Imperator - Development Diary #14 - 27th of August 2018

[Federalist girl]

So, funny story. Of all the possible compromises needed for gameplay, the single consul serving for 5 years is actually one I’m okay with. It gives you a chance to actually play as a character for a little while.

Switching back and forth between characters monthly or even annually would be very unsatisfying to me. Switching every five years is already going to be a lot.

If we weren’t playing as the “spirit” of a nation but were instead playing individual people , I’d be an advocate for a more realistic system. But since we’re always gonna be playing the head of state, switching characters all the time would just be a huge annoyance.

 

[DominusNovus]

From a historical point of view, it is not possible.

Only simple citizens could apply to the consulate, meaning a consul in office could not immediatly re-apply, he had to wait for at least one term before applying again. (There have been some instances of consuls doing several turns in a row in History, but that was considered illegal and was only allowed because they were powerful individuals that nobody dared to challenge).

It got even more strict under Sulla, who instituted a 10-year minimal time before you can re-apply.

Marius, consul for 5 years straight, would disagree. The Roman Constitution, Sulla’s reforms (at the end of the game’s timeframe) aside, was unwritten and malleable when push came to shove. Thats not necessarily a good thing and it violated the Mos Maiorum, but it was not inherently illegal.

 

[Denkt]

Switching back and forth between characters monthly or even annually would be very unsatisfying to me. Switching every five years is already going to be a lot.

The game last about 300 years which give around 60 elections which is already quite alot as you are also going to do other things so having to worry about who is going to be elected (which may be quite impactful) every year would be just to much to deal with.

 

[AKronblad]

But, the point of modding is to change a lot of things, and first one will be how generals are handled.

No, first thing would be to get the desired features into the base game, so modding them wouldn't be required at all.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Well this time it's for real a copy-paste of Rome I, I expected it and without problems... but this time I expected two consuls finally as sign this time you gone more in depth with the mechanic.

Also, I feel like the game it's lack the cool senate visual of the first game when you add a rapresentation of the seats in the senate.

So we can say this time we have even less cool thing from a visual point of view.

 

[AKronblad]

... by the time the game is realesed, people can only judge, but not provide feedback that could impact controversial design decisions...

Exactly. And I guess that this is what DD's are for: to get feedback from potential players and buyers of the game, so that undesired design can be amended. It's not only about marketing and creating a hype.

 

[Denkt]

It is not a copy past. Law system is completely different in EU: Rome. There is only two censors and the researchers as government positions in EU: Rome and there are other differences as well such as the ability to directly influence the senate in Imperator: Rome.

EUIV was a much closer copy to EUIII than I: Rome is to EU: Rome.

 

[S. Grundleplith MD]

One of the reasons for having 2 consuls was so they could veto each other. I would be interested in how this could be implemented without having gamers becoming livid over the AI vetoing their decisions. By adding a second consul, it appears that your decision to go to war can be blocked by not only the second consul, but from the Senate DD, also the Senate can block your decisions along with, I assume, the candidate mentioned in the DD but he could just be the voice of the Senate, although, so far, only the Senate has been actually mentioned as having veto power over you as the player.

As it currently stands from what I'm reading, the Senate is performing the action of the 2nd consul, so I'm not sure at this point what the purpose of the 2nd consul is. "Immersion" has a null value to my ears. What game function does the 2nd consul provide that is not already covered by the Senate?

I think it would provide, in a different mechanic, an opportunity to simulate factional alliances or feuds. If X&Y factions share imperium at the same time, it gives you the opportunity to pass unique initiatives. Or if two diametrically opposed factions share the consulship, it lowers stability or troop morale to simulate the consuls feuding. Again, going off of a systems that incorporates Rome's historical political system, having multiple consuls gives you more ex-consuls to compete for being censor, and to rule pro-consular provinces.

 

[Denkt]

So then Carthage and Rome will be basically differentiated mainly by map color?

Have no idea yet, the only difference I have Heard is they will have different military traditions.

 

[CR0N0S LXIII]

To those of you insisting Rome is the be all, end all of Imperator, it is my turn to respectfully disagree. I am far more excited for this:

than this:

where that veto by AI will be represented by nothing more numbers like the opinion breakdown for EU4 alliances.

What do you mean? The size of the map? If you get excited by numbers, you could buy a maths book.

Just joking. But seriously, how can you be excited by pure map size? I understand you wouldn't like gameplay mechanics with 2 consules, 300 senators and all that stuff, but being excited just because the map is big? Seriously, I do my best to understand it but I just can't.

