Suggestions for Imperator II

[IsaacCAT]

That was a great step forward in trying to capture the more decisive nature of battles in this period vs in other Paradox games, but it could still use some work. Right now the optimal strategy is still to carpet siege to capture as much territory as possible, but thankfully now with less targets. Instead of besieging every single territorial unit, now you can go for forts and provincial capitals for ~7-8 sieges per region.

That's still too many though and encourages you to do exactly what you do in every Paradox game except HOI: Focus on the taking territory siege slog. The enemy army is an annoying fly that is buzzing around my sieges. I care only about preventing them from sieging my territory or them disrupting my siege of their territory.

Ideally in the next game the same effect quick flipping happens (for everything except forts) but linked to the balance of opposing forces rather than territorial control.

Using the region map as an example:

Spoiler

Let's say you have an army that entered Cisalpine Gaul and is marching towards Italia. If the enemy has no army or levies in this region or the neighboring regions, everything but forts flip over to you in Cisalpine Gaul with a short timer like now.

This encourages the attacker to focus on catching and destroying the enemy armies as a #1 priority while still leaving the current option of sieging your way slowly to victory if you're not confident in your odds.

Likewise for a defender, your goal is now not to throw your hordes at the incoming enemy frontline as fast as you can before they can siege down your territory or to find the best terrain bonus that you know the enemy will have to siege, but to preserve your army until you feel confident enough to go on the attack. By taking your armies and spreading them out to other regions (especially with a navy), you can also force the enemy attacker to split their forces to defend their other regions too.

The exact details don't matter so much, whether it's the contested region only or the contested region + nearby ones, whether it's any army or some ratio of army strengths, the important thing is to put the focus on the armies moving around instead of this quasi-Westphalian obsession with the drawn out sieges of the 80 Years War. You'll still get sieges unless you want important forts hanging out in your rear, but much less of them.

An attacker trying to push the defender out of a region or destroy them, a defender trying to preserve their army and stay in the region, maybe being forced into a battle they don't want to take just to keep an army in the region, or going to another region altogether to draw the attacker off and force them to split.

Considering how AI enhancements would need to happen to make this plausible, I'm not holding my breath, but one can dream...

As it is now the control of the province is vital for food supply.

In MP games where all players have maxed out levy size and have their legions full of units for war, the food supply is critic to last longer far from home.

Without controlling the province you cannot resupply your units food from the province food stockpile.

One way to supply your armies in uncontrolled provinces is to use donkeys, but there is a limit of how many donkeys you can have in your legion to remain competitive and eventually you will run out of food.

Some players have detached donkeys from their legions than go back and forth to keep the battle cohorts supplied, but this makes them vulnerable to attacks.

 

[olivenkranz]

That was a great step forward in trying to capture the more decisive nature of battles in this period vs in other Paradox games, but it could still use some work. Right now the optimal strategy is still to carpet siege to capture as much territory as possible, but thankfully now with less targets. Instead of besieging every single territorial unit, now you can go for forts and provincial capitals for ~7-8 sieges per region.

That's still too many though and encourages you to do exactly what you do in every Paradox game except HOI: Focus on the taking territory siege slog. The enemy army is an annoying fly that is buzzing around my sieges. I care only about preventing them from sieging my territory or them disrupting my siege of their territory.

Ideally in the next game the same effect quick flipping happens (for everything except forts) but linked to the balance of opposing forces rather than territorial control.

Using the region map as an example:

Spoiler

Let's say you have an army that entered Cisalpine Gaul and is marching towards Italia. If the enemy has no army or levies in this region or the neighboring regions, everything but forts flip over to you in Cisalpine Gaul with a short timer like now.

This encourages the attacker to focus on catching and destroying the enemy armies as a #1 priority while still leaving the current option of sieging your way slowly to victory if you're not confident in your odds.

