Not relevant. It's up to you whether you "abuse" this mechanic or not, and it's none of your business if others in SP do or not either.
Who said you had to cheese anything????????????????? I said the exact opposite.
Megathread: What I feel is lacking, wrong, missing, or dont like- I:R
- Thread starter Kinkness
- 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.
Who said you had to cheese anything????????????????? I said the exact opposite.
im not entirely sure why you posted here since you seem utterly convinced of what your saying and determined not to accept any arguments or evidence to the contrary.........
you say you dont play mp but insist that it makes no difference.....how do you know if you dont play it? playing in an mp is absolutely a different environment than sp, not because you can suddenlyu abuse more mechanics but because if you want to be competitive you HAVE to abuse as many mechanics as possible whereas in sp you can play a much more relaxed game and rp more or just avoid abusing mechanics or using cheesy tactics because you dont need to against the ai. all strategy games of any depth have abusable mechanics, in sp you get to choose whether and how much you are happy abusing them whilst still being able to achieve your goals, in mp you dont have that choice. the point of the argument is not to say you cant abuse mechanics in sp but that judging the single player aspect of the game from an mp stream is silly.
as for point no. 2 nobody is saying you need to cheese mechanics in imperator rome in sp, in fact people are saying the exact opposite, in sp you wont need to cheese mechanics and so those mechanics will probably work better and be more impactful and immersive because you arent cheesing them unlike in mp. oh and btw if you dont need to cheese mechanics in mp to be competitive then you are either playing against poor opponents or have house rules in place to prevent said cheesing.
just a minor point but if a pool of water stretches a mile it mayor may not be deep but it is certainly expansive.
this game has a lot of different mechanics that you think are shallow, that doesnt actually mean they are shallow, its impossible to really tell until we get the game as we are very much limited to personal opinions based on second hand observation.
from what i have seen on the various streams getting disloyal generals killed in battle isnt that easy especially as they are disloyal so you cant actually send them into a battle at all and in fact they tend to actively avoid engagements. even if they happen to wander into a battle on their own there is no guarrantee that they will be killed. honestly this is one of the mechanics i think is very interesting and has a lot of potential, having generals be able to take control of your armies and wander off doing their own thing is a great idea and makes you have to actually care about your followers.
multiple people have given you pretty good explanations and rationalisations about why exporting iron could give your troops bonuses which you have chosen to completely ignore so im not going to rehash them here but rather suggest you actually read the responses in your own thread.
if culture makes no difference then why were both kaiser johan and sir rogers using the assimilation governor focus instead of just pressing that magical button? could it possibly be that pressing that magical button isnt actually quite as magical as you think when trying to convert dozens or hundreds of pops since the price in monarch points is probably going to be prohibitive at that point. i rather imagine that the magical button is meant to be an emergency button or a quick fix for smaller nations, having it offers more options with different pros and cons to solve a particular set of problems, more options and choices with different pros and cons is kinda the definition of extra depth............exactly how much depth we will have to wait and see.
your last sentence pretty much sums up your attitude. we have not got the game yet nor have we seen any extensive or detailed play throughs so all we have is conjecture and opinion and yet you insist on using phrases like "certainly is by no means" nothing is certain yet, we dont have anywhere near enough information to be certain of anything at this point, not to mention they have already said that they have started work on a release patch to rebalance and rework a few things so that is even more uncertainty in there.
the other thing people often forget about paradox grand strategy games is that they dont all start out as grand strategy at launch, they become grand strategy over the coarse of several patches and dlc. thats because grand is really hard to achieve, otherwise it wouldnt be grand it would just be ordinary. frankly its pretty much impossible for a non AAA game designer to afford to spend the time making all in one go with no income, seriously your probably talking about 6-8 years of developement time, maybe longer since all the testing would have to be done in house rather than by hundreds of thousands of players. think back to eu4 launch, that was just a strategy game with more than average tooltips and modifiers, it has evolved into grand strategy over the coarse of the last 6 years. same for stellaris, started as a fairly standard 4x but is evolving into grand strategy.
i am unsure exactly what you expect in terms of depth, you complain about culture and religion not mattering because you have ways of dealing with them, do you not want ways of dealing with these kinds of problems? do you just want innevitable rebellions that will split your nation after a certain time or size? that doesnt seem very engaging to me, kinda makes it pointless trying to expand at all at which point what are you meant to do in a strategy game?
or is it the fact that you deal with these problems by clicking buttons? i hate to break it to you but clicking buttons in some fashion or another is pretty much the be all and end all of computer gaming. no matter what you want to achieve or what mechanic you put in you end up clicking buttons somewhere along the line otherwise the computer doesnt know what you want it to do..........unless its that you think paradox is slacking off because they havent invented a neural link yet.
im also confused by what it is you are trying to achieve here.........if you dont like the look of the game dont buy it but why come here and try to convince everyone else that its going to be crap? i could understand it if you were looking for other perspectives in order to convince yourself that you have been wrong but your posts and attitude strongly suggest that is not the case, as i said at the start you seem utterly convinced that you are correct and refuse to accept that any arguments to the contrary have any validity.
personally i like the look of what i have seen so far, i like the fact that there are obviously some fairly serious internal problems that have to be dealt with that can severely weaken or even kill you if not handled well, i like the fact that the AI seems capable of killing players, even some of the devs had real problems with or even died to ai in the dev clash, i like the fact that boats seem to be much more important and impactfull than in eu4. sure we will learn the mechanics and the ai habits and end up being able to deal with them relatively easily but it looks like the learning process will be fun and then we just wait for the dlc to shake things up again.
that said im not expecting it to be full blown grand strategy at launch and im sure it will probably have its share of bugs and balance problems that will take a patch or 2 to iron out, it is a paradox game after all.
We are still waiting for your counter-arguments. You were given many, you’ve barely answered one.
We are still waiting for your counter-arguments. You were given many, you’ve barely answered one.
That's not really true. The Seleucids collapsed due to fighting three players at the same time, leading to their treasury and manpower being completely depleted, their provinces ravaged and the loyalty of their generals and govornors sent into the gutter by slashing their wages. The AI would probably not be able to mount the same kind of pressure as human players and an AI Seleucid Empire would probably peace out long before the human player did.
You are talking about the 1st day's events only - and even then your conclusions are not mine. The AI, when given a mono-ethnic and mono-religious realm can both handle the pressures mounted by the novice players of the stream and can most definitely mount pressure of their own against equal or greater than that shown in the stream by the human players.
The Seleucids being the perfect storm of diversity and divisiveness is a different situation and Day 2 and Day 3, where the Seleucid AI was left alone by all the human players and even the other AI realms was not able to stabilize the situation and mishandled it to the point where it collapsed in on itself a second time (first for the AI) exposing a bug on live stream that hundreds of overnight sessions did not reveal.
The fact that hundreds of overnight sessions never revealed multiple civil wars occurring at the same time indicates to me that the Seleucids more than likely never expand, staying static at best or that they fall apart into a multitude of successor realms sooner than later not needing to govern such a large and diverse realms.
I really wish that @Chaingun would expand on what their many nights of play are showing as trends because I know from experience with EU and CK AIs that the legacy issues he talk about are real and very much in play with realms such as the Seleucids.
This is important because historically the Seleucids played a major role in the outcome of the world's history from the Black Sea in the north to Alexandria on the Egyptian coast. Not to have this influence, even just 25% of the time in campaigns will change the game into something entirely different than it should be.
In mono-ethnic and/or mono-religious realms I don't see the AI having issues at all ... nor do I see it having issues in realms that are not designed (as is the Seleucids) to fall apart to encourage a non-stale map. (ie Egypt)
I'm referring to the second and third days of the Stream - the events you cite historically, were already basically nulled and voided by the Mauyrian player's wicked advance in the east and the Parthan tribe advance in the north that reduced the Seleucid AI to a core of lands in Iraq, Western Iran and eastern Syria (using today's geography).
I was taling about the events of the first day because it was those events that pushed the Seleucid empire beyond the breaking point. Even the collapse itself started on the first day while the empire was player controlled. If you look at 3 hours 10 minutes into the first day stream you can see a large part of the Selucid empire revolting and an equally large part occupied by AI Parania.
The AI was winning its civil war until the second revolt broke out. It was winning increadibly slowly, but it was winning. Since there was no longer a player controlled country in Persia the casters weren't giving much attention to the region, so it's kind of hard to pinpoint how the AI was failing. But it looks like it just didn't have enough troops. The observer briefly shows the Seleucid perspective just after the second revolt and they seem to have only a little more than 10,000 soldiers at that point. We also don't have any clue what triggered the second civil war.
To me it indicates that the circumstances of the Seleucid Empire were fairly unique and it would not usually collapse in such a spectacular manner.
Have you played the game? Because I have seen no evidence that this is a valid strategy in any stream. Buying mercs seems to be very expensive such that only super power nations can actually afford more than one or two.
The culture/religion conversion seems to not be as game breaking as you make it out to be. Theoretically, given infinite resources sure it could completely negate internal instability, but from what I've seen in the streams it seems like power is pretty restrained. The vast majority of players we've seen haven't wasted the resources on conversion since there are cheaper alternatives and those resources are better spent elsewhere.
Pretty much, all this arguing, if you're not sure about the game, don't buy it! If I am not sure about a salad in the supermarket I don't buy it. Simples.
