Where the techs you're getting aren't really techs but institutions and everything is an incremental linear modifier.
I really hope tech won't follow the CK2 and EU4 formula
- Thread starter Black Turtle
- Start date
-
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 have played elsewhere in this forum about 'event' or 'situation' driven 'reform' rather than research.
I have posted on the EU forum about the research - building / institution - effect thing. For example universities and cathedrals pre-date the start of the game; their social, economic, political significance or effect may change with time but they exist independent of the game's constructed research framework.
I have posted on the EU forum about the research - building / institution - effect thing. For example universities and cathedrals pre-date the start of the game; their social, economic, political significance or effect may change with time but they exist independent of the game's constructed research framework.
I read in some interview, I have to search it, that research works similiar to stellaris and EU:R. So you have inventions which are to a certain degree random and you have to choose one if they appear.
Here's a genuine question: why is it so important for this game to have a sophisticated technology system? In Civilization, technology is critical because the point of the game is you progress from the stone age to the information age. In Europa Universalis, technology is critical because you have a major transition from the Late Medieval to the Gunpowder era in Europe, and also you have massive disparities in technology between interacting countries. In Hearts of Iron, technology is critical because a big part of WW2 was the arm races happening behind the scenes.
What is the equivalent to EU's transformation of warfare + famous tech differentials or HOI's arms races that makes it so essential that R:I have a sophisticated technology system? Because if there isn't a compelling one and you're just including tech because all historical strategy games MUST include tech, it's going to inevitably feel unimportant and tacked on no matter what the mechanics are. You have to establish why there needs to be a technology system before we can seriously discuss what it should be.
I'm not terribly familiar with the period so I could use some pointers here.
What is the equivalent to EU's transformation of warfare + famous tech differentials or HOI's arms races that makes it so essential that R:I have a sophisticated technology system? Because if there isn't a compelling one and you're just including tech because all historical strategy games MUST include tech, it's going to inevitably feel unimportant and tacked on no matter what the mechanics are. You have to establish why there needs to be a technology system before we can seriously discuss what it should be.
I'm not terribly familiar with the period so I could use some pointers here.
My point in other posts had been that there was minimal technological development in this period (of around 275 years).
For example Alexander the Great's fleet which shadowed his army in the March back from India included quadriremes, possibly also quinquriremes. A few larger ships were constructed, but usually only one large flagship.
There were some military reforms in this period, e.g. other states developing 'imitation legionaries' and the restructuring of the Roman legion, but other than the introduction of iron mail, possibly also stone throwing rather than bolt firing engines, I can't really think of any technological military developments.
I don't see any social, political, religious or engineering developments.
For example Alexander the Great's fleet which shadowed his army in the March back from India included quadriremes, possibly also quinquriremes. A few larger ships were constructed, but usually only one large flagship.
There were some military reforms in this period, e.g. other states developing 'imitation legionaries' and the restructuring of the Roman legion, but other than the introduction of iron mail, possibly also stone throwing rather than bolt firing engines, I can't really think of any technological military developments.
I don't see any social, political, religious or engineering developments.
We know that there will be a technology system similar to EU: Rome and Stellaris. We also know there will be innovations but these will be paid with monarch points.
The impact of technology on the game we do not yet know.
The impact of technology on the game we do not yet know.
I'd guess that the tech system is only there to differentiate between countries with different development levels, mainly in engineering, construction and so on. You know, Celtic people didn't really built aquaducts before the Romans arrived, and stone fortifications were a lot less common than wooden ones in Germany. Warfare didn't evolve all that much, the Romans pretty much utilised slightly tweaked hoplite warfare.
Technology as a game mechanic is ment to give a way to make a long term investment and unlock stuff progressively so that the game do not become static.
Imperator: Rome technology system act as a way to make citizens valuable and probably to make conquest less attractive because technology cost is likely tied to population size which mean the more you conquer the more expensive technology become but you research do not increase as conquest do not give you more citizens. This mean massive conquest may halt your technology progress and make you weaker in the long run.
Tech is also used to create jobs for your characters. In EU: Rome these jobs do not only affect technology development speed but also affect stuff such as how quickly armies regain their organization. Furthermore these jobs act as a way for characters to develop and be able to get other jobs such as becoming a general. This way technology become a part of a deeper system.
