Weekly unoriginal comparison with EU4

[Arizal]

As a long term EUIV fans and regular critic on these forums, I feel I have to make a contribution here, since it might influence Paradox in their next instalments and I really don't want them to draw the wrong conclusion from Imperator's fate.

Yesterday, I played an Imperator game with a friend, and we mostly enjoyed it. Yet, as with the OP, there are elements in the game I didn't like or get. Now coming from an hardcore "realism" advocate in EUIV (by that I mean someone who would like to get rid of missions and NIs), some of what I have to say takes some humility, but here are my thoughts.

I like a lot of Imperator's mechanics in theory. Pops, religion and culture management especially seems an improvement over EUIV dull rendering of them. Stability, war exhaustion and legitimacy are finally out of the "directly interactable with by a button click". That makes your decisions more impactful. You don't ask yourself : "do I want to spend X paper mana", but "do I want to suffer a 15 stability malus for some time". Also, small events giving bonuses from time to time are good to have. I think those elements are good.

I must also say that mission have been a great help into getting to know the game and exploring the mechanics, especially since I don't have much knowledge about the historical period and it is more difficult for me to get to enjoy the historical narrative surrounding it As much as I dislike EUIV and HoI4 missions, I feel like those might be less tag-oriented (as in conquer X or Y because reason) and more "stuff to do" oriented. The fact that there are generic missions that seems to be repeatable is very interesting to me. Maybe I also didn't see the railroading in those yet...

So, with all this stuff, your country should feel more alive, shouldn't it?

Yet I don't feel like it does much.

The main culprit for me are two folds :

The character system falls hopelessly flat. You can't be engaged in those random dudes giving some bonuses to your country. They are more a nuisance than something you want to care for. If anything, the introduction of aditionnal mechanic to dilute the strenght of their stat by their loyalty and their experience just made it worst, as you just place anybody at a position. Scorned families are dull. I'm just splitting my fleet to calm them. It feels totally gamey.

And I feel like despite the big efforts in redoing the UI, some basic information is still not readily available. Why is the macrobuilder not telling you by how much your production of X ressource will increase if you do Y? I have the impression I'm swimming in a fog, as to what impact my actions have on my economy and my overall strenght. Even though the results of our actions might be more indirect than in EUIV, which is a good thing, we should still be able to plan.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Scorned families are dull. I'm just splitting my fleet to calm them

I agree with you that the game has to explain itself better and that some mechanics shall be improved.

The scorned families is an example of this. You do not need to calm them, is only an option for you to have, there is no need to keep families happy for a +5 in loyalty. You can manage power base and keep civil war risk (1) at bay with other means. Scorned families for example is good for the approval of the democratic party.

It is much better to choose the best character possible and let families be scorned.

The game allows for these malus, and I would say they are mandatory to experience the game fully.

(1) some players use civil wars to their advantage, another example of something seemingly bad that enriches the world and has to be experienced and not avoided.

 

[Rabid]

And I feel like despite the big efforts in redoing the UI, some basic information is still not readily available. Why is the macrobuilder not telling you by how much your production of X ressource will increase if you do Y? I have the impression I'm swimming in a fog, as to what impact my actions have on my economy and my overall strenght. Even though the results of our actions might be more indirect than in EUIV, which is a good thing, we should still be able to plan.

This is a serious problem, the fact that the macro builder is still almost entirely useless for allowing you to quickly make decisions is a tragedy.

Other than UI / UX problems (which were at least greatly improved with 2.0 except for the macro builder) I put the game's remaining issues mostly down to the same structural issues which have been present since 1.0 - namely, a lack of interesting start states (which can be fixed at least to some degree by making tribal gameplay interesting but is also inherently restricted due to the historical reality of this time period) and AI states which are relatively unthreatening to the player even when territorially large (exception for 2.0 Rome)

1.5 felt like the player was playing by themselves in a sea of helpless AIs, now in 2.0 the AI is generally better at blobbing but the Rome AI is so much better than all the others that the game is more like a race against Rome than anything else (there is the occasional fluke game where Rome fails but these are very rare now). Once you've beaten a major AI power once they're usually no longer a threat for the rest of the game, and other AIs still don't grow fast enough to pose a challenge (again, except for Rome). You do occasionally get a very successful Diadochi great power, but it's far more common for them to fight amongst themselves and stay generally overextended and weak (this is actually fairly historically accurate, but still not great for gameplay)

 

[cristofolmc]

We must have different deffinitions of what a fun game is. Whenever I retry EU4 to try an update or a mod or whatever I'm like. Wow why does it suck so much compared to I:R?

And the more I:R is straying away from EU4 the better it gets and the better reviews it gets.

All EU4 is good for these days is a multiplayer RISK with some frends

 

[maxk94]

Since Imperators 1.2 Patch I cannot play EU4 anymore. 0-100 Stab, Food, Supply, Units, No Military Access orgies for AI, Pops. Economy, Internal Politics - and it's not just discipline.

And no Mana lol

So funny most people hated Imperator for Mana but love this hit in EU4!

 

[cristofolmc]

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.

I see some people keep saying this and I just cannot grasp it.

Every goverment type in EU4 is literally the same, but with different modifiers and a different button to modify X thing xd. I prefer less but really different mechanically rather than 200 but the same with different buttons to get different modifiers xd. EU4 has nothing like a IR republic or Tribe and it will ever never will not even close haha. A goverment where you have clan leaders each with their own army? A complicated senate system with characters, agendas, and approval ratings which limit your interactions with the world? In EU4? Come on hahah. You have a button for mana or a bar that gives you different modifiers depend on which one you click, that as good as it gets

 

[Nostalgium]

So funny most people hated Imperator for Mana but love this hit in EU4!

For me at least, the reason I minded mana in I:R (though admittedly not quite as much as others on the forum) and not in EU harkens back to my first post in this thread. EU4 does, and has always, felt more like a board game to me. I:R is much more granular, and ever since 1.0 has always felt like it could simulate the systems mana abstracts in EU4 with its actual mechanics in a different way. EU was built around mana - I:R tacked it on.

 

[cristofolmc]

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.

I feel this too. But I think the map is actually the same size (roughly). it just the limited amount of content in comparison that makes it feel small, as the lack of content just rules out a lot of choice to pick from.

Still, I think you'll always get that feeling. It was indeed a smaller more homogeneous world than in 1444. No matter how much content they add for different gaulish tribes, at the end they are all gonna be gaulish tribes and the goal is always going to be kind of the same, to unite them.

 

[Limbojack]

Every goverment type in EU4 is literally the same, but with different modifiers and a different button to modify X thing

There is more to a nation than government types... hah?

The uniqueness comes from the different national ideas and starting situation which is further enhanced by the idea groups. Because of this, countries with access to the new world such as Spain, Portugal, or England will always feel different from Austria, Brandenburg, or Russia. This is of course helped by a bunch of extra factors, but at the end of the day, EU4 certainly has more replayability for me at least - which I guess is to be expected considering how much more content EU4 has received over the years.

A goverment where you have clan leaders each with their own army? A complicated senate system with characters, agendas, and approval ratings which limit your interactions with the world?

All of this sounds good - or it would have if it was implemented well. I mean, honestly, how often have you found yourself beneath 75% senatorial approval? Not once in my 600 hours of Imperator Rome have I ever struggled with the Senate (which by the way feels completely cut off from the character aspect of the game). Once you get lifetime elections the Senate stops working as a mechanic because you'll be able to do whatever you want as it's not a complicated system at all. Even though republics are better than they've ever been, they still feel like a monarchy - and they will continue to do so until PDX decides to give the Senate some teeth. Anyone with a basic understanding of I:R will be able to ignore the Senate.

As I've already stated, I:R is the better game - it just needs more content.

 

[cristofolmc]

There is more to a nation than government types... hah?

The uniqueness comes from the different national ideas and starting situation which is further enhanced by the idea groups. Because of this, countries with access to the new world such as Spain, Portugal, or England will always feel different from Austria, Brandenburg, or Russia. This is of course helped by a bunch of extra factors, but at the end of the day, EU4 certainly has more replayability for me at least - which I guess is to be expected considering how much more content EU4 has received over the years.

No im not saying it. I was just adressing your point about different goverment types.

But yes on the topic of content no disagreement. EU4 has those features that make different countries play completely different. You have catholicism vs protestantism. Continental vs colonial, HRE countries, which are a world on their own...

IR has none of that other than the diadochi successors. I mean not even Rome feels THAT unique. They still don't have their own republic unique system.

I only meant that goverment type was not an example of good content from EU4 compared to IR precisely xd. But it does win on things like the ones mentioned above, no doubt.

In IR you have migrating tribes. But they are very poorely implemented and you almost end up never using it because there is no really much point. Its easier and better to consolidate, tech up and civilize and become a great nation. There is no migration to invade and sack rome. No chance. Which is a pity because its a bit of a waste of a great idea. But as everything with 1.0 felt rushed. Johan had a cool idea, implemented it quickly and poorely without trying it too much, and there you have it...

 

[Nostalgium]

In IR you have migrating tribes. But they are very poorely implemented and you almost end up never using it because there is no really much point.

I mean, I don't disagree with you that govts feel fairly same-y, and are definitely one area that needs improvements (I'd like to see this as part of a larger Laws revamp similar to the tech one we had) but man, migration is one of the most powerful tools in the game, and can be used/exploited to very rapidly create a culturally and religious homogenous megablob covering huge swathes of land.

 

[Arizal]

I must add that trade, which is discussed on this thread, feels very messy currently. That said, EUIV's trade doesn't look like a suitable replacement, at least not as long as there are fixed beginning and end nodes. What? Trade would flow to Rome from the start? That would make no sense.

Also, some people said that countries felt more diverse in EUIV. That's something which must be answered by many points.

First, NIs (which I dislike) give minor bonuses at best. I can only think of siberian frontier as something that gives a unique ability, and even then I dislike unique abilities in general, as there is no reason Muscovy or Lituania couldn't have done the same thing than Russia did.

Then there are the unique religious and cultural mechanics, which can be important, but are again not something linked to a countries internal fabric. So yes countries feel more different by way of religion in EUIV, but I liked what I saw of swappable gods in Imperator, which at least gives seemingly more options.

And then there are the special situations. I absolutely hate mission trees which give out of the world bonuses to countries which only have to lift a finger to get them (Bohemia, Austria...), and I am very wary that people moaning for more « content » will get such railroading mechanics to be implemented into IR. We have the special CB which makes sense for diadoques, but its extension to Rome vs Carthage should be meant as a greater mechanic between rival empires.

And you have the risible « tri-buttons », which really do little in way to make a country feel unique.

As others said, what I miss from EUIV in Imperator is also some aspects of diplomacy, like diplo-vassalisation.

To add to my comment about the lack of information, I like the new levy system, but is there any way to know how much troops the other country might throw at you other than by checking its population?

 

[IsaacCAT]

but is there any way to know how much troops the other country might throw at you other than by checking its population?

Sending a character to spy (is an invention on the right oratory tree)

 

[Nostalgium]

Sending a character to spy (is an invention on the right oratory tree)

Addendum: This is also extremely useful for getting rivals, pretenders etc., out of your hair.

 

[olivenkranz]

...

As others said, what I miss from EUIV in Imperator is also some aspects of diplomacy, like diplo-vassalisation.

...

Target country needs 100+ opinion; you need to be bigger (I think; never attempted it wt similar sizes) and you can ask for subject states. You can also create free Tribal Vassals every time a barbarian horde occupies a territory by interacting with them...

 

[Jiben]

I must add that trade, which is discussed on this thread, feels very messy currently. That said, EUIV's trade doesn't look like a suitable replacement, at least not as long as there are fixed beginning and end nodes. What? Trade would flow to Rome from the start? That would make no sense.

Agreed, another thing is that the trade only flows in one in eu4 too. Like germans should be able to trade amber and such through intermediates to the greeks/romans etc and have coin and luxury goods make their way to germania in return with the intermediates becoming rich of this trade.

The intermediary trade is what the game should try and emulate better even if im unsure how to best do it.

 

[kmh42]

I think of this question a lot! But with CK2 and CK3 in mind

I didn't read all the comments but here is my response:
EUIV gives the best feeling of progression, direction and of course content. What do I mean by that.
progression: I personally feel the most difference going through the ages is EUIV. You have the early game where there a many small nations, development is low, armies small and the world fells open for possibilities. After 100 or more years the big players manifest and colonizing starts kicking. Every nation takes ideas ans start to differ. Alliance networks formed, After more time new mechanics get introduced like absolutism and later revolutions. There are alway things to think about short and long term.

direction: You always have something to build up to. ether mana/tech generation, conquest, trade, mechanics like papal influence, hre, personal uniions or colonization. There are always multiple things to juggle and to prioritize. I don't get this feeling in CK3 at all and not enough in I:R. CK3 is too easy where every bit of challenge is removed (But I still think it is a great game in it's own right) and I:R lacks an interesting world around me and the progression in time. You only have the usual nation that get bigger and once you defeat them once you win the game basically. While this is also true for EUIV but In EUIV I needed 500+ hours to achive this. I was able to manage this in 80+ hours in I:R. Don't get me started with CK3. I:R gameplay is also pretty much the same in the beginning and the end. Build up provinces and gobble stuff up. In EUIV you have to thing about so much on what province you take in a peace deal. Do you vassalize or annex, money or war reps. There are so many modifiers (mabe too much) that need understanding and carefull balance.

 

[Arizal]

Sending a character to spy (is an invention on the right oratory tree)

Thanks! It’s great to see a dev taking part in this discussion, by the way.

May I suggest to make this more obvious? Maybe you could add some « spy » pool and be able to assign characters to fill it before having them go spying? (And you could still send them directly)

This wouldn’t create a new mechanic, if I follow what you said, but make an existing one more visible.

 

[Todie]

It’s great to see a dev taking part in this discussion,

I'm pretty sure isacat is a cat, not a dev.
dev posts are blue.

more obvious?

A great many things in this videogame could stand being made more obvious.

 

[cristofolmc]

Thanks! It’s great to see a dev taking part in this discussion, by the way.

May I suggest to make this more obvious? Maybe you could add some « spy » pool and be able to assign characters to fill it before having them go spying? (And you could still send them directly)

This wouldn’t create a new mechanic, if I follow what you said, but make an existing one more visible.

Oh sorry my friend. Sadly Isacat is not a dev (yet).