Religion wasn't distinct from culture at the time so it's anachronistic to separate them (there were no missionaries). Also it didn't really matter. The Jews and their 'jealous God' putting people under 'the ban' for their 'idolatry' was something new and unique to them. If you can play as the Jews that would be neat if they have unique abilities against the pagans that surround them.
I read one review that described I:R as a kind of 'greatest hits' of Paradox titles, choosing mechanics from previous games and melding them in a different way. It looks fun!
I read one review that described I:R as a kind of 'greatest hits' of Paradox titles, choosing mechanics from previous games and melding them in a different way. It looks fun!
Last edited:
The only issues I see is that stability is an unnecessary addition and manpower seems clunky given how the source of that manpower probably grows naturally. Those are mechanics copied over directly from EU4 and Stellaris, though, and I expect them to be replaced with something more fitting in time.
The manpower addition is a good mechanic for the game, well implemented in the way it relates to the pop system... It's just an opinion based on the videos I've seen till now. The conquest of Crete let's play was a good example of it
In all! previous Lets plays and Dev Clashs they had always huge amounts of Religious power, its far too easy to keep stability on 3 and so this is just "bonus for free" and you can keep it even if you are in a three front war and civil war in the same time....
sorry but for me this "system" is just garbage! In EU:IV it was too easy too but even there was more competition of ways you can spend the necessary power! (in EU: IV you need adminpower for technologies, ideas, decreasing inflation, increasing stability, develope the country, keep active policies, core provinces...) and in I:R actually you can with huge amounts of religious power just have an omen for all 5(?) years, increase stability and convert people instant to your religion.
The obvious proof that im right you can see in last devclash! (The only reason if a dev had not 3 stability were No-CB-wars, braking a truce or if he overtake a AI-Country)
Its so much fun to see all of us discussing and judging a game that we haven't played yet..
At the end of the day, the story will unfold along the same path:
1) PDS announces a new game... Hype fase
2) DevDiaries and Videos explain/show the pre-alpha fundamental mechanics of the game... Discussion (a childish one, most of the times) fase
3) Game's out: everybody pull out their wallets (if they didn't already do with the pre-order), play the game intensively and the fanbase-PDS-feedback-exchange begins... Actual game development fase
4) after a few years of patches and (paid!) DLCs, we have a decent and fun game... Post-coitus fase
That's how our relationship with PDS goes, guys... stop posting WoT and deal with it...
At the end of the day, the story will unfold along the same path:
1) PDS announces a new game... Hype fase
2) DevDiaries and Videos explain/show the pre-alpha fundamental mechanics of the game... Discussion (a childish one, most of the times) fase
3) Game's out: everybody pull out their wallets (if they didn't already do with the pre-order), play the game intensively and the fanbase-PDS-feedback-exchange begins... Actual game development fase
4) after a few years of patches and (paid!) DLCs, we have a decent and fun game... Post-coitus fase
That's how our relationship with PDS goes, guys... stop posting WoT and deal with it...
Looks like, from all the evidence available so far, my interpretation is closer to the norm. This just means I'll end up modding the game... having a constant AI loot pinata instead of the historical power in that area changes things a lot in the way realms develop and grow.
Spoiler alert, Imperator: Rome is an empty shell, bland with nothing to do but monotonously go around declaring war and marching your little army around the map that has twice as many "cities" as necessary. The UI is as unintuitive as we expected during the Dev Diaries, there's virtually no organization of characters who somehow have less life and flavor than they did in EU: Rome. Wars are declared and ended with no clear explanation. Trade is a convoluted nightmare. The list goes on.
What is evident is the business strategy of charging full price for a framework they mean to put meat on via DLC over the next decade, which is an absolutely awful business strategy and destined to blow up in Paradox's face like it has for all the Triple A companies. Shame on you, Paradox, for counting on us to shell out a few hundred more bucks for a somewhat complete experience in 2-3 years from now.
What is evident is the business strategy of charging full price for a framework they mean to put meat on via DLC over the next decade, which is an absolutely awful business strategy and destined to blow up in Paradox's face like it has for all the Triple A companies. Shame on you, Paradox, for counting on us to shell out a few hundred more bucks for a somewhat complete experience in 2-3 years from now.
I feel the same as well, which is weird because I didn't get the same feeling with Stellaris or even HOI4, which everybody seems to hate.
I have to agree, I am playing right now about to hit the 2 hour mark and I am VERY close to refunding
I cut Stellaris slack like everyone else because I appreciate they were trying to do something relatively new (even though they still can't pull the game together and Distant Worlds: Universe still outshines it).
There's flat no excuse for this vagrant abuse of the producer-consumer relationship. I'll let 'em patch it and boot it up again to see if they're quick to make massive changes and content additions, but if they think they can bleed our wallets on this one they're in for a rude awakening.
Last edited: