Military Changes are Frustrating

[csward53]

I started playing again after last playing in December. The military system is completely different and imho less fun. I can't recruit units to my army anymore? Where's the fun in that? As Messelia (southern Gaul Greek Colony), you have 2k units, the same number of units as some of your neighbors.

-You have little influence over army composition. I get this, but having elephants and camels and horses all in the same army was fun. I get this new way is more realistic, but build armies kind of the hallmark of grand strategy games and Paradox games in general. How about letting us build units based on our culture? Why can't I press slaves into service? This is really taking away many avenues of strategy and alt history fun.

-having to wait for pops to assimilate to get a bigger army is painfully dull. These games are about war. If you can't go war and complete your mission tree, do we just speed 5 until we can?

-Since Messelia can only field a 2k army starting out they have a real problem sieging. The number of soldiers required for a siege needs to be lowered just like it was in EU4 when they made a change like this. Remember folks, the AI is going to struggle with this even harder. There's probably going to be lots of white peace in small nation AI wars.

-You could hire mercs, but the upkeep is so ridiculous they'll turn on you as soon as you're in the red. (5 ducat upkeep for a 6k army? I don't remember mercs being this expensive)

-Why can I build a navy but not an army? How does that make any sense?

-Why can't I pick my military leader when I can pick every other position of government? What about this whole system of general loyalty they were touting as a feature pre-release? So as Messelia, my ruler died randomly sieging a province and was replaced by a guy with a martial score of 1. 1! Needless to say the A.I. stack wiped me before I could gather my wits. I mean, since martial is apparently a HUGE factor in battles, I'd love to have at least some control over who leads my armies.

Thanks to anyone who read this. Maybe I am missing something (did they hide the button because I spent a ton of time looking for the "recruit to army" button), but whew, here we go again. Another long wait for this to be fixed again. When is the game going to be good Paradox? I like the December version of the game (although it was broken easy iirc) better than this. I might refund the 2 DLCs I bought today and that's something I never do with Paradox games. This isn't a direction I'm a fan of. What do you guys think?

 

[IsaacCAT]

You have little influence over army composition

You do with legions, you just need to progress into the game, change the law and you will be able to have your elephants again

having to wait for pops to assimilate to get a bigger army is painfully dull.

You can integrate other cultures to levy their POPs right away

 

[Geremin]

having to wait for pops to assimilate to get a bigger army is painfully dull. These games are about war. If you can't go war and complete your mission tree, do we just speed 5 until we can?

This is not a game about war - it's a game about empire building and management with war as one part of your toolbox. The other parts are economy and diplomacy and you have to focus on those as well. You obviously can form your own opinion about the game but the changes are fantastic for giving you tradeoffs and long-term planning with payoffs.

-Why can I build a navy but not an army? How does that make any sense?

Because if you build a boat, the boat stays built. You own the boat. If you raise an army of levies, then finish the way, those levies want to go home to their regular jobs and family. Which is how it worked in this time period - standing armies were uncommon outside of the large states (which can do this). You have to invest in the technologies to raise legions which are your standing armies.

-Why can't I pick my military leader when I can pick every other position of government?

Now this I actually agree with in your point - the governor of a province is the military leader of the levy from that province. I think this makes a lot of sense for provinces outside your capital province, but your ruler is the governor of your capital province so if they die, their heir becomes military leader. I do wonder whether it makes sense to allow governors to designate a levy general - the AI governors can choose to or not depending on how skilled and ambitious they are; but the player can send off a lackey to do it if their ruler is not good martial. But then of course, successful generals get popular...

 

[Torugu]

I started playing again after last playing in December. The military system is completely different and imho less fun. I can't recruit units to my army anymore? Where's the fun in that? As Messelia (southern Gaul Greek Colony), you have 2k units, the same number of units as some of your neighbors.

-You have little influence over army composition. I get this, but having elephants and camels and horses all in the same army was fun. I get this new way is more realistic, but build armies kind of the hallmark of grand strategy games and Paradox games in general. How about letting us build units based on our culture? Why can't I press slaves into service? This is really taking away many avenues of strategy and alt history fun.

This is what legions are for. In fact, control over the unit composition is one of the most important advantages of using legions.

-having to wait for pops to assimilate to get a bigger army is painfully dull. These games are about war. If you can't go war and complete your mission tree, do we just speed 5 until we can?

The game is about building an empire, not about going to war.

That said, you don't need to wait before you go to war. In fact I would argue it is almost always better to get more pops by conquering more land, than it is to wait for your internal development to catch up. You do however have to be smart about it, especially when you are small. That is what makes the game fun.

-Since Messelia can only field a 2k army starting out they have a real problem sieging. The number of soldiers required for a siege needs to be lowered just like it was in EU4 when they made a change like this. Remember folks, the AI is going to struggle with this even harder. There's probably going to be lots of white peace in small nation AI wars.

The best way to conquer if you're small is to get yourself an ally. It's pretty much required.

The AI (as with most games) has many problems. Expansion with only 2000 soldiers is not one of them.

-You could hire mercs, but the upkeep is so ridiculous they'll turn on you as soon as you're in the red. (5 ducat upkeep for a 6k army? I don't remember mercs being this expensive)

Levies are cheaper than ever and you don't even pay maintenance for levies.

-Why can I build a navy but not an army? How does that make any sense?

Because standing navies were much more common than standing armies. Also because the naval system hasn't been reworked yet.

-Why can't I pick my military leader when I can pick every other position of government? What about this whole system of general loyalty they were touting as a feature pre-release? So as Messelia, my ruler died randomly sieging a province and was replaced by a guy with a martial score of 1. 1! Needless to say the A.I. stack wiped me before I could gather my wits. I mean, since martial is apparently a HUGE factor in battles, I'd love to have at least some control over who leads my armies.

You'll have to clever with the cards that you're being dealt. Once you have more than one province you'll want to pick governours that have high martial (finally giving you a reason to not just pick the highest civic stat).

Though I do think that small nations especially should have the option to appoint an "army leader" for their capital region.

Thanks to anyone who read this. Maybe I am missing something (did they hide the button because I spent a ton of time looking for the "recruit to army" button), but whew, here we go again. Another long wait for this to be fixed again. When is the game going to be good Paradox? I like the December version of the game (although it was broken easy iirc) better than this. I might refund the 2 DLCs I bought today and that's something I never do with Paradox games. This isn't a direction I'm a fan of. What do you guys think?

What can I say, the changes were extremely well received overall. And aside from a few specific gripes you're the first one I have seen who was dissatisfied with the system as a whole.

 

[crownsteler]

I love the military changes. The fact that you now need to integrate cultures before you can recruit them gives far more meaning to culture than exists in any other Paradox game (save Victoria perhaps). It now matters what cultures you integrate and what direction you expand in. I think this is a model other games should adopt.

The fact that you can't control army composition is also great as it is otherwise far to easy to create an optimal army composition with which the AI can't compete.

The only issue I can see is the inability of rulers to lead to legions. That isn't great. But I don't see an issue with your ruler dieing and being replaced by an incompetent leader; that just increases risk and means there are more factors to take into account. I would however like to see a change to the capital region so that each province has its own governor, with the ruler just controlling the capital territory. I would also prefer a system whereby you can assign a 'army chief' of sorts which could control the army.

In term of the navy; I agree. That needs to be overhauled, but that would also require an overhaul of the trade system to make navies more worthwhile.

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

These games are about war.

If that was all they were about, I would certainly not play them as much as I do.
In fact I wish they were less focused on war.

 

[Torugu]

If that was all they were about, I would certainly not play them as much as I do.
In fact I wish they were less focused on war.

That's surprising, given your name...

I take it you're more into the sound of alternative forms of violence? Like phycological violence or neglect?


/jk of course

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

I take it you're more into the sound of alternative forms of violence? Like phycological violence or neglect?

I pray for the day when we can score stuff like “civilisation points” for crafting an exceptionally scathing speech against our opponents, à la Demosthenes or Cicero. (Or alternatively have them die from rage.)

But I'll keep that idea of phycological violence somewhere handy, I can see a lot of potential for that.

 

[Akbar The Great]

If that was all they were about, I would certainly not play them as much as I do.
In fact I wish they were less focused on war.

Definitely, the warfare isn't very engaging - i've always said you need more ways to win, I think you have them in EUIV, I don't think they're as well-represented here as they should be - which is why trade and diplo need serious reworks.

If the game is now a civ builder, then that's the direction gameplay needs to head not with further emphasis on war, I think "arcadey-streamlined warfare game" is HOI4's remit.

 

[Daft]

The threat of violence was always a Roman strategy, and it's military might reflected itself in the diplomatic relationships Rome had.

I'm not entirely sure we see that in the game, would love for there to be more diplomacy based on the fact that refusing a powerful nations suggestions could lead to being conquered.

 

[KassandrosF]

the levy system is an interesting idea but its very poorly implemented and its mechanics are not properly explained and on top of that its extremly buggy, honestly prefered the EU like system of creating cohorts and making an army yourself, even if a bit unhistorical it was way more fun and engaging

but i know why it was implemented, to increase the apeal to a major playerbase by including a "one button army" so players can disconect themselves from the process of army management

honestly wish we could go back to the 1.5 system

 

[SanicK]

the levy system is an interesting idea but its very poorly implemented and its mechanics are not properly explained and on top of that its extremly buggy, honestly prefered the EU like system of creating cohorts and making an army yourself, even if a bit unhistorical it was way more fun and engaging

but i know why it was implemented, to increase the apeal to a major playerbase by including a "one button army" so players can disconect themselves from the process of army management

honestly wish we could go back to the 1.5 system

I agree that the current implementation of the levy system is not fully explained and even buggy. but I disagree that we have to go back to what it was before. First, the levy system has historical origins and fits with the historical period portrayed and complements the system of cultures and integration of cultures. Secondly, if you want to create and organize an "army" in detail, that's what the legion system is for. After the devs fix and improve the tooltips of the levy system, what I want is for them to further modify the military part, with the inclusion of a system of auxiliary troops in conjunction with integrated cultures and their rights.

 

[Akbar The Great]

PDS games are not TW, they don't live and die on warfare and battles. I do like the Legion honours thing, I'm ok with levies, I think they a missed a trick not allowing your leader to lead your legion though, especially with Prhyrus (I can never spell that guys name). While it goes without saying the better warfare is then that's all to the good, I think it's a bit of a msitake to overly fixate on a game's weakest component thinking that's where the road to greatness lies. You wouldn't expect CK to excel at warfare right?

While every element is an abstraction, in this type of game battles and warfare is always gonna be the red headed step-child, it's potential depth is limited and enjoyment is limited because there's no actual battle a'la TW. You can't see the blood. you can't hear the sounds, you have little control, you're watching bars tick down really, and microing the forces at your disposal. And of course the true weakness lies as it does with TW as well, that AI just can't handle being a tough opponent, you lose because of overwhelming odds and that's pretty much it. This is whyy so many start with TW, and graduate to PDS because the warfare aspect is never deep, interesting or challenging enough. I remember some really epic battles in TW years ago with mods, I've gone back to try and recreate that and I can't.

I'm never too critical, if ever, of PDS on warfare, because it's not what their games are about, it's something we have to have or it can't be a Historical game about conquest, and civ building - you need to have warfare as an expression of the progress you making within the game. It's the means to the end, but you've made the key decsions and choices always off the battlefield to ensure your campaign progresses.

Is anyone really playing this game to be a warfaring God?

 

[csward53]

Thank you for the replies everyone, I appreciate the feedback. Maybe I'll try a game as Rome and see if I can figure this system out.

If the game is about playing tall now, well, I don't know if I want to play this game in its current state. There are better games from Paradox with a lot more events (Even CK3 at this point has more events). Civ 6, while a bad war game, is a fun one to play tall as well. I mean there's not really a lot to do if you take out conquest in Imperator Rome, at least compared to other Paradox games. Heck, Hearts of Iron 4 has more alt history stuff you can do and deeper strategy, but I doubt most people would say that game isn't about war...

Thanks for helping this noob ^^.

P.S. Paradox PLEASE add better tutorials (or any at all) when you make huge changes. Even a pop-up page on the game menu screen explaining the changes like you do in EU4 would help. It was hard to even find any YouTube videos from 2021 about this game via Google search.

 

[csward53]

PDS games are not TW, they don't live and die on warfare and battles. I do like the Legion honours thing, I'm ok with levies, I think they a missed a trick not allowing your leader to lead your legion though, especially with Prhyrus (I can never spell that guys name). While it goes without saying the better warfare is then that's all to the good, I think it's a bit of a msitake to overly fixate on a game's weakest component thinking that's where the road to greatness lies. You wouldn't expect CK to excel at warfare right?

While every element is an abstraction, in this type of game battles and warfare is always gonna be the red headed step-child, it's potential depth is limited and enjoyment is limited because there's no actual battle a'la TW. You can't see the blood. you can't hear the sounds, you have little control, you're watching bars tick down really, and microing the forces at your disposal. And of course the true weakness lies as it does with TW as well, that AI just can't handle being a tough opponent, you lose because of overwhelming odds and that's pretty much it. This is whyy so many start with TW, and graduate to PDS because the warfare aspect is never deep, interesting or challenging enough. I remember some really epic battles in TW years ago with mods, I've gone back to try and recreate that and I can't.

I'm never too critical, if ever, of PDS on warfare, because it's not what their games are about, it's something we have to have or it can't be a Historical game about conquest, and civ building - you need to have warfare as an expression of the progress you making within the game. It's the means to the end, but you've made the key decsions and choices always off the battlefield to ensure your campaign progresses.

Is anyone really playing this game to be a warfaring God?

It's the point in history where Rome expands to become a huge empire and the Diodachii states fight amongst themselves for Alexanders empire. Yeah, I kind of thought the game was about war. Heck there's Punic Wars DLC, Mission trees about conquering, ect. ect. I guess the Imperator crowd on these forums are the guys that blast EU4 for being a "map painter"? I'd want Paradox to put a lot more events and AI interactions in their games if there was no war. It's good we have something different in Imperator Rome, I'll admit.

 

[KassandrosF]

the levy system has historical origins and fits with the historical period

i agree that its historically accurate, what i say is that it removes agency from the player by not allowing them to decide wich types of units their armies are made of or the number of those

while historical accuracy is important, its far more important the freedom of the player, specially if the objective of this game is a civilization builder, as the developers have stated in the past

complements the system of cultures and integration of cultures.

i think the integration of different cultures could be better implemented with the previous system, as it is right now its very disconected with the gameplay experience and poorly explained

"army" in detail, that's what the legion system is for.

im going to be frank and say that in the current version of the game there is no incentive to create or invest in legions, you can do just fine with levies, in fact sometimes changing to legions is to the detriment of the experience and maybe only useful for roplaying, wich makes even less sense since rulers are not able to lead them, wich barring the fact that kings/consuls/emperors not being able to command profesional armies is a terrible design deciscion, removes even more agency and freedom from the player.

Is anyone really playing this game to be a warfaring God?

that should be a choice to the players and not the developers, besides warfare was an extremly important part of the classical age

 

[DC123456789]

"Playing tall" is perhaps a mischaracterization - what he/she's trying to say, I think, is that Imperator has a significant focus on internal development, and so warfare (or at least the process of raising/recruiting your armies) reflects that.

 

[Bovrick]

i agree that its historically accurate, what i say is that it removes agency from the player by not allowing them to decide wich types of units their armies are made of or the number of those

while historical accuracy is important, its far more important the freedom of the player, specially if the objective of this game is a civilization builder, as the developers have stated in the past

i think the integration of different cultures could be better implemented with the previous system, as it is right now its very disconected with the gameplay experience and poorly explained

im going to be frank and say that in the current version of the game there is no incentive to create or invest in legions, you can do just fine with levies, in fact sometimes changing to legions is to the detriment of the experience and maybe only useful for roplaying, wich makes even less sense since rulers are not able to lead them, wich barring the fact that kings/consuls/emperors not being able to command profesional armies is a terrible design deciscion, removes even more agency and freedom from the player.


that should be a choice to the players and not the developers, besides warfare was an extremly important part of the classical age

You can't have it both ways surely? Complaining that Levies spoil the game because they don't offer enough flexibility for unit types...and also complain that Legions offering flexibility per unit type are pointless because Levies do the job.

The fixation this forum has on having the ruler lead one of the Legions does strike me as strange, as it is such a small detail, but there's been so much whinging I'm sure it will be in the game before too long.

 

[KassandrosF]

You can't have it both ways surely? Complaining that Levies spoil the game because they don't offer enough flexibility for unit types...and also complain that Legions offering flexibility per unit type are pointless because Levies do the job.

The fixation this forum has on having the ruler lead one of the Legions does strike me as strange, as it is such a small detail, but there's been so much whinging I'm sure it will be in the game before too long.

its because it was something that no one expected to be removed since rulers leading armies worked perfectly fine in pre 2.0 builds of the game, it was something players liked to do in order to roleplay or for practical effects

i like the levy system, i just wish it were better implemented and more clearly explained

 

[Bovrick]

i like the levy system, i just wish it were better implemented and more clearly explained

On that I agree, I think it still isn't doing what they intend it to do which is frustrating - because I think the intent is great. It could also do with being a lot more explicit in how it works, and what you can do to influence it; but that won't come until they can iron out the bugginess.