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

[Zarine]

No you are not playing as the consul in this game, so the second consul wouldn't mess with anything. It just means two characters would be consuls. Either both would contribute equally, or one would be considered "minor" and have less of an influence on the country, or with a mechanic to "switch" between them.

You could use consul A in peacetime, then switch to consul B the military genius in wartime, or something like that, at your demand. If you let one consul rule too long, his influence increases making him a nuisance after his reign.

So make something that didn't exist either in the ancient Rome...
Because this is my issue, people want 2 for realism but the solution proposed is not realistic either.
There wasn't a major or minor, their wasn't one who decided during peace and one during war...
If we have 2, we have a single head controlling both character action. They don't create a counter weight to your decision, they don't bring any historical gameplay.
And if we control only one, we are back into a "Conclave" for IR maybe with better handling than Conclave but this isn't that great considering there is only 1 other one to influence.

And I know we are supposed to control the state, but there is no benefit regarding historical gameplay to have a 2 headed governement. Sure there is for historical representation but if the gameplay behind is not historical, doesn't it defeat the purpose ? (and think about people who have little clue about the 2 consuls, they will not understand as it's not natural anymore)

 

[Riekopo]

Too dumbed down and simplistic. This game is turning out to be a big disappointment.

 

[Batano]

It's kinda obvious people are looking for reasons to criticize every possible detail in those dev diaries but I'll bite.

Dev diaries would be boring if they were all overly fully objective. While they are subjective, fun and engaging is a goal of gamedesign so of course that subjective opinion should probably be expressed.

Hey I am not nitpicking Dev Diaries to find the one hair in the soup, its just something that I picked up across most of the Dev Diaries so far, that Johan writes extremely subjective, telling us what things are in-depth, fun, engaging etc. pp. Claims that are currently not verifiable. I do understand that a Dev Diary has to be somewhat entertaining as it would be too boring otherwise but Stellaris and EUIV (the other Dev Diaries I read every week when available) do manage to build hype, entertain me and most of all give me an understanding of what is done and why, without being full of subjective claims. In my opinion, the Rome Diaries are less informative (somewhat understandable seeing as the game is not out for a while and the team has to have things to talk about for the next x month [with x being a way too large number]) and make more claims at the same time.

Writing is not everyone's forte, I personally struggle to write proper papers all the time, thats why I am usually quite fond of criticism, it helps me getting better at writing.

 

[cools0812]

So make something that didn't exist either in the ancient Rome...
Because this is my issue, people want 2 for realism but the solution proposed is not realistic either.
There wasn't a major or minor, their wasn't one who decided during peace and one during war...

In the real Roman Republic, basically you have a major consul and a minor one, and the two switch position every end of the month, to avoid the situation in which two consuls endlessly vetoing each other, while also to ensure two consuls being equal.
So I agree with having a major and minor consul (not switching every month, but can be switched ), that's simplification within accecptable boundary. Having only one consul with 5 years term is just way too far fetched to be acceptable in a historical GGS.

 

[Izer51]

Thanks for the Dev Diary.
This getting slightly annoying, while I don't care at all about the two consul system, would you kindly let us choose what is fun and engaging ? Throughout all of your Dev Diaries you put claims like "fun, engaging, in-depth, etc. pp." words without any kind actual meaning as they are very much subjective. A statement like: The reason we choose a single consul system is that we want you to care more about single caracters and not flood you with multiple characters that end up irrelevant." would make the same claim without forcing us to see it as FUN and ENGAGING.

Rome's system with 1 consul is called Roman Monarchy not Roman Republic Rome was a Diarchy not a Democracy a consul is like 1/2 king to simplify(because i don't want to make an history lesson on a forum that isn't in my native language) so only one consul on Rome is just impossible.


And personaly i think it can be very fun to have a mod with two consul, and two players on Rome in a multiplayer game, with players doing diplomacy with the other Roma player because he can be vetoed on every action .

 

[Borgratz]

Sounds like you renamed a typical monarchs court and shortened the rulers livespan. Not a fan. I would really have liked a more unique, more Roman system for the titular nation.

(I like the parlament from last week though, so I guess this can be fixed with some modding :>)

 

[alvaro]

will ministers and governors be discharged once a new consul arrives?

 

[Emperor_Napoleon]

Only one consul and they serve for five years?

