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

[Baldamundo]

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 really understand these arguments. I'd have said Hearts of Iron 4 has some of the most complicated and difficult to learn systems of any videogame I've ever played? The entire production system - which is kind of the core of the game - is imo one of the most intimidating and inaccessible features I've ever encountered (although it is kind of great once you understand it!)

CK also strictly speaking has extremely complex systems (the entire character system, tiered vassals, etc) - but it's much more accessible because it's intuitive and also because most of it runs itself and the player doesn't actually need to interact with a lot of it directly. Although in some ways that's not so different to Vic2 - most of the simulation just runs itself and the player interaction with it is much more limited. Albeit Vic2's not nearly as intiutive as CK.

Also at this point EUIV seems hugely complex too - but I suspect that's more to do with the accumulation of lots and lots of different systems over the course of infinite expansions, rather than any one aspect being especially complex. Idk I lose track of EUIV.

 

[CrazyMe]

I don't really understand these arguments. I'd have said Hearts of Iron 4 has some of the most complicated and difficult to learn systems of any videogame I've ever played? The entire production system - which is kind of the core of the game - is imo one of the most intimidating and inaccessible features I've ever encountered (although it is kind of great once you understand it!)

CK also strictly speaking has extremely complex systems (the entire character system, tiered vassals, etc) - but it's much more accessible because it's intuitive and also because most of it runs itself and the player doesn't actually need to interact with a lot of it directly. Although in some ways that's not so different to Vic2 - most of the simulation just runs itself and the player interaction with it is much more limited. Albeit Vic2's not nearly as intiutive as CK.

Also at this point EUIV seems hugely complex too - but I suspect that's more to do with the accumulation of lots and lots of different systems over the course of infinite expansions, rather than any one aspect being especially complex. Idk I lose track of EUIV.

Probably we see it differently. And my point was about combining several complex systems.

I think the production system in Hoi4 is quite simple, never had any problem with understanding it and dealing with it. The warfare in Hoi4 is complex indeed, though it is a single complex system and it is the core of the game. Besides, with recent additions of complexity (often non-core), I think Hoi4 remains popular despite of them, not thanks to them.

In CK - only one core system is relatively complex, though, as you said, it is much more accessible. The rest of the game is quite simple.

Eu4 is actually a relatively simple game, at least in comparison to IR. Even the core area is not very complex. Added many buttons to push to min-max? Yes. But most of them are optional and do not create much complexity. Many additions just created unique experience for various nations.

 

[Spike05]

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

No, plese, no.
Too many, WAY too many games get dumbed down on regular basis. I don't like playing those game and I don't get any fun playing with those types of games.

IR issue mostly comes with the UI that doesn't communicate all what there is to communicate in a coherent form across screens, and that some of its complexity is not very binded togheter as complexities in hoi4 and vic2 are

They are solving the latter, though, like what they've done with levies, research and cultures, that now are binded togheter and require thoughtful choices that have real impact on gameplay.

Complex games may scare the massess, but we, the ones who like complex and thoughtfull gameplay, need games to play too

 

[blackbirdgriffi]

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

That's true and therefore so sad, I hope they keep making a niche game.

 

[goodcigar]

The thing is, Victoria 2 is very immersive and real feeling. Its mechanics make sense, rational sense, historical sense and are intuitive. Mechanically it's the best designed Paradox game I think. It should be the model.

Whereas Imperator does not really have that. At launch Imperator was like a copy-paste with a Roman skin and magical mana infused in everything. Now a couple years later the game is improved in a lot of ways (though some changes were downgrades in my opinion) and the mana systems have been replaced with currencies. Now the game has like 10-20 different currencies in it.

I think currencies are better than mana but they are still a kind of mana. A slightly less bad version of mana. The currencies are too numerous and somewhat hard to understand and non-intuitive. Both mana and currencies are very poor replacements for mechanics that make sense, rational sense, real life sense, historical sense.

I would rather have a small number of rational historically informed mechanics than 20 mana or currency systems.

 

[blackbirdgriffi]

No, plese, no.
Too many, WAY too many games get dumbed down on regular basis. I don't like playing those game and I don't get any fun playing with those types of games.

IR issue mostly comes with the UI that doesn't communicate all what there is to communicate in a coherent form across screens, and that some of its complexity is not very binded togheter as complexities in hoi4 and vic2 are

They are solving the latter, though, like what they've done with levies, research and cultures, that now are binded togheter and require thoughtful choices that have real impact on gameplay.

Complex games may scare the massess, but we, the ones who like complex and thoughtfull gameplay, need games to play too

Indeed, dumbed down game are boring and redundant as they by nature do the same things as their predecessor, look at the new TW games, they are redundant and kinda bad because they got dumbed down and are now essentially reskins of models and a couple of animations added here and there with generic "era like" art and UI.

I honestly feel like Imperator : Rome got better since they decided not to reskin the EU serie into a early antiquity setting but rather do their own thing as a different franchise/IP.

 

[Limbojack]

Isn't EU IV far more complex to learn than I:R?

As someone who has introduced new players to both games and had to take them through the learning experience, I don't think that's the case. EU4 certainly has a lot of mechanics that might seem daunting at first, but because of how old it is, most of these mechanics are fairly shallow and can easily be either ignored or exploited.

If we look at th mechanics we spend the most time interacting with while playing the different games, such as technology, internal management, economy/trade, exploration, and warfare we can examine it a bit closer.

Technology - Imperator Rome is simply much better than EU4 in regards to technology.

Internal management - whereas EU4's internal stability was limited to a scale between -3 and +3 stability and some unrest caused by culture/religion, Imperator Rome does all of that much better. Stability feels a lot more alive and takes more effort while you also have to balance the great families, their ambitions, pop happiness (tied to buildings, trade goods, civilization value, culture, and religion - and this is so much harder to learn to do well than in EU4.

Economy/trade - neither game is especially good at this, but unlike EU4 where trade is almost non-existent (you never interact more with it than putting a merchant here and there), trade goods and capital surplus bonuses play a much bigger role in Imperator Rome. Different campaigns demand different trade good surpluses, so even here I'd say that Imperator Rome is a more complex game to learn and to master. When it comes to the economy, both games are rather similar while I'd still give a slight advantage to Imperator Rome because the buildings do more than simply add money, trade value, or manpower.

Exploration - a clear advantage goes to EU4.

Warfare - both games are somewhat similar but EU4 always ends up with the same armies (unless you're playing a horde). Full infantry frontline and enough cannons to fill the entire second line while keeping a few infantry-only armies around for reinforcements. In Imperator Rome, this is at least to some extent improved upon by adding several unit types giving some more strategical depth to the game. This is, however, something Imperator Rome could get better at.

At the end of the day, I find that the people I introduce to EU4 have an easier time getting into it than they do in Imperator Rome. Some of this is caused by the poor UI, but mostly it's the plethora of interacting systems that play off each other. EU4 doesn't have a lot of this due to its age, so no - I wouldn't say that EU4 is neither more or far more complex to learn than Imperator Rome.