So much this, it's even more important than the consuls. Have a consul 5 years for gameplay can be reasonable, but there is a lack of careers and all those things that made cool think about the roman republics.
Imperator - Development Diary #14 - 27th of August 2018
- Thread starter Johan
- 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.
So much this, it's even more important than the consuls. Have a consul 5 years for gameplay can be reasonable, but there is a lack of careers and all those things that made cool think about the roman republics.
Regardless, that's no excuse for failing to recreate the proper Roman government system. Or is this the video game equivalent of click-baiting? And you're just okay with this? A game with Rome in the title should look like Rome besides a purple map colour, some localised councillor names and the banner in the corner.
Yeah mate, I'm sure they're drying their tears with money because people are complaining about game design.
I'm actually going to double back and single this out:
Honestly, even if it was called Shahanshah: Sultans of Swing - the fact that it is focusing on the ancient world, right around when Rome is the major power... makes me think that Rome deserves at least some unique flavor. It's going to be one of the states people will be playing most! Why not give it some attention?
Why? I know others have asked as well, but I'd like to add my voice here. The Reaper's Due was honestly the first DLC in the trend I outlined earlier. I never understood the need for a court physician, and the meme-level events that came with the position have been a major turn-off for me, in addition to a number of immersion breaking pseudo-bugs that came with it (realms converting as a prime example). I don't see why a court physician was necessary.
This is why I explicitly wrote "name aside"
Honestly, even if it was called Shahanshah: Sultans of Swing - the fact that it is focusing on the ancient world, right around when Rome is the major power... makes me think that Rome deserves at least some unique flavor. It's going to be one of the states people will be playing most! Why not give it some attention?For me at least, my problem is that it feels as though the game is starting off at a low base. Comparisons have been made to the original EU:R, and... I:R feels like it got a graphical facelift and only a little bit more. Is it so much to expect that a new game might add a fair bit more new content?
And... this is what I was saying about dismissing criticism and strawmen. For at least my part, I think I've done nothing to "bully" the devs. I've merely stated my opinion. That said, also, as @theone33 stated, I really doubt more DDs and six months of further work will see a radical change in the game, especially if we listen to your advice and just wait for the release. Hence why we're raising our concerns now.
Last edited:
The main reason for including a second consul is to teach people how the Roman Republic worked. If Paradox depart too far from what is historical, the game becomes quite misleading.
If the game isn't historically accurate, for many it's going to be less fun for that reason alone: you don't feel like someone commanding the Roman Republic, but like someone playing a board-game with such abstraction that there remains little connection to reality.
I don't know enough about Roman history to know what gameplay function the second consul would serve, but even a symbolic inclusion for the sake of immersion would be better. I suppose the reason to have a second consul could be tied to the personality and stats of each, with it reducing the risk presented by having, for example, someone with the "coward" trait as consul. If you have a cowardly king, declaring war might be harder, but if you have a second ruler, the effect of this might be reduced.
This period has such a tremendous range of government types, and it'll be a shame if Paradox go with a cookie-cutter approach, rather than creating flexibility that can be adjusted to suit each particular nation, making them feel unique and worth playing. Unique governments (adapted versions of monarchy, oligarchy, democracy) could easily be a selling point of future DLCs, providing unique flavour which makes different countries worth playing. This, with the option to reform into a government type like another country (because this was a period where there was a lot of experimentation and the borrowing of ideas from other places).
A feature like this would easily be a key selling point of Imperator and any future DLCs, and it's clear from this thread that people want accuracy in government types. There seems to be a growing worry that this game is going to become an EU4 reskin of sorts, despite taking place in a period which contained incredible religious and political diversity.
I would play a game called Shahanshah: Sultans of Swing, Sounds pretty funI'm actually going to double back and single this out:
Why? I know others have asked as well, but I'd like to add my voice here. The Reaper's Due was honestly the first DLC in the trend I outlined earlier. I never understood the need for a court physician, and the meme-level events that came with the position have been a major turn-off for me, in addition to a number of immersion breaking pseudo-bugs that came with it (realms converting
This is why I explicitly wrote "name aside"
For me at least, my problem is that it feels as though the game is starting off at a low base. Comparisons have been made to the original EU:R, and... I:R feels like it got a graphical facelift and only a little bit more. Is it so much to expect that a new game might add a fair bit more new content?
And... this is what I was saying about dismissing criticism and strawmen. For at least my part, I think I've done nothing to "bully" the devs. I've merely stated my opinion. That said, also, as @theone33 stated, I really doubt more DDs and six months of further work will see a radical change in the game, especially if we listen to your advice and just wait for the release. Hence why we're raising our concerns now.
Well, that makes sense, but I still prefer gameplay mechanics than map accuracy. But I understand you like having a good map on the game.
The way I see it, Johan means this is a system designed for THE Roman Republic and also any other republic in the game. Maybe I'm wrong. Johan, could you help us?
Indeed. DLCs will get us different government systems for different countries, like happened in EU4, like partially happened in HoI4 with national focuses (but seriously, Spain should have his own national focus tree, we were the training camp for the big guys after all), and yes, republics in EU4 at first were shit. If DLCs give us different government systems for different countries, then I'm happy. But if this is the base republic system, well it could be much better. And I think this is not a solution for a roman republic in a game called Imperator: Rome.
