Weekly unoriginal comparison with EU4

[Ffc]

Hey guys,

I think EU4 is vastly considered as a good game with similar mechanics to Imperator and is a great source of insipiration.

So, I just play EU4 for few hours since a long time, I've been playing mostly Imperator recently.

The first thing I felt was like " Damn why does it feel so great and fun?"

I think that Imperator is a good game and I'm heavily satisfied with recent updates, but, in my opinion, it's still not as good as EU4
I know that EU4 as a lot more of Dev time so of course it feels more complete.

What interest me here is that I think that a lot of things are better on Imperator, a short list : Pops are better than Dev, Culture is way better on Imperator, Inventions and research points are better than boring EU4 tech, etc...

But still, it does not feel as entertaining.

This is my question : Why? What does Imperator really lack to have the same replayability? Is there a feature in particular which is so incredibly good in EU4 or it's just the result of an accumulation of small good systems?

I think that Trade system of EU4 is really good for example and really make me plan my conquest to control specific nodes, etc...
I think that dedicated systems like HRE, Papal interface, Unique Religion in general play also a role

But maybe the main factor is there are more major countries and they feel different, being France is not the same than being Spain, or England, even if those countries are close because of History and unique events
I'm not even talking about Ming or Russia

In Imperator, you can take any Gaul tribes it will literally feel the same than the others Gaul tribes, same with German tribes, Iberian tribes, Britonnic tribes
There are a lot of tags but most of them are the same and even with DLC I don't think you can solve that, of course those tribes feel the same, because they lived kinda the same way so in the end, there are a lot less "unique" tag

I could write a lot more ideas but it's more interesting to have a discussion than me writing a monologue

What do you think?

 

[IsaacCAT]

Maybe you are dettached as you say and do not get involved as much because of that.

What the player brings to the game on the imagination side is a very powerful motivator.

That powerful imaginary was what sold me to stellaris (love for scfi). With imperator, you can read about the history to improve your game experience. There is a thread about good books to read:

Books on the Diodochi?

Hello, I am currently reading a book on Antigonos and was curious what other books existed about the other Diodochi leaders at that time? I'm finding it hard to locate any on Kassandros and Lysmachias.

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Ffc]

I like a lot Stellaris, I'm even waiting Nemesis with eager anticipation !

I read a bit about Diadochi, problably less than what I read about EU4 context and nations, you're right

But I don't think my feelings come only because of that

 

[Torugu]

Eh, if you ask me EU4 became obsolete the moment Imperator hit the shelves.

I going back to EU a few weeks ago, but had to put it down quickly due to the overwhelming feeling of... disappointment. It's similar to how I can no longer go back to vanilla Rome: TW after having played Europa Barbarorum.

 

[Ffc]

Eh, if you ask me EU4 became obsolete the moment Imperator hit the shelves.

I going back to EU a few weeks ago, but had to put it down quickly due to the overwhelming feeling of... disappointment. It's similar to how I can no longer go back to vanilla Rome: TW after having played Europa Barbarorum.

Imperator first version was very uninteresting for me

Why did you fell disappointed? Which part bother you the most in EU4?

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I can no longer go back to vanilla Rome: TW after having played Europa Barbarorum.

Absolutely this

 

[Torugu]

Imperator first version was very uninteresting for me

Why did you fell disappointed? Which part bother you the most in EU4?

I don't have a lot of time, so excuse me if I'm a bit brief:

Three issues mainly:

1) Everything felt extremely superficial. I kept thinking "Wow, can you imagine how cool game aspect X would be if EU4 was build using the machnics of Imperator". I'm talking about things like culture, pops, the detail of the map, the innovation system, levies etc. I actually played two games, one in vanilla EU4 (which I gave up like 5 hours in) and one in the mod Anbennar (which I mostly finished); and while I was also feeling the same in vanilla, in ANbennar in particular the feeling was so overwhelming I actually started working on my own fantasy mod for Imperator. (Don't get your hopes up, it will almost certaonly never be finished.)

2) In EU4 you basically have no way of affecting your country, except by expanding. What I mean is, Prussia will always be Prussia. You can't have different "builds" except maybe the binary decision between colonialism and no colonialism. Imperator has so many different ways to play the same country, it doesn't matter if Megalopolis and Sparta are basically the same country - you can play the same country half a dozen times while still making each play-through extremely unique.

3) Mechanical fidelity. All of Imperator's mechanics work together like a meticulously crafted clockwork mechanism. There are a lot of different levers you can pull, but ultimately all of them come together to form one cohesive whole. EU4 feels like a bunch of disconnected mechanics, loosely held together by duct tape, sticks, and discarded bubble gum. As a result Imperator makes me feel smart for coming up with creative and adaptive solutions; while EU4 makes me feel dumb for once again forgetting to press one of the game's 200 different "gimme free stuff" buttons.

 

[Ffc]

I don't have a lot of time, so excuse me if I'm a bit brief:

Three issues mainly:

1) Everything felt extremely superficial. I kept thinking "Wow, can you imagine how cool game aspect X would be if EU4 was build using the machnics of Imperator". I'm talking about things like culture, pops, the detail of the map, the innovation system, levies etc. I actually played two games, one in vanilla EU4 (which I gave up like 5 hours in) and one in the mod Anbennar (which I mostly finished); and while I was also feeling the same in vanilla, in ANbennar in particular the feeling was so overwhelming I actually started working on my own fantasy mod for Imperator. (Don't get your hopes up, it will almost certaonly never be finished.)

2) In EU4 you basically have no way of affecting your country, except by expanding. What I mean is, Prussia will always be Prussia. You can't have different "builds" except maybe the binary decision between colonialism and no colonialism. Imperator has so many different ways to play the same country, it doesn't matter if Megalopolis and Sparta are basically the same country - you can play the same country half a dozen times while still making each play-through extremely unique.

3) Mechanical fidelity. All of Imperator's mechanics work together like a meticulously crafted clockwork mechanism. There are a lot of different levers you can pull, but ultimately all of them come together to form one cohesive whole. EU4 feels like a bunch of disconnected mechanics, loosely held together by duct tape, sticks, a discarded bubble gum. As a result Imperator makes me feel smart for coming up with creative and adaptive solutions; while EU4 makes me feel dumb for once again forgetting to press one of the game's 200 different "gimme free stuff" buttons.

Yeah I really think that Imperator has SO MUCH potential because of those mechanics working together

Also, in Imperator, I feel like I always play the same, so maybe it's my fault, I should try more different playstyles

 

[Kainser]

I genuinely can't play EU4 these days. For me personally it's a great example of the dangers of feature bloat.

CK2 never felt that way to me so it's not just "oh there are so many expansions!".

 

[Nostalgium]

For me at least, EU4 feels quite solidly like a board game. It's still my go-to Paradox game when I just want to sit on Discord with some friends, a couple beers, and have some relaxed multiplayer and banter. Imperator, meanwhile, feels like it's on the track to become Victoria: Antiquity Edition. The bones are all there (except the trade femur, which is conspiciously missing - and the scapula of diplomacy is a bit brittle), and once the meat is added on, I might honestly stop yearning for Vicky 3. Even 2.0 makes me sometimes forget.

 

[Daft]

Trade femur had me lol:ing

 

[Limbojack]

I think you're pretty spot on.

While I find Imperator Rome to be the better game, I still enjoy my average EU4 campaign way more than my average I: R ones, and this is due to a bunch of factors:

1) the EU4 world feels so much larger than that of Imperator Rome, and it doesn't matter where you're playing because you'll be able to interact with the rest of the world anyway.
2) every major EU4 nation as well as a lot of minor ones as well feel unique whereas every government type feels the same in Imperator Rome.
3) the trading system of EU4 feels more natural and is much less micro-intensive, which is a good thing.
4) EU4 diplomacy is leaps and bounds ahead of I: R.
5) there are so many paths of progress in EU4 (techs, national ideas/idea groups, government reforms, missions, and institutions) so you never run out of goals to pursue.
6) EU4's colonial aspect is quite decent whereas I: R's is pretty non-existent.

