased your overall trade income, or any kind of system that didn't have you setting up individual trade goods with individual provinces?
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm kind of curious about trade in particular, because it seems to come up in threads for this game a lot and the consensus seems to be to keep it as is but automate as much as possible (or at least not break existing trade routes so often).

Why? Not why it should be automated (if it's like EU: Rome, it's a micro mess), but why bother having a trading system at all, or at least one that the player needs to directly control?

You get the ability to get more money than if the AI handled it off screen, I guess, but players are swimming in money anyways in every single Paradox game, because that's how the game progression works.

You can also stack bonuses/modifiers/enable troop types, but the first 2 are also something that there's way too much of in every Paradox game, and the 3rd really should be locked behind something else.

So why have a hands on trade system with these resources? From Paradox's point of view, it's a great time sink to keep you clicking and doing something in the game to get your payoff, but from your player's perspective, what's the point besides getting the payoff?

How would it take away from the game if it was something that you could look up if interested and indirectly influence like in Total War games (I blockade this province/exports halted/enemy loses money/resources) but otherwise you set something like a trading tax that increased or decreased your overall trade income, or any kind of system that didn't have you setting up individual trade goods with individual provinces?

I have come to the conclusion that some things in I:R were designed or work best for MP.

For example, in a SP game trade routes break whenever there is a war and the country where the trade originated controls no more the trade good surplus. For me, this helps the player to be aware about commercial partners wars but I understand it can be tedious to reestablish all the trade routes every time.

In a MP game, you will establish your trade routes with your allies. Having strong commercial allies can be very powerful in MP. Trade routes do not break as often as in SP and you take more care to not import trade goods from your potential enemies. First, because you will loose them when anyone declares war to the other and second because you are helping their economy.

Also, in a competitive MP game you cannot get enough money to pay for your mercs, legions, navies, buildings, etc.. and trade is maximized by
  1. building forges, founding cities, etc.. to have more surplus trade goods to export
  2. building academies, roads, and marketplaces to increase trade routes
Trade routes also allow to import the goods necessary to build stronger ships (wood), units (iron, horses, steppe horses, camels or elephants), military bonuses, happiness.. etc..

All of these steps help differentiate the good, the bad and the ugly player. If you get rid of trade, you are also making the game less interesting.

These nuances are lost in the SP experience, as you do not have to do much to beat the AI. One example is naval battles. In SP you can beat the AI by building a lot of liburnian ships. However, do not try to compete with another player that has built level three ports, imported or produced wood in those provinces and built Hexeres with the national +10% damage for navies bonus by importing two hemp in the capital province, you won't cut it.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
To answer the thread question: I think we could save this game by PDX restarting development but also by promoting the MP community:

Please, PDX sponsor a competitive periodic MP tournament for Imperator. With prizes and everything. There is no better game than Imperator for it:
  • Early wars (at the start of the session)
  • Fast and big wars (winner takes it all)
  • Fleshy military units
  • Drama (Classic)
  • Beautiful map
 
Last edited:
  • 2Love
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
They just don't have the playerbase.

Yes the UI was ugly. Yes they improved it some. I frankly hate the yellow, dislike the general brightness of it all.

But whatever they did to improve it, that was like installing new officers' lounge in a ship that's already 3/4 of the way to the ocean floor.

It's a cool game, about as cool as the original EU : Rome. But I think ultimately the narrative got confused. I mean there is no narrative. It's a sandbox from the start date.

A million systems but no narrative and little to no unique content.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't want to say anything but there is probably no way "we" can save the game

It's paradox decision maybe with the release of Victoria 3 they will work on Imperator again

I have hope, but I still think there is nothing in the near future
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I don't want to say anything but there is probably no way "we" can save the game

It's paradox decision maybe with the release of Victoria 3 they will work on Imperator again

I have hope, but I still think there is nothing in the near future
The question we must ask ourselves is what is the Paradox Triumph studio for, which must start working in the first half of this year (Obviously the recruitment is almost finished, there is only one vacant position left).
If this studio isn't for working on Imperator, I think it's dead and Paradox will have done it backwards. It remains to be seen when they will decide to speak up and tell us if they continue or if they stop Imperator.
Now will know, if the development is stopped, will have the balls to tell us now, while the game has officially been on hiatus for lack of personnel for more than 6 months, or will they be ostrich like cowards. If this is the case, we will have to come and sell us the usual propaganda "The players are at the center of our priorities".
 
I haven’t played any obscure Paradox games. Is there a history of abandoning development after explicitly announcing that it’s going into a hiatus for the rest of the year?
 
For trade an addendum: I personally find that there is not enough to do. While I would like the auotmated trade routes to be better, I'd personally like a feature where you can forbid trade with specific nations (mostly for sp tbh) but also a greater involvement of navies and piracy, robberies and impact of wars. Trade is too simplistic currently. A more modular system of EUIV's trade could be a added as an extra layer, but is not vital.
 
  • 3
Reactions: