I hope Imperator becomes the Vic 2 of this generation of Paradox games

[IsaacCAT]

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.

They already heard our petitions and introduced this invention on this DD https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/imperator-dev-diary-07-12-20.1446908/

 

[Chlodio]

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.

I mean that's a step for a better direction, but I wish it was more broadly applied. Then again insta-annexation probably shouldn't apply to everywhere, Carthage occupying Naples, probably shouldn't result in Carthaginian Naples unless Rome cedes it. Then again, to my understanding that precisely what should be happening when nomads invade Iran, if I'm not mistaken Seleucid-Parthian diplomacy was limited in nature and they never had formal treaties, they just kept launching campaigns when they felt like it. Hmm...
Would it be too odd if insta-annexation would be the norm unless foreign occupier is a republic?

 

[Jiben]

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).

This Diadochi-only wargoal has been refactored to use a mechanic similar to that of Civil Wars. What this means, in essence, is that occupying a territory belonging to the target war leader during a Legacy of Alexander war will result in the immediate cession of said territory to the opposing war leader.

Every territory that changes hands this way will add a small amount of war exhaustion to the war leader that gains the territory, resulting in wars in which large amounts of territory can change hands, whilst also reaching an organic ‘end’ point, at which both sides are weary enough to make peace.

Imperator Dev Diary - Heirs of Alexander

Greetings all, While there is yet more to come regarding Marian military matters, today I’m here to announce that the content pack, ‘Heirs of Alexander’, will be released in conjunction with the Marius update. As befits our 2.0 statement, the...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[maxk94]

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.

Thats why I play with mods where warscore is no big deal - just ae is.

 

[Kinkness]

The problem stems from Stability being a formative thing instead of summative. The logic goes you have high stability therefore your land is stable.

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.

it's also to ease the AI. That kind of risk vs reward, what can I take, and what is the situation surrounding me is not something the AI can be expected to understand enough.

If Players who master the game acn take huge swaths of land, and pre stockpile for the inevitable fallout before hand, meanwhile the AI is taking only small chunks, you'd see the "blob" problem happen far faster, and far more often than it already does. You need a hard limiter in some form which equalizes the expansion of player and AI closely, which won't result in the AI constantly over taxing itself.

Diff games do this in different ways. Paradox has decided to use the warscore system for this. It really works very well.

 

[Limbojack]

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.

I hope Victoria III becomes the Victoria II of this generation of paradox games.

 

[Terrorist On Acid]

I'm loving the new update so far, cant wait to see where this game goes

 

[Daft]

The analogy is lost on me, since the Vic-games are the only PDX games I haven't played.

But I understand the sentiment, and I see the potential of IR having some really enjoyable depth added to what is already there.

I also get this feeling that the Dev team have a clear vision of what they want to achieve in terms of gameplay and experience.

So I have high hopes. IR is in a really good position right now, and the future looks bright.

Now the only thing that remains is realising that future.

Piece of cake, really...

 

[CrazyMe]

No, it will not.

I think the facts are
- pops/economy system is much more simplified in IR in comparison to Vic2 (which is not necessarily bad), though it is surely a complex mechanic in comparison to other PDX GSGs.
- IR has a complex character system, which Vic2 does not have at all. And people continue to ask for even more development here.
- IR has much more complex warfare system, which Vic2 does not have. And again people ask for further development of it.
- IR may potentially have more complex Diplomacy system.

The game simply cannot be popular in the scale of Eu4, Hoi4, Ck3 if it includes a lot complex systems, which is the direction IR chose. Mark my words - if IR continues to add features and build up complexity, it will remain a niche game for a relatively limited number of real fans (like it is now). This is surely good for them, but not really good for a lot of other people who would want more focused and streamlined game experience in that era. People just wanna have fun

 

[Decius]

No, it will not.

I think the facts are
- pops/economy system is much more simplified in IR in comparison to Vic2 (which is not necessarily bad), though it is surely a complex mechanic in comparison to other PDX GSGs.
- IR has a complex character system, which Vic2 does not have at all. And people continue to ask for even more development here.
- IR has much more complex warfare system, which Vic2 does not have. And again people ask for further development of it.
- IR may potentially have more complex Diplomacy system.

The game simply cannot be popular in the scale of Eu4, Hoi4, Ck3 if it includes a lot complex systems, which is the direction IR chose. Mark my words - if IR continues to add features and build up complexity, it will remain a niche game for a relatively limited number of real fans (like it is now). This is surely good for them, but not really good for a lot of other people who would want more focused and streamlined game experience in that era. People just wanna have fun

Agree with everything, except the following, because I'm not sure if this is really the case:

The game simply cannot be popular in the scale of Eu4, Hoi4, Ck3 if it includes a lot complex systems, which is the direction IR chose. Mark my words - if IR continues to add features and build up complexity, it will remain a niche game for a relatively limited number of real fans (like it is now).

Isn't EU IV far more complex to learn than I:R? I started playing EU IV long time ago, but since then the game grew and grew in terms of features and especially buttons to click. If I had to relearn EU IV with some DLCs enabled, I think it is at least as difficult to learn as I:R, I would say even more, because the game has received so much content and mechanics without any good explanations in the game, but still the game grew in player numbers after it got more and more complex. HOI IV saw an increase in player numbers too, despite getting more and more complex (new naval warfare and naval UI, Espionage, large Focus trees). So I'm not sure what kinds of content, features and complexity benefit a game and which kinds make it a real niche game. I guess I:R needs to figure that out too.

 

[CrazyMe]

Isn't EU IV far more complex to learn than I:R? I started playing EU IV long time ago, but since then the game grew and grew in terms of features and especially buttons to click. If I had to relearn EU IV with some DLCs enabled, I think it is at least as difficult to learn as I:R, I would say even more, because the game has received so much content and mechanics without any good explanations in the game, but still the game grew in player numbers after it got more and more complex.

Eu4 is surely less complex game than IR. By complexity I mean the volume of information and the number of levers the player has to deal with. Just look at the huge spreadsheet of characters with 10+ various measures attributed to each. Compare the number of stacked modifiers for some measures, e.g. happiness, loyalty. I think you can easily find many measures in IR with 10+ stacked modifiers. Compare easiness to understand events impact (in IR - Who lost loyalty? Who got corruption? What are they doing? How does it matter???).

Eu4 also suffers a bit from bloated features, but this is not a major problem yet. Introduced features in Eu4 just offer more possibilities to players and make nations feel differently. And many added features/possibilities can be simply ignored by unexperienced players. In IR you have to deal with included mechanics in a much more “mandatory” manner.

 

[Kadanz]

the problem with EU IV is that its features are disconnected and do not interract that often with other features, instead they often provide stacks of modifiers stacked upon more modifiers and aren't organically influencing other things. I wouldn't necessarily call that complexity but I'd lean more towards bloat.

I've been thinking about how IR could implement a better resource system that's interactive with other areas of the game. But I can't for the life of me think of something that wouldn't be impossible to balance or create unneccessary micromanagement. I'm a lot more sympathetic to the problems the IR team has to deal with when (re-designing) the game.

 

[Decius]

Eu4 is surely less complex game than IR. By complexity I mean the volume of information and the number of levers the player has to deal with. Just look at the huge spreadsheet of characters with 10+ various measures attributed to each. Compare the number of stacked modifiers for some measures, e.g. happiness, loyalty. I think you can easily find many measures in IR with 10+ stacked modifiers. Compare easiness to understand events impact (in IR - Who lost loyalty? Who got corruption? What are they doing? How does it matter???).

Eu4 also suffers a bit from bloated features, but this is not a major problem yet. Introduced features in Eu4 just offer more possibilities to players and make nations feel differently. And many added features/possibilities can be simply ignored by unexperienced players. In IR you have to deal with included mechanics in a much more “mandatory” manner.

Some good points. I:R is for sure more complex than CK III and in some areas than HOI IV, but from a new player perspective I guess you still want to understand things in EU IV properly. E.g. the trade system in EU IV is not that much important to play successfully, but if you really want to understand it the first time, it takes a lot of time - it's a very complex mechanic without much direct player involvement. The Estates are another feature of that kind. So you are right, that in EU IV you still can play the game without knowing certain mechanics or specific mechanics are e.g. tied to specific religions, but the issue is, how do I know this as new player? I'm trying to do the difficult task, how it would be if I forget all my knowledge about paradox games and start with each of them from scratch and trying to understand them and figure out, how every mechanic works. And EU IV has a lot of modifiers, imo this is something I:R inherited from EU. In EU IV they created in the meanwhile a own tab just to list all modifiers. Only the character thing as complex component isn't in EU IV.

In HOI IV many things are not so complex, but when it comes to warfare, especially after man the guns (land, water, air) -> good luck to every newbie figuring this out without help.

And don't forget my main point: What kind of complexity is received well and which is not? So future features can make I:R a niche game, but it must not be the case. So my only point is, that I:R is not a niche game for sure. Nothing more and nothing less is my statement. So I'm not fully disagreeing with you - your other points are all valid.

@Kadanz made some good points either.

 

[IsaacCAT]

I've been thinking about how IR could implement a better resource system that's interactive with other areas of the game

The interactions and interactivity of all the mehcanisms in I:R makes it complicated, but once you know how to pull the levers it is very easy to manage.

I:R can add some complexity for experienced players by introducing less predictability to the system.

Think about a chess game, when you know the rules, it is reduced to visualize and memorize all the future movements in your mind. The best players win their tournments by using the surprise factor to induce mistakes to the other player. (that's why AI cannot be beaten when they have plenty of memory, you cannot suprise them).

Now it is time to introduce the surprise factor in I:R.

 

[Kadanz]

The interactions and interactivity of all the mehcanisms in I:R makes it complicated, but once you know how to pull the levers it is very easy to manage.

I:R can add some complexity for experienced players by introducing less predictavility to the system.

Think about a chess game, when you know the rules, it is reduced to visualize and memorize all the future movements in your mind. The best players win their tournments by using the surprise factor to induce mistakes to the other player. (that's why AI cannot be beaten when they have plenty of memory, you cannot suprise them).

Now it is time to introduce the surprise factor in I:R.

The other properties of chess is that the moves you can make are finite, since every player starts equally with the same pieces and the board has a finite playing area.

In IR you start with different starting positions, some nations have more pieces on the board than others and they all still have to play by the same rules using the same resources available to them. The game offers very few alternatives in how those resources are used and the proverbial chess board is quite a bit larger

In IR the player has too much control over everything, which country you attack, what resources you import, which characters you appoint, what technologies you unlock, what buildings you build, how you compose your legions. To some extend or another the player will always play in an optimal way. The player plays pro-active instead of reactive.

On the flipside, to whom do need to give this control if not the player? The simulation and by extension the AI? Ehh I can think of a few reasons why that would be a bad idea... What if it start deleting MY forts too??!!

 

[IsaacCAT]

In IR the player has too much control over everything,

Agree. Vic2 simulates the economy and everyone seems quite happy with it. Simulation vs Control is not what makes a game successful.

To some extend or another the player will always play in an optimal way.

Agree. That is what keeps us playing and coming back. An imperfect world that we can improve and build upon. But this is not a necessary and sufficient condition.

to whom do need to give this control if not the player?

I do not think this is the correct question. We should be asking what makes the game exhilarating.

No matter how many mechanisms, how complicated or complex you make them, I will learn them and the excitement to play the game will start fading away.

Necessary condition: good equilibrium Control vs Simulation vs Historical accuracy mechanisms to describe the World.
Necessary and sufficient condition: make the game exciting.

 

[lazprune]

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.

I beg Paradox to listen to you. THIS is the main issue that needs to be adressed.

 

[Kadanz]

Agree. Vic2 simulates the economy and everyone seems quite happy with it. Simulation vs Control is not what makes a game successful.

I'm a bit more cynical when it comes to victoria 2. While the game offers more depth in terms of economy it still takes quite a bit of liberties with abstraction. There is a lot of room for gimmicks and gamey stuff that leads to rediculous situations. But that's another discussion entirely.

I agree, simulation vs control is not what makes a game successful. Sucessful can mean different things to different players. For instance I consider HoI IV a huge failure, because it strips and destroys what made previous games actually worth playing. Another player might consider it a sucess because it did those things.

Agree. That is what keeps us playing and coming back. An imperfect world that we can improve and build upon. But this is not a necessary and sufficient condition.

I'd like to think we keep coming back because the game offers, to some extend and especially in the latest patch, an immersive experience. However, I was merely trying to make the point that streamlining and abstracting can be detrimental towards said experience and the difficulty of implementing mechanics/features that reduce said abstractions without turning the game into an impossible to balance micro intensive mess. I think it's incredibly hard from a game design standpoint to balance control vs simulation, leaning too much in one direction has a detrimental effect on the other.

I do not think this is the correct question. We should be asking what makes the game exhilarating.

No matter how many mechanisms, how complicated or complex you make them, I will learn them and the excitement to play the game will start fading away.

Necessary condition: good equilibrium Control vs Simulation vs Historical accuracy mechanisms to describe the World.
Necessary and sufficient condition: make the game exciting.

We're saying the same things, just in different ways. So I have nothing really to add to this other than I agree with this statement.

 

[ImperatorLJ]

No, it will not.

I think the facts are
- pops/economy system is much more simplified in IR in comparison to Vic2 (which is not necessarily bad), though it is surely a complex mechanic in comparison to other PDX GSGs.
- IR has a complex character system, which Vic2 does not have at all. And people continue to ask for even more development here.
- IR has much more complex warfare system, which Vic2 does not have. And again people ask for further development of it.
- IR may potentially have more complex Diplomacy system.

The game simply cannot be popular in the scale of Eu4, Hoi4, Ck3 if it includes a lot complex systems, which is the direction IR chose. Mark my words - if IR continues to add features and build up complexity, it will remain a niche game for a relatively limited number of real fans (like it is now). This is surely good for them, but not really good for a lot of other people who would want more focused and streamlined game experience in that era. People just wanna have fun

I don't mean that the game should remain for only certain fans! I think that, if IR leans into simulation more, it'll attract even more players.

But that wasn't really my point. IR should not take Vic 2 mechanics, but rather that IR adopts the mentality of that game. I hope that IR develops into a fun, simulation game of the classical world, rather than a fun game that has a classical world aesthetic.

 

[Bezborg]

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.

Nicely said. A quantum-based production and comsumption system is needed to simulate any sort of economy that is more than just a gamey mechanic in a map painter.
Nobody is advocating Vicky levels of production and consumption complexity... but there is such a thing as a logical minumum of it.

Imperator currently has a below minimum level of economic and population complexity, they’re both just kind of “there”