That being said, if the current team gets to work on I: R for another year or two, which I seriously hope they'll be allowed, I'm sure Imperator Rome will end up at least as enjoyable as EU4.

 

[Daft]

Also, I haven't played EU4 for years. EU was the IP that really got me hooked on PDX games, after dabbling a bit with Svea Rike.

It holds a fond place in my heart, and 4 was for my son what the first one was for me.

Imperator is something else. It has that... intimate feel (not dirty) in a way that makes EU look a little sterile.

Not sure how else to put it.

 

[Todie]

Mechanical fidelity. All of Imperator's mechanics work together like a meticulously crafted clockwork mechanism. There are a lot of different levers you can pull, but ultimately all of them come together to form one cohesive whole.

I agree, but at the same time, I feel like the idea of the cohesive whole isn’t fully realized. In part, I attribute this to the sheer _potential_ of that cohesive whole.

In part, its me being anal about strategic immersion - if mechanics and events doesnt produce compelling gameplay outcomes, they’re not done right, or at least not complete.

 

[IsaacCAT]

its me being anal

Could you develop?

Sorry, I did not know this exception:

often used in nontechnical contexts to describe someone as extremely or excessively neat, careful, or precise

 

[Torugu]

I agree, but at the same time, I feel like the idea of the cohesive whole isn’t fully realized. In part, I attribute this to the sheer _potetial_ of that cohesive whole.

In part, its me being anal about strategic immersion - if mechanics and events doesnt produce compelling gameplay outcomes, they’re not done right, or at least not complete.

Could you elaborate?

I think I sort of see what you might mean with events (they are kind of "out of the system"), but to be honest I very much see events as a "necessary evil" anyways. They get boring incredibly quicky, and once you have seen them all they mostly distract from the core gameplay. But at the same time without them the game would be rather bland - and I can't come up with a better mechanic to replace them.

Aside from events though I really can't come up with any mechanic that isn't thoroughly integrated into the core gameplay.

 

[Mikhail_Mengsk]

I think one of Imperator's weaknesses is also a strenght: you have several ways of playing a game (settled tribe, migrant tribe, republic, kingdom), but inside those groups there is really not much difference. While this allow you to play whatever game you like each time without being restricted to some countries, it also makes a lot of factions basically identical copies. Playing Arverni isn't different from playing Aedui, or Pictonia.

Flavor events and country-specific missions do a lot of good in this regard IMHO.

Traditions do more to differentiate, but again they apply to entire culture groups.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Could you elaborate?

I think I sort of see what you might mean with events (they are kind of "out of the system"), but to be honest a very much see events as a "necessary evil" anyways. They get boring incredibly quicky, and once you have seen them all they mostly distract from the core gameplay. But at the same time without them the game would be rather bland - and I can't come up with a better mechanic to replace them.

Aside from events though I really can't come up with any mechanic that isn't thoroughly integrated into the core gameplay.

If we can make mechanics tell good stories you will not require events disconnected to the game to enrich the World. Events will be only for disasters or the Olympic games type of information for the player. Every other event should be linked to a mechanic and the player should be aware of it.

Characters ambition should create ‘events’ for example, not the other way round. (I think this is already in game)

 

[scriptkiddy]

It’s just the content. No PDX title can beat EU4 in terms of content, but the mechanics are way better in I:R. Try playing one EU4 campaign until the very end, I bet you’ll give up because of minor annoyances such as the army management; there is no way of automation (the HRE vassal swarm is the only thing that comes close to it) so late game you‘ll waste lots of time zooming and clicking here and there just to defeat some lame rebels or pursue mini-stacks from colonisers and their inflated TC empires all over the globe.

 

[Logist]

Part of the problem is Imperator’s world is just much smaller. You have the five big Diadochi states, who are all after forming the same basic empire, a myriad of small Greek States in and around Greece, Rome and Carthage in the west with Syracuse, and Maurya in India with a handful of other Indian states.

I love Imperator 2.0, and I think it’s a better game than EU4, but I’ve found the smaller map really limits replayabilty. It feels less like I can do anything and more like I’m just reconquering the same corrider of territory every game.