• 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.

Imperator Dev Diary, 1/13/2020 : The Future

Greetings!


My thanks for bearing with us over the holidays, the team has had a good break, and we’re back and ready to begin the 1.4 Archimedes update for Imperator: Rome.


Before I go into a little more depth as to what you might expect in the first part of 2020, I’d like to address what some of you may already have noticed. Our previous roadmap indicated that 1.4 (previously titled Cassander) would be an weighty expansion to I:R - we’ve taken the decision to change our tack a little here. This is in part due to the success of the 1.2 and 1.3 updates: the ambitious release cadence we achieved in order to be able to bring the radical changes and additions contained therein, is something that we feel suits Imperator well, and is a practice I would like to keep up.


What does this mean?

Well, in practical terms, you can expect to see smaller, more frequent updates than some of our sister titles. We believe that we can provide a more engaging experience for our players by having the opportunity to react to feedback with relative haste (the development of the 1.2 Cicero update, for example), which in turn gives us the chance to focus on individual, core themes on a per-update basis.


Does ‘more updates’ mean more paid DLC than we’re used to on [insert PDS game here]?

Simply put; no. As we’ll be producing more frequent updates, not all of them will have a price tag. Content packs accompanying free updates is a model that I believe serves us well, and gives players the greatest amount of choice and flexibility as to how they spend their money.


Does this mean Imperator is dead?

Absolutely not. We’re committed to Imperator - we believe there is huge potential in both the era and game. Indeed, the I:R team seems to have mysteriously grown over the holidays.

I’ve pre-empted these questions, and I expect some of you to have more. I’ll do my best to answer those which I can in this thread.


---


Moving on, we come to the subject of 2020. I wanted to give you an update as to our plans for the first few updates this year, however before I do, I must stress that any and all plans are subject to change - the level of communication and feedback we’ve had with you on our previous updates makes me confident that transparency is the only way forward here, but it should be with the understanding that the realities of development sometimes hit unexpected turns.


To aid our planning, we’ve split each update cycle into something we’re calling a ‘season’. Giving each season a rough theme allows us to better focus on key parts of the game in need of improvement, without committing to a discrete number of updates or releases.


Season 1: Religion and Culture

Archimedes:

My intention is that the Archimedes update will focus heavily on expanding the religious gameplay options. We’ll be overhauling omens, allowing and promoting hybridisation of religions and pantheons, the dedication of holy sites, and many more features tied to the religious theming of the Archimedes update.

In addition, we’ll be taking some time to rework character loyalty as a more organic system and squashing some oft-requested minor features.


Menander:

The second major part of this release naturally looks towards culture. It’s too early to tell you exactly what you can expect to see here, but to me, the lack of ability to promote cultural diversity is something I believe needs improvement.

Other themes for the Menander update are likely to include Subjects, unrest/rebellions, and more.


Does this mean you won’t touch [Feature X] until it’s part of a season?

Not necessarily. Themes and seasons are a focus, not a restriction.


What’s after Season 1?

Well, it’s a little early to say. -However-, what I can do is give you the intended theme for S2: Warfare.

To conclude, I’m aware that many of you like meaty, detailed Dev diaries that explain features on a mechanical level. This is not something we’ve forgotten, and next week we’ll dive into the details of the Archimedes update to look at Deities and Pantheons.

/Arheo

Edit:

As we lack any exciting screenshots to show you due to the recent holidays, I felt it would be a good time to prove that team Imperator is also team CAT (featuring an assortment of team cats):

upload_2020-1-13_14-58-23.png
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:
1. More difference between army's of mercenaries. Example - slingers from Balear's islands, archers from Ciprus.
2. Much more settings of army. Example: greek or Macedonian phalanx.
3. Seasons in economics.
4. Events of total Barbarians invasions. Example - gauls in Italy and Greece, german in Rome.
 
Please remember to add portrait backgrounds. PLEASE!
View attachment 538864

Also helmets, wreaths, hats and other headwear. It is hard to distinguish characters without headwear, since most of them look very similar and bland without them.

Character portraits in Imperator are almost completely missing any headwear beyond a few Persian/Scythian hats and a basic headband. They should be added.

There is a lot of potential, for example here are a few images I found from google -

c6e53bdc0bf11c29f853223f4d4fae93.jpg


Total_war_Rome_2_mods.jpg

975F5C27AC39CFD23293FF7EE4FACA080593DB0D
FC107309D4A4284A104174536A9EAD1F9E84C2D5
8AC97205D10E4FC984435B203A5665350F44E6C7
prev_thracian_tanit.png
h_thracian3.png
6146225b9da01a9b95385110.L.jpg

maxresdefault.jpg
18c029660773d9589c2d63cfc2c4efec.jpg

UIYOyHx.jpg
portraits.jpg
dad95949cc4be211ab16b67e8a99fe83--attila-the-hun-alexander-the-great.jpg
b_empiretotalwar_barbary9991_010.jpg

Also, same goes for armour. Every Graeco-Roman character wears the same bland bronzed scale armour for the entire span of the game. That should change too.

I read somewhere that basic code for helmets on portraits already exists in the game...so why was it not utilized?
 
Last edited:
Hope the holidays was good for you and the team.
Seems like a good plan, having the ability to have a multi culture/ethnic and multiple religions in my realm is something I have missed in Imperaton.
Thanks for the update
 
@Arheo @Trin Tragula
I am really in favour of the changes you are making and the direction you are moving in with content and flavour.

I do have a concern however and, with all respect to Hannibal and his fellow Carthaginians, it IS the elephant in the room!
Whilst you're happy to communicate and respond to comments regarding the content and flavour, you seemingly ignore any reference to the awful UI/UX and never address any indications/direction for improvement that would make actually interacting with the game less painful. As just a small number of examples:-
  • Scalable UI elements (buttons/windows etc)
  • Moveable windows that have placement persistence ongoing
  • Improved clarity for the icons to absolutely link with function
  • Window 'step-back' improvements/functionality i.e. I have 3 trade routes available - rather than selecting a good and import source and the window vanishing; when I select the import source, if I still have routes available, the previous 'goods' window reappears (in the same place as before) to select the next one.

Much like Europe following the Roman Empire's decline, this feels like a design area that is sitting in the dark ages ;)
 
Perhaps 'parts' of it did; maybe I should have made what was an 'in jest' addended comment more specific and referred to 'Western Europe'. :confused:
Not everything that is Europe was a part of Roman empire to begin with. You can check up some economic estimates and they seems to agree on that medieval Europe both reached a larger population and more wealth per person, Italy in particular became substansially richer during the medieval era.

Humans tend to become better and better at doing things and even rome could not change that.
 
Humans tend to become better and better at doing things and even rome could not change that.
That's true, but to compare two human ages you should check which one had a better welfare compared to the age they lived in, it implies a very difficult and complex historical analysis. During the Middle Ages tech progression wasn't that exceptional (apart from the late era, which saw Michelangelo or Leonardo or Lorenzo The Magnificent), whilst during the Roman Empire (and Republic) the average welfare was quite high (for example a regular and very advanced sanitation system was built in almost every big city founded and conquered, a very complex road system had been built across all the territory of the Empire, etc... each of them deteriorated during the successive centuries, which are those of the Middle Ages where, for example, sanitation system was almost nonexistent).
 
That's true, but to compare two human ages you should check which one had a better welfare compared to the age they lived in, it implies a very difficult and complex historical analysis. During the Middle Ages tech progression wasn't that exceptional (apart from the late era, which saw Michelangelo or Leonardo or Lorenzo The Magnificent), whilst during the Roman Empire (and Republic) the average welfare was quite high (for example a regular and very advanced sanitation system was built in almost every big city founded and conquered, a very complex road system had been built across all the territory of the Empire, etc... each of them deteriorated during the successive centuries, which are those of the Middle Ages where, for example, sanitation system was almost nonexistent).
This sanitation myth about the middle ages and the romans is mostly unfounded, not only did most of the people in the Roman empire not live in cities, but also this supposedly "advanced" sanitation system didn't manage to prevent either malaria, general diseases or large plagues. Even the wiki article on diseases in Rome indicates how actually far the Roman hygiene and sanitation system was from being "very advanced".

In terms of roads and travel Rome was still plagued by widespread local banditry and even small scale piracy in the Mediterranean. So again the difference on that front is smaller than people think.

On a less abstract scale, Roman Europe definitely would not stand on the same ground demographically to High Medieval Europe around 1250-1300 considering the massive growth Europe experienced and the large urbanization that happened without the kind of urban-centric elites or consumer cities Rome and the Classical world had.
 
Last edited:
That's true, but to compare two human ages you should check which one had a better welfare compared to the age they lived in, it implies a very difficult and complex historical analysis. During the Middle Ages tech progression wasn't that exceptional (apart from the late era, which saw Michelangelo or Leonardo or Lorenzo The Magnificent), whilst during the Roman Empire (and Republic) the average welfare was quite high (for example a regular and very advanced sanitation system was built in almost every big city founded and conquered, a very complex road system had been built across all the territory of the Empire, etc... each of them deteriorated during the successive centuries, which are those of the Middle Ages where, for example, sanitation system was almost nonexistent).

Roman sanitation was partly a nightmare:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/roman-toilets-may-actually-have-been-bad-public-health
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ng-an-empire/6464BDBB5D4B8EC0B08C503B6ECD1B7B

Similar things can be said about Roman Bathhouses. Remember the tons of chlorid we use in modern baths and how dangerous it would be without them.
 
This sanitation myth about the middle ages and the romans is mostly unfounded, not only did most of the people in the Roman empire not live in cities, but also this supposedly "advanced" sanitation system didn't manage to prevent either malaria, general diseases or large plagues. Even the wiki article on diseases in Rome indicates how actually far the Roman hygiene and sanitation system was from being "very advanced".
From what I have read, the areas rome took over would look about the same as they did Before the romans came, perhaps with the addition of some roman colonies, but otherwise Little would change and Life would probably be about the same as Before the romans. Rome like everyone else at the time was primary agriculture based and the rich areas like Egypt tended to have good Agricultural land while the poor areas had poor agriculture. On averge the people in roman empire seems to have been only a bit richer than the germanic tribes and there was no massive wealth gap between areas as it is today.

Imperator: Rome make the civilized nation much richer than the tribal nations most due to city specialization, even if we say they could collect taxes much better and such, reaching productivity levels several times higher than the tribes seems a bit extreme.

For economy being a part of a large empire can have advantages such as easier trade but it can have drawbacks such as the empire pulling wealth from you with taxes and invest it into completely different areas. A Group of smaller states would perhaps see more development in their own areas for quite obvious reasons, it could be a reason why you would want client states rather than controlling Everything yourself.
 
I'm sorry that i write not about theme of diary but i want to up question about war mechanic. For me it's a problem that breaks my wish to play Imperator and consists it in strange war score system where i need to control EVERY province in state to have positive score, wins in battle give for score nothing and it is especially worsen with this lovely tactic for AI to divide his army for thousand parts. I think that it would be well if for war score you will need to take only cities in state and all of them will have fortress because it's really annoying when you fighting with thousand parts of AI's army that can crush all your war score just when take one empty province.
 
Has anyone at Paradox responded to the fact that many (if not all) Mac players on Catalina are simply unable to play the game? It keeps crashing on the nation selection screen. This has been going on for over a month.
 
Great news!!

Hope to see a non slave economy allow to happen, because not all economies were slave based and in late period of rome slavery was almost unexistent, (replaced by serfs, peasants, etc)
 
That announcement means, IR is dead. Not right now, but only minor effort will be put on IR, and after season 1, development will be on hold, particularly with CK3 release and all the urgent fixes and missing features CK3 needs.
 
I'm sorry that i write not about theme of diary but i want to up question about war mechanic. For me it's a problem that breaks my wish to play Imperator and consists it in strange war score system where i need to control EVERY province in state to have positive score, wins in battle give for score nothing and it is especially worsen with this lovely tactic for AI to divide his army for thousand parts. I think that it would be well if for war score you will need to take only cities in state and all of them will have fortress because it's really annoying when you fighting with thousand parts of AI's army that can crush all your war score just when take one empty province.

yes, paradox is one step forward, two backwards.
 
Stop killing families after siege. No need for that. Scrap it or Introduce a different mechanic like passive boni and penalties without having characters in this family.
 
That announcement means, IR is dead. Not right now, but only minor effort will be put on IR, and after season 1, development will be on hold, particularly with CK3 release and all the urgent fixes and missing features CK3 needs.

No it doesn't. The Imperator team and CK3 team are two different teams, and we have nothing to do with their launch.
And why on earth would we actively look for more people (like more Content Designers), if the game was dead?