And I agree with you that mechanics for Roman republic could change with a DLC (remember when muslims weren't playable at all in CK2?). The problem as I see it, it's not Rome having only one consul, specially if DLCs change this, the problem is that the base republic system for this game (and this is what it's being exposed here, because there can also be DLCs for Carthage, Athens, Sparta -Sparta was a diarchy but you know-), is basically head of state appointing the character he wants in the office he wants. That sounds more like a monarchy, don't you think? I would like to see a more complex system, where all the offices can take own decisions like veto or chosing other offices, rather than just 8 spaces for 8 advisors providing 8 different bonuses. That is not something I want to see in a Grand Strategy Game, sounds more like choosing your perks in LoL or whatever...

And about 5 years for reelections, if you give the option to rechoose (is that a word?) your consul but angering the senate, or losing something like republican tradition (Imperium Universalis mod), or you make the effects of your consul more notable in gameplay, then 1 year of a good consul and 1 year of a bad consul can be really different things. But again, this could change through DLCs. And if you make the consul not being elected by player, but by a election with senators voting, that is a different things. And if you let your pops vote and having an impact on the senate, wow that's hugely different from "I want character A in post X and character B in post Y".

I hope you can understand my bad english, we spaniards use to have problems with foreign languages due to have any movie/book/game we want translated to spanish.

 

[Federalist girl]

Marius, consul for 5 years straight, would disagree. The Roman Constitution, Sulla’s reforms (at the end of the game’s timeframe) aside, was unwritten and malleable when push came to shove. Thats not necessarily a good thing and it violated the Mos Maiorum, but it was not inherently illegal.

If I’m not mistaken, Marius’s consecutive consulships were a violation of the lex Villia Annalis — it wasn’t just unwritten precedent, it was written law.

 

[Darth.]

First of all no one is bullying the devs

Really? The horde of insults, vitriol, sarcastic comments on loot boxes, complaints on DLC policy, complaints about Johan, complaints about the devs across not just this thread but a whole bunch of them demanding two consuls with the opinions of reasonable criticism and genuinely respectfully dissenting opinions being lost beneath it is not bullying? Screaming "I want I want" and when the dev team tries to explain why they did it, telling them it's stupid, implying that they're stupid, that Paradox is going down the drain and they're contributing to it isn't bullying??

 

[Hugus]

Exactly. While I'm disappointed about the one Consul system, I get why they chose to go down that route. What I cannot understand is why they completely ignored how the republic worked and chose a system which, quite frankly, is a monarchy.

Yeap, I just honestly do not understand how pdox expects to create a base focused on Republican Rome and just do away with elections. Like, elections were the life of the whole political system. They are so fulcral to how things worked the way they did, I cannot start to understand this choice to do away with them.

 

[Es57]

Marius, consul for 5 years straight, would disagree.

Marius was precisely one of those I was referring to when I talked about a few exceptions.

 

[starme987]

To those who are suggesting that people shouldn't be upset that Rome isn't the focus of Imperator: Rome... What on earth are you expecting? Sure there's a lot of interesting nations in this era besides Rome - Carthage, some of the Greek states, etc - but even so. The Devs seem to just be giving 'diplomatic answers' and I'm sure that before long after launch we'll have the SPQR DLC that adds a proper Roman government.

 

[cristofolmc]

I really do hope they put a bit of work into it and change the Senate view to be a bit more like in EU Rome with the actual senat drawn and represented, with seats and all. It feels much cooler and immersive than just a few numbers down there in the bottom of the screen, to be honest.

 

[Denkt]

Yeap, I just honestly do not understand how pdox expects to create a base focused on Republican Rome and just do away with elections. Like, elections were the life of the whole political system. They are so fulcral to how things worked the way they did, I cannot start to understand this choice to do away with them.

I would say Imperator: Rome is about as focused on Rome as EUIV is focused on France. As far as I understand Rome will not necessarily be particular important for the game, like Rome survival is not even guaranteed and it is still far from being the major Power in the World at the start of the game.

The name Imperator: Rome is ment to sell the game because most people know what Rome is.

Remember that this is a game that include 7000 cities, Rome at start is just like a brick in the house.

 

[Darth.]

What do you mean? The size of the map? If you get excited by numbers, you could buy a maths book.

Just joking. But seriously, how can you be excited by pure map size?

It's not the map size, it's the province detail.

The problem as I see it, it's not Rome having only one consul, specially if DLCs change this, the problem is that the base republic system for this game

But it's not the base republic system

Hi and welcome back to another development diary for Imperator! This time we’ll talk about the offices and laws in the Republic!

