Imperator - Development Diary - 11th of March 2019
- Thread starter Trin Tragula
- 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 doubt these changes will be in the build for tomorrows DevClash though (but you never know) so I wouldn't be too worried 
I doubt these changes will be in the build for tomorrows DevClash though (but you never know) so I wouldn't be too worried
if Pritania fails, give them Mundia to play as. They are Salt trading city-state
This dev diary has me a bit worried. Aggressive expansion is critical to balance correctly. Expansion looks to be Imperator's main gameplay loop, and AE ties into it at every level. Yet the devs seem to be making massive balance changes to this feature when we're only about a month from release. The broad strokes should have been hammered out early in development, and other features designed around this with balancing only being lightly tweaked as necessary.
I'm wondering why the devs didn't essentially just copy EU4's AE system since it's one of the best features of that game. It certainly took the devs of EU4 a long time to get to a point where it works well. And while a system unique to Imperator may have advantages, I feel like Paradox is reinventing the wheel here.
I'm wondering why the devs didn't essentially just copy EU4's AE system since it's one of the best features of that game. It certainly took the devs of EU4 a long time to get to a point where it works well. And while a system unique to Imperator may have advantages, I feel like Paradox is reinventing the wheel here.
Besides the fact that EU4's AE system barely makes sense in the early game (Large scale coalitions against a single expansionist state don't start until 18th century) the idea that it works WELL is laughable. There are substantially better ways to control expansion that are far less gamey, of course this rework is needing tweaks (as would any) but actually making attempts to improve the mechanic are good, rather than just c/p it.
AE in EU4 is nonsensical and easily gamed. It's hardly its best feature.
AE in EU4 doesn't make sense from a historical perspective, but it works well for a strategy game. At least, the entire process of AE, OE, and coring costs work well to constrain player expansion while providing a steady stream of interesting strategic considerations.Those systems have a few problems, but they're the best set of slowing mechanisms I've ever seen a strategy game implement. The only system I've seen that gets to a similar level of quality is Civ 4's city maintenance costs.
AE in EU4 can be gamed but there are many strategic considerations in doing so that keep it interesting.
Doesn't that risk them just using that money to raise more troops?
Some mercenary companies wouldn't stab their employer in the back for more gold. Is that represented?
How does Eu4's AE mechanic work in here? Doesn't make ANY sense. Persians and Celts joining in coalition against Rome? Besides the fact that rome is essentially stronger then any nation in western europe by the start of the game. They gonna tweak this mechanic all the way through after release. and it's only good.
I like the more extended implications of AE in this title a lot. However the fact that it affects power costs at such a rate can create a dangerous boring cycle from the player's perspective :
If I have say 70 AE then I should not gain any more land for a few years to allow it to cool down. That's fine, but with increased costs of power it means in order to play in an optimum way I should not spend any power (if possible) until my AE drops below 50, because I will spend say 140 points where I would spend 100. Which means I have limited options for internal management, which means that you primarily spend gold only during that period and store power for later use.
There is a danger here that this period which arguably should be spend to stabilize becomes a bit tedious as you are incentivized to take very little action.
I wonder what people think about this.
If I have say 70 AE then I should not gain any more land for a few years to allow it to cool down. That's fine, but with increased costs of power it means in order to play in an optimum way I should not spend any power (if possible) until my AE drops below 50, because I will spend say 140 points where I would spend 100. Which means I have limited options for internal management, which means that you primarily spend gold only during that period and store power for later use.
There is a danger here that this period which arguably should be spend to stabilize becomes a bit tedious as you are incentivized to take very little action.
I wonder what people think about this.
Primary culture unhappy with expansion??how is that gonna make sense?dude its the ancient world not america during vietnam war,to be honest even today there isnt many countries which its people dont like their nation to growth bigger,so i really hope that paradox would fix this before release.
Also why giving freehands to anyone will increase corruption?dosent the characters have traits?so dont you think whether the corruption increases or not should be determinated by character's traits??
Also why giving freehands to anyone will increase corruption?dosent the characters have traits?so dont you think whether the corruption increases or not should be determinated by character's traits??
No there aren't, and that's why the system isn't good. It adds no real strategic choices once you look on wikipedia and check out the formula for it. At its core, it's a gamey mechanic that barely brushes with what it intends to do (give diplomatic repercussions for threatening powers).
Whew! I was worried that your only (kinda) real rival would explode before you even fought!I doubt these changes will be in the build for tomorrows DevClash though (but you never know) so I wouldn't be too worried
AE in EU4 can be dealt with by:
- Waiting
- Truce juggling
- Selectively improving relations
- Taking idea groups (or otherwise stacking modifiers)
- Making tributaries
- Making specific allies
- Having troops in excess of the enemy coalition
- Biting the bullet and just fighting the coalition
- Attacking multiple fronts
- Waiting for the religious situation to change
- Dismantling AE blocs (HRE, alliance networks)
The assertion that EU4's AE doesn't have strategic choices involved is wrongheaded.
No, it can be gamed by:
- Truce juggling
- Being too powerful to attack
The worst part about it is that it really only matters when you're going for a WC or speedrun, which means you expect to win anyway. I don't think a system that a) players interact with only when they just wanna see how hard they can roflstomp, and b) allows players to expect to win in the first place can be considered as a good system full of 'strategic choices'. There's no strategy, it's just gameyness to game the game which unfortunately a lot of EU4 players mistake for strategy in games because that's all that's left in EU4.
Last edited:
How limiting will aggressive expansion be? Like how possible will it be to conquer the historical borders of Rome at the end of the game?