The information given gave me a feeling of... plain gameplay. As Stellaris was at the release and so continu to have this plain legacy.
Each times i feeled hyped about stellaris i also felt feared about thoose awesome possibilities and feature. It ended with multiple good description but not fun gameplay...
For exemple in the interview you can interact with character by briding them to increase loyalty. Or decrease it. Seem so basic... is his everything you can do to modify loyalty?
Why every example feels like nasic interaction seen everywhere?
I'm just feared that again we will have a huge full of potential game but plain... very plain until getting dlc for years
Plain gameplay with:
"Very hard to say at this stage. One thing to think about is that the bigger you get, the more governors and military commanders you'll need to have. And some of them might be corrupt. Some of them might be ambitious and disloyal. Some of them might belong to conflicting factions so it's impossible to keep the governor of Britannia happy at the same time as the governor of Dacia because they want exact opposite things. We'll see how much internal pressure matters, but my impression is that it's likely to come quite a bit from characters and unhappy POPs."
"Info on characters was pretty light. Powerful generals with loyal troops can start a civil war. We also know they can belong to factions (Populist, Militarist, Religious - republics start with 5) that want you to pursue a certain agenda and will be more loyal the more you do. In terms of individual goals and how characters will pursue them, I'm not sure. Bit my impression was that since you're playing as the "Spirit of Rome", you'll have more control over it than CK2. Like, speculation here, but spending Oratory (one of the mana types) to discredit a statesman who is causing problems."
"Yes, Prominence is the stat that determines how many honors and governorships a character expects, so the patriarch of a powerful family isn't going to let you sideline him just because he's a corrupt old bastard. They mentioned it would be very difficult if not impossible to maintain a pure meritocracy."
"*Defensive leagues in particular sound like they’ll be imperative for city states and tribes dealing with foreign aggression, allowing them to band together in a massive alliance. It’s an ability exclusive to them, giving them the opportunity to stand up to powerful adversaries, even if that means siding with other foes.
“If you attack someone in a defensive league, you automatically go to war with everyone,” Andersson explains. “The idea is that you’re allowed to fight internally as much as you want, but when someone from the outside comes in, you close ranks and fight together.*
This sort of coalition-like mechanic with lot's of infighting possible, is going to greatly improve the game for greek city-states, gaullic tribes and so on. It seems to be a simply yet elegant solution, to some of the talk there's been around here of confederating etc."