Imperator: Rome Developer Diary - 11th November

  • 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.
I don't want them to exist in my game -- not for the AI, not for me, not at all. I certainly don't want only a few tags to have them because of bad patching policies. That's why I'm asking for them as FreeLC/DLC so I can just opt out without having to sanitize the game through mods.

It wouldn't make sense to include them cooked into a patch and then offer others as DLC unless they were only available for the player (and that's not going to happen).
That's a you problem.
 
I don't want them to exist in my game -- not for the AI, not for me, not at all. I certainly don't want only a few tags to have them because of bad patching policies. That's why I'm asking for them as FreeLC/DLC so I can just opt out without having to sanitize the game through mods.

It wouldn't make sense to include them cooked into a patch and then offer others as DLC unless they were only available for the player (and that's not going to happen).


Why should everything be changed around to suit you? the entire update has to be opt-out DLC because it includes features that you don't have to use in the first place?

:rolleyes:
 
That's a you problem.

Not really. Keeping all optional content as truly optional modular packages is just better for version control. Baking some content into the base game just complicates dependencies. It doesn't hurt anyone, helps devs and modders in the long run, and the only reason to be opposed to it is because you have a knee jerk reaction to anything that could remotely be construed as criticism.
 
the only reason to be opposed to it is because you have a knee jerk reaction to anything that could remotely be construed as criticism.

Nobody's opposite. I jsut don't care too much. I am nor modder, nor dev. I am just end product user. As long as it works, I don't really care. but you should make like a proper forum thread about, idk if it's sensible to just complain here, if there's like a proper place for making suggestions. I personally like missions and focus trees. they add some RP value for me.
 
Not really. Keeping all optional content as truly optional modular packages is just better for version control
??
That's the exact opposite, because you have to maintain and support two versions of the game, the one with the content and the one without.
 
??
That's the exact opposite, because you have to maintain and support two versions of the game, the one with the content and the one without.

Unless, like in this case, core game mechanics aren't in any way tied to missions... so there really isn't much to support, unlike, say EuIV which has to constantly support things like different idea group effects depending on whether you own this DLC or not, a completely different balance in East Asia depending on if you own Mandate or not, and so on.

Technically, missions are just added flavour that doesn't have any mechanics tied behind them, so it can be there or not and nothing is really lost, other than flavour, at worst with a pretty marginal impact on balance. It is effectively disconnected from everything else - hence it could be like, a game rules option... just a YES/NO switch, is not really hard to implement, especially if there are already things like mixed gender rules.
 
Agree. Thank you. Missions should not trump mechanics.

Exactly. This is what happened with EU4 previously (they kept adding truckloads mission trees instead of any real features/fixing the mess and jumble from older patches for half a year at times) and we all saw what that resulted into.

Mission trees are nice, but they should have lower priority than addition of actual gameplay features. Hopefully that doesn't happen here. :)
 
You said the Missions for Carthage are available for many nations. Is this the same for Rome? Do all the Italian nations get these? I really hope not. Rome MUST be unique and you have an amazing mechanic here that makes them fully unique and finally I want to play this game.

But if Syracuse or anyone can have these options, I'm not sure I like this.
 
The Carthaginian missions are available for any Punic culture country of a certain size, but Rome's are only available to the Rome tag.
Is this still moddable if we want to change it or it's hardcoded?
I know the missions are fully moddable but i don't know if we can also mod the missions of the content packs also?
Thanks for any replies about this.
 
Is this still moddable if we want to change it or it's hardcoded?
I know the missions are fully moddable but i don't know if we can also mod the missions of the content packs also?
Thanks for any replies about this.

As long as you have the DLC, and this one will be free, you'll be able to modify the mission files with whatever limits you want
 
I hope with free dlc ia will start to build cities and make some research because they actually don't, all the Galia is a victime of Rome And Carthage.
Late game the most powerfull tribe has 0 or 1 in research developpement and so few cities.
 
The AI does build cities but tribes are less likely to and it will abstain in general in most cases if it has too small a country (since it needs to feed its cities).
 
The AI does build cities but tribes are less likely to and it will abstain in general in most cases if it has too small a country (since it needs to feed its cities).




I saw the same trouble with research, late game, north europe ( one big tribe ) had 0 in all domain of research.
The penalty is unbelievable, even with low competency caracters they should have advanced.
I precise i extended time limit ( no mode, just changed script ) and in year 900 big empires past the 15 in each domain versus ....0 or 1 when attack big tribes.
I kwow it's historicy adequate to have an advantage in this domain for civilised nation, but the difference is so huge in all domain.
 
The AI does build cities but tribes are less likely to and it will abstain in general in most cases if it has too small a country (since it needs to feed its cities).

I think something needs to be done about the drastic tech difference in lategame, and the complete tech equality early on. It not only makes for balance problems (AI tribes are too strong early on and too weak centuries into a playthrough), but it also feels arbitrary and not at all realistic.

Perhaps there should be a token, baseline research efficiency, and additional citizen output should merely act as a multiplier on it, instead of being the sole source of technology, so that tribal societies would still advance somewhat, instead of being hardstuck at tech level 0-1 for the entire game? Maybe even do away with arbitrary tech levels at large, since the four categories of military/civic/oratory and religious tech are a relic of the monarch point system, and honestly feel pretty arbitrary, or at least they do to me.

I'm not sure if a Victoria-esque system for tech/inventions would fit the game better (though I'm inclined to think yes), or if tech/inventions should very slowly spread outwards at a pace based on local civ value, or if it should work any other way, but anyhow - the current system feels pretty weird with how everyone starts at the same tech level but then half of the countries remain at that level for the next 300 years, and the other half advance as normal. Immersion breaking too.