Imperator - Development Diary - 1st of July 2019
- 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.
Not a single disagree, more than +160 agrees and helpful ratings on this dev diary.
Now go to the dev diary from one year ago explaining pops and see the number of disagrees.
It helps understanding things a lot
Things are often most likely to go wrong when no one points out the flaws. Although that is not exactly the point of agree/disagree. That is posts job.
Hopefully they will able iron this out fully and deliver interesting and beneficial pop system.
I personally believe they ought to try something like the freemen or citizens giving additional trade routes as its nice when pops give multiple effects instead of just manpower like how slaves do, we will likely see something like this in time.
This looks a lot more like a simulation and I'm interested in seeing the improvements to pops from this, holdings, etc.
Thank you for showing ALL pop types in the same screen, so we don't have to click on each individual pop type to find out who is the one that is wrong state culture/religion.
"As the impact of governor policies now scales with Finesse, you need a really good governor, and perhaps a few special buildings to be able to convert and assimilate cities with another dominant religion and culture."
I think that it looks like it could work. The game needed more pops. I think pop management would be nice. Jews that moved to Rome might have became Roman, but they still kept their faith. So I do think the faith aspect shouldn't just go away. Rome might of had a main religion, but it had so many different ones as a result of conquered peoples. I don't want to remove certain groups cultures or religions. So it would be nice to have buildings to help me manage to keep them happy and let me have wrong religion boosts and same at the same time.
I think that it looks like it could work. The game needed more pops. I think pop management would be nice. Jews that moved to Rome might have became Roman, but they still kept their faith. So I do think the faith aspect shouldn't just go away. Rome might of had a main religion, but it had so many different ones as a result of conquered peoples. I don't want to remove certain groups cultures or religions. So it would be nice to have buildings to help me manage to keep them happy and let me have wrong religion boosts and same at the same time.
I see the huge potential of this game. But at the moment i think it is too easy and complexity and diversity of the nations is not developed enough.
Here are some possibilities to develop imperator rome into a perfect game (honestly i did not read the other posts so there might be some points others mentioned, too).
•Colonization should be easier and more complex e.g. your culture settles in foreign countries if the economy etc is attractive. Idea: if your culture is big enough in one of these areas you automatically have a casus belli.
•it should be possible to possible to move slaves however you want (maybe with penalties e.g. death, happiness etc.) They’re slaves and have no rights!
•it should be possible to kill as many pops as you decide (penalties for every kill).
•if you conquer a capital the name of the rest of these empires should change. A important thing is: what happens with all the families which are normally in the capital city? Maybe you could start something like a evacuation program? What happens if all of them get captured?
•How about the possibility of stealing technology? (First steps are done with the ship technology of Carthage rome can adapt) Idea: Stealing research point should be possible.
•more than 4 different building types are necessary. Idea: Slave markets (less settle costs?) Scola (higher educated characters), sanitary buildings (pop growth?), Theatre, Colosseum, Circus Maximus etc.
•building individual streets is a nice way to create your individual empire. How about building aqueducts? They could start in the mountain areas (impassable terrain).
•the trading system is too easy. How about creating trading routes like all the Total War Games have it? Streets, bridges and ports where one of the most important requirements for famous cities (Imperator Rome is a history game so i guess you know that the history of almost every important modern city starts with “The first people settled here because important trading routes are crossing at this point etc. pp.”). Consider that!
•how about terra forming? E.g. forest areas could be changed to grassland areas, fertile plains could be destroyed for many years (i think Rome did something like this with Carthage)
•Why do all ancient world games always start with the rise of the Roman Empire? If you want a historical connection to Rome (which i totally understand because of the game title) start with 753BC. All these interesting wars in especially in Greece would be more or less playable. I would prefer the possibility to start the campaign at different points in history (very long/very short campaigns possible)
•I like the connections to Alexander the Great. But i think it is not possible to create a empire like he did with the actual game concept (aggressive expansion, manpower, casus belli...). We all know that his empire was very unstable but for a few years it existed. Idea: If you have special connections to foreign empires e.g conquered their capital or very good relations to their rulers the whole empire could be part of your empire without that hard aggressive expansion penalties (e.g the Egypt Empire became part of the roman empire without being conquered by troops. It was more or less a heritage issue).
•All the less civilized cultures in the northern climate zones should automatically tend to conquer or raid the more civilized cultures in the south. The cultures in the warmer climate zones should stay and conquer in their zones (I do not like the fact that if you do not play the Roman Empire it always looks like the Holy Roman Empire in medieval times (huge parts of the Alps and Germany which is historical incorrect because the Roman Empire came to these areas after they had conquered more or less the whole Mediterranean Sea). I just wanna mention that Rome Total War has the same “problems” but you are Paradox so i expect that you can do this better and more authentic.
Greetings from the beach!
Giacomo
Here are some possibilities to develop imperator rome into a perfect game (honestly i did not read the other posts so there might be some points others mentioned, too).
•Colonization should be easier and more complex e.g. your culture settles in foreign countries if the economy etc is attractive. Idea: if your culture is big enough in one of these areas you automatically have a casus belli.
•it should be possible to possible to move slaves however you want (maybe with penalties e.g. death, happiness etc.) They’re slaves and have no rights!
•it should be possible to kill as many pops as you decide (penalties for every kill).
•if you conquer a capital the name of the rest of these empires should change. A important thing is: what happens with all the families which are normally in the capital city? Maybe you could start something like a evacuation program? What happens if all of them get captured?
•How about the possibility of stealing technology? (First steps are done with the ship technology of Carthage rome can adapt) Idea: Stealing research point should be possible.
•more than 4 different building types are necessary. Idea: Slave markets (less settle costs?) Scola (higher educated characters), sanitary buildings (pop growth?), Theatre, Colosseum, Circus Maximus etc.
•building individual streets is a nice way to create your individual empire. How about building aqueducts? They could start in the mountain areas (impassable terrain).
•the trading system is too easy. How about creating trading routes like all the Total War Games have it? Streets, bridges and ports where one of the most important requirements for famous cities (Imperator Rome is a history game so i guess you know that the history of almost every important modern city starts with “The first people settled here because important trading routes are crossing at this point etc. pp.”). Consider that!
•how about terra forming? E.g. forest areas could be changed to grassland areas, fertile plains could be destroyed for many years (i think Rome did something like this with Carthage)
•Why do all ancient world games always start with the rise of the Roman Empire? If you want a historical connection to Rome (which i totally understand because of the game title) start with 753BC. All these interesting wars in especially in Greece would be more or less playable. I would prefer the possibility to start the campaign at different points in history (very long/very short campaigns possible)
•I like the connections to Alexander the Great. But i think it is not possible to create a empire like he did with the actual game concept (aggressive expansion, manpower, casus belli...). We all know that his empire was very unstable but for a few years it existed. Idea: If you have special connections to foreign empires e.g conquered their capital or very good relations to their rulers the whole empire could be part of your empire without that hard aggressive expansion penalties (e.g the Egypt Empire became part of the roman empire without being conquered by troops. It was more or less a heritage issue).
•All the less civilized cultures in the northern climate zones should automatically tend to conquer or raid the more civilized cultures in the south. The cultures in the warmer climate zones should stay and conquer in their zones (I do not like the fact that if you do not play the Roman Empire it always looks like the Holy Roman Empire in medieval times (huge parts of the Alps and Germany which is historical incorrect because the Roman Empire came to these areas after they had conquered more or less the whole Mediterranean Sea). I just wanna mention that Rome Total War has the same “problems” but you are Paradox so i expect that you can do this better and more authentic.
Greetings from the beach!
Giacomo
This sort of meaningless statement was always the problem with people using the term mana. "Remove mana" was always this forum's version of "Build the wall". A meaningless catch-phase that is easy to cling to by has zero substance.
My statement was meaningless?
Don't go there.
I'm struggling to understand your point of view... are you in favour of mana and thus are just attacking everyone that holds a different opinion than you do? Or do you simply not understand what peoples frustrations with the system are? If the latter, I can certainly help you understand. If the former, sit and spin.
I'm saying the term "mana" is meaningless. Full rant here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rience-in-cicero.1196882/page-3#post-25610522
There is nothing in game called mana. So everyone using it has just stuck their own meaning on the term. ANd all those meaning are different. It is pointless to use unless you fully explain what your description of mana is... and then you might as well just use the actual game terms.
I don't have a view on what you call mana, because I don't know what you mean by it. Everyone means something different.
Mana is a magic pool of points that accumulates over time based on very arbitrary criteria and is then spent on basic benefits. The method of accumulation is what determines what currency classes as mana and what does not. The more abstract and detatched from reality the accumulation is, the more it fits into the mana catagory. To this end, in Imperator there are 4 currencies that class as mana. Manpower and Gold do not. In EU4, only 3.
See... this is a good explanation for what you call mana. That is a useful point that people can discuss.
It is also VERY different to what some other people call mana.
It allows, for example an alternative view to be put forward: Personally, I think method of accumulation of monarch points is a relatively minor issue, and i think abstraction is a complete red herring. I think the problem in Imperator is that the other mechanics were so weak that there was an over reliance on monarch points... and that the 'instant spend' nature of them made their use too boring and obvious.
Actually is. Technically you can call Tyranny, or Legitimacy, or Stability by now Mana too. There is nothing that actually bares that term in game.
lol He talks sense, and you know it.
I havent seen anyone who calls mana anything other than what Lambert said. *Shrug*
Anything else are just currencies, which people are more than fine with as seen by the new ones being introduced and its reception.
You could, but you'd be wrong.
Don't go there was in reference to the political minefield he was bringing up. Don't go there.
Will this be the same sort of interface for colonization too? I was really looking forward to a game where I was filling up the empty space on the map but the micromanagement was so large that I gave up that game. Anything you do to reduce that will be a win in my book...
All these improvements are great for peace time. When war comes people move like mad away from the fighting, usually toward the capital. When and invading army enters at the beginning of a war when the city falls a citizen should run for the capital of the province and arrive as a freeman, if there is no citizens then a freeman runs and becomes a tribesman. When the capital of a province falls if there is no garrison left there then the people will continue to move to safer areas by which I mean neighboring friendly states and or hold out provinces. If a tribesman flees he should turn into light infantry or a skirmisher. In the end of a campaign against some country and not just some city state you will have pushed the pops into the capital and they will starve. Further to that granaries shouldn't survive sieges usually and fortifications as well.
Toward the end of the game ridiculous amounts of manpower are available and everyone is too far up the social ladder this will push things the other way
Caesar conquered Gaul and got a pile of ashes Carthage and Jerusalem were also laid waste for decades after they fell
These are the ways of war not represented in the game as yet
Toward the end of the game ridiculous amounts of manpower are available and everyone is too far up the social ladder this will push things the other way
Caesar conquered Gaul and got a pile of ashes Carthage and Jerusalem were also laid waste for decades after they fell
These are the ways of war not represented in the game as yet
Yes, you would. Mana has never been refered to for currencies like those. The fact that johan called it that as a sneaky way to defend his horrendous mana mechanic, doesnt mean it is. Mana was a term minted spontaneously by the community with a very specific connotations. It was never reference for things like tyranny, prestige, piety, gold, manpower, military tradition, stability, or anything like that.