Now that Imperator Rome is officially in Legacy, what were the flaws of the game that could have been fixed?

  • 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.
Agree but on the other hand, part of the backlash on release was a reinvigorated hatred for the PDS "DLC policy" and how 1.0 seemed like a template for future DLC sales. Locking most of the map behind an anticipated paywall would have aggravated that sentiment.
There are people that hate just about anything that costs money, and expect games to be free or close to it. They are not the ones that PDX should care about.
Personally i love the DLC policy, and something like that is needed if we actually want to play games like this.

If people had sticked to playing the fun nations at the start the game would be in a much better place.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I think you guys need to consider the hate for the system with "mana" as well at the launch.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
There are people that hate just about anything that costs money, and expect games to be free or close to it. They are not the ones that PDX should care about.
Personally i love the DLC policy, and something like that is needed if we actually want to play games like this.

If people had sticked to playing the fun nations at the start the game would be in a much better place.
It would have killed the game faster. The game died from lack of player-base. A lot of folks who play paradox games don't really want to play the powerhouses, they want to play the little guy and build their own part of the map. Telling these people to not even play the game is the worst business idea I can think of.

And as one of those people, the closest to powerhouses I have played in Imperator was Kush, and they never got any content in the entire life of the game.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
A lot of folks who play paradox games don't really want to play the powerhouses, they want to play the little guy and build their own part of the map. Telling these people to not even play the game is the worst business idea I can think of.

Thats what they pretend to like. But the 100's of posts from people complaining that the tiny nation they played wasnt fleshed out says otherwise. They were the most unhappy players even after all the patches the game got, and they used every opportunity to say so, making sure the games reputation never recovered.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes people expect a complete game experience when they play a game. Releasing a game with a bare skeleton of conflicting ideas that they try to flesh out over the next two years didn't work. Like Paradox just fleshed out a tiny portion of nations touching the Mediterranean. Even names which were influential during the time period (Kush, ANY PART OF PERSIA, Maurya) never got any actual real content.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
A lot of folks who play paradox games don't really want to play the powerhouses, they want to play the little guy and build their own part of the map.

Not quite accurate. A lot of the folks who post on the paradox forums don't really want to play the powerhouses, they want to play the little guy. The data that they've published from HOI4 and EU4 always has the biggest nations (Spain and England in EU, Germany and Russia in HOI) at the top of the most-played lists.

The forums are but a small portion of the player base.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Not quite accurate. A lot of the folks who post on the paradox forums don't really want to play the powerhouses, they want to play the little guy. The data that they've published from HOI4 and EU4 always has the biggest nations (Spain and England in EU, Germany and Russia in HOI) at the top of the most-played lists.

The forums are but a small portion of the player base.
So just going by the 2021 eu4 list, about 27% of the playerbase play comparatively less powerful countries (Venice, Sweden, Timurids, Romeiphiles). So, how much faster would Imperator have died if they took away 27% of the playerbase?
 
There are people that hate just about anything that costs money, and expect games to be free or close to it. They are not the ones that PDX should care about.
Personally i love the DLC policy, and something like that is needed if we actually want to play games like this.

If people had sticked to playing the fun nations at the start the game would be in a much better place.
I don't think that objecting to selling incremental yet game-changing upgrades at up to %50 of the game's full price is "wanting something for free".
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
My personal gripes about the game (some of them could be fixed in game files, but not all of them) are:

1) Lineup of buildings:
Buildings like Aqueducts or Granaries are quite nice and give a fantasy of growing the city, but some of other buildings are weird, especially the ones which changed ratios of pops.

2) Pops effects are a bit gamey:
My inner sense of justice tells me that everyone should pay taxes and manpower, so every pop should have at least these effects + something specific like trade routes/research for nobles and citizens (I think that both of them should have both but maybe with different focus). Interaction of slaves and produced goods (and goods/trade system themselves) is a culmination of the gameness.

3) AI:
I often play games as an observer and watching how Carthage was not able to kill sardinians in his own war until he decided to hire sardinian mercenaries was frustrating - armies are standing in africa, fleets are standing at ports, sardinians are looting their provinces, but naval landings are simply not happening. Another weird thing is alliances: AI could be much more proactive in its guarantees and alliances to create powerblocks against empires. Even if it has 10 diplomatic relations and people around agree to become allies, they often just don't do it. AI often negotiates weird peace which affects complaint 5.

4) Legions are removing cool elements introduced with levies:
Levies were a very cool idea, but after you pass legions laws, there is little reason not to use legions. And when you use only legions, the game turns into the same gsg thing but worse, because AI's usage of legions/levies is worse than AI's usage of the usual hirable armies. Levies introduced a very cool concept of not being able to concentrate all your forces wherever you need, so when war starts, you need to mobilize your local armies, influenced by the local population, and move them to the affected region and during this period, opponent can make significant gains or loot your provinces. And all this fantasy is lost the moment you activate legions laws. As a result, playing with disabled legions is more fun, but there are levy composition bug and some general problems with AI calculating the strength of levies. Changing something about this situation is important.

5)Rebellion system could have more work.
Low civil wars threshold improves the actual stability of the realm for the cost of killing 2 states wide rebellion when civil war loyalty modifier falls off. Provincial rebellions need some way to coordinate/choose time for a rebellion and not just rebel to die or get peaced out just before dying just because of some glitch in AI weights in peace negotiation.

6) Observer mode is lacking features from observer mode of eu4 and some stuff just doesn't work in it, like going to the country screen from pressing a flag in a province.

7) Characters.
Instead of random events with 10 pages of writing, I would personally prefer if characters played some very simple game of investments, trading and gathering popularity with proper interface to see the list of them, their locations, assets and their current actions. I think these events were a major part of the "characters are pointless and irritating" complaint: events about characters you have never seen with a wall of text which implies that he is someone influential are more irritating than interesting: you are not exposed to the narrative of Marcus building up his riches and influence before you see the event about Marcus's attempt to coup your leader.

8) Finished nomadic tribes.

9) Laws, national ideas, heritages.
Many of them are modifiers, like +5% citizen ratio, +20% import tax. It's hard for me to care about them as they are slightly more interesting than eu4 government reforms. I think they could be more fun if the amount of them was reduced, but the remaining ones were game changing, which could change the entire playstyle.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
4DF44B7B-C3CB-4A0A-91DD-CBFDE0573A77.png
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The main problem is that they marketed a Rome game when in fact this was a Diadochi game with a touch of Punic wars where you could avoid all that by focus on creating Rome yourself.

People expected a Rome game, people had expectations based on CK experience because for some reason ancient Rome is likened to the middle ages which I don't really get (there were 5 main families in Rome and that was pretty much it, everyone else was just filling up the space at any given time). It's a rise of Rome game and the actual ancient Rome hype is for the end of the Republic and the birth of the Empire (Julius Caesaer, Augustus etc)

Rebranding this as an Alexander the Great legacy game could have been more beneficial in terms of marketing, but Rome still sells more. I think they misjudged the reaction and assumed that people would swarm in just because Rome was in the title. Surely Rome is one of the key nations to select in the game, but it's not really a Rome game. In the first 30 years of each game, Rome is more fragile in I:R than the Ottomans in EU4 which is supposed to be a colonization game. But no one would name a game EU: Ottomans.


The game itself is enjoyable and I think the different flavor added later was more than welcome. It's a game, you'll see bugs around and with proper QA and development it could have become a great game. But it would never get the following it deserved because people expected a Rome game and this was a pre-Rome game.
It remains a decent empire building game but it's below expectations.
This is actually an underrated problem. A lot of people i know played exclusively in Western Europe, Italy or Greece, not realising that all the action during this period took place in the east. Playing in Europe in IR is like playing in Africa in EU4 at release, it just is a very generic and not very interesting experience compared to the more fleshed out regions.

Playing in the east is actually a blast because there is a lot going on in Persia, Anatolia and the Levant. But a lot of people don't play there because It's a lot harder for them to immerse themselves to exotic regions.

It's also way harder to connect to ancient nations rather than kingdoms of medieval times. You feel way more immersed if you conquer Spain as France then if you conquer northern Gaul as a Belgian tribe, it doesn't feel like you changed history. It also doesn't help that we almost have no information about the ancient European tribes so it's normal that they all play the same, a critique which isn't accurate, but what IR is often accused of.

Lastly, like Original Comment mentioned playing as Rome in IR is a rather tedious experience. You literally snowball your way through weaker tribes, you never heared of, with a few rare obstacles like Carthage or a giant coalition of tribes. Playing in the east, however, is way more interesting because you have to confront the great powers of the time.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Maybe an unpopular opinion but i do not think the main fault lies with the game. Yeah it was off to a bad start and maybe it might have survived with a better beginning but I ultimately believe that the real problem is that the number of GSG fans is limited - and I think Paradox is about the alone in this field (those who want battles go to Total war or Bannerlord), and Civ games are also on a different field I think. So those who want a mappainter, empire manager style of game ar already playing one of Paradox's games. HoI is focused on war and CKII-III are some very unique RPG's beside being a GSG, and EUIV is the ultimate mappainter with significant amount of country management thrown in. I think these 3 basically cover the market for these types of history based GSG games. If IR2 would have been successfull it would have done so mostly by cannibalising the players from one of the 3 games mentioned - meaning the overall historic playerbase for Paradox would not increase by much even if the game was successfull enough to survive (stellaris is a very different beast and audience - in that field Paradox has many rivals and possibility to expand) . Vicky III tries something new - which is really not for me - by going hardly in to the economics and society management. I have serious doubts of its viability but strategically its about the only move that I can see that hasa chance of expanding the player base. Or maybe another avenue Paradox might explore I think is random map generation - and I dont mean RNW in EUIV, something much more serious and higher quality than that - in whatever era - I think could seriously have a chance to take some civ players. The historical setting is great but you can only form Prusssia, unify Japan, conquer the world as Russia etc so much before getting bored. A random map generation could seriously shake things up.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Levies were a very cool idea, but after you pass legions laws, there is little reason not to use legions.

I personally have found the opposite. Legions are great and all, but levies are free and there are too many useful ways to spend money to make it worthwhile waste it on being able to micromanage a slightly better army.

But in general, I think two people being able to come out with completely different interpretations of the same system probably indicates the game is doing something right.

8) Finished nomadic tribes.

Nomadic tribes are great. They're actually kind of overpowered, in my opinion, and are generally my favorite type of tag to play.

That said, tribes are also one of my biggest criticisms with I:R. They're not weak (again I actually think nomadic tribes are kind of overpowered) but they needed a quality of life pass. Tribal levies are a great idea but in practice are really annoying to micromanage. They needed some easy way to consolidate them into bigger armies without relying on the fiddly attachment system.

My other big issue is with tribal succession. Again, in theory it's great but because tribes determine family heads by age it's easy to end up in a situation where all your potential leaders are ancient, and because tribes lose stability when the leader dies this could result in a semi-permanent low-stability spiral due to leaders dying continuously. It also made all the events about tribal leaders wanting to duel each other semi-comical since they'd all inevitably be geriatrics.

All in all, tribes needed a different system of weights to determine family leadership rather than merely relying on age.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I personally have found the opposite. Legions are great and all, but levies are free and there are too many useful ways to spend money to make it worthwhile waste it on being able to micromanage a slightly better army.

But in general, I think two people being able to come out with completely different interpretations of the same system probably indicates the game is doing something right.



Nomadic tribes are great. They're actually kind of overpowered, in my opinion, and are generally my favorite type of tag to play.

That said, tribes are also one of my biggest criticisms with I:R. They're not weak (again I actually think nomadic tribes are kind of overpowered) but they needed a quality of life pass. Tribal levies are a great idea but in practice are really annoying to micromanage. They needed some easy way to consolidate them into bigger armies without relying on the fiddly attachment system.

My other big issue is with tribal succession. Again, in theory it's great but because tribes determine family heads by age it's easy to end up in a situation where all your potential leaders are ancient, and because tribes lose stability when the leader dies this could result in a semi-permanent low-stability spiral due to leaders dying continuously. It also made all the events about tribal leaders wanting to duel each other semi-comical since they'd all inevitably be geriatrics.

All in all, tribes needed a different system of weights to determine family leadership rather than merely relying on age.

True about age among the tribal leaders. While this may be a bit stereotypical, maybe Martial should also be taken into account to see who will lead the tribe? Most tribal leaders I've read, which to be honest isn't an overwhelming number, about seems to have held the position partially thanks to their usefulness as a war leader.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
While this may be a bit stereotypical, maybe Martial should also be taken into account to see who will lead the tribe?

I would say that high-stat characters in general should be favored for clan leadership, as should popularity and being a child of the previous leader. But it would be cool to have some events for more warlike cultures where high-martial characters can challenge the existing clan leader's rule, particularly if the existing ruler is weak or unpopular.

Above all, I feel like both tribal leadership and clan leadership should be quite random and difficult to predict, but also more based on personal ability rather than age. Leaders who become too infirm should be liable to be replaced or usurped.

Essentially, I would make it the risk/reward succession system where the player has very little control over the outcome but there's a good chance whoever comes out of the process will be good. As it is, it's kind of like managing the world's worst nursing home.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The game was still-born. It's a soulless map painter with a classical antiquity theme. It gets boring very quickly and after an hour or two it's more of a chore than a game.
 
  • 5Like
  • 5
Reactions:
The game was still-born. It's a soulless map painter with a classical antiquity theme. It gets boring very quickly and after an hour or two it's more of a chore than a game.
Wrong tempus. It was all those things but it isn't since 2.0.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Wrong tempus. It was all those things but it isn't since 2.0.
it still remains a bit. After a while when you can no longer advance the game becomes a bit boring. There are no crises like in other games like CK3 and stellaris and no discovery objective like EUIV.

Not to mention that the limitation of Tag prevents having a world that changes (We always end up with 3 or 4 big blocks with rome, the mauryas and 1 or 2 others). 2.0 is good but it should have been 1.0.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Yes, that must be why the game has been such an incredible success since 2.0
No, there are many reasons for such. Like marketing, the reputation from the aweful launch, that there's still much that could be done in regards to this game and so. That it remained the same kind of game that it was at launch however is not true.

it still remains a bit. After a while when you can no longer advance the game becomes a bit boring. There are no crises like in other games like CK3 and stellaris and no discovery objective like EUIV.

Not to mention that the limitation of Tag prevents having a world that changes (We always end up with 3 or 4 big blocks with rome, the mauryas and 1 or 2 others). 2.0 is good but it should have been 1.0.
I agree and I don't mean that the game is the best thing since sliced bread now. But it really isn't the same as was released at launch, even if the blob problem has remained.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: