Suggestions for Imperator II

[Napoleon1971]

As much as I agree with the sentiment that the game shouldn't be too focused on Rome when there are so many other interesting civs in the game, I think your multiple start dates idea is quite unrealistic. For every possible dates, the devs would have to adapt borders, diplomacy, techs, missions and more importantly civ for every single tag on a map which you want to be even bigger than the one we already have. It would be extremely consuming in terms of time and resources, there's a reason why the team for EU4 stopped working on other starting date than the earlier one and this game doesn't even use pops!
Would I like to play a Paradox game taking place in the Bronze Age? Most certainly, but it would work better as its own game, with its own mechanics and probably a smaller map than Imperator (with huge chunks of Europe missing).
You also have to take balance into account, every starting date featuring the Achaemenids having already conquered Mesopotamia and Egypt would need to artificially nerf them to the ground to prevent them from steamrolling the world without any opposition, to the point they would be unfun both to play as or against, and the same is true to a lesser extent for every scenario with a strong Rome.

Or you could simply impose some sort of "supply" limit or whatever that makes an empire harder to expand beyond certain borders. I mean, why didn't the Achaemenids conquer Greece? Probably quite a lot of it had to do with the distance back to Persia's core territories. They did a much better job later on by simply mucking in Greece and propping up less dangerous Greek polities like Sparta that were quite capable of doing damage in Greece proper and even Ionia, but utterly uninterested in even messing in Asia Minor (hence they didn't even go with Alexander generations later).

 

[Gurkhal]

In regards to decline to empires and limitations on power projections by empires in the ancient world.

One solutions that I would suggest is to let empires gain increasing ineffeciency, corruption and disloyalty in characters and populations the larger the empires get, which would mean that things are most costly and unstable for a major empires than the same thing would be for a smaller tag. Hence it should, if it comes out as I would hope, allow for smaller tags to tackle the great empires and that great empires requires more internal management than smaller tags would need and spend more resources on said internal management. But also perhaps that decisions, reforms etc. could become available to great hegemon tags that isn't accessable to smaller tags?

But like someone said once, one reason as to why Paradox allows blobs and such and not let them fall apart is that it isn't so fun to see hard work fall to pieces. So what is needed is not just a system for empire decline but also a system for it that allows it to be a fun challenge and not frustrating or "unfun" for the player.

 

[manager2525]

I don't really agree. Relying on too much events prevent you from planning anything and forces you into a reactive role rather than an active one.

Fair, but on the other hand if you rely too much on missions you railroad the game too much. Events have a mean time to happen which you can influence usually to a point. I really liked how ck2 was handling the issue (have not really played much ck3). If you assigned a good court priest/shaman/imam with the right traits you know that sooner or later he would convert land for you. If you were to reform your faith to a proselytising one this became even easier. If you also chose to take the pious converter bloodline you would have the chance to convert everything in a few short years. So indeed you needed to have a strategic approach without railroading the game. Since imperator has characters and traits it would really go down that path. This stands also for any new ancient era game that would have characters and traits.

 

[Brynjar]

I don't really agree. Relying on too much events prevent you from planning anything and forces you into a reactive role rather than an active one.

Missions as they are implemented in Imperator and eu4 are in my opinion possibly the worst mechanic ever implemented in any Paradox game. Being forced to choose between a great opportunity at the wrong time and a great reward for waiting for certain arbitrary mission conditions simply is not fun. I would much rather press the opportunity against a neighbour in turmoil than wait because the game told me to plan to do something else first.

The implementation of mission trees is eu4 is together with the lack of attention to AI the biggest reason I lost pretty much all interest in that game a few years ago, after about 2500 hours played. The implementation in Imperator was not quite as bad from what I can remember, but I would still prefer if the mission system in Imperator was simply removed from the game.

 

[zorkman]

I believe the successor of I:R should make emphasis on war. By balancing the actual system and improving on it, war is very enjoyable in this game.

I:R II could adapt some of the trade mechanics from Victoria 3 as well.

The map should extend to China, for example:

View attachment 907328

Sino-Roman relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The starting date should be the end of the Roman Empire before the destruction and separation of the two Romes. I would start on 1AD when I:R ends.

Roman Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The game should have flavour and missions for all playable nations. Historically researched and not generic missions.

The main reason I didn't buy the game, not until much later in a pack, was it was tedious map painter at source. Although it did improve, that was still the main part of the game. Certainly wont be buying any game that keeps up the same tradition.

 

[Chaostrian]

Everyone cries about that Imperator is just a Map painter (obviously its the best map painter at all)

but what are the other games then? when i play eu4 or hearts of iron i am painting the map too just with a little different style

every PDX GSG is a map painter

So i dont see a reason why Imperator is worst than the others when you painting the map always in your own color

you dont even need to painting the map to win the game you gets the winning endscreen just if you have the biggest score at the end of the game :3

 

[zorkman]

Everyone cries about that Imperator is just a Map painter (obviously its the best map painter at all)

but what are the other games then? when i play eu4 or hearts of iron i am painting the map too just with a little different style

every PDX GSG is a map painter

So i dont see a reason why Imperator is worst than the others when you painting the map always in your own color

you dont even need to painting the map to win the game you gets the winning endscreen just if you have the biggest score at the end of the game :3

Yes, but it was advertised as being one. I remember in development & I had doubts about the game, & Johan replied, saying at its heart it was a map painter. That was when I knew the game wasn't for me. I wonder how many others felt the same way. I know most of paradox games are about map painting in general, but there are other things to do or other ways to play, though probably less so in EU4. This unfortunately on release was one of the worst for that, & trouble is people have moved on nowadays & are looking for a bit more than just fighting one war after another.

The sad thing, is the ancient world is the most popular era after WW2, & there is certainy a vacancy for a historical strategy game fitting in this era. It was certainly a great achievement for Paradox to make a flop in this period, with all that went on at that time, even more considering they have made succesful games out of the less popular periods of Middle Ages, Rennaisance, & Industrial Ages. Shows if you make the right game people will play it.

 

[Victor1234]

Yes, but it was advertised as being one. I remember in development & I had doubts about the game, & Johan replied, saying at its heart it was a map painter. That was when I knew the game wasn't for me. I wonder how many others felt the same way. I know most of paradox games are about map painting in general, but there are other things to do or other ways to play, though probably less so in EU4. This unfortunately on release was one of the worst for that, & trouble is people have moved on nowadays & are looking for a bit more than just fighting one war after another.

The sad thing, is the ancient world is the most popular era after WW2, & there is certainy a vacancy for a historical strategy game fitting in this era. It was certainly a great achievement for Paradox to make a flop in this period, with all that went on at that time, even more considering they have made succesful games out of the less popular periods of Middle Ages, Rennaisance, & Industrial Ages. Shows if you make the right game people will play it.

It's really not a popular setting though. There was a period in the 90's and early 2000's when it was sort of, which saw a lot of titles release at once set in the period but it's been a drought since. All PC games made since 1980's:

Classical antiquity: 329 titles
WW2: 1086 titles
Medieval: 747 titles

Anyways, it's not the first flop in this period for this company. Pax Romana (2003) was made by AGEOD guys back when they were working with Paradox and is an EU1 port that did a lot right IMHO but still failed. EU:Rome (2008) obviously didn't do as well but it wasn't a big investment, and now Imperator finally had a budget but still failed in the end.

A key problem I think is that this period really needs internal politics to work and those are nigh on impossible to do right as a mechanism in any game. Pax Romana tried the most by porting the mechanics from the boardgame Republic of Rome, but the implementation wasn't the best....

The most successful games in this setting seem to have been either city builders or wargames where you fight out the battles yourself.

 

[Brynjar]

Yes, but it was advertised as being one. I remember in development & I had doubts about the game, & Johan replied, saying at its heart it was a map painter. That was when I knew the game wasn't for me. I wonder how many others felt the same way. I know most of paradox games are about map painting in general, but there are other things to do or other ways to play, though probably less so in EU4. This unfortunately on release was one of the worst for that, & trouble is people have moved on nowadays & are looking for a bit more than just fighting one war after another.

The sad thing, is the ancient world is the most popular era after WW2, & there is certainy a vacancy for a historical strategy game fitting in this era. It was certainly a great achievement for Paradox to make a flop in this period, with all that went on at that time, even more considering they have made succesful games out of the less popular periods of Middle Ages, Rennaisance, & Industrial Ages. Shows if you make the right game people will play it.

The only problem I had with it being a map painter was that painting the map was far too easy for it to be any fun to do. Painting the map as a minor tribe was borderline easier than doing it with the Ottomans in EU4 since the AI simply didn't care, even when you were bordering Carthage there was not any percieved threat from the AI unless you went out of your way to make them attack you.

 

[Gurkhal]

While I personally have as much of a social and cultural historical interest in Antiquity as a military one I would say that warfare is perhaps among the parts of Imperator which I have found to be the best developed and fun. So while I am also lookig for a game that isn't a Total War-ish map painter I hope that warfare isn't regulated to a side-show.

But anyway, if we're looking at Imperator for more social and cultural playing I think that we would need to steal a page or two from Victoria 3 and possibly expand on the laws and perhaps also have a new aspect to manage the cultural elements of the tag we're playing. I think there was a suggestion about expanding on the civilization building stuff with things like mythology, written script, literature, social structure and so on. That might be worth to consider from a non-military angle of the game.

 

[Victor1234]

I think the challenge of the peacetime gameplay loop is exactly that it's not very good to interact with as is, not that it isn't detailed enough.

If you look at laws, tech trees and religion, they exist to reward you with bonuses for clicking on them or to unlock parts of the game (legions, certain upgrades or systems) that should be unlocked anyways. More buttons will mean more bonuses I guess, but not sure how it would change anything in the grand scheme of things.

The other peacetime gameplay that isn't player initiated comes from the generic events (another corrupt governor, another pervert officer holder can be fired, another slave revolt can be avoided entirely with a click) which makes it stale exactly like CK, but for some unknown reason, just because it was like that in EU:Rome, they kept the same indirect character control that they were using in that game and Sengoku to experiment on, before coming up with the winning formula in CK2 and beyond, so you can't even keep yourself busy playing with your characters properly.

What the new game really needs is a mini-game like marriage/family management is in CK2/3 for the player to spend time on, only for politics.

 

[Gurkhal]

I think the challenge of the peacetime gameplay loop is exactly that it's not very good to interact with as is, not that it isn't detailed enough.

If you look at laws, tech trees and religion, they exist to reward you with bonuses for clicking on them or to unlock parts of the game (legions, certain upgrades or systems) that should be unlocked anyways. More buttons will mean more bonuses I guess, but not sure how it would change anything in the grand scheme of things.

The other peacetime gameplay that isn't player initiated comes from the generic events (another corrupt governor, another pervert officer holder can be fired, another slave revolt can be avoided entirely with a click) which makes it stale exactly like CK, but for some unknown reason, just because it was like that in EU:Rome, they kept the same indirect character control that they were using in that game and Sengoku to experiment on, before coming up with the winning formula in CK2 and beyond, so you can't even keep yourself busy playing with your characters properly.

What the new game really needs is a mini-game like marriage/family management is in CK2/3 for the player to spend time on, only for politics.

What you say makes alot of sense to me and I personally love the character focus in the CK-series. So I personally would actually argue and hope that Imperator 2 should become a second character focused game series. I'd even argue that there could be even more diversity of stuff to do with a player character than in CK. But I know that this is not to the liking of everyone else.

EDITED: I know that I've previously posted about how a character focused could be done, roughly, in a game set in Antiquity and how it would be different from the medieval CK-series.

 

[Johan]

Yes, but it was advertised as being one. I remember in development & I had doubts about the game, & Johan replied, saying at its heart it was a map painter.

One of the many things I regret saying during Imperators development.

One should never say that a game is only X. Everyone has their own fantasy of what a game is, and we should cater to that more.

 

[Lorcalus]

One of the many things I regret saying during Imperators development.

One should never say that a game is only X. Everyone has their own fantasy of what a game is, and we should cater to that more.

Saying that game wasn't a map painter wouldn't make it any less of a map painter. The mechanics behind IR made it a map painter.

To be honest, saying anything else would have been false advertising imho. You and the team were always honest what kind of game you were making and streaming. Players just hoped it would be something else.

Different time periods have different things that fascinate people and want in the game. Ancient times were famous for its constructions, different armies, trade etc. and at least in first two it failed to much. Playing as Rome and finding that legionares were the same unit as everywhere with a modifier was a letdown. I personally would have played more some unknown tribes if they had some unique troops that i could combine and create unique armies ( like ck3 MaA are all unique).

 

[Johan]

Saying that game wasn't a map painter wouldn't make it any less of a map painter. The mechanics behind IR made it a map painter.

I meant. If I say "its a mappainter" from the start of development, then yes, it becomes a map painter. If I say "one of the fantasies we want to let people experience is painting the map" then the game shapes to be different.

Variation in playstyles and immersive flavor is the key for a game with good retention. Not just mechanics that fits together nicely.

 

[Victor1234]

I meant. If I say "its a mappainter" from the start of development, then yes, it becomes a map painter. If I say "one of the fantasies we want to let people experience is painting the map" then the game shapes to be different.

Variation in playstyles and immersive flavor is the key for a game with good retention. Not just mechanics that fits together nicely.

Regardless of what makes good gameplay, I hope this experience hasn't soured the company or you on this period forever. Few others are making games about this time and almost none in real-time.

 

[Lorcalus]

I meant. If I say "its a mappainter" from the start of development, then yes, it becomes a map painter. If I say "one of the fantasies we want to let people experience is painting the map" then the game shapes to be different.

Variation in playstyles and immersive flavor is the key for a game with good retention. Not just mechanics that fits together nicely.

Couldn't agree more. We, the players, take sometimes what is said to literally. It is very informative to hear that saying early in development game is x actually means internal direction not quick PR.

 

[IsaacCAT]

There is no magic formula and sometimes it is not the right time, no matter how good is everything in the game.

I believe the game is very good right now. Flavour can be added as Invictus is doing and different playstyles for tribes, republics and monarchies could have been developed. Alas, this is a business.

When you are used to success, you think you own it, but it is elusive and capricious as the muses of old.

 

[Gurkhal]

So, let's get this thread moving again with some ideas that could be suggested for Imperator II.

1. The concept of "arable" land from Victoria 3 is something which I think that an Imperator II game could put into good use as to simulate many socio-political conflicts, with perhaps republican Rome being the primary example, in Antiquity.

It might offer how to angle a society between self-owning peasants that can provide their own arms for a levy service and cash crop focus of large estates which may be economically more advantegous for the state/tag but undermines, to the point of destruction, the necessary self-owning peasants/farmers that makes a military levy possible, forcing the state to embrace the professional soldiers of the legion.

Or some kind of middle ground.

2. Next comes an idea for a trade system in a way that would hopefully give more options as well as make it more interactive for the player.

The basic idea here is that you've got a major network, let's say across the Mediterranean and getting hooked up on that network will drastically increase both commerce income as well as gaining access to goods that you might need or want but can't find in your own land or immediete surroundings (to aquire it by force of arms).

The basic idea here is that to gain access to the network you need physical access as in controlling territory that lets those networks connect with you and also have infrastruture like ports, roads, markets, mints etc. to allow for transport of goods and people and faciliate trade. But these things can also come with challenges to themselves.

Possibly also allowing for increased specialization, as connected with arable land above, with Athens for example as a state that specialized in cash crops and imported most of its grain stable.

 

[Brynjar]

1. The concept of "arable" land from Victoria 3 is something which I think that an Imperator II game could put into good use as to simulate many socio-political conflicts, with perhaps republican Rome being the primary example, in Antiquity.

Is arable land that much of a different concept than building slots in Imperator? I don't disagree that it could be utilized better than it was in Imperator, but I would consider arable land more of an evolution of the concept than a new concept to Paradox games.