is imperator rome worth getting

[Tebriel]

is imperator rome worth getting even though no more major updates will be coming out?

Easily, yes.

And if you go read the updates announcement, there's nothing definite about "no more updates". I'm not sure where people are getting such a definitive conclusion from, because there's little definitive about it. In the announcement re-post here they say they'll "figure this out" in the long run. Realistically anything can happen, but I'm optimistic on it.

 

[Atossa]

Kind of questionable. All nations feel the same, except the ones who have been fleshed out in DLC (Diadochi, and Rome basically). The tribes are woefully incomplete, and Rome has so many unnecessary buffs they basically aren't playing the same game as everyone else. But you can have a good time in a playthrough, and you can probably get your money's worth. Just don't expect much replay value.

 

[Atossa]

Also Paradox is a publically traded company, and they didn't see the metrics to the last DLC they wanted. I wouldn't get my hopes up for them to restart development.

 

[Tebriel]

All nations feel the same, except the ones who have been fleshed out in DLC (Diadochi, and Rome basically).

I've seen this kind of comment a lot. Maybe the reason people seem so crazy about hating this game is too high expectations. A lot more investment has gone into other Paradox games, most of which are sequels.

I mean the game is called Imperator: ROME - we're lucky it even allows playing anything other than Rome. It's a "free" feature due to the benefits of re-using the engine.

If you want to play a game focused on Rome, it's definitely worth it. If you ONLY want to play the other nations out there (with maybe a few exceptions), maybe you're betting off going with CK3 or something else. If you want to do both, it's definitely worth it. Just don't expect the usual mileage from a more mature Paradox series.

 

[Tebriel]

Also Paradox is a publically traded company, and they didn't see the metrics to the last DLC they wanted.

Not saying you fabricated this so don't take it the wrong way (for all I know you're talking to insiders offline). But how do you know?

 

[olivenkranz]

Not saying you fabricated this so don't take it the wrong way (for all I know you're talking to insiders offline). But how do you know?

From my experience (currently about 350-400 hours of actual gameplay), most tribes feel the same. Quite a few nations, especially Greeks, Zoroastrians and Canaanites, can give you a few runs. On the one hand they are more interesting to play (more content) and there are enough different starts that at least the early and mid game are different enough. The lategame however feels very similar, especially since there is only one 'optimal' end game. Some different viable play paths that are missing are syncretism (only downsides currently) and cultural play (in the long term assimilation beats everything). Also, HI is the best unit, with a not-so-close second HC. In SP the other units are also usable, in mp these are the only real contenders.

 

[Tebriel]

From my experience (currently about 350-400 hours of actual gameplay), most tribes feel the same. Quite a few nations, especially Greeks, Zoroastrians and Canaanites, can give you a few runs. On the one hand they are more interesting to play (more content) and there are enough different starts that at least the early and mid game are different enough. The lategame however feels very similar, especially since there is only one 'optimal' end game. Some different viable play paths that are missing are syncretism (only downsides currently) and cultural play (in the long term assimilation beats everything). Also, HI is the best unit, with a not-so-close second HC. In SP the other units are also usable, in mp these are the only real contenders.

Oh no, I have no doubt you're right about that. I think I've been saying the same thing above-- game is good playing Rome, but not much replay with other nations.


The message you quoted was asking Atossa how he found this out.

Also Paradox is a publically traded company, and they didn't see the metrics to the last DLC they wanted. I wouldn't get my hopes up for them to restart development.

Weird how people keep "respectfully disagreeing", but on what, I've no idea. I pretty much agreed with other posts. Oh well.

 

[Napoleon1971]

Not saying you fabricated this so don't take it the wrong way (for all I know you're talking to insiders offline). But how do you know?

He's just saying publicly traded firms have to try to maximize their shareholder return in a way that privately held ones don't. I'm a private wealth manager so I mean, yes there is some truth to that. I'm also enough of a shareholder in StockholmDX that I get an annual report sent to me in English translation.

There is no publicly released information suggesting they will or will not come back to developing Imperator:Rome right now. But, past behavior suggests they'll at least make one more try. They could of course choose not to.

I've been onboard with Paradox since HOI.....yeah, with no number. I've watched them longer than most. I think they'll give Imperator:Rome one more whirl since it was their own game. If it'd been a different studio's game like March of the Eagles, they'd just make it abandonware (and yeah, I own that game too).

 

[Tebriel]

He's just saying publicly traded firms have to try to maximize their shareholder return in a way that privately held ones don't. I'm a private wealth manager so I mean, yes there is some truth to that. I'm also enough of a shareholder in StockholmDX that I get an annual report sent to me in English translation.

There is no publicly released information suggesting they will or will not come back to developing Imperator:Rome right now. But, past behavior suggests they'll at least make one more try. They could of course choose not to.

I've been onboard with Paradox since HOI.....yeah, with no number. I've watched them longer than most. I think they'll give Imperator:Rome one more whirl since it was their own game. If it'd been a different studio's game like March of the Eagles, they'd just make it abandonware (and yeah, I own that game too).

Your first paragraph is obvious to me (hopefully I never gave any impression otherwise). The second is basically what I've been saying that people have been arguing against (although I'm not making any predictions). And the third I also agree with. You aren't sounding sufficiently pessimistic, watch out.

Edit - to expand a bit, does a public company want a stain on their record? That's not very forward looking for profits. Then again, western investors are notoriously short term planning buffoons.

 

[Darky]

Sure, buy it. The game is great!

 

[Vernichtere]

It depends on what you expect. If you like the theme and paradox games, do the following:

- As with all Paradox games, the war AI is bad when it comes to naval warfare. But she dominates the land war.

- The tribes have almost no content.

- the game is functional as such and has an interesting mix of different mechanics: state, characters, economy.


Let me put it this way, the normal paradox player, with a certain tolerance for missing content, will have around 100 hours of fun. You just have to ask yourself what 100 hours of money are worth to you.


After a few campaigns, you'll be speculating on mods or DLCs. The DLCs are unlikely to come. With paradox games you usually opt for a long-term project.


Buy it at the sale.

 

[Sir.Dr.X]

Depends on whether you like antiquity. If so, it is definitely worth reaching for this title. Imperator Rome is, in my opinion, one of the best Paradox games. It combines the mechanics of CK II, EU IV and Stellaris. The game requires a few more improvements, such as the character creator or the addition of a few historical tribes, but it is generally worth reaching for this title.

 

[Kahldris]

It is fun, which makes it sad development has stopped, however you’ll find after a while there are very unpolished aspects that detract from gameplay.

QoL features like the ability to set a focus for vassals doesn’t exist so you can’t coordinate your feudatories. This makes imperial war goals a nightmare when your feudatories siege land you don’t want at all. EU4 manages this fine.

The balance of factions in the Balkans is very poor with historical nations like Epirus suffering and a lack of major events. Imperator Invictus makes this situation so much better and makes the region very fun to play. Allowing generals to lead legions for characters like Phyrrus, scripted Phyrric war with Rome and the Celtic invasion events leading to Galatia forming in Anatolia really polish the gameplay. Sparta seems to perform much better with Invictis too as well bloodlines making characters more interesting.

QoL features that help the player understand what modifiers exist and where they come from needs some love. It’s difficult understanding in a monarchy for example why the primary heir is favoured when the tooltip only says ‘from modifiers’ with no indication what those modifiers are.

Trade goods are a great part of the game in that acquiring them are needed, but a system to represent trade routes that need to be defended with ships, trade hubs don’t exist and really need an overhaul. Without a proper system for this the game is still fun but noticeably underdeveloped.

Food is too easy to develop. Again Invictus really is great in that you must use a lot of your trade routes to bring in food unless you own food provinces. So you can’t waste trade routes on luxury goods unless you produce enough food already and this makes the pursuit of food a reason to expand.

Version 2.0 of imperator is definitely worth getting, but it should have been how the game had been released. If this was the base game then the players would still have looked for overhauls on trade, diplomacy, events (like Celtic invasion and Phryyic wars). Personally after playing Vanilla I think downloading Invictus is a must for any imperator player for a whole variety of reasons.

I really hope Paradox adds a vassal tab and trade system and the game would be up with the best as I don’t think modders could be expected to do this. Everything else modders seem to be excelling in.

I've taking a break and am about to start another playthrough, was thinking I should look at mods as without further development mods is where it is at. I shall check out invictus. Do you have any other mods you consider to be a must have?

 

[AggaWackTan]

I've taking a break and am about to start another playthrough, was thinking I should look at mods as without further development mods is where it is at. I shall check out invictus. Do you have any other mods you consider to be a must have?

I only use Invictus and 'Old map icons mod' as I think the white looks like the game is in alpha. I'm also trying the 'True Mauryan Decline' mod as I don't like how stable and westward expansionist they are but I haven't played with it long enough to know how it plays out.

Also 2.0 Better UI for sure. At first I wasn't convinced but then I loaded vanilla and realised just how much more accessible important info is with the better UI mod.

 

[MiltonS]

Not at current pricing. The game is broken (admitted by devs in other thread). Maybe get it on Steam sale.

 

[Susan1972]

is imperator rome worth getting even though no more major updates will be coming out?

No. In fact, it's basically a laundry list of every Paradox Strategy Game bugbear. Bad UI, visuals that put style over function (While the "90's Olive Garden" color scheme is visually striking, it is absolutely impossible to make any sense of what you're seeing), gobsmackingly stupid AI which will always leave you shouting "GO THERE! IT'S RIGHT F*****G THERE!!" or "JUST STAY THERE, A******S!", dense and poorly explained mechanics, random events that seem deliberately timed to screw you over no matter what your choice is and tedious micromanagement with huge risks and tiny rewards.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I mean the game is called Imperator: ROME - we're lucky it even allows playing anything other than Rome. It's a "free" feature due to the benefits of re-using the engine.

That's not true.

All PDX games ALWAYS make many tags playable.

And IR is horrible at simulating roman politics ( no Cursus Honorum, appointed characters in Any offices, five year consular terms, no patrician vs plebean dynamic , consuls cannot comman legions etc.)
Note that 1.0 was much worse with only 1 consul and generic politcal parties for Rome.

 

[Tebriel]

That's not true.

All PDX games ALWAYS make many tags playable.

And IR is horrible at simulating roman politics ( no Cursus Honorum, appointed characters in Any offices, five year consular terms, no patrician vs plebean dynamic , consuls cannot comman legions etc.)
Note that 1.0 was much worse with only 1 consul and generic politcal parties for Rome.

What's not true? I didn't say other titles didn't allow playing other nations... I know what other releases allow. But none of them are named after a specific nation, like this one. So maybe people should consider that perhaps this game was focused on Rome, given the name. It seems to me like I:R's scope and ambition was much smaller (as the shorter development cycle and less investment seem to indicate).

I do agree it could probably do better at simulating the politics. It might be tough to game-ify no matter what though. We can criticize that all day, but nobody can deny that playing as Rome is much more interesting than most other choices.

Not really sure what you're saying isn't true. I imagine if an I:R II is ever released, we'd see much more interesting alternatives to choose. IIRC EU and such also became more detailed with every release. I think of this like an EU I with a better engine.

 

[Atossa]

Imperator Rome is already I:R II. It's a remake/sequel to EU: Rome. Also, I have no interest in playing Rome. It's like playing France, or the Byzantines in Ck3. Just seems like the boring option compared to building a small country into a big one.

 

[Tebriel]

Imperator Rome is already I:R II. It's a remake/sequel to EU: Rome. Also, I have no interest in playing Rome. It's like playing France, or the Byzantines in Ck3. Just seems like the boring option compared to building a small country into a big one.

EU: Rome looked more like an low budget EU expansion to me, and it's one of the few Paradox titles I didn't bother with, because I didn't think EU's style would work well for the Rome time period. The fact that it was branded as an "EU" gave me the impression that not a lot of resources were expended building it, so I figured it wasn't equal to a dedicated release and different name. It's a fair argument you're making I guess, but a little debatable.

Rome starts pretty small in this so I don't see a big difference. I guess you mean Rome is too well positioned or has too many advantages.

I get that people don't want to play Rome, that's fine. But to me it's a little like buying HOI (worse because it isn't named "War Monger: Germany") and playing as Sweden or Switzerland. I don't feel ripped off that there isn't a ton of nation specific content related to my minor nation in that situation. (I did tend to do that sort of thing with HOIs, so I'm not saying it's wrong or shouldn't be allowed.)