Imperator Dev Diary - Heirs of Alexander

[IsaacCAT]

lol. That assumption some ppl have on the internet, what only they have access to wikipedia always gets me. U made me laugh; thx.

I was thinking about other price systems that we could use. I am sure many people has thought about this before us, that's why I looked upon Internet, or before when there was no internet, an Encyclopedia.

There was this intent for price system besides capitalism market economy:

In the 1930s, the economists Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner developed a comprehensive model of a socialist economy that utilized a price system and money for the allocation of capital goods. In contrast to a free-market price system, "socialist" prices would be set by a planning board to equal the marginal cost of production to achieve neoclassical Pareto efficiency. Because this model of socialism relied upon money and administered prices as opposed to non-monetary calculation in physical magnitudes, it was labelled "market socialism". In effect, Oskar Lange conceded that calculations in a socialist system would have to be performed in value terms with a functioning price system rather than using purely natural or engineering criteria as in the classic concept of socialism.[6]

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

It's just ppl don't understand capitalism and/or entitled. Like it? Buy it. Don't like it? Don't buy it. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything; plenty of alternatives (market is literally oversaturated with entertainment products for any price margin), and no one is entitled to labor of others; simultaneously in capitalism, we are free to sell our labor for as high or as low as we want. I'm dying to get CK3. I can't afford it. I'm literally dying to play it. CK2 is the greatest game of my whole life. I can cry, I want it so badly. But covid-19... fiscal issues. I'll be lucky if I can afford it by next September. Well, tough effing luck. It's not Paradox fault. I'm not entitled to CK3.

Exactly, we are not talking about essential goods here. On the other hand, a healthy discussion about consumer's right and self-consciousness never hurt anyone. Perhaps the bubble will burst sooner or later.

 

[Mastah Jedi]

Exactly, we are not talking about essential goods here. On the other hand, a healthy discussion about consumer's right and self-consciousness never hurt anyone. Perhaps the bubble will burst sooner or later.

That's a whole new world now. The world as it existed before Covid-19 is now gone. It's not coming bk. Everything is subject to change, including economics. Its possible, what this whole industry, the digital entertainment market, is also about to be fundamentally changed. As global trade is dying out, and economies shrink. I'm not looking forward with much optimism. I'm seeing rise of chaos, calamity and poverty just ahead of us as nations. Bubble will not burst. Entitlement will rise with desperation; especially as essential goods and services become scarce or rationed, in atomized and segregated society. But that dystopia we in now, is whole other topic, not related to this dev post, ha.

 

[IsaacCAT]

It's just ppl don't understand capitalism and/or entitled. Like it? Buy it. Don't like it? Don't buy it. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything; plenty of alternatives (market is literally oversaturated with entertainment products for any price margin), and no one is entitled to labor of others; simultaneously in capitalism, we are free to sell our labor for as high or as low as we want. I'm dying to get CK3. I can't afford it. I'm literally dying to play it. CK2 is the greatest game of my whole life. I can cry, I want it so badly. But covid-19... fiscal issues. I'll be lucky if I can afford it by next September. Well, tough effing luck. It's not Paradox fault. I'm not entitled to CK3.

Exactly, we are not talking about essential goods here. On the other hand, a healthy discussion about consumer's right and self-consciousness never hurt anyone. Perhaps the bubble will burst sooner or later.

I am not sure about the freedom of choice as a consumer. Of course if you do not have the means, you are not able to buy the product. But the rational choice theory should be made obsolete already (see criticism of the theory) and I think we are also Paradox stakeholders (not shareholders).

That's why we could argue that besides the benefit of playing the game, we should benefit from the non existent marginal costs from software products. How? I do not know. As active (or activist?) players we pay for DLC fixed costs in advance and if the DLC sell a lot, then PARADOX could reimburse us some of the cost of the DLC. But who qualifies as an active player and who does not?

Discounting the price of games and DLC in the future does not help the activist players that already have payed the full cost.

Let's think about it, they can come up with some vouchers for future games or DLC's for example.

 

[Mastah Jedi]

I am not sure about the freedom of choice as a consumer. Of course if you do not have the means, you are not able to buy the product. But the rational choice theory should be made obsolete already (see criticism of the theory) and I think we are also Paradox stakeholders (not shareholders).