The impact of technology in EU: Rome is not as great as in Europa Universalis IV but it do have a significant impact.
Currently we know little about technology in Imperator: Rome. Based on EU: Rome I would expect a technology system that have impact but less so than EUIV. Most of the technology in EU: Rome are really just different ideas, not machines or such stuff.
Imperator: Rome technology system act as a way to make citizens valuable and probably to make conquest less attractive because technology cost is likely tied to population size which mean the more you conquer the more expensive technology become but you research do not increase as conquest do not give you more citizens. This mean massive conquest may halt your technology progress and make you weaker in the long run.
Tech is also used to create jobs for your characters. In EU: Rome these jobs do not only affect technology development speed but also affect stuff such as how quickly armies regain their organization. Furthermore these jobs act as a way for characters to develop and be able to get other jobs such as becoming a general. This way technology become a part of a deeper system.
The impact of technology in EU: Rome is not as great as in Europa Universalis IV but it do have a significant impact.
Currently we know little about technology in Imperator: Rome. Based on EU: Rome I would expect a technology system that have impact but less so than EUIV. Most of the technology in EU: Rome are really just different ideas, not machines or such stuff.
I hope the game eschews a traditional technology system in favour of a more fluid system where you can gain and lose certain achievements of civilization.
You could, for instance, have a road network functioning to varying degrees, a bureaucracy working to varying degrees and such.
The idea of linear progress is always difficult and doesn't function for the time period at all. May make sense for some territories Rome conquered, but definitely doesn't for other parts of the map like India.
You could, for instance, have a road network functioning to varying degrees, a bureaucracy working to varying degrees and such.
The idea of linear progress is always difficult and doesn't function for the time period at all. May make sense for some territories Rome conquered, but definitely doesn't for other parts of the map like India.
I don't care how it works so long as it's not like Rome Total War where if you are Germanic you conquer civilized areas and you are stuck permanently using wooden clubs and dog skin armor. I want to see some kind of advancement especially for civilizations like that.
Each city have a civilization value and each nation also have a civilization value which is based on the total civilization value of all cities from what I understand and your national civilization value will slowly drift to that target.
Didn't Archimedes create his principle at this time, allowing ships to become potentially gigantic?
Archimedes 287 - 212 BC
Discovered rather than created
Practical potential size of ships isn't just about displacement
He discovered the phenomenon, he formulated/created the principle.
The only reason he even figured it out is that the ruler of Syracuse ordered him to plan out a gigantic ship. The ship only sailed once, not because of technical imperfections but because they didn't want it to break because it was too expensive to make. It was basically constructed like a modern day cruiser with many rooms and being able to hold huge amounts of heavy cargo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syracusia
I think a Stellaris type system sounds like an interesting way to model the various small refinements rather than revolutions of the period.
There just needs to be a good way to model the way these small innovations spread across the world once they arose.
There just needs to be a good way to model the way these small innovations spread across the world once they arose.
Something like the CKII mechanic for tech spread?
If an area has a discovery, there's a chance for it to incrementally "leak" to neighbours, and areas under the control of the same state (as well as to anywhere trying to spy on your technology). Would that work for you?
I'm not sure how this should be handled in the game. I'm also no expert in Roman technological achievements.
One of the key reasons for Rome's supremacy was engineering and architecture. Specifically concrete and the arch. There is so much written on this subject and I find it hugely interesting. YouTube has a few documentaries up that are more than worth watching.
Modern metropolises only became possible when our ancestors worked out how to provide water to populations in excess of hundreds of thousands. Perhaps more importantly still, they also worked out how to extract the waste.
Apart from civil techs warfare also changed dramatically during this period with the advent of Heavy catapults capable of breaking down city and fort defences.
I personally want a game that allows for tech to develop as a side effect of wise decisions leading to prosperity. It would be cool if a skilled player was able to bring the eternal flame to caledonia or suebia. That requires a tech system malleable enough to allow for player driven priorities, rather than say events or predefined capacity for reform.
That being said, I also want the game world to follow a predefined route if the player is not actively working towards a alternate history.
I just hope we don't end up with a situation where uncivilized nations get outclassed in nearly every possible way and marching legions in Germania or Caledonia is going to be sort of like when a European country in EU 4 meets the Cherokee.
Wow so inaccurate, this was a time of huge advancements in science, astronomy, philosophy, culture, religion etc