So.... they're basically just a president, or a doge from EU4.

Yep, not liking how they've handled consuls for Rome. Absolutely zero immersion or historical authenticity. It won't feel like we're playing as the unique Rome of the Republican era, but instead just a generic republic with a different wallpaper.

Hopefully modders can redo this and make it better when the game comes out.

 

[Hugus]

There are eight offices in the government, and they all serve until you replace them or they die.!

Disregarding the one consul and the five year terms - compromises that I can understand -, I wonder when the choice was made to ignore the republican tradition of the roman state. Officials that the consul appoints for life? Monarchy feeling much? All of these guys were elected and if I'm not missing something only the religious jobs would be for life (Augur and Pontifex).

So no elections for any of the offices, a ''monarch'' appoints them all for live and the ''election'' for consul is a done deal with 1 ''candidate'' that you already know will win. No fun, no unpredictability, no flavour, no republic, no elections.

I can understand compromises for gameplay. The outcome of this political system I cannot understand at all though

 

[Me_]

Aaaaand the game no longer features Rome.

It was a nice try, maybe the next Paradox game will have Rome as a playable state.

The system is so awful and immersion breaking, I'm surprised they didn't just make a game that would start when Rome was a kingdom.

Clearly the intention is for the player to play a monarchy from the get go.

 

[Yeekim]

And I know we are supposed to control the state, but there is no benefit regarding historical gameplay to have a 2 headed governement.

Surely that would depend on how it is implemented. There is potential for flavor, character management, intrigue - everything one may want in this game.
Not implementing duarchy is the easy and lazy solution.
This may have been a reasonable sacrifice - development resources always being limited as they are - but it's not like it couldn't have made sense from gameplay POV.

 

[Mattzo12]

It does seem like every time I get excited for Imperator a DD comes out which is somewhat disappointing.

From huge excitment at the announcement, to the disappointment of the first few dev diaries, increasing excitement again with recent diaries to.. this.

Not the end of the world, but it is a bit meh.

 

[starme987]

Or, y'know, just make one of the consuls an unchangeable council member for the year (or five years, if you're so inclined) who will either try to help or hinder you depending on faction allegiance.

 

[Franconian]

I guess the limitations are because of the limited character pool?

 

[cosmeIII]

Cursus Honorum offices being pretty much "council members" from CK2 feels rather disappointing I expected something more fleshed out.

 

[Zarine]

I guess the limitations are because of the limited character pool?

If you mean the 1 consul, pretty sure it's a choice of "no good gameplay solution found" to use the second consul.
Not that there are none, but rather than finding a good one is likely very complicated for "little" benefit.

 

[Kenlin]

I don't think I've ever 'Respectfully Disagree'd with a dev diary before.

This is heartbreaking. Where is Rome?

 

[Searry]

Very disappointing... Why go the cookie cutter approach?

 

[Spartakus]

Leaving the number of rules aside for a moment... what exactly is it that rulers do? The only thing I'm aware of is from the last diary and even there only is their faction of any importance.

 

[Plastic_Duke]

A statement like: The reason we choose a single consul system is that we want you to care more about single caracters and not flood you with multiple characters that end up irrelevant." would make the same claim without forcing us to see it as FUN and ENGAGING.

The funniest part is that I'm pretty sure some DLC overhauling the politics of Rome is probably going to add this later.

More like the saddest part, I'm afraid. Usually I'm not the one to jump aboard the "DLC incoming!!$$" train, as I mostly support Paradox policy in that regard, but here you go. So far, most of Imperator mechanics look like very convenient and simplistic systems almost only waiting for an "overhaul" via a later patch/paid DLC, like placeholders, really. Johan keeps on justifying these by enforcing the "fun and engaging" arguments on us, as Batano said, while it's very much obvious it's just easier to implement for them, and easy gameplay made for the average player.

I too stand ready for the necessary batch of "insert random roman quotes" DLCs that will slowly revamp and expand on those "fun and engaging" mechanics, because they suddenly realise maybe it's probably more "fun and engaging" to play a game that is a bit more complex and demanding, especially in the strategy genre, after all.

From there I suspect Imperator will be the first Paradox GSG I won't buy day one since I started to care. I'll wait and see where the team is leading the game with the DLCs. If it's the EU4 way, the power creep buttons way, then I guess I won't buy the game at all. Oh well.