Likewise for a defender, your goal is now not to throw your hordes at the incoming enemy frontline as fast as you can before they can siege down your territory or to find the best terrain bonus that you know the enemy will have to siege, but to preserve your army until you feel confident enough to go on the attack. By taking your armies and spreading them out to other regions (especially with a navy), you can also force the enemy attacker to split their forces to defend their other regions too.

The exact details don't matter so much, whether it's the contested region only or the contested region + nearby ones, whether it's any army or some ratio of army strengths, the important thing is to put the focus on the armies moving around instead of this quasi-Westphalian obsession with the drawn out sieges of the 80 Years War. You'll still get sieges unless you want important forts hanging out in your rear, but much less of them.

An attacker trying to push the defender out of a region or destroy them, a defender trying to preserve their army and stay in the region, maybe being forced into a battle they don't want to take just to keep an army in the region, or going to another region altogether to draw the attacker off and force them to split.

Considering how AI enhancements would need to happen to make this plausible, I'm not holding my breath, but one can dream...

I think that everything but the forts flipping is a bit too extreme and not always realistic. I'd rather say, that forts build "lines" between them, and the zones between those could flip under the circumstances you mentioned, making it also a lot more dynamic.

 

[hermithill]

I'd hope that the civilization builder parts would remain (and maybe also improved): especially building, roads, culture and religion (those last 2 could use sa small improvement imo). Also, keep this gorgeous map. I'd also like if the territory scale would remain similar.

I completely agree - this is the perfect era to allow the player to shape a civilization. It's really sad that I:R ended up like this because it had a perfect place in the "portfolio" of PI games next to the dynasty builder (CK), the society builder (Vic), the empire builder (EU) and the world builder (Stellaris) (HOI is a little bit different for me being more of a wargame with a preparation phase).

 

[Gurkhal]

I completely agree - this is the perfect era to allow the player to shape a civilization. It's really sad that I:R ended up like this because it had a perfect place in the "portfolio" of PI games next to the dynasty builder (CK), the society builder (Vic), the empire builder (EU) and the world builder (Stellaris) (HOI is a little bit different for me being more of a wargame with a preparation phase).

I'm a bit curious as to what the difference between society builder, civilization builder and empire builder are in more concrete terms.

 

[hermithill]

To me (but it's personal - and sorry if the vocabulary I use is not too precise - BTW all the 3 types of builders have common traits):

- empire builder is more a question of expansion and conquest: in EU4, domestic policy has no real importance - you can stay small, but you don't have a lot of things to do and except in terms of size and wealth, your nation is not very different at the beginning and at the end of the game

- society builder is more about how you get people to live together - how you organize the society inside you country between social groups that are not so different because they share cultural, religious, linguistic traits and so on, but still differ because they do not have the same interests (of course this is more subtil). In Victoria, you can expand and integrate other nations or culture but it is not necessary

- civilization builder is more about the way you shape your population, how you build a cultural or religious identity (or not) from groups of individuals that start with very different ways of living and very different social organizations (that's why the thing I probably regret the most in the drop out of IR is the current state of the gameplay of tribes).

Society and civilization builders are in fact not so different, but they have to deal with different levels of population heterogeneity resulting in different challenges.

Of course, I would like to see a mix of the different type of builders (as I see them) but this would probably result in a too complex game if you do not want to sacrify an aspect or another!

 

[Herennius]

Give all buildings and upkeep cost

Given that one issue with Paradox games is that the player is awash with money a bit into the game I propose that we steal a page from Attila: Total War in that all buildings cost money to maintain. Normally in Paradox games, to my experience, you pay for a construction and aftwards its free. I bring this suggestion to give all buildings an upkeep cost as a possible way to make the economic considerations more interesting and strategic and make the player think about what to invest in at a certain time.

The main aim is to make economic anda building considerations more strategic and hopefully more interesting.

I like the idea - even so much that I posted long ago a suggestion for implementing it in IR

Add a monthly maintenance fee for all buildings

This idea crossed my mind while reading the thread about limiting treasuries (which I think is a rather bad idea, as the root has be targetted IMO - too much income middle/late game and too few things costing/draining money). A small...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Gurkhal]

I like the idea - even so much that I posted long ago a suggestion for implementing it in IR

Add a monthly maintenance fee for all buildings

This idea crossed my mind while reading the thread about limiting treasuries (which I think is a rather bad idea, as the root has be targetted IMO - too much income middle/late game and too few things costing/draining money). A small...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

I know what you must be feeling about it then. But I've added a like and an upvote.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

If PDX is willing to go there, then here are some essential changes to a theoretical Imp 2:
- Clear separation of gameplay dynamics between Rome and everyone else that is not Rome. The game shouldn't offer up the potential to form "Legions" outside of Rome (except for Carthage) as that was a Roman thing. Keep gameplay dynamics segregated for what's Rome, and what's not Rome. Even if the GUI options form up armies in similar ways, don't tag an army as a "Legion" and instead consider that the hinterland outside Rome was more toward Tribal, Banditry, and Nomadic in flavor.
- Lengthen the game timeframe to at least 400-500 years in game length. And don't count on DLCs to lengthen that game timeline, as that process of DLCs increasing game time is just a Bug Factory waiting to happen.
- Offer clear variations of both Government systems and Religious Systems. Don't cookie cutter the game design so that everyone's government and/or religion must neatly fit inside the same GUI. If I play as Armenia, instead of Rome, I should get an entirely different game experience from start to finish. The problem with I:R game play was that everything felt like Rome, even if you weren't Rome, because the game design did not have clear segregation of concepts and GUI construct. While an EU4 game can get away with this (to a point), it doesn't work for this time period, as the variances for governments, tech, and religions were just further apart from one another.

And if I were to offer up to PDX a separate/related game, that goes beyond Imperator's time frame, it would be to show the struggle of Rome as it "Christianizes" itself and moves from Pagan beliefs, and even further to have the dynamics of the struggle to split the empire with a new capitol in Constantinople. And then the Lombards - yes, the Lombard Tribe could be a game in and of itself, to portray what was the last Caucasian Tribe on Earth (that truly acted like a tribe), having the same genetics as dark haired/blue eyed Scandinavians and Northern Scotsmen (because their raids into Northern England and Scotland left behind many descendants with that same dark haired/blue eyed appearances). In modern Italy, if you're dark haired and blue-eyed, you are called a "Lombard" as a slang/derogatory term, even if your last name isn't a Lombard derivative (Lombard, Lombardi, Lombardini, Lombardelli etc.). The Lombard Tribe was angry at the Roman Empire for past incursions toward their lands in Germany/Northern Europe, and when Rome overly focused on expanding to Constantinople, the Lombard Tribe slowly does a Nomadic grand strategy move to eventually push into Italy and crush the "B Team" of the Roman Empire, and fractures the Roman Empire's systems in Italy (helping add to the already divisive dynamics of what became the Schism of the Churches and the Byzantine Empire). Yes, I'm biased - there never has been a video game that covers the Lombard Tribe's successes in moving South and invading and crushing Rome (and arguably bringing an end to the Roman Empire of the West). The Lombards brought huge influence - some argue that the tribal social dynamics are what influenced the start of Mafia practices (it's a "Family" to some but it's truly a Tribal system in the Mafia, when you think about it), and the Lombards live on as integrated Italians today, some who migrated to USA, but the Northern Italy areas were preferred for a tribe that was used to Northern Germany prior to their invasion (just look up the "Lombard" region in modern Northern Italy - most Lombards settled there after their invasion).

So a macro point - Imperator tries to portray the beginning of Rome, but I would argue there is just as much "Game Value" and money to be made in the industry, to have a game that portrays the END of the Empire.

 

[Victor1234]

If PDX is willing to go there, then here are some essential changes to a theoretical Imp 2:
- Clear separation of gameplay dynamics between Rome and everyone else that is not Rome. The game shouldn't offer up the potential to form "Legions" outside of Rome (except for Carthage) as that was a Roman thing. Keep gameplay dynamics segregated for what's Rome, and what's not Rome. Even if the GUI options form up armies in similar ways, don't tag an army as a "Legion" and instead consider that the hinterland outside Rome was more toward Tribal, Banditry, and Nomadic in flavor.
- Lengthen the game timeframe to at least 400-500 years in game length. And don't count on DLCs to lengthen that game timeline, as that process of DLCs increasing game time is just a Bug Factory waiting to happen.
- Offer clear variations of both Government systems and Religious Systems. Don't cookie cutter the game design so that everyone's government and/or religion must neatly fit inside the same GUI. If I play as Armenia, instead of Rome, I should get an entirely different game experience from start to finish. The problem with I:R game play was that everything felt like Rome, even if you weren't Rome, because the game design did not have clear segregation of concepts and GUI construct. While an EU4 game can get away with this (to a point), it doesn't work for this time period, as the variances for governments, tech, and religions were just further apart from one another.

And if I were to offer up to PDX a separate/related game, that goes beyond Imperator's time frame, it would be to show the struggle of Rome as it "Christianizes" itself and moves from Pagan beliefs, and even further to have the dynamics of the struggle to split the empire with a new capitol in Constantinople. And then the Lombards - yes, the Lombard Tribe could be a game in and of itself, to portray what was the last Caucasian Tribe on Earth (that truly acted like a tribe), having the same genetics as dark haired/blue eyed Scandinavians and Northern Scotsmen (because their raids into Northern England and Scotland left behind many descendants with that same dark haired/blue eyed appearances). In modern Italy, if you're dark haired and blue-eyed, you are called a "Lombard" as a slang/derogatory term, even if your last name isn't a Lombard derivative (Lombard, Lombardi, Lombardini, Lombardelli etc.). The Lombard Tribe was angry at the Roman Empire for past incursions toward their lands in Germany/Northern Europe, and when Rome overly focused on expanding to Constantinople, the Lombard Tribe slowly does a Nomadic grand strategy move to eventually push into Italy and crush the "B Team" of the Roman Empire, and fractures the Roman Empire's systems in Italy (helping add to the already divisive dynamics of what became the Schism of the Churches and the future Byzantine Empire). Yes, I'm biased - there never has been a video game that covers the Lombard Tribe's successes in moving South and invading and crushing Rome (and arguably bringing an end to the Roman Empire of the West). The Lombards brought huge influence - some argue that the tribal social dynamics are what influenced the start of Mafia practices (it's a "Family" to some but it's truly a Tribal system in the Mafia, when you think about it), and the Lombards live on as integrated Italians today, some who migrated to USA, but the Northern Italy areas were preferred for a tribe that was used to Northern Germany prior to their invasion (just look up the "Lombard" region in modern Northern Italy - most Lombards settled there after their invasion).

So a macro point - Imperator tries to portray the beginning of Rome, but I would argue there is just as much "Game Value" and money to be made in the industry, to have a game that portrays the END of the Empire.

Lots of weird racial theory in here but leaving that aside:
1. Like every other game that bothers being even a little specific, Imperator actually portrays the last gasps of Hellenistic hegemony, Rome is already past it's beginning/rise. Unsurprisingly nobody has managed to find a way to make sieging Veii unsuccessfully over and over again for 300 years fun yet.

2. The end of the West is not a popular setting because it's the opposite of standard game design (start small and grow), not that people haven't tried. Barbarian Invasions for RTW, Attila Total War as a standalone game are the two big ones people think of, neither really successful compared to other Total War offerings.

3. The first post-Roman Italian state was Gothic, these Lombards you're so crazy about came almost 100 years after them.

4. It's old, but you might try Great Invasions. Literally the game you described and yes it includes your favorite Lombards too. Shockingly it wasn't a commercial success.

5. If you want something newer but less historical you can try At the Gates, that puts you as a warlord who may or may not be Lombard. Shockingly not a commercial success...

6. But if you think this pattern of missed opportunities in your dream setting was just a fluke, great! Rise of the Foederati is in development right now. Surely this will validate the commercial basis for this setting and everyone can stop setting their games in the Middle Ages and WW2.

 

[Gurkhal]

@Nuclear Elvis Personally I don't agree with many of the details in your post but I do agree that Late Antiquity is very interesting and I personally prefer Attila: Total War to Rome 2: Total War. So a extension of the timeline would be great BUT with that extension we will need new and solid mechanics for both the rise of mystery religions and decline of traditional polytheism along with making decline of blobs fun to work against.

However, I don't think that a laser focus on Rome is what's needed nor that everything outside of Rome was "Tribal, Banditry and Nomadic". Much of the map to the east were far ahead in terms of civilization in comparison with Rome, not to mention that just talking about Europe the Macedonians had adopted a professional army long before the Romans did so.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

@Nuclear Elvis Personally I don't agree with many of the details in your post but I do agree that Late Antiquity is very interesting and I personally prefer Attila: Total War to Rome 2: Total War. So a extension of the timeline would be great BUT with that extension we will need new and solid mechanics for both the rise of mystery religions and decline of traditional polytheism along with making decline of blobs fun to work against.

However, I don't think that a laser focus on Rome is what's needed nor that everything outside of Rome was "Tribal, Banditry and Nomadic". Much of the map to the east were far ahead in terms of civilization in comparison with Rome, not to mention that just talking about Europe the Macedonians had adopted a professional army long before the Romans did so.

The Macedonians of that time were more weighted with Cavalry, not "Legions" as the Romans used as their primary front-line force. So, yes - the vestiges of Alexander the Great were still in the region, but Macedonia was a bit withered in sheer numerical disadvantage because their "Main Effort" had gone on tour with Alexander over a century before the Imperator game timeframe -- but a loss of manpower over a century before is an exponential loss 2-3 generations later (that large group of grandfathers and great-grandfathers who never returned from Alexander's trek did not help the Greek/Macedon population grow exponentially). This same math hurt France going into World War 1 and 2, due to the then-long past combination of the French Revolution and Napoleon's failed excursions (especially to Moscow). Enormous impacts - so I acknowledge that I should have added Macedonia to my short list with Carthage, but their numbers didn't hold out -- and Rome crushed them after the 3rd Macedon War because even though it took 3 times - Rome simply had the numbers, and Macedonia didn't (most historians don't bring this up but it's an obvious factor that Alexander the Great "ruined" the Greek Empire by pushing so far East and not accounting for shoring up the Greek/Macedon homeland - as proven out during the rise of Rome over a century later).

But back to gamisms, since we're talking Macedonia - starting as that Kingdom should look/feel different than a Rome start, weighted towards Cavalry special troops, vice Roman Legions (to restate - the I:R game design gave every kingdom/tribe the ability to grow "Legions" as if everyone was Rome - a poor design choice).

And I would correct your statement of being laser focused on Rome - I'm just the opposite. I want focus towards the uniqueness of each kingdom and tribe outside Rome, to bring to life a different view of priorities and resources they each were more/less successful with. One of the ways Rome did outclass Macedonia was to bypass fielded armies and go straight to their large crop-fields and harvest them for their armies, leaving Macedonia without useful grain to continue the fight with (these were part of the ancient accounts of that time). This in itself is something that no PDX game takes into account as we plan out battles - the nuances of the ways these old armies and battles had preceding events that led to advantages/disadvantages when they finally did come head to head. And I would stand by my statement of the majority of areas outside Rome, Carthage (and add Macedonia) that it was mostly Tribal, Banditry, and Nomadic -- the failure on my part to include Macedonia doesn't discount that fact.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Legion is a name for a mechanic.

The game with 2.0 introduces this to allow republics and monarchies (not tribes) to get ‘professional’ armies that get distinctions in comparison to levies that do not have distinctions and their composition is fixed by the culture mix of the integrated citizens. This mechanic allows for powerful armies that do not need to be Heavy Infantry based as the Roman legions but could be based on Elephants and Light Cavalry. Thus, ‘legions’ is a bad name for a great mechanic.

Food and supply is also one of the mechanics implemented in the game. Every unit has a different food consumption and players can bring supplies with donkeys to last more time if they do not have access to the province food stockpile and the army is over the supply limit of the territory. At the end of the game, heavy units and large armies are limited by food, taking heavy casualties. Players can build granaries to ofset this problem while they control the province and develop it to increase the supply limit with inventions and POPs, having an advantage against invading armies.

 

[4matic]

As mentioned by others I think I'd like to see late stage rome explored by the next title. Rome's latestage is her most intruging timeline and lends itself to interesting storytelling and strategy: Superblob in the middle of the map in an endsieg scenario, huge ensueing power vacuum fought amongst barbarian warlords.

 

[Synen]

I would like to see naval warfare to be fleshed out more and interact with things like trade, supply/food and even sieges if the sieged fort/city is on a coast. It would be nice if navies were more than just transports for armies and played a more impactful role during wars.

Things like having trade routes that go by sea that can be disrupted by navies and pirates. This would cause you to lose trade goods that are transported by sea as long as your trade routes are being disrupted and it would force you to deal with them. It would give players an incentive to either disrupt or protect trade routes during wars.

Adding a transport ship type that carries food and that lets your armies resupply if they're on the coast and next to the sea tile that your transport ships are in. Alternatively something like supply trains could simply board the transport ships to resupply from there instead of having the transports resupply your entire army from the sea tile.

The transport ships would resupply themselves with new food in the harbors of provinces that you control or own similarly to how armies/supply trains get food from provinces that you control or own.

Giving an increased chance to cause supply/food shortages during sieges if your navy blockades forts/cities on the coast that are under siege.

 

[DominusNovus]

My biggest pet peeve is the trade system. Even with automation, it is too arcade-y, and feels like playing civilization. Something more streamlined and less “collect the best power-ups.”

 

[Johan]

My biggest pet peeve is the trade system. Even with automation, it is too arcade-y, and feels like playing civilization. Something more streamlined and less “collect the best power-ups.”

I completely agree. A full rework to make it more fun and realtistic would be great.

 

[olivenkranz]

I completely agree. A full rework to make it more fun and realtistic would be great.

Dear Johan, do you know if there is a way to have macs not crash after adding provinces (exceeding the 8258th province according to our data) without NOT adding those in? And if not, if there is a possibility to add a program or something alike that could help.

 

[DominusNovus]

I completely agree. A full rework to make it more fun and realtistic would be great.

You gotta stop all this useful positive feedback. You're getting my hopes up!

 

[jobarin94]

The more I compare Eu4 to Imperator, the more I think Eu4 owes its depth and replayability to its amazing trade system. Without it, every province would feel the same, as it does in Imperator.

 

[Napoleon1971]

Lots of weird racial theory in here but leaving that aside:
1. Like every other game that bothers being even a little specific, Imperator actually portrays the last gasps of Hellenistic hegemony, Rome is already past it's beginning/rise. Unsurprisingly nobody has managed to find a way to make sieging Veii unsuccessfully over and over again for 300 years fun yet.

2. The end of the West is not a popular setting because it's the opposite of standard game design (start small and grow), not that people haven't tried. Barbarian Invasions for RTW, Attila Total War as a standalone game are the two big ones people think of, neither really successful compared to other Total War offerings.

3. The first post-Roman Italian state was Gothic, these Lombards you're so crazy about came almost 100 years after