That's why we could argue that besides the benefit of playing the game, we should benefit from the non existent marginal costs from software products. How? I do not know. As active (or activist?) players we pay for DLC fixed costs in advance and if the DLC sell a lot, then PARADOX could reimburse us some of the cost of the DLC. But who qualifies as an active player and who does not?

Discounting the price of games and DLC in the future does not help the activist players that already have payed the full cost.

Let's think about it, they can come up with some vouchers for future games or DLC's for example.

Paradox games I own: CK2, Stellaris; Imperator Rome; Hearts of Iron 4; EU4; AoW3; and nearly every DLC to all of them. Do I feel Paradox owes me anything for that? Nope. I'm no stakeholder. I have nothing to do with investment into their company, development process or risk taking. I'm simply a customer. A very satisfied customer, who is very happy to be their customer, because I enjoy their products so very much. The labor they do, is making my black little heart happy. However, I'm neither entitled nor committed to Paradox products, nor they are to me. I'm happy with that arrangement. To be a stakeholder, even as a silent partner, implies sharing in risk taking, such as investing into product development. I definitely don't want to do that, god no.

 

[IsaacCAT]

To be a stakeholder, even as a silent partner, implies sharing in risk taking, such as investing into product development. I definitely don't want to do that, god no.

Modern theory includes customers as stakeholders and companies are compelled to get them aboard, not as shareholders (or risk takers).

 

[Mastah Jedi]

Modern theory includes customers as stakeholders and companies are compelled to get them aboard, not as shareholders (or risk takers).

Shareholders and stakeholders both take risk; but different degrees of it; and as such, have mutual obligations between themselves and the company, to whatever degree. Customers have no obligations of any kind. I can starting today, never buy a single Paradox product ever again if I choose to, and it will not be in breach of any obligations (because I have no stake). That's the cool thing about being a customer. Lack of obligations. So no, customer being a stakeholder, simply because they are a customer, with no obligations is nonsense. Doesn't matter if its modern or not. Its nonsense. I will never allow a customer, in my business, if I have one again in a future, to be a "stakeholder", without any obligations, simply because they feel entitled to my labor or product. That's not how insensitive work. Infact, that kind of thing, is an insensitive not to have a business of your own.

 

[AggaWackTan]

Paradox games I own: CK2, Stellaris; Imperator Rome; Hearts of Iron 4; EU4; AoW3; and nearly every DLC to all of them. Do I feel Paradox owes me anything for that? Nope.

I've bought basically all DLC for CK2, EU4 and IR. CK2's DLC can be justified because nobody expected CK2 to be such a success, profits were reinvested into making fantastic DLC that expanded gameplay outside the scope of 'crusader kings', muslim Iqta, jewish kingdoms, tribal and viking. On top of that CK3 appears to have utilized a lot of what was good in CK2 and incorporated it, providing both a challenge for Paradox to create new features for expansions and helped build trust with customers that they can expect a certain standard.

EU4's DLC was questionable, its an amazing game but only once you pay €250 for all dlc, as naval tasks, essential diplomacy mechanics are all behind paywalls. The base game is not anything special. Only possible because Paradox have a rep for the most strategic campaign map gameplay and hold basically a monopoly on campaign map focused games could they ask such a price.

I:R drew on inspiration from both these yet fell incredibly short in essential strategy mechanics that provide replayability. The government models are not solid, the trade routes are not realistic and don't provide conflict, faction expansion is directed by 'missions' and it seems in all that Paradox's complacency really did result in a sup par game in comparison to customers expectations from previous games. The DLC for IR feels like its customers paying to fix a base game, not paying for 'expansions' so yes customers should feel entitled to a certain standard and I expected Paradox to provide a good base for the price I payed. I'm only sticking with it as I absolutely love the era, and I want a vast and deep strategy game to finally do it justice. Based on the expectation and trust (I used to have) from sturdy previous titles that I thought genuine deep mechanics would be implemented, I expected better.

 

[IsaacCAT]

I've bought basically all DLC for CK2, EU4 and IR. CK2's DLC can be justified because nobody expected CK2 to be such a success, profits were reinvested into making fantastic DLC that expanded gameplay outside the scope of 'crusader kings', muslim Iqta, jewish kingdoms, tribal and viking. On top of that CK3 appears to have utilized a lot of what was good in CK2 and incorporated it, providing both a challenge for Paradox to create new features for expansions and helped build trust with customers that they can expect a certain standard.

EU4's DLC was questionable, its an amazing game but only once you pay €250 for all dlc, as naval tasks, essential diplomacy mechanics are all behind paywalls. The base game is not anything special. Only possible because Paradox have a rep for the most strategic campaign map gameplay and hold basically a monopoly on campaign map focused games could they ask such a price.

I:R drew on inspiration from both these yet fell incredibly short in essential strategy mechanics that provide replayability. The government models are not solid, the trade routes are not realistic and don't provide conflict, faction expansion is directed by 'missions' and it seems in all that Paradox's complacency really did result in a sup par game in comparison to customers expectations from previous games. The DLC for IR feels like its customers paying to fix a base game, not paying for 'expansions' so yes customers should feel entitled to a certain standard and I expected Paradox to provide a good base for the price I payed. I'm only sticking with it as I absolutely love the era, and I want a vast and deep strategy game to finally do it justice. Based on the expectation and trust (I used to have) from sturdy previous titles that I thought genuine deep mechanics would be implemented, I expected better.

A nuance to a very good argument: all products (good or bad) have a cost. If you decide that I:R was a bad product, fine, but costs were expended to produce it.

Now, more costs need to be invested to adapt it to customers's expectations (edited), and they are asking us to pay for DLC that adds content. I think it is a fair trade.

I would ask Paradox to recognize and compensate its brave and committed first buyers who buy they game at full prize at debut. We do not know how the game will be, but we buy it anyway.

Thus, I propose that the first X buyers of the game, be payed with free DLC when the game pays for the production costs. If the game does not recoup its initial costs, then we all loose, because if Paradox does not make a profit, no more games will be developed.

This way, many players will be first buyers. Now, only investing in hype and advertisement they can convince players to pay the full price. What if this first buyers engagement brings more full price buyers? (And less frustration and disappointment)

NOTE: is possible that I:R has not break even yet, so we would not be entitled to a free DLC. But that’s not the point. This agreement should be previous the first day sale and we should trust their transparency. I am sure that if anyone can do it is a Swedish company.

 

[AggaWackTan]

A nuance to a very good argument: all products (good or bad) have a cost. If you decide that I:R was a bad product, fine, but costs were expended to produce it.

Now, more costs need to be invested to straight it up, and they are asking us to pay for DLC that adds content. I think it is a fair trade.

By that argument we're all behaving like investors in it's future then, but the only reward is the game. As a customer with trust in Paradox's reputation for strategy games, I bought the game at full price and am now am paying additional for 'expansions' that are in my opinion, patches. All I'm saying is that it seems like an open beta still and customers are paying installments for continuing development. As a customer, I expect to pay a set price for a full game but am not happy to continually donate to a corporate company that should be highly competitive. I:R isn't any cheaper than other Paradox games (bar more sales to attract customers) but still requires far more improvement.

I'm only arguing as I have a combined 1600 hours played in the last 5 years between CK2, EU4 and IR, so I obviously enjoy them a lot. It's just with I:R I see the lack of competitiveness, complacency and poor strategy design creeping in. I haven't bought CK3 on that principle as I'm still not happy with I:R and keep going back to RTW 1&2 mods to enjoy a game in the era. IR strong points are still founding cities and the map. Core design like trade, governments and diplomacy that had rock solid systems in past titles to take inspiration from should have been present on release. Yet we're still paying for development.

 

[Gutie]

It's just ppl don't understand capitalism and/or entitled. Like it? Buy it. Don't like it? Don't buy it. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything; plenty of alternatives (market is literally oversaturated with entertainment products for any price margin), and no one is entitled to labor of others; simultaneously in capitalism, we are free to sell our labor for as high or as low as we want. I'm dying to get CK3. I can't afford it. I'm literally dying to play it. CK2 is the greatest game of my whole life. I can cry, I want it so badly. But covid-19... fiscal issues. I'll be lucky if I can afford it by next September. Well, tough effing luck. It's not Paradox fault. I'm not entitled to CK3.

You think it's worth the money. Good for you. I do not if the content is divided up as seems to be implied, I even state I would love clarification on what will be DLC and what will not aside the unit models (the item I care least about and am totally fine if its DLC). I even do have the means to buy it, but will not if I feel its just another Deluxe edition tier DLC pack. Because to me despite having the means, who is quite in favor of capitalistic thinking,

A company CAN indeed set their price as high as they want. But if they set it too high, where what is gained is not worth the asking price (see "Deluxe" DLC) people like me who have the money won't buy it. If I didn't enjoy Imperator itself as I have, I certainly wouldnt have gotten it but wanted to show support with the effort to improving they had already put into it. I've felt burned a few times on a few DLC I've gotten. I'm not an IPO Investor or a current shareholder of the company, I invest elsewhere. I'm a consumer/customer. I expect good value for my money as should anyone else who buys a product as should any capitalist in particular that you seem to proclaim so loudly that you are.

Anyhow looking forward to seeing what's next.

tl;dr Your argument is invalid, you straight up told us We are free to choose to buy something or not, and proceed to insult people for stating an opinion on why they won't buy something because the value of the goods is routinely inferior in their view compared to the price. Regardless of whether we have the means to buy or not. PS: Basically calling people communists or something because they state an opinion as a prospective consumer isn't going to fly bud. Makes you seem irrational.

 

[Gatkramp]

Well this thread has well and truly been derailed.

 

[Chaostrian]

good DD :3

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Until a price is announced, discussions about it seem poitnless.

But the content of the patch NEEDS to be fixed.

 

[Gutie]

A nuance to a very good argument: all products (good or bad) have a cost. If you decide that I:R was a bad product, fine, but costs were expended to produce it.

Now, more costs need to be invested to adapt it to customers's expectations (edited), and they are asking us to pay for DLC that adds content. I think it is a fair trade.

I would ask Paradox to recognize and compensate its brave and committed first buyers who buy they game at full prize at debut. We do not know how the game will be, but we buy it anyway.

Thus, I propose that the first X buyers of the game, be payed with free DLC when the game pays for the production costs. If the game does not recoup its initial costs, then we all loose, because if Paradox does not make a profit, no more games will be developed.

This way, many players will be first buyers. Now, only investing in hype and advertisement they can convince players to pay the full price. What if this first buyers engagement brings more full price buyers? (And less frustration and disappointment)

NOTE: is possible that I:R has not break even yet, so we would not be entitled to a free DLC. But that’s not the point. This agreement should be previous the first day sale and we should trust their transparency. I am sure that if anyone can do it is a Swedish company.

Imo I would've felt far less burned on a few occasions (Like when I preordered Stellaris Deluxe and then saw Unity drop feeling some things got cut from basegame to be put into the DLC, such as ringworlds) if such things were a norm. I support Pdox and have liked a number of their games. (I still remember the absolute hype when Victoria II intro screen started up after snagging a retail copy of it and still have good vibes for the game, and still play it on and off even to this day). I've come to enjoy a lot of what IR has to offer, but there are times where it seems Pdox is looking for any excuse to spam DLC in pinpricks vs expansions the past few years. I mean I don't think it can be said I even have an issue buying DLC from PDS titles. ***Quite frankly with the whole issue regarding these sorts of things, (and I think a lot of people feel the same way), if the content is good I'm in on it. Simple as that.

I'm really looking forward to what content is yet to be shown as theres a lot of things they could do to really flesh out this part of the game, as half the game's world is directly impacted by them. I cannot stress enough that one way to really give a boost to the game's realism would be the notion that heirs who marry a foreign family being removed from succession should be done away with. Maybe there could be a slight modifier to the ranking from being overseas, but it should still be plausible for a qualified/desirable successor to be still in line. If say a daughter/son marries into a foreign monarchy but is still the most preferred heir by some, it would be good to have the ability where an event fires of loyalists to the child of their king/queen who dies appeals for them to take the throne instead of the other, and an option to press it triggering a civil war.

I really think with the chaos of the Diadochi it's a perfect chance to implement such a thing (not unlike what occurs in titles like CK2/3 and to a lesser extent in EU). IT could really give weight to the aspect of characters developing friendships and the benefit of spouses who were in line for a throne still haivng meaning. Most blatantly obvious example I can think of (Especially since I tended to align with him in my numerous Epirus playthroughs)... If I marry one of Ptolemy's daughters and his sons, or at least his eldest ones all somehow die, that should mean something.

Also bloodline traits should be inheritable/passed on by either gender. I'm not sure why this isn't a thing, when I can just "research" my family's past and get a bloodline trait anyhow (which imo made no sense if starting during the Diadochi wars anyhow, why would their bloodlines even be a thing that was researchable?).

 

[sr999]

Hello there!

For those who haven’t seen me around before, I am Joachim, one of the Content Designers on Imperator: Rome.

This week it is my pleasure to introduce the new Seleukid mission trees that I have been working on for the Marius update. The Seleukids have 4 new mission trees, focusing on Babylonia, Syria, Anatolia, and Palestine/Phoenicia respectively.

When I started working on them, I wanted to showcase what happened in the early years of the dynasty, as well as pay particular attention to the regions where they could come into contact and conflict with the other Diadochi (as this is a Diadochi-focused pack).

I’ll try to limit myself slightly, by showing off each mission and talking a bit about them, then showcasing 1 specific mission task inside that mission, before moving on to the next tree. If this DD was to go into every specific task, I worry it might get a tad too long for most people.

Babylonia

View attachment 655019

For Babylonia, as a logical starting point when you begin a new game, I wanted to have some sort of interactions with the local priesthood. They played a notable role in the early rule of Seleukos when he was still a Satrap. I also wanted to show that Babylonia was in many ways an important reason why Seleukos rose to prominence, and a large part of the mission focuses on building up Babylonia to become an vital core for your nation.

View attachment 655020

One of the advantages of the changes we made in the Menander Update is that we now have access to more tools that we can utilize in our missions, like cultural integration. You’ll probably see several tasks like these, where we either ask you to integrate a specific culture or to have integrated a certain amount of people in an area or a region.

Syria

View attachment 655021

For many the Seleukid dynasty is deeply associated with the area around Syria (to the point where the region was occasionally called Seleukis), as Seleukos spent many years and considerable resources funding Antioch and Seleukeia Pieria. Because of our starting date, he does not actually own the area when the game starts, so it makes a natural ‘first goal’ for the player to start moving westwards to take control of the place the Seleukid dynasty was most known for holding.

The first three tasks (up to, but not including ‘Syrian Governance’) is focused around conquering the area if you do not already hold it, but everything afterwards is mostly focused around building up Syria.

On the right hand side, there’s some optional tasks where you can step through the Syrian Gates and start conquering Cilicia on the other side of the Amanus Mountains.

View attachment 655022

View attachment 655023

One of the things I wanted to showcase with this mission was how Seleukos actively built up Syria and had a large group of Greek settlers migrate to the region, so he could bolster his armies with Greek troops. Cut off from the west and the Mediterranean, Seleukos did not have access to the heavier infantry of his peers at our start date. It should be mentioned that the countries losing pops from this event are actually quite well paid to make up for it.

Anatolia

View attachment 655024

View attachment 655025

After beating back Lysimachos’ attempt at taking control of the whole empire, Seleukos himself was overtaken by ambition and eventually died at the hands of Ptolemy Keraunos, and with his death the final living Successor was put to rest. Unlike Lysimachos, who’s little empire quickly crumbled and fell apart, Seleukos’ death was fairly well handled by Antiochos, and the empire would endure for several hundred years.

One major change before and after Lysimachos’ attempt at conquering the other Diadochi was the importance of Anatolia for the Seleukids. Though Seleukos held parts of Cilicia after the Battle of Ipsos, his control was confined to the very south-eastern part of the region.

After the death of Seleukos, Antiochos would shift his focus westwards, spending a lot of his time in Anatolia where he funded several cities and improving the infrastructure all the way to Sardis in the far west, in addition to beating back the Galatian invasion. Later on two scions of the dynasty, Seleukos II Kallinikos and Antiochos Hierax, would fight over Anatolia, as it had become such an integral part of the empire.

As a third mission, it made a lot of sense to me to focus on Anatolia, and I chose to specifically focus on the regions surrounding the Persian Royal Road. The mission has both conquest missions as well as infrastructure, slowly moving you westwards as you go through it. It is not completely like Seleukos’ sudden capture of the whole region, but I figured it made for the best experience.

