Weekly unoriginal comparison with EU4

[Arizal]

It just does not mean you are aware about the history of most countries in the time period. Don't tell me the common knowlege about EU IV is higher than about the time period in imperator Rome. When i like the period i know the tags. When i dont, i know about EU IV also not much. I just compare the tags with modern nations.

Well, that's the point. If you know barely anything about today's political geography and you look at EUIV, you immediately recognize some of the polities we have today in it. On the top of my head, you can recognize (in no particular order) : France, Croatia, Serbia, Portugal, Hungary (bigger), Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Georgia, (weirder), Lithuania (immense), Turkey (immense), China, Japan (imploded), and also Great Britain (even though it's divided), Spain (also divided), the Czekh Republic (with a different name), Tunis, Kongo, Mali and a few others...

In Imperator, you will recognize Egypt and maybe Makedon if you aren't a greek . And then if you have any knowledge at all about the time period you should see Rome, then Carthage, Athens, Sparta. Oh, and I guess if you have a knowledge about today's names you might see Armenia and Albania .

 

[Vohen]

I disagree with OP, I'm finding incredibly hard to fully commit to a campaign in EU4 since 2.0 came out.

And on the topic of map knowledge, I'd like to point out that taking into account only the political entities doesn't tell the whole story.
To me, the geographical entities are of relevance here as well.
Yes, you won't be able to play as, say, France or England, but you could play in France or England, and then work your way to form the ancient analog to these nations.
And that's not even specifically for Europeans, I'm from Brazil, and the first campaign I decided to play in 2.0 was as Lusitania, making present day Lisbon my capital.
They have very little (or most likely nothing) to do with the Portuguese, but from the simple correlation of them occupying the same geographical position at this time, I found myself more inclined to identify with them.
You can extrapolate that for any region represented on map, like correlating Gaul to France or Albion to the UK.
Is that the same as the direct representation of these countries in EU4? No, definitely not, but it's not nothing either.

 

[DrZoidberg]

EU4 has alot more and better steamers like Florryworry and DDRJake who has showed me how to play EU4. Thats why EU4 is more fun for me I understand that game much much better.
also i think the diplomacy and ae system is better in eu4. Imperator also have more stuff that feels pointless when you look at the big picture.

 

[r3xm0rt1s]

EU4 has better trade. I do not want to micromanage this shit to such extent.

Political influence costs aside (and modded out), why would I not make cities of every territory that does not make food? That +1 trade good is likely better than I would have made anyway, not enough slaves, never enough pops, even with spamming military colonies (manpower is cheap). EU4 development is too abstract for my liking, too expensive in mana, too much clicking anyway, but at least not as much bullshit as making the Saharan territories of Egypt into a continuous urban zone. Only focusing on hyper centralized mega-cities would be even worse. Make settlements great?

Imperial challenge and Heirs of Alexander wars are bad micromanagement hells. Otherwise land is too expensive in warscore. EU4 gives Imperialism as an excuse to attack anybody in late game, and administrative efficiency lets one take significantly more land in wars. Claims in EU4 cost spy network mana (generally useless for anything else) rather than the perpetually scarce political influence mana, and are less necessary overall.

 

[olivenkranz]

EU4 has better trade. I do not want to micromanage this shit to such extent.

Political influence costs aside (and modded out), why would I not make cities of every territory that does not make food? That +1 trade good is likely better than I would have made anyway, not enough slaves, never enough pops, even with spamming military colonies (manpower is cheap). EU4 development is too abstract for my liking, too expensive in mana, too much clicking anyway, but at least not as much bullshit as making the Saharan territories of Egypt into a continuous urban zone. Only focusing on hyper centralized mega-cities would be even worse. Make settlements great?

Imperial challenge and Heirs of Alexander wars are bad micromanagement hells. Otherwise land is too expensive in warscore. EU4 gives Imperialism as an excuse to attack anybody in late game, and administrative efficiency lets one take significantly more land in wars. Claims in EU4 cost spy network mana (generally useless for anything else) rather than the perpetually scarce political influence mana, and are less necessary overall.

In the mid to lategame you wont sell all goods. I had campaign where I had 10+ Gold, Pypyros, Cloth etc unsold. It depends on the area of the map what wont be sold even of the rare goods, but it comes down to not enough trading partners. Cities will consume food as well.

 

[LSF]

I like both games. But I think the time period of IR makes it very hard to be so appealing in terms of replayability.

In EU4 there are always a lot of strong tags around the map so that the diplomactic game becomes important.

In IR there are only Rome, Carthage, Maurya and the Diadochi (maybe Parthia in mid-game) as strong tags. In late game there will be only 2 or 3 really strong tags. If you are an average player you can disregard the diplomatic game because no one will pose a threat to you in mid- to late-game. In EU4 it only happens if you are a really good player.

So to me that is the main reason of EU4 feeling better than IR even though its mechanics are worse!

 

[Paul93]

I don't think that EU4 is such a majestic game. CK2 and Vic2 are a majestic games, and I:R shows a lot of potential.

From a gameplay perspective, EU4 is a pile of metrics that interact with each other. The game has no emergent mechanics. Everything is clearly stated on a fully player-controlled 0-100 yardstick. There is no space for nuance. And as a consequence, the state that you play with do not really feel alive. Finally, EU4 is far more a "pure" strategy game than CK2, Vic2 or I:R, where devs tried (successfully) to mix diverse genres.

In my opinion, EU4 is more appreciated by players than I:R because of the direct connection that they feel with the nations represented in the game. Nearly nobody feels to be part of (or more precisely, descendant of) boii, arverni or antigonids. On the other hand, we are all part of national communities that existed of were formed during the early modern era, and the states that existed but were absorbed later are still felt as regional sub-cultures. In EU4 you can put your "what if" dreams regarding your nation directly in the game.

 

[Ffc]

I don't think that EU4 is such a majestic game. CK2 and Vic2 are a majestic games, and I:R shows a lot of potential.

From a gameplay perspective, EU4 is a pile of metrics that interact with each other. The game has no emergent mechanics. Everything is clearly stated on a fully player-controlled 0-100 yardstick. There is no space for nuance. And as a consequence, the state that you play with do not really feel alive. Finally, EU4 is far more a "pure" strategy game than CK2, Vic2 or I:R, where devs tried (successfully) to mix diverse genres.

In my opinion, EU4 is more appreciated by players than I:R because of the direct connection that they feel with the nations represented in the game. Nearly nobody feels to be part of (or more precisely, descendant of) boii, arverni or antigonids. On the other hand, we are all part of national communities that existed of were formed during the early modern era, and the states that existed but were absorbed later are still felt as regional sub-cultures. In EU4 you can put your "what if" dreams regarding your nation directly in the game.

People thinking they are rightful descendant of Romans :
*Sad Latin noises*