Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Imperator - Development Diary - 1st of April 2019

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Imperator: Rome 9049 Bug Reports 3692 Suggestions 2399 User Mods 675 Tech Support 516 Multiplayer 56 After Action Report (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Will the harder difficulties mean the barbarians spawn more frequently and/or stronger?* Btw i love that you guys implemented barbarian invasions somehow.

*If not, please do so.
withche.07 said:
Asking for historian nerds here, is Xiongnu out of timeline?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I want a Chinese dlc, more because i want Xiongnu on the map.
 
Sirbab said:
Is there any reason why not to just settle all barbarians you get? Sure they are foreign culture and religion tribesmen, but pops are still pops.
Click to expand...
They have to occupy at least 1 city before they can be settled. If you can crush their armies before they occupy anything, you can get "free" slaves.
 
withche.07 said:
Asking for historian nerds here, is Xiongnu out of timeline?
Click to expand...
Xiongnu reached its height of power under Modu around 200 BC, at that time he conquered almost the entire Mongolian steppe, drove out the Yuezhi, forced the first Han emperor Liu Bang to pay tribute, all states in Tarim basin were their vassal. But at the starting date they weren't really that powerful.

From 133-119 BC there was a huge war between Xiongnu and the Han dynasty, neither sides were wiped out, but Xiongnu got the worse of it. Then following decades of further conflict Han gradually wrested controlled the Tarim basin from Xiongnu.
 
@YYYNN Thanks, shouldn't they exist in game even as minor power?

@master_kong definitely!
 
So, seeing how it hasn't really been addressed by PDox people directly, I really do think being able to remove barbarian strongholds is a massive mistake. Not only in the obvious sense as established in the game itself of "what if some civilizing power civilizes then, collapses, and then is replaced by tribesmen... why would the barbarians still be gone?" but also in the more historical sense of that Rome's increase in power and civilization historically did not temper the barbarian tribes.

The only reason it decreased at all really was because at the height of their power they paid off a lot of tribes to turn them into client states. Over time, tribes got more and more used to fighting with Roman legionnaires and tactics which only improved their ability to fight with Rome, not decrease it. Rome also being viewed as a land of riches only made it all the more tempting to organize raids so if anything a strong civilizing power bordering a tribe, unless they plan on colonizing them (which I believe is not an option in this game) should only make the barbarians even stronger, not weaker then gone.
 
TomatoHK said:
I’m a shame that I don’t know that because I study Chinese history
Click to expand...
Chinese history is quite extensive. Knowing it all takes long years.
 
One of the interesting things about paradox games is that they try to some extent to mimic/model historical situations. One of the problems that they have repeatedly is that they also are not able to do so as effectively as some would like. (understanding how history is made is actually pretty difficult). In addition, the players of their games are "modern" and bring "modern" points of view and one "modern" point of view is "world conquest" which is not something many people in the late BCE thought about since their world view lacked knowledge of many parts of the world. Adding China to a game focused on the Mediterrean region adds the temptation to turn any game into a Risk like world conquest game that is totally devoid of any historical "reality" (and ruining a game many have been waiting 10 years to see). Even Alexander didn't come close the China in this era and even Genghis Khan more than a millenium later didn't really make it to the Med.
 
Prometheus_1 said:
Interaction or not, Asian region would be really good to implement, for four reasons :
4 Romans did reach as far as Japan even with their commercial outposts and mercants.
Click to expand...

I think you refer to some artifacts (coins) found in japan. Up to today none of it has a context of the roman time but rather much later. They came there obviously over trade but not necessarily with romans. The first mention of roman in china is under Marcus Aurelius and even than its probably traders from the Tarim basin claiming to be Romans. So that argument of yours is actually pretty weak.
 
phantomrider said:
Adding China to a game focused on the Mediterrean region adds the temptation to turn any game into a Risk like world conquest game that is totally devoid of any historical "reality" (and ruining a game many have been waiting 10 years to see). Even Alexander didn't come close the China in this era and even Genghis Khan more than a millenium later didn't really make it to the Med.
Click to expand...
And I can bet that it will be very much possible to conquer everything from Portugal to Bengal. Does that have anything to do with historical reality? Whether China is there or not, this game is a map-painting simulator, nothing more.
 
It's difficult to justify adding the Chinese region to the game since it would have limited political interaction with the rest of the world. It would basically be like having a separate game running at the same time so you could watch what happens in the other sphere of influence. While it would be absolutely amazing to play this time period in China especially with the Imperator mechanics, I don't see them adding it.

However they should absolutely add in the trade that came across the Silk Road into the game as some off map interaction like in CK2 in a future DLC. This would model the importance of the Tarim Basin better and provide the silk and corresponding wealth that came along with it. I am also really excited to see what they do with Yuezhi since they did a lot during this time frame. I hope they are strong enough to achieve what they historically did. And maybe even their later conquest a little early. ;)
 
Warial said:
And I can bet that it will be very much possible to conquer everything from Portugal to Bengal. Does that have anything to do with historical reality? Whether China is there or not, this game is a map-painting simulator, nothing more.
Click to expand...

II hope not. As a WWII interested party I found most of the "improvements" in HOIIV to be idiotic and so unrealistic that I gave up on the game and if I need a WWII fix I go back to HOI 3 with mods. It was actually very very hard to "control" the world with communication technology available in this era much less even know when a barbarian hoard or a local despot in a place you didn't know existed was going to be the most important factor in whether your city, state, empire would continue to exist as well as whether you could keep an army or fleet sent out to do something 500 to a 1000 miles away supplied and manned even.
 
phantomrider said:
II hope not. As a WWII interested party I found most of the "improvements" in HOIIV to be idiotic and so unrealistic that I gave up on the game and if I need a WWII fix I go back to HOI 3 with mods. It was actually very very hard to "control" the world with communication technology available in this era much less even know when a barbarian hoard or a local despot in a place you didn't know existed was going to be the most important factor in whether your city, state, empire would continue to exist as well as whether you could keep an army or fleet sent out to do something 500 to a 1000 miles away supplied and manned even.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right. However, every single PDS game ignores such constrains. Hoping that things will change in a game that's pretty much EU4 in ancient era is just wishfull thinking I'm afraid.
 
Belryuminus said:
Hey, thanks for the DD.

I must say the barbarians part of it let me half convinced only.

I do get the point where the more civilized you are in a region, the less barbarian tribes will establish there or near, or develop themselves. As civilization gets its way, people get ... well... civilized. That's a point, no problem.

Hoooooweeeveeeeeer ... the more civilized, and eventually wealthy, you are, the more juicy target you are for barbarians also.

So. Is there some kind of a first backlash planned this way ? Like okay, you are bringing civilization but god your cities and palaces and merchants are so juicy that maybe they'll be number one targets of ultra-motivated barbarians on their last run ?
Click to expand...

It seems reasonable and simple enough to me for barbarian hordes to have some sort of AI to seek out the most profitable provinces to loot, which should help with this problem...
Of course, they should also want to target provinces with less defences and that aren't too far away.
Maybe making more profit in an area without the impassables being civilised yet could lead to quicker barbarian growth also, as they are encouraged by the wealth they see.
It would be good if we ended up with a situation where, like Rome historically had to, you will be manning your border regions permanently to be prepared for any hordes wishing to come and get some quick cash from pillaging your cities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back