View attachment 655026

The Seleukid dynasty ended up being particularly associated with the Greek deity Apollo, leading to the syncretic deity Apollo-Nabû, as well as their support of the oracle in Didyma. It should be noted that Apollo Didymaios was originally a deity specifically for Syracuse in the Magna Graecia content pack, so you will only be able to unlock the deity for the Seleukid Empire if you already own that pack as well.

Palestine/Phoenicia

View attachment 655027

View attachment 655028
For the final mission, it made a lot of sense to focus on the region that would eventually lead to several Syrian Wars fought over it, Palestine and Phoenicia.

After the Battle of Ipsos, Seleukos was originally given a far larger piece of land, but found Ptolemy had already taken control of it and refused to hand it over to his old friend. Though Seleukos forgave this slight, and would go on to make more out of Syria than most would have expected of him, his descendants would eventually start using it as a reason to engage their southern neighbors in the many Syrian Wars.

For the mission, the first part of the mission focuses on securing a route southwards through the southern part of Syria. The second half focuses on conquering Palestine, and to start building up the infrastructure in the region, with a chance to release the Judean state as a client.

View attachment 655029

Similar to the migration to Syria, there was a large group of Greek settlers who ended up moving to Decapolis (leading to its name, as they re-established several of the 10 cities). I wanted a mission task that could replicate that to a certain degree, even though historically speaking the migration to Decapolis happened under both the Ptolemies and the Seleukids rather than in one fell swoop.

Conclusion

Personally I have always been a huge fan of the Seleukids, so it was a pleasure being able to work on them, and I hope people will enjoy the missions when they are finally released.

Until next time.

Many thanks @Snow Crystal! I've rarely enjoyed a dev diary more!

I too am a Seleukid fan. I still laugh thinking of the most outrageous of all of Seleukos' machinations (unfortunately pre-start), playing the Babylonian priesthood at their own game when they tried to stop the founding of the his capital Seleukia-on-Tigris (as an obvious competitor to their economic and political power and influence) - and outmaneuvring them into endorsing the on their own religious grounds, or look like apostate idiots. I hope there's some faint echo of that relationship in the Babylonian Priesthood mission?

Beyond that, I'm really, really pleased to see not just one, but two Greek Settler missions. Seleukos and his successors being obsessive city-founders, pretty much every road-city west of the original border was either founded by the Seleukids with Greek settlers, or their populations mostly replaced by Greek settlers. Is there a way that outcome can be engineered in the game, without unbalancing it? And maybe extended eventually to the East?

Finally on that, is there going to be any in-game replication of or allowance for (say by heritage, laws, or whatever) the extraordinary dynastic loyalty of the Seleukid cities, unique among the Successor states? Or, to take the same concept a little deeper, any replication of the administrative tricks the Seleukids used to streamline administration/communication and "square the circle" of free and profitable, yet fiercely loyal, Greek cities?

 

[Samitte]

On the right hand side, there’s some optional tasks where you can step through the Syrian Gates and start conquering Cilicia on the other side of the Amanus Mountains.

One of the things I wanted to showcase with this mission was how Seleukos actively built up Syria and had a large group of Greek settlers migrate to the region, so he could bolster his armies with Greek troops. Cut off from the west and the Mediterranean, Seleukos did not have access to the heavier infantry of his peers at our start date. It should be mentioned that the countries losing pops from this event are actually quite well paid to make up for it.

It seems a shame to put such an important element of the Hellenic world, that is the settlement east behind missions instead of an actual mechanic. This would have been the perfect opportunity to actually make a mechanic that would make playing any of the eastern Greek powers different from playing in the homeland.

Instead it seems we get click-reward mechanic where suddenly you gain almost a hundred pops instead of an actual steady migration east which you can create gameplay around - a lost opportunity that looks like just more work in the future or for modders to fix.

In general, the missions for the Seleukids seem alright, albeit a bit too focussed on driving war between the Diadochi. Some things I'd have liked to see are a focus on controlling the Tauros mountains (the Seleukids heavily invested in city-building in Pisidia and along southern coastline from Cilicia to Pamphylia). And the estalishment of the little theocratic monarchy of the Olbe temple-state in Rough Cilicia would have been a nice note as well. (I think the mission referring to Men is about establishing Pisidian Antioch at least).

On top of that, the efforts by the Seleukids to control the Armenias sounds like a fine mission to me as well, setting up the murder of the kings of Greater Armenia and Sophene and establishing the Artaxiad satraps in their stead. And its a real shame there is nothing focussed on Iran and the Seleukids either...

