Your Imperator priorities 2021 Edition

  • 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.
1. Diplomacy NEEDS to get better after 2.0. I mentioned this earlier in another one of my posts in the suggestions area, but I think that ambassador's chosen among the character pool is absolutely needed. Not only does it give someone a job, but it allows for dynamic character interactions that could help make or break the interactions that go on. (Someone being declared a 'friend' of the Gauls, or something like that) Or perhaps even sending a character who's arrogant to go insult Carthage, etc. Potentially having ambassadors killed, and all of a sudden you get a CB for that. (I believe one of the wars with the Boi historically started with something like this)

2. Trade. Needless to say, I think there's got to be some renovations in this area. I'm not a huge EU4 player, but I do think that the game does things well that Imperator could learn from.

3. Government's need to be a little more fleshed out. Especially democratic states. I need to be able to feel that the factions in the country actually mean something and that balancing those relationships is more than just clicking a button on an event chain. (Or, perhaps even more events that are fun to follow?) Something's gotta give in this direction. I think there's a lot of cool things that can come about from the governorships, and I'd really like to see some more development in that area insofar as it relates to this. One other thing I really want to see is like, notable differences between different democratic states? I feel like they all play very similarly. (If I'm wrong here, please someone correct me, I'm certainly no expert)

4. Characters - Needless to say I think that they're moving in the right direction with this, and it kind of feeds back into what I said about diplomacy and government. I think IR could be the perfect blending and balancing of character interest and managing of the 'state' if they manage to incorporate these characters better.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With all that said, I do want to make it clear that I DO believe the game is moving in the right direction. I'm really enjoying the hell out of 1.5 and I think 2.0 is going to be a massive, massive step in the right direction. But that said, this game could be STELLAR if there's more development in those areas.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
What is going on with MP servers? Sorry, but I have not played there and I cannot possible know.
It's basically impossible to run more than 10-12 people in mp no more grand 30+ lobbies, This is due to desyncs/crashes being far more common since we got new servers a few months ago
 
  • 1
Reactions:
To me it's mostly trade and closely followed by characters. Trade should both have a transportation cost as well as have a traderoute that would give wealth to basically everyone along that trade route. Those trade routes should be blockable by armies and fleets too.

Characters are kinda weird to me, I just can't get excited to care about them and are mostly just an annoyance as a result. I guess the frustration mostly comes from the fact that it is kinda like CK, but at the same time you play as a nation, so there is no point in getting really attached to any of the characters. There is also not that many ways to deal with them, so they sometimes get disloyalty inspired for no reason and without me knowing about it or who did it and no way to find out. I'm not sure what to do here to fix it, as Imperator just isn't a family simulation and you play as a nation, but maybe more intrigue options would be a start. Like maybe having a spymaster I can send to spy on some corrupt governor so that I can blackmail them later if they get disloyal or something like that.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
To me it's mostly trade and closely followed by characters. Trade should both have a transportation cost as well as have a traderoute that would give wealth to basically everyone along that trade route. Those trade routes should be blockable by armies and fleets too.

Characters are kinda weird to me, I just can't get excited to care about them and are mostly just an annoyance as a result. I guess the frustration mostly comes from the fact that it is kinda like CK, but at the same time you play as a nation, so there is no point in getting really attached to any of the characters. There is also not that many ways to deal with them, so they sometimes get disloyalty inspired for no reason and without me knowing about it or who did it and no way to find out. I'm not sure what to do here to fix it, as Imperator just isn't a family simulation and you play as a nation, but maybe more intrigue options would be a start. Like maybe having a spymaster I can send to spy on some corrupt governor so that I can blackmail them later if they get disloyal or something like that.

I've noticed that I tend to care MORE about the characters when I've got a monarchy situation. (For obvious reasons) But it's just so much harder to keep track/care about characters in Democracies. Which sucks because I actually want to have a reason to favorite them in my outliner and follow what's going on with them, but the game doesn't give us enough mechanics. (It'd also be nice if there was some way to keep tabs on WHY they feel certain ways, or what jobs they had and so on)
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Automated trades
I am not sure if you are aware that in 2.0 they will automate trades or if this is what you meant for automated trades. Look for Provincial Trading in this DD:

 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Okay I've decided to update my list.

1. Ambassadors. (This fits with Diplomacy)
2. More country and culture missions.
3. Unit Designer. (Something similar but perhaps not a direct copy of Stellaris or HOI4)
 
Okay I've decided to update my list.

1. Ambassadors. (This fits with Diplomacy)
2. More country and culture missions.
3. Unit Designer. (Something similar but perhaps not a direct copy of Stellaris or HOI4)
Please no unit designer - This doesn't really fit the era. Why should my soldiers wear unhistorical armor in a game strong on the authentical side? Also what does this achieve beside destroying immersion? Why should my roman heavy infantry wear a greek heavy armor and what meaningful purpose would this achieve? What would even be the difference between most similar equipment types? It`s not a fantasy role play game - I like those games, but don't turn a historical global strategy game into a fantasy RPG. This idea should be implemented in a possible future fantasy global strategy game from paradox, but please not in I:R.
For I:R I would rather prefer the implementation of different historical units for different factions/cultures instead of a unit designer.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Please no unit designer - This doesn't really fit the era. Why should my soldiers wear unhistorical armor in a game strong on the authentical side? Also what does this achieve beside destroying immersion? Why should my roman heavy infantry wear a greek heavy armor and what meaningful purpose would this achieve? What would even be the difference between most similar equipment types? It`s not a fantasy role play game - I like those games, but don't turn a historical global strategy game into a fantasy RPG. This idea should be implemented in a possible future fantasy global strategy game from paradox, but please not in I:R.
For I:R I would rather prefer the implementation of different historical units for different factions/cultures instead of a unit designer.
You are going to be able to integrate other cultures and their inventions. Why not they garments? I:R is also an alternative history simulator.

But I agree with you that this should not be Rio Carnival 2022.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You are going to be able to integrate other cultures and their inventions. Why not they garments? I:R is also an alternative history simulator.

But I agree with you that this should not be Rio Carnival 2022.

Imo this would be a lot of effort for little gain. I would prefer a auxilliary system instead - maybe the one similar to the merc system suggestion from @crownsteler in an older thread about mercenaries. That way you would integrate other cultures into the military in a historical way with less effort for the devs -> more other features and improvements.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Please no unit designer - This doesn't really fit the era. Why should my soldiers wear unhistorical armor in a game strong on the authentical side? Also what does this achieve beside destroying immersion? Why should my roman heavy infantry wear a greek heavy armor and what meaningful purpose would this achieve? What would even be the difference between most similar equipment types? It`s not a fantasy role play game - I like those games, but don't turn a historical global strategy game into a fantasy RPG. This idea should be implemented in a possible future fantasy global strategy game from paradox, but please not in I:R.
For I:R I would rather prefer the implementation of different historical units for different factions/cultures instead of a unit designer.

I understand your worry there. I think there are ways to limit players from being able to go buck wild with it. However - I do think there are some historical precedents to take into account for.

First thing first, the armament and application of certain unit types changed over time.
The short gladius sword was not always used by the Romans, and over time this weapon changed. Why not allow for control by the player to make adjustments based on these real world adjustments?

There's really a lot more to this world than we're sometimes willing to credit for. These were not stagnant, never changing societies and militaries. Let's not treat it that way.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I understand your worry there. I think there are ways to limit players from being able to go buck wild with it. However - I do think there are some historical precedents to take into account for.

First thing first, the armament and application of certain unit types changed over time.
The short gladius sword was not always used by the Romans, and over time this weapon changed. Why not allow for control by the player to make adjustments based on these real world adjustments?

There's really a lot more to this world than we're sometimes willing to credit for. These were not stagnant, never changing societies and militaries. Let's not treat it that way.
I don't have a problem, if weapons change or units, if it's historical, but in the given timeframe it's better to implement it in laws (military reforms) and inventions. Just an example: In small cases as buffs and in larger cases eventually as new units (especially, if this gonna be a thing somewhere in the future). I'm not against changes and I would be mad denying that, but that isn't really a strong argument for a unit designer - either it will be to much of a fantasy element or it's not noteworthy enough, if it's more on the historical side. So why not just add something else for more variation of units and progress of weapons and armor? Which sticks more with history without too much fantasy elements or a lot of developer work with little impact.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Things that should have been part of 2.0 in my opinion:
1. Combat/Tactics rework
2. Tribes rework

Things that deserve fleshing out:
3. Diplomacy
4. Trade
5. Economy
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't have a problem, if weapons change or units, if it's historical, but in the given timeframe it's better to implement it in laws (military reforms) and inventions. Just an example: In small cases as buffs and in larger cases eventually as new units (especially, if this gonna be a thing somewhere in the future). I'm not against changes and I would be mad denying that, but that isn't really a strong argument for a unit designer - either it will be to much of a fantasy element or it's not noteworthy enough, if it's more on the historical side. So why not just add something else for more variation of units and progress of weapons and armor? Which sticks more with history without too much fantasy elements or a lot of developer work with little impact.
I mean, I feel what you are saying here. But the issue is that if you do change it where the historical development makes it better, then what's the choice really? Players will ALWAYS go toward what they perceive as the better option. (Which we know isn't necessarily the case, even historically speaking. Rather that the changes were made for new and varying kinds of threats in each era)

I'd argue that given how the team is sort of going toward allowing us to have this 'make your own wonder' mechanic, that it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for there to be some kind of unit customization. But who knows where things might go in the coming patches, dlc's and changes.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the most important areas to reworke are:
- Diplomacy
- Trade
- Characters
- Tribes
For flavor:
- Make more regional/tag mechanics as in EU4
- Gaul and Britain
- Parthia, Armenia, Bactria...
- Iberia and North Africa
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
For me I just want to play the game more than I currently do.
 
Sum of the current numbers of priorities (updated version):

1. Trade: 23
2. Diplomacy (incl. subjects): 14
3. Characters (incl. families): 12
4. Tribes (government incl. migratory tribes): 11
5. Economy and population: 10
6. Flavour (and events): 7
7. Government types (all three major within one post): 7
8. Cultures and Religions*: 6
9. Buildings: 5
10. Republic government: 4
11. Food system/management (improvements, changes): 3
12. Internal politics (including civil war improvements): 3
13. Mid and late game features**: 3
14. Further military features/improvements: 3
15. Monarchy government: 1

*further changes to the current system plus more distinction between different cultures and religion
**playstyle changes over the course of a campaign, crisis, tribe migrations, etc.


Imo some topic merges, which may show in which greater areas of the game updates are requested:

1. Economy* - trade, economy and pops, buildings, food: 41
2. Government types - all, monarchy, republic, tribal**: 23
3. Characters and Politics: 15
4. Diplomacy (incl. subjects): 14
5. Flavour: 7
6. Culture and Religion: 6

*I know it's a very big category, but these aspects are interwined and would make a great larger update someday (or maybe split into two medium ones)
**tribes are considered as the most important

Some notes: Single mentioned priorities are not included, if they didn't fit in any of the categories above. Also different detailed priorities are in the same category as long as they share the same overall topic. Posts with more than three priorities got all of them taken into account, but if somebody wrote more than one priority that matches the same category within his post, it only got counted once. If one priority includes several categories, they got split. E.g. a trade, economy and pop priority is seperated in one count for trade and one for economy and population. Categories with two or more aspects are merged, because they are most of the time mentioned together. Specific faction DLCs are not included, because there are just about 2 to 3 different posts including them different factions currently.

Since the last time no ranks have changed.

Attention:
Because of the timing of this thread, I guess it is worth to mention that further improvements to the military aspects (like navies, tactics, etc.) probably are underrepresented. People probably weren't sure how large the 2.0 war and military update is going to get - so further military updates would rank higher, if the thread was created some time after 2.0 - knowing which aspects aren't touched by 2.0.
 
  • 3Love
  • 1Like
Reactions: