Weekly unoriginal comparison with EU4

[EarlKonrad]

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?

I'd like to add something to the discussion: province and tag density. Comparing EU to IR, the first had less small tags than IR. IR suffers from not having many regional powers, specifically in Spain, England and France. It is all fine and good to have, say, 30 different small tribes in France but at the end of the day all these tags will play the same because they are fundamentally the same -- small French tribes starting in the same region.

Most of the world where people play in EU IV is composed of medium to large sized nations that can expand into other small-medium sized nations before having to face equal sized rivals. Some places where this is an exception are: India, Africa, middle East and HRE (Holy Roman Empire A.K.A Germany).

Additionally, by having less tags per region, and the size difference being substantial, regional geography matters in a way that in IR it really doesn't. Granted, that is also helped by theap being the entire world instead of just everything west of India.

I always think back to Rome and Medieval total war and how those games were incredibly simple but your starting position matter a lot because there were so many tags. Playing England, France, Byzantium, HRE and Russian all felt really different because you had to contend with geography (being an island nation, having borders with two strong nations, facing threats from all side, everyone wanting to kill you). By way of comparison, in Shogun II (a game that I love) there are only 3 real different starting positions (if you start in the western island, the cenrt of China or the Easter portion) which leads to some truly boring mid-late game.

Ithere is also the fact that in EU IV the player has to contend with local mechanics (HRE, Mandate of Heaven and Papacy) which add some variety to regions.

 

[el caballerion]

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?

It's probably more fair to compare EU4 when it had only one DLC, to Imperator with its two flavor packs. I'm sure the other minor nations in Imperator will get more spicy and unique as time goes on.

Lastly, the EU4 period had a lot more super powers who kept their powers in check, amongst each other. Imperator, especially in the west, is dominated by Rome's expansion, which leads to everyone playing defensively while preparing to get invaded. It's a different narrative altogether.

 

[IsaacCAT]

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

I am not a dev, I am a fan like you, with a temporary high dedication on the forums due to the COVID restrictions and love for the game

But rest assured that devs read the posts and from time to time contribute on them, see this thread, posts in blue are from devs:

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

 

[Daft]

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

Didn't you get the memo after my latest post in the Dev Dairy-thread? We the community ARE the dev team now.

Look at us @Arheo , we're the designers now.

 

[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.

To eleborate on that. CK2 had also some sense of progression. You had the turkish Invaders, the Mongols and the Aztecs. I liked all three of the because the gave me some sense of final boss I had eventually to overcome. And they made me thing about the year I am in. How much time I still left. Same in EUIV. The year you are in says something about the world around you. What technologies are around, how much colonization has ocured and so on.
I remember my first game I played to the end date in I:R. It was many patches ago and was a creta run. I conquered and conquerd, builded up my realm and made alliences and fows. But suddently it ended. Just like that the game stoped. No rundown of stats nor and special event occourd. That was so undervelming. I had fun playing but the only sense of progression I made was my county getting bigger. I was disapoited. With no sense of progression and special evens on special times I don't care what year it is in I:R.

 

[IsaacCAT]

To eleborate on that. CK2 had also some sense of progression. You had the turkish Invaders, the Mongols and the Aztecs. I liked all three of the because the gave me some sense of final boss I had eventually to overcome. And they made me thing about the year I am in. How much time I still left. Same in EUIV. The year you are in says something about the world around you. What technologies are around, how much colonization has ocured and so on.
I remember my first game I played to the end date in I:R. It was many patches ago and was a creta run. I conquered and conquerd, builded up my realm and made alliences and fows. But suddently it ended. Just like that the game stoped. No rundown of stats nor and special event occourd. That was so undervelming. I had fun playing but the only sense of progression I made was my county getting bigger. I was disapoited. With no sense of progression and special evens on special times I don't care what year it is in I:R.

My ironic post on stellaris new addition of the emperor of the galaxy is what I would like to be the progression on I:R, like @cristofolmc said, the game could import some ideas. In fact, we can aspire for political progression in game as ancient rome did it first.

 

[manager2525]

At the end of the day it all comes down to personal preferences.

For me there are some things in EUIV that I just can't ignore.
Mana is the most important commodity imho however you have very little control over it. You are just presented with your next ruler (monarcy) and the only thing you can do is disinherite. Even then you really are not sure who is going to come into power. Usually you are able to just see who your heir is and not who is second or third in line. The events that you are presented to increases their stats are lacklusted and even then it cost an arm and a leg to do so. Advisors are again a poor implementation with high end (2 or 3stars) advisors being out of reach for almost all the game. If you ever reach the point of having three 3 star advisors you have already won the game so no point at them unless you are interested in a world conqest game or something. Province development, institutions, national ideas, technologies are all based on Mana that although its not inherently bad imho the inability to control its production and make any strategic decisions on it is.

Having said all the above EU IV still has some good qualities (example better diplomacy) and I have to agree with most that it definitely has a lot more content than I:R. I agree that the countries feel more unique in EU from the small things like the look and feel (different unit models, art etc) to more important like additional mechanisms based on religion, and other features (member of the HRE, MoH, Shogunate etc).

So to conclude while I:R has a lot of potential it still lags in certain areas (like for example diplomacy) and is missing content to make the tags more unique. On the other hand EU feels like an RNG feast in which you have limited control. I don't expect this to change so late in the games development so I look forward to a EU V where the Mana will be created in the same way PI is created in I:R and there will be actual pops instead of some abstract province development.

 

[Mackus]

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 like EU4 trade system. It's only as much complex as you want it to be. You can either set all your merchants to gather in couple trade centers, or you can draw out century long plan to seize global economy, or do anything in between.

Whereas Imperator trade is a chore: you get a notification that country you never heard of wants to import from your province that you can't locate on the map a trade good that you can't remember what it does. Repeat 300 times per year.

 

[Todie]

I like EU4 trade system. It's only as much complex as you want it to be. You can either set all your merchants to gather in couple trade centers, or you can draw out century long plan to seize global economy, or do anything in between.

I know what you're saying, but you're leaving out how rigged that trade-game is. Trade value flows downstream so much easier than upstream... and you cant change the trade nodes or their connections.

... so if you're not playing geographically close to the end nodes in Europe, your potential gains from global trade will be severely gimped as a result.

 

[Arizal]

Someone talked about the ages as something he likes in EUIV. As for me, though I like the concept of intrducing absolutism and the revolution later on, I think the ages should be reworked so that the abilities we take in them would have something like a legacy version. This shouldn't be too much as to harm those who were in a bad spot at the beginning of the game, but they shouldn't either just disappear in one second.

And I dislike the unique bonuses, just like I dislike every national ideas, simply because there is no reason for a political entity called X or Y to be more powerful than its neighbour because it has a particular name. What should matter is its internal fabric, and this can and should be made different by the game mechanics.

Also, golden ages are a bad mechanic to me because they can only be taken once per game. The difficulty to take them should come from a difficulty to enact them, not a hard limit. Maybe you could have them once per age with a growing threshold each time? Anyway, I don't see at first glance how golden ages could be implemented into Imperator, anyway. And I don't know the time period enough to consider they should add ages at the first place...

 

[olivenkranz]

Someone talked about the ages as something he likes in EUIV. As for me, though I like the concept of intrducing absolutism and the revolution later on, I think the ages should be reworked so that the abilities we take in them would have something like a legacy version. This shouldn't be too much as to harm those who were in a bad spot at the beginning of the game, but they shouldn't either just disappear in one second.

And I dislike the unique bonuses, just like I dislike every national ideas, simply because there is no reason for a political entity called X or Y to be more powerful than its neighbour because it has a particular name. What should matter is its internal fabric, and this can and should be made different by the game mechanics.

Also, golden ages are a bad mechanic to me because they can only be taken once per game. The difficulty to take them should come from a difficulty to enact them, not a hard limit. Maybe you could have them once per age with a growing threshold each time? Anyway, I don't see at first glance how golden ages could be implemented into Imperator, anyway. And I don't know the time period enough to consider they should add ages at the first place...

Something with peace, trade and possibly unmatched military succes for a prolonged amount of time. Also internally little to no unrest.

 

[Arizal]

I know what you're saying, but you're leaving out how rigged that trade-game is. Trade value flows downstream so much easier than upstream... and you cant change the trade nodes or their connections.

... so if you're not playing geographically close to the end nodes in Europe, your potential gains from global trade will be severely gimped as a result.

This indeed looks more like a Golden Era than a country burning to the ground but happening to have some of the attributes of a great power ^^.

 

[Vernichtere]

EU IV has a better diplomacy system. Its also has the bad boy mechanic to form colaitions against powermongers. This is better. EU IV has of course a larger world. Thsi you can not change. EU IV gies you more time to play. Imperator Rome is still short.

The rest is more interesting im imperator Rome. EU IV has many mechanics which are just specific for only one country to sell a DLC. The popsystem is missing in EU IV. The tradesystem is just different and also still broken in many aspects. Buildings are only for stacking gold or manpower. Its a bad game. Its still one of the best strategy games around. But i like imperator Rome more.

EU IV skipped the whole domestic politics more or less. In imperator Rome i can hope for even more improvement.

Dont get me wrong i can not play imperator Rome all the time. Right now iam making a break. EU IV i played the last time like a year ago and also with mods which implement a popsystem (MEIOU and Taxes) into the game. I like the time period of EU IV. But i will not play vanilla in EU IV again.

 

[Lord Lambert]

I like the time period of EU IV. But i will not play vanilla in EU IV again.

I've been saying since pre-release that a 1444 mod for Imperator would be the defacto way to play EU4, and that opinion has only grown stronger with each successive patch.

 

[Vernichtere]

I've been saying since pre-release that a 1444 mod for Imperator would be the defacto way to play EU4, and that opinion has only grown stronger with each successive patch.

Also one addition. I dont speak about better UI in EU IV. I play pardax games since EU I. UI was always a problem in paradox games. EU IV just had more time to fix things. I speak only about gamedesign choices and opportunities to get more interesting stuff done. In this way imperator Rome wins.

Yes give me a EU mod for Rome and iam lucky. Far better migration, colonisation and trade system to simulate the time period. Of course you need to mod around some mechanics like trade routes and holy roman empire. But the rest would work very well. Still waiting for such mods. Bronze age mod is just not my time period.

Anyways: i will just buy DLCs in the next years to support the game, even if i dont care for some nations. I dont watn the repeating of Victorias fate.

 

[Vernichtere]

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

I

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.

Some of the things are also in Imperator Rome, you descirbe. I think you just know EU IV better. Thinking about how you expand is also a thing in imperaotr Rome. You can do the good old vassall feeding. There are always something to plan how you spend your influence and which wonders you build, how you move slaves around. I mean, i can also play EU IV in dull way. The Imperator Rome mechanic give more options to do stuff with your provinces, besides investing in development again and again. Of course EU IV has more mechanics right now . But its becuase of far more DLCs. I like the techsystem in imperator rome far more, also the traditions system. Its more or less a expanded national idea system from EU IV. I can create a own nation with different strnegths.

EU IV is simulating a whole world for a far longer time periond. Imperator Rome has right now a shorter time and many regions still miss love. The most tribes are just generic and miss love at all. The tribes eat each other and the map looks different like in EU IV. You just dont care, becuase the tribes are just victims for you anyways. Its something to do for the devs.

 

[Ffc]

I know what you're saying, but you're leaving out how rigged that trade-game is. Trade value flows downstream so much easier than upstream... and you cant change the trade nodes or their connections.

... so if you're not playing geographically close to the end nodes in Europe, your potential gains from global trade will be severely gimped as a result.

Yes I agree you can't just copy/past the exact same trade system, but if you allow nodes to dynamically moves, then you've something more

I know what you're saying, but you're leaving out how rigged that trade-game is. Trade value flows downstream so much easier than upstream... and you cant change the trade nodes or their connections.

... so if you're not playing geographically close to the end nodes in Europe, your potential gains from global trade will be severely gimped as a result.

I totally agree that you cannot just copy past it.
But if you allow nodes to move dynamically, you can have something interesting

And this is clearly possible, it's just an oriented graph after all

 

[Biegeltoren]

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.)

I feel you man, As an Anbennar dev I'd love the systems of Imperator in EU4. If I could magically transplant Anbennar to Imperator I honestly would, though the work required to do that would be so immense and we're also working on making a mod for CK3... Maybe once that is close to done the map and stuff can be ported to Imperator. But I'm not hugely hopeful that we'll manage to move it properly.

 

[Nostalgium]

I feel you man, As an Anbennar dev I'd love the systems of Imperator in EU4. If I could magically transplant Anbennar to Imperator I honestly would, though the work required to do that would be so immense and we're also working on making a mod for CK3... Maybe once that is close to done the map and stuff can be ported to Imperator. But I'm not hugely hopeful that we'll manage to move it properly.

Same here, especially the gradual shift from levies to legions - which I feel would work real good with EU4's professionalism system - and the granularity of culture and religion which is just so good.

 

[Vernichtere]

For trade system in Eu IV:

- its only one direction
- markets are not synamic
- trade goods can not be increased.
- AI is not able to handle it at all. Total player domination

Even the EU III system was better.

Imperator Rome:

it has at least a chance to get more depth. Grain is consumed by pops. You can let the pops consume other tradegoods also. At least with mods i think. Yes its still clunky. But there are more options. You can also simulate traderoutes right now with the diplomatic routes. I import traderoutes i dont need. Smaller tribes outside of the diplomatic range of the producer buy these trade goods. Its a working way even with the current system. Everybody earns money.

The problem with the current system:
- grain is the only thing you need to make a giant capital province happy. You need far lesss trade goods to make everybody happy. I can have 1000 pops in a province and they will be happy with some luxus goods.
- you earnmore or less the same money by exporting into big provinces of a rich egypt and a empty germanic tribe. In theory its better to trade with so many small countries as possible.
-diplo range is around capital. I still can not trade with india as Rome,, even when i control whole persia, but one terretory between the borders.
-transit and pirates are not a thing. a tribe surrounded by a kingdom can still import things from far away without paying to the kingdom. War also does not matter.