Roads to Power - Byzantine / Roman centered DLC features from the Steam page

  • 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.
What about the relationship of the soldiers and their loyalty to their governor/generals?

Some soldiers may feel more loyalty to the former general than the newly appointed one.
System akin to I:R army loyalty is something I would personally hope for, I just suspect we are not getting it.
 
  • 9Like
Reactions:
While I'm not thrilled with Landless Characters I've already purchased the Chapter 3 pack because I am a hopeless Byzanphile and I was a huge fan of the FE mechanic with Republics in CK2. Imperial mechanics and ERE flavor were my top wants out of Chapter III so for that I am VERY excited.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
A big red flag and some assumptions on my part which heavily dampen my expectations. I would be very happy to be completely wrong, but I won't hold my breath.

Firstly the big flag being this all appears to be locked behind DLC.

Presumably seemingly critical aspects of the game mechanics are not inherently built in. The flip side would mean the optional nature of the system implies it's not actually that special. Probably rather lightweight and just a bit of role-play flavour for the players. In other words analogous to the accolades system.........

The next issue is this all appears to be Byzantine specific. If so....why? The concept of governors, bureaucrats etc. should be baseline features in all the relevant realms and regions. This circles back to the first point in that it implies these features might not be particularly groundbreaking after all.

How modifiable will all this be?
Even if the mechanics are hugely game changing we might have a scenario identical to CK2 Merchant Republics where they are thoroughly hard coded and impossible to use as a built in base for other bureaucratic systems. CK2 MRs were a potential base for countless modded features but it was impossible do anything with them due to hard coding.
 
  • 10
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I don't wish to speak for the devs, but considering they have pretty consistently tried to make things as modding-friendly as possible, I highly doubt Bureaucracy would not follow along.

As for it being Byzantine specific: Presumably it's a matter of not wanting to have "generic imperial" events to worry about, they just want to worry about Byzantine mechanics and flavor. Maybe you will be able to form the Finnish Administrative Empire, but I think Byzantine only makes sense, for now.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A big red flag and some assumptions on my part which heavily dampen my expectations. I would be very happy to be completely wrong, but I won't hold my breath.

Firstly the big flag being this all appears to be locked behind DLC.

Presumably seemingly critical aspects of the game mechanics are not inherently built in. The flip side would mean the optional nature of the system implies it's not actually that special. Probably rather lightweight and just a bit of role-play flavour for the players. In other words analogous to the accolades system.........

The next issue is this all appears to be Byzantine specific. If so....why? The concept of governors, bureaucrats etc. should be baseline features in all the relevant realms and regions. This circles back to the first point in that it implies these features might not be particularly groundbreaking after all.

How modifiable will all this be?
Even if the mechanics are hugely game changing we might have a scenario identical to CK2 Merchant Republics where they are thoroughly hard coded and impossible to use as a built in base for other bureaucratic systems. CK2 MRs were a potential base for countless modded features but it was impossible do anything with them due to hard coding.
You try working for free for an entire year and tell us how much you enjoy it. Until then, DLCs will continue to cost money because the developers seem to be more productive when they have food and shelter.
 
  • 15
  • 4Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
One of the devs said in another thread (I believe it was the teaser one), that Michael will stay dead, as the end stages of a murder plot would be problematic.
Then they need to make basil and Michael's spawn rivals. Atleast that should be done. And make sure that guy is Michael's spawn.
 
I really wonder about Hybrid realms being possible. If the emperor can assign specific duchies/kingdoms/counties as being outside directly imperial control but as inheritable lands for a family. Just as one right now might assign a piece of land as theocracy or republic in their kingdom.

Also imperial authority really makes sense for the Abbasids since the Tahirids and the eventually rogue Tulunids were appointed governors of their regions, but of course we will want Clans to be a feature in the Arabian empire so some regions or counties should be under clan control.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I have no idea what any of this means.
You're complaining that features are locked behind DLC as if paid DLC isn't the only thing keeping the game in development. If they weren't sell new features as part of DLC, development on this game would have ended after the first year.
 
  • 15
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You're complaining that features are locked behind DLC as if paid DLC isn't the only thing keeping the game in development. If they weren't sell new features as part of DLC, development on this game would have ended after the first year.
Still not any clearer I'm afraid....

The questions were about how expansive these features would be or if they are modifiable given that they are ideal for other just as centralised realms. Perfectly sensible really.

Not about starving devs, completely made up claims about what's keeping the game going or analysing what you think Paradox sales strategy is.
 
  • 14
Reactions:
Still not any clearer I'm afraid....

The questions were about how expansive these features would be or if they are modifiable given that they are ideal for other just as centralised realms. Perfectly sensible really.

Not about starving devs, completely made up claims about what's keeping the game going or analysing what you think Paradox sales strategy is.
Let me clear it up for you then.

Your initial complaint was that it is a "red flag" that new content is "locked behind DLC".

The answer to that is that yes, of course new content is locked behind paid DLC, because developing new content costs money. Paradox is a business, they sell their work. No revenue = no work = no content.

It's also not a "made up claim", it's the reality of the business. They sell a product, and development will only go as far as people are willing to buy it. When it stops making money, the plug is pulled out. If you want to see how that looks, go right over to the Imperator: Rome forums. That's what happens to a game when it doesn't make money.

In a way we're lucky that the design philosophy changed a bit since CK2. Now base systems are developed and made part of the free update, and is available to modders, while the paid expansion builds up on that free system.

But don't think even for a moment that "free update" is free. It costs Paradox money to make those updates, money that directly comes from selling DLC. No money, no updates.
 
  • 17
Reactions:
Let me clear it up for you then.

Your initial complaint was that it is a "red flag" that new content is "locked behind DLC".

The answer to that is that yes, of course new content is locked behind paid DLC, because developing new content costs money. Paradox is a business, they sell their work. No revenue = no work = no content.

It's also not a "made up claim", it's the reality of the business. They sell a product, and development will only go as far as people are willing to buy it. When it stops making money, the plug is pulled out. If you want to see how that looks, go right over to the Imperator: Rome forums. That's what happens to a game when it doesn't make money.

In a way we're lucky that the design philosophy changed a bit since CK2. Now base systems are developed and made part of the free update, and is available to modders, while the paid expansion builds up on that free system.

But don't think even for a moment that "free update" is free. It costs Paradox money to make those updates, money that directly comes from selling DLC. No money, no updates.
Its sad that this needs to get explained in kindergarten terms as to how money=incentive=development.
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
Reactions:
I don't have the quote on me, but devs have been pretty clear in prior threads that Hellenistic revival content is completely off the table and will never happen for the foreseeable future. (Thank goodness)
Thank God. Hellenism needs to stay where it belongs, in Total War Fandoms.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Let me clear it up for you then.

Your initial complaint was that it is a "red flag" that new content is "locked behind DLC".

The answer to that is that yes, of course new content is locked behind paid DLC, because developing new content costs money. Paradox is a business, they sell their work. No revenue = no work = no content.

It's also not a "made up claim", it's the reality of the business. They sell a product, and development will only go as far as people are willing to buy it. When it stops making money, the plug is pulled out. If you want to see how that looks, go right over to the Imperator: Rome forums. That's what happens to a game when it doesn't make money.

In a way we're lucky that the design philosophy changed a bit since CK2. Now base systems are developed and made part of the free update, and is available to modders, while the paid expansion builds up on that free system.

But don't think even for a moment that "free update" is free. It costs Paradox money to make those updates, money that directly comes from selling DLC. No money, no updates.

Its sad that this needs to get explained in kindergarten terms as to how money=incentive=development.

Legacy Of Persia introduced free Clan government mechanics which (limitations considered) are still a noticeable improvement on what the initial base game had to offer.

T&T included the Diarch/power sharing (further expanded on in LoP) and travel systems as part of the base update.

Both updates included paid DLC content on top of this which may have added so called flavour but doesn't really have the significance of the above mentioned systems. Not a bad way of doing things and much better than CK2 which locked pretty extensive systems behind DLC (retinues, MRs, Nomads etc.) This must have caused issues integrating systems together when planning new features.

As stated, if (purely guess work on my part) these imperial and landless mechanics are at least as influential as the major system updates we have had, then I would hope given their apparent depth they are actually set to be added to the game in the way the Clan, Diarch etc. systems were.

I'm not making complaints about the concept of paid DLC. Smiles, politeness and consideration all around.
 
One of the devs said in another thread (I believe it was the teaser one), that Michael will stay dead, as the end stages of a murder plot would be problematic.
That was months ago with the base system. I agreed with that at the time But I do not see why not now, Basil is literally the perfect example of this climb and the game starts in January, that’s 9 months before Michael’s assassination. Can’t even prove the plot started yet, Byzantine Emperors have been planned and killed in a third the time. Basil I would be Michaels Co-Emperor which is highlighted in the feature on the stream page: Missed opportunity imo.

Ah, wait I see what you mean with Wokegs latest point, still wack though.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions: