Imperator - Development Diary #19 - 1st of October 2018

[NilsFabian]

But how is it possible for us to Change from republic to dictatorship or imperial Government?
Or is this something we will see with the first DLC which expands the timeline till 300 AD?

 

[Denkt]

In EU: Rome you can reform and get Another government.

 

[Shade205]

I was 100% going to buy this game when announced. I've read all 19 dev dairies and I'm down to 80%. Probably still got me but if you don't get me to buy this game you seriously are hurting. I am your absolute core client and I'm sure anyone else taking time to read dev dairies is in that category also.

Must allow to have something similar to the Roman Civil War, and have to move Consuls to 1yr term and have two of them. Even if you do some janky hack you have both options. This to me is obvious when making a game called ROME.

I'm still 100% going to buy and I am probably a "core client" as well. I just don't see the big deal with the consul system or civil wars being handled the way they are. If you don't like it there is definitely going to be a mod that changes it to the way you like. That's the beauty of paradox games.

 

[Denkt]

But how is it possible for us to Change from republic to dictatorship or imperial Government?
Or is this something we will see with the first DLC which expands the timeline till 300 AD?

Dictatorship is not a government in Imperator: Rome as dictator is a position you can give to a characters as a republic during wars to ignore the senate.

You can change your government by spending oratory Power and suffer from instability or something like that.

 

[JosunUrashima]

No. You have been annexed then.

I'm going to be honest and state that this is a stupid thing to have be a game mechanic in this game when in most of the other games it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

Frankly, it should apply penalties and modifiers of some kind if you lose it but you should be able to continue playing.

 

[Gurkhal]

I'm going to be honest and state that this is a stupid thing to have be a game mechanic in this game when in most of the other games it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

Frankly, it should apply penalties and modifiers of some kind if you lose it but you should be able to continue playing.

But then we're back into "civil wars means nothing at all" territory. When you can just shrugg of civil wars, or engineer it for your own purpose, then it loses pretty much all interest. For emotional or RP reasons you can presumably fight them, but most likely it will be better to just let large civil wars be lost and so save troops and money for the next regime, or possibly get a political change that you can benefit from.

 

[Zarastro Marchio]

But then we're back into "civil wars means nothing at all" territory. When you can just shrugg of civil wars, or engineer it for your own purpose, then it loses pretty much all interest. For emotional or RP reasons you can presumably fight them, but most likely it will be better to just let large civil wars be lost and so save troops and money for the next regime, or possibly get a political change that you can benefit from.

I suppose you could always make the consequences of losing a Civil War so damaging that you would always want to avoid it. I understand why Paradox designed it the way it is, but it seems to me that it restricts your own liberty to play, ehen Paradox games are known to grant the player the liberty to play as he likes. In other games, if you screw up, you'll always have a second chance to rebuild (unless you have been completely annexed). Sure, not everybody has the patience to do so, but it can feel very rewarding if you achieve it.

Constantly, nervously watching the Civil War countdown does not sound like a fun way to play.

 

[JosunUrashima]

But then we're back into "civil wars means nothing at all" territory. When you can just shrugg of civil wars, or engineer it for your own purpose, then it loses pretty much all interest. For emotional or RP reasons you can presumably fight them, but most likely it will be better to just let large civil wars be lost and so save troops and money for the next regime, or possibly get a political change that you can benefit from.

But there are ways to make use of this.

For one thing, you could have it be that if you chose to side with the rebels, if they lose, you lose. This would make things interesting as then you could take a risk and have more choices available to you. For another, you could have Civil Wars have actual consequences. You could have areas with very high loyalty to the previous regime start out with high unrest and disloyalty to the new regime. You could have it be that provinces could break off and become independent if the governor of that province doesn't like how the civil war turned out, thus forcing you to either chose to expend extra resources wrangling a wayward province back into the fold or concentrate on things at home.

There are ways to make Civil Wars mean something without ending the game for a player. Make them complex, make it so they can be tricky things to handle whether your the loyalists or the rebellion.

 

[petertel123]

When I first saw the picture I thought it said "province of despacito"

 

[Denkt]

I suppose you could always make the consequences of losing a Civil War so damaging that you would always want to avoid it. I understand why Paradox designed it the way it is, but it seems to me that it restricts your own liberty to play, ehen Paradox games are known to grant the player the liberty to play as he likes. In other games, if you screw up, you'll always have a second chance to rebuild (unless you have been completely annexed). Sure, not everybody has the patience to do so, but it can feel very rewarding if you achieve it.

Constantly, nervously watching the Civil War countdown does not sound like a fun way to play.

All games have rules in some way. The rule here is that if you lose a civil war it would be the same thing as being annexed which mean losing the game. If you get a civil war you have probably screwed up alot as the requirements to get a civil war make it pretty difficult to get one as long as you manage the characters and provinces well. Getting a civil war and then losing it is about similar to declaring war upon a stronger country and then seek to win.

Imperator: Rome wars from what I understand will have automatic annexation of cities when captured which mean even losing one war could mean complete annexation, on the other hand it allow for very rapid expansion.

Constantly, nervously watching the Civil War countdown does not sound like a fun way to play.

It is not how civil war works, you need to either have 33% of the army controlled by disloyal generals or 33% of provinces controlled by disloyal governours. This mean if you have the countdown you have managed your loyalties pretty poorly and extreme actions need to be done to fix it.

 

[Gurkhal]

Imperator: Rome wars from what I understand will have automatic annexation of cities when captured which mean even losing one war could mean complete annexation, on the other hand it allow for very rapid expansion.

I could be wrong, but I think its only civil wars that works that way.

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

I'm going to be honest and state that this is a stupid thing to have be a game mechanic in this game when in most of the other games it doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

Frankly, it should apply penalties and modifiers of some kind if you lose it but you should be able to continue playing.

Save the game > Load the game > Pick the other faction > Profit.

Or, if that doesn't work, Save the game > load the game > pick another nation > wait for the civil war to end > save the game > load the game > pick the nation who won the civil war > profit

You don't have to play in Iron Man mode if you're just messing around, and why would you want to deliberately lose in Iron Man mode?

 

[JosunUrashima]

Save the game > Load the game > Pick the other faction > Profit.

Or, if that doesn't work, Save the game > load the game > pick another nation > wait for the civil war to end > save the game > load the game > pick the nation who won the civil war > profit

You don't have to play in Iron Man mode if you're just messing around, and why would you want to deliberately lose in Iron Man mode?

One shouldn't have to resort to a gimmicky thing like that to be able to keep playing even when you lose a civil war, when in the other games that sort of result is simply not there.

 

[Denkt]

Games have rules and in this game losing a civil war mean losing the game and thats it. Furthermore how the game use loyalty in such way that loyalty can be seen as loyalty towards the player.

 

[Von Lauenburg]

If you get a civil war you have probably screwed up alot as the requirements to get a civil war make it pretty difficult to get one as long as you manage the characters and provinces well. Getting a civil war and then losing it is about similar to declaring war upon a stronger country and then seek to win.

If civil wars are very rare and they are the only type of internal conflict, it makes me wonder how all of this will play out. Rebels had their flaws, but flat out removing them was a bit too much.

 

[Denkt]

If civil wars are very rare and they are the only type of internal conflict, it makes me wonder how all of this will play out. Rebels had their flaws, but flat out removing them was a bit too much.

There is also independence wars. Furthermore any unhappy province become unproductive which is pretty bad even if you do not get rebels as the Tech cost is based on pops count.