You're right, but I think we have to complain (respectfully, not like other have done in this DD) before game release, when it's much easier for devs to change design decisions that we don't like.
They could introduce the historical concept of Imperium and it could alternate each month between two consuls (in other words, one month the Republic gets the stat bonuses of the first consul, the next month the stat bonuses of the second consul).
Just a thought.
EDIT: It would add a bit of fun unpredictability to the game.
I can't believe after EURome they still design for only one consul and basically copy the vae victis political system without adding to it..
Fun is having perceived realism or we might as well play Risk.
Fun is having perceived realism or we might as well play Risk.
So much this, also imperium could be modelled just like theaters are modelled in HOI4, so it’s not really such a novel concept.
Acting as DLCs are evil. Would you prefer a game without post-development?
I'll remember to qote this when you release a Roman Republic DLC, which will claim, truthfully, that they add immersion and make the player think about their choices in a way that would make republics notably different from monarchies (as it stands, it seems that just like in EU:Rome the only meaningful difference between monarchies and republics will be the senate).
Makes new historical grand strategy game about rome, doesn't even attempt to represent the roman system properly to a minimum satisfactory level.
Talk about dumbing down your games. Since EU4's mana power and HoI4's disaster launch I don't know why I expect anything different.
Hey why don't you just add loot boxes? Lock Rome and Carthage behind a 40 hour playing time too, make us feel accomplished... or buy DLC.
They keep sliding farther and farther towards shallow mainstream pandering because muh profitz.
Let me guess, the IRL romans had to pay 20 euros to unlock "The Second Consul of Rome" DLC?
And others. Are zero content posts like this really criticism? I think not. It's not just in this thread either, it's from threads as old as when I:R was first announced and previous DDs. People expect mechanics, don't find them, and complain. Go ahead, complain. I'm not saying no. Just tell PDX why you dislike 'x' mechanic so they can look into it rather than "hey this sucks, pdx is really sinking, good job stealing our money"
Look across any PDX game, you will find thread after thread insulting the game, devs, company. It's frankly toxic, and I'm sick of it. This is an unpopular mechanic. i get that. But everytime someone explains why its not done, you guys demand more. This went from want 2 consuls to want 2 consuls and 10 tribunes to 2 consuls, 10 tribunes, praetors, hastatim, etc etc, someone made a whole list! and got a bunch of "agrees"
Criticize and respectfully disagree as much as you want. But tell the devs why you're doing so beyond "immersion breaking" and "historically inaccurate" and "rome game without rome"
Those are completely unvalid and are not valid arguments for the dev team to spend a bunch of resources researching, bug testing and creating mechanics with that as an argument. I:R is not solely about rome so it is not "a rome game". "historically inaccurate?" this is a PDX game!
---
Edit: And even so, even eu4 and ck2 launched with "historically inaccurate" mechanics. No one complains about those do they?
---
Immersion breaking? That's what DLCs and Immersion Packs are for. Now sure perhaps Rome deserves to be in the base game. But they have limited resources. That's not a valid argument for them to spend them now when they can fix or create some other thing that may be equally important but we know nothing about yet. Barely anyone is providing suggestions. And even those are even more unfeasible (refer: two consuls, 10 tribunes, praetors, hastati, consuls switching every month continuously re-electing the same councillors etc)
WHat 'finished' means is a stretch by the fans. If a feature is not in you want it's 'unfinished'... That's not how development works. They don't have infinite time to work on a game All Paradox DLCs are post-development and not cutted from the game to sell them.,
People have said why, you just don't think those are good enough reasons
While half the point of paradox Games is going off the rails with history, the other half is the fact it starts accurate. Between the 1 man 5 year consul, the insanely inaccurate Pop system and the appointment for life of cursus honorum positions and the addition of some random weird court physician role it feels like paradox just didn't care.
Well I care i lot about the fundamental history framework of the game and if your mechanics don't reflect the history then get new mechanics.
If you don't think you can do monarch power with two consuls then dont have monarch power. The mechanics need to fit the history not vice versa.
I have been asking for a redone Rome game for years, and I am very frustrated by the fact that Paradox seems to have changed nothing about how the political system works from the original which for the record crashed and burned pretty hard because it was neither fun nor accurate. Right now while the map and game scale seems amasing the amount of depth is severely lacking.
I don't care if paradox made a game miles and miles deep, its as shallow right now as a puddle and i'm not happy
having the roman republic act like the roman republic in a Rome game with Rome in the title seems like a pretty simple requirement for "finished"
I think "Imperator: Two Consuls" will be like "HOI4: Fuel" it will come eventually but its outside of developer time investment of the game at release.
What Johan said was that a new government could be modded in one hour or so.
What Johan did not say is that to add in a new government into the game may take hundreds of manhours for paradox because the government need to be tested to see how it work for the ai and for the players. Yes there is alot of unseen work behind what we see. We see Maybe 5% or so of the work behind the game, Maybe even less.
It's NOT a Rome game. It's a Grand Strategy Game featuring the Old World in 303 BC. Rome is only in the title because it sells better than 'Diadochi: Seleucos'.