Everywhere Johan says THE republic. This is for Rome, not all states.

Now I might be wrong, but I believe there would be different government types that are a slight variance with slightly different mechanics like Parliaments, the Dutch Republic and the Sejm in EU4. yes they took a DLC for those, but before then what were republics in eu4? Once every 4 years click a button and select a guy, micro-ing your republican tradition for 6/6/6 rulers. Hardly engaging either, yet EU4 was wildly successful with everyone going around about how OP republics were and complaining when they were nerfed.

And about 5 years for reelections, if you give the option to rechoose (is that a word?) your consul but angering the senate, or losing something like republican tradition (Imperium Universalis mod), or you make the effects of your consul more notable in gameplay, then 1 year of a good consul and 1 year of a bad consul can be really different things. But again, this could change through DLCs. And if you make the consul not being elected by player, but by a election with senators voting, that is a different things. And if you let your pops vote and having an impact on the senate, wow that's hugely different from "I want character A in post X and character B in post Y".

Remember though, there are 6 months to release and they probably haven't finalized everything. Believe me I am not thrilled at the simplicity. But I trust the dev team to improve upon it in a DLC if not at release. At release I will care far more about my trade and war and slavery than about how realistic to history my government is.

 

[Darth.]

I would say Imperator: Rome is about as focused on Rome as EUIV is focused on France. As far as I understand Rome will not necessarily be particular important for the game, like Rome survival is not even guaranteed and it is still far from being the major Power in the World at the start of the game.

The name Imperator: Rome is ment to sell the game because most people know what Rome is.

I regret I have only 1 "Agree" to give. i said this weeks ago and got "Respectfully" Disagreed with a lot

 

[brovahkiin]

What do you mean? The size of the map? If you get excited by numbers, you could buy a maths book.

Just joking. But seriously, how can you be excited by pure map size? I understand you wouldn't like gameplay mechanics with 2 consules, 300 senators and all that stuff, but being excited just because the map is big? Seriously, I do my best to understand it but I just can't.

And I agree with you that mechanics for Roman republic could change with a DLC (remember when muslims weren't playable at all in CK2?). The problem as I see it, it's not Rome having only one consul, specially if DLCs change this, the problem is that the base republic system for this game (and this is what it's being exposed here, because there can also be DLCs for Carthage, Athens, Sparta -Sparta was a diarchy but you know-), is basically head of state appointing the character he wants in the office he wants. That sounds more like a monarchy, don't you think? I would like to see a more complex system, where all the offices can take own decisions like veto or chosing other offices, rather than just 8 spaces for 8 advisors providing 8 different bonuses. That is not something I want to see in a Grand Strategy Game, sounds more like choosing your perks in LoL or whatever...

And about 5 years for reelections, if you give the option to rechoose (is that a word?) your consul but angering the senate, or losing something like republican tradition (Imperium Universalis mod), or you make the effects of your consul more notable in gameplay, then 1 year of a good consul and 1 year of a bad consul can be really different things. But again, this could change through DLCs. And if you make the consul not being elected by player, but by a election with senators voting, that is a different things. And if you let your pops vote and having an impact on the senate, wow that's hugely different from "I want character A in post X and character B in post Y".

I hope you can understand my bad english, we spaniards use to have problems with foreign languages due to have any movie/book/game we want translated to spanish.

it would be reelect

Really? The horde of insults, vitriol, sarcastic comments on loot boxes, complaints on DLC policy, complaints about Johan, complaints about the devs across not just this thread but a whole bunch of them demanding two consuls with the opinions of reasonable criticism and genuinely respectfully dissenting opinions being lost beneath it is not bullying? Screaming "I want I want" and when the dev team tries to explain why they did it, telling them it's stupid, implying that they're stupid, that Paradox is going down the drain and they're contributing to it isn't bullying??

literally one person made a loot box joke
everyone else has politely and reasonably expressed dismay, disappointed and frustration, I don't believe anyone has insulted Johan, just thought he was wrong.
Complaining is not "bullying" its complaining and if people don't express what they don't like the Devs won't know that and won't be able to hopefully fix the things people are angry about

 

[S. Grundleplith MD]

I would say Imperator: Rome is about as focused on Rome as EUIV is focused on France. As far as I understand Rome will not necessarily be particular important for the game, like Rome survival is not even guaranteed and it is still far from being the major Power in the World at the start of the game.

The name Imperator: Rome is ment to sell the game because most people know what Rome is.

Ok, but that's like titling a game "Alexander" and having the Macedonians as incidental to the gameplay, or titling a game "Napoleon" and having it focus on the entire 19th century.