 

[sr999]

It seems a shame to put such an important element of the Hellenic world, that is the settlement east behind missions instead of an actual mechanic. This would have been the perfect opportunity to actually make a mechanic that would make playing any of the eastern Greek powers different from playing in the homeland.

Instead it seems we get click-reward mechanic where suddenly you gain almost a hundred pops instead of an actual steady migration east which you can create gameplay around - a lost opportunity that looks like just more work in the future or for modders to fix.

In general, the missions for the Seleukids seem alright, albeit a bit too focussed on driving war between the Diadochi. Some things I'd have liked to see are a focus on controlling the Tauros mountains (the Seleukids heavily invested in city-building in Pisidia and along southern coastline from Cilicia to Pamphylia). And the estalishment of the little theocratic monarchy of the Olbe temple-state in Rough Cilicia would have been a nice note as well. (I think the mission referring to Men is about establishing Pisidian Antioch at least).

On top of that, the efforts by the Seleukids to control the Armenias sounds like a fine mission to me as well, setting up the murder of the kings of Greater Armenia and Sophene and establishing the Artaxiad satraps in their stead. And its a real shame there is nothing focussed on Iran and the Seleukids either...

I completely agree that importing settlers, including the long-term personal relationships consciously fostered built between Diadochi and individual Greek cities (irrespective of whether the cities were in their domain or not!) should be a mechanic, as it was so crucial to the culture, the politics (as the genuine ideological basis for destroying the old enemy Persia by Hellenizing it), and the strategy of the era - and critical to Seleukid success. Many things could feed into that (religious activities, what you build where, innumerable events, etc).

In the meantime however I'm very happy that at last something has been done on it!

 

[Slavicist]

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 Heirs of Alexander content pack will be the largest yet; encompassing mission trees and flavor events for all the Diadochi nations, as well as the ability to customize and build a large variety of Great Wonders as detailed in the Vitruvius dev diary.

Included alongside this will be a variety of additional content that you have grown to expect from content packs, including new event pictures, music tracks, and more.

As time goes on, we will introduce more specifics surrounding the content you will receive in the HoA pack, however, as a small addendum to last week’s diary, I would like to clarify that the Legion Honors that you encountered in the Legions feature reveal will be part of the HoA pack.

With this announcement out of the way, I’ll detail a few more changes you can expect in the Marius update!

Legacy of Alexander

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.

We are also looking at making a similar wargoal available in other circumstances, particularly for situations in which it makes historical sense to do so, for example, the expansion of the Parthian state.

Legion/Levy Indicators

As hinted at last week, there will be a visual distinction between Levied units and Legionary units. The 3D unit models used to display levies and legions will use light and heavy infantry, respectively.

This distinction is a highly important gameplay factor, and as such, the large variety of new unit models will be included as part of the Marius update. @Katzura, as someone with a greater aesthetic eye than myself, has prepared a variety of screenshots to give you a preview of some of the unit models coming in 2.0!

We’ve included a side-by-side of the Levy and Legion models; some will be familiar to you, and some may be new. While we’ve tried to respect the period in which Imperator is set, in some cases we’ve had to use a little imagination, particularly for graphical cultures in which the distinction between levy and legion is not always clear.

View attachment 654990
Legion:Levy - Arabian group

View attachment 654987
Levy:Legion - Celtic Group

View attachment 654988
Levy:Legion - Greek Group

View attachment 654989
Levy:Legion - Roman

Next week we’ll have more legion/levy 3d models from other graphical culture groups to show you.

And now on to Snow Crystal’s Seleukid missions!

If Pyrrhus managed to form Macedon, he should probably get some of the mechanics of the Diadochi Wars.

He's not a Diadochi, but Hannibal considered him second only to Alexander himself, who was also his relatively close cousin.

 

[yonno]

As befits our 2.0 statement, the Heirs of Alexander content pack will be the largest yet; encompassing mission trees and flavor events for all the Diadochi nations.

Included alongside this will be a variety of additional content that you have grown to expect from content packs, including new event pictures, music tracks, and more.

Legacy of Alexander

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.
View attachment 654988
Levy:Legion - Greek Group

No dis but what does that greek/hellenic flavour deluxe 15 eur pack stands for?