Not Vic 2 in terms of sales and accessibility, but in terms of being a game that leans into deep simulation. I love Vic 2, and the community around it, so I hope Imperator develops that same type of game feeling in the future.
- 52
- 9
- 4
- 1
-
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.
I hope so and maybe 2.0 will get a lot closer but Vic 2 had alot of depth and immersion to it that I:R does not in its current state so
- 4
- 1
Yes.
It will be decided whether it does or not after the economy/trade patches.
It will be decided whether it does or not after the economy/trade patches.
- 9
- 1
They definitely seem to be moving in that direction and I'm here for it.
- 16
The main problem remains the POP system. Vic 2 has real population simulation, while I:R same... "POP"s.
These POPs actually cause a lot of problems compared to Vic2, both when it comes to production and to promotion/demotion.
(1) Production: In Vic2, the number of resources produced scales up perfectly with the working population. Got more farmer? You get more grain. Got more labourers? You get more iron. More factory workers? More advanced stuff.
I:R is really stale compared to this, because you only have trade goods (no production chains), and you get 1 unit every 9 to 15 slaves. Not ideal.
(2) Promotion and Demotion: In Vic2, all Pops can promote and demote at the same time. Vic2 has of course much more different kinds of POPs, which helps.
I:R is - who would have guessed it - stale compared to this, with only one POP promotion and demoting at a time.
In general, the POP managment feels much better in Vic2 than I:R. They have to do a lot of work to get it up to Vic2 standards.
These POPs actually cause a lot of problems compared to Vic2, both when it comes to production and to promotion/demotion.
(1) Production: In Vic2, the number of resources produced scales up perfectly with the working population. Got more farmer? You get more grain. Got more labourers? You get more iron. More factory workers? More advanced stuff.
I:R is really stale compared to this, because you only have trade goods (no production chains), and you get 1 unit every 9 to 15 slaves. Not ideal.
(2) Promotion and Demotion: In Vic2, all Pops can promote and demote at the same time. Vic2 has of course much more different kinds of POPs, which helps.
I:R is - who would have guessed it - stale compared to this, with only one POP promotion and demoting at a time.
In general, the POP managment feels much better in Vic2 than I:R. They have to do a lot of work to get it up to Vic2 standards.
- 21
- 4
- 2
- 1
The game's definitely moving in the right direction, I can say that at least.
- 6
- 2
Yes! Honestly I think I:R made the pop and economy system feel a bit dead, specially during launch. When Paradox announced I;R i was excited because it has a pop system. Although I wasnt expecting Victoria 2 level of complexity, I am contented with something to the level of Stellaris, but what we got was something that makes the Stellaris pop system look very complex in comparison. I would have honestly given up the game a long time ago if I did not love the setting.
That is why 90% of my complains and suggestions about the game is to make its pop system and economy more complex and feel more alive.
That is why 90% of my complains and suggestions about the game is to make its pop system and economy more complex and feel more alive.
Last edited:
- 7
I:R has a simplified POP system because it does not need to simulate the complex changing economic and social environment as in the Victorian period.
On the other hand, I:R has characters and their families playing a role, that I hope in the future will give us the depth we are lingering for.
For Vic3 the POP system can be as you describe, but I hope they use also characters (not families) to interact with the player. This is such a good idea to adopt from I:R, introducing important tycoons, syndicate/union delegates, politicians, social activists etc..
Last edited:
- 16
- 4
There will still be a few steps to take into that direction.
To me, Imperator is not going to become a total simulator. It only works for games with really similar cultures and ways of life.
Imperator Rome is such a diverse game that there are simply too many cultures. We actually need more TCG styles instead of simulation styles. TCG styles will shine a bigger margin of uniqueness to all cultures. You're winning something because you have tactically superior settings instead of just having stacked enough +10% modifiers.
Many countries taste bland because of how large the expected differences are but how small the represented actually are.
To me, there are 2 sorts of simulation games.
1. Running a lot of smaller numbers so that things eventually spiral out into giant advantages.
2. Not running numbers but running a lot of unique individual entities at the same time. The number of unique individuals adds together to behave in a result big difference. This is also what real life sociology is based on.
To illustrate further,
Case 1 is like putting 100 identical carbon clones on the field. Then you just add a stack of +5%, +10% modifiers onto different sides and see how things play out.
Case 2 is like putting 50 soldiers with Set A characteristics and 50 with Set B. With A and B radically different, you run the simulation to see how individual differences play out in multiples.
To me, Imperator is not going to become a total simulator. It only works for games with really similar cultures and ways of life.
Imperator Rome is such a diverse game that there are simply too many cultures. We actually need more TCG styles instead of simulation styles. TCG styles will shine a bigger margin of uniqueness to all cultures. You're winning something because you have tactically superior settings instead of just having stacked enough +10% modifiers.
Many countries taste bland because of how large the expected differences are but how small the represented actually are.
To me, there are 2 sorts of simulation games.
1. Running a lot of smaller numbers so that things eventually spiral out into giant advantages.
2. Not running numbers but running a lot of unique individual entities at the same time. The number of unique individuals adds together to behave in a result big difference. This is also what real life sociology is based on.
To illustrate further,
Case 1 is like putting 100 identical carbon clones on the field. Then you just add a stack of +5%, +10% modifiers onto different sides and see how things play out.
Case 2 is like putting 50 soldiers with Set A characteristics and 50 with Set B. With A and B radically different, you run the simulation to see how individual differences play out in multiples.
Last edited:
- 3
Not only that, but most importantly, they demote and promote not based on some arbitrary random horrible ratios. But based on their jobs, wealth and accesss certain trade goods.
- 3
- 3
- 1
without these arbitrary ratios we end in only-nobles/only-slave-cities etc...
And Im thankful not having a job-system in I:R
- 3
- 3
- 1
Yeah cause thats what happens in vicky 2, everyones noble xd
- 5
- 1
didnt played Vic2 much but I guess there is a meta of which pop-classes you want to have much of and get much of while other classes can completly avoided
- 11
The period I:R is settled in has also a lot of complex changing social environments. In the Roman era, there was an amount of Urbanisation that only much later was achieved again.
I also never said that families were a bad thing. In fact, I consider them the most well done job in I:R, especially because they can cause civil wars (a thing that EU4 notably lacks).
You are kinda right in two particular cases (you want to avoid Artisans and want to get Factory workers instead), but 2/10 is not a big deal. Besides that, you are really showing that you have not played Vic2, because in Vic2 you can't just force you people to become a certain strata. It is much of the special feel of Vic2, that Vic2 mostly works with soft incentives (in this case: Build factories and your pops will convert to factory workers... slowly). And never ever gets a strata completly abandoned.
- 5
The game will always heavily flawed as long you cannot conquer the green area within 30 years.
What I hate most in the Paradox game is that even you occupy all provinces your enemy arbitrary the war score cost prevents you from annexing them. That isn't me advocating for blobbing, but highlighting the poor design choices. The game should make that kinda conquest expensive and very difficult, but possible instead of introducing a hard limit and calling it a day.
And after you have reaches a certain size, further conquest should become more difficult and the gameplay should shift to keeping your empire together. While the game offers things to do in peace, management of empires still isn't that hard, does little to actually discourage further conquest.
What I hate most in the Paradox game is that even you occupy all provinces your enemy arbitrary the war score cost prevents you from annexing them. That isn't me advocating for blobbing, but highlighting the poor design choices. The game should make that kinda conquest expensive and very difficult, but possible instead of introducing a hard limit and calling it a day.
And after you have reaches a certain size, further conquest should become more difficult and the gameplay should shift to keeping your empire together. While the game offers things to do in peace, management of empires still isn't that hard, does little to actually discourage further conquest.
- 10
- 2
The problem stems from Stability being a formative thing instead of summative. The logic goes you have high stability therefore your land is stable.The game will always heavily flawed as long you cannot conquer the green area within 30 years.
What I hate most in the Paradox game is that even you occupy all provinces your enemy arbitrary the war score cost prevents you from annexing them. That isn't me advocating for blobbing, but highlighting the poor design choices. The game should make that kinda conquest expensive and very difficult, but possible instead of introducing a hard limit and calling it a day.
And after you have reaches a certain size, further conquest should become more difficult and the gameplay should shift to keeping your empire together. While the game offers things to do in peace, management of empires still isn't that hard, does little to actually discourage further conquest.
But in reality, that all Paradox games, except for Stellaris, have failed to simulate that it's actually the other way around. Your whole country "feels" stable after you've made efforts to stablise your lands.
So instead, War Score was put in place to hold player from quick conquests.
- 5
- 1
Very excited to know what the next update is going to focus, (Yes this game can borrow some of the vic 2 features)
Well at least for the diadochy they have introduced a civil war kind of immediate territory ownership in conquest, which will be able to produce such results in years rather than decades. Perhaps in the future they will apply this king of CB to other tags in some limited way.The game will always heavily flawed as long you cannot conquer the green area within 30 years.
What I hate most in the Paradox game is that even you occupy all provinces your enemy arbitrary the war score cost prevents you from annexing them. That isn't me advocating for blobbing, but highlighting the poor design choices. The game should make that kinda conquest expensive and very difficult, but possible instead of introducing a hard limit and calling it a day.
And after you have reaches a certain size, further conquest should become more difficult and the gameplay should shift to keeping your empire together. While the game offers things to do in peace, management of empires still isn't that hard, does little to actually discourage further conquest.
- 3
- 1
Does anyone know when we will receive the AE for the immediately conquered territories? If we receive it immediately as the territory changes hands that will be an interesting dynamic to manage (stability) relative to the desire to conquer large swaths of land in long and very long wars (especially in conjunction with the new higher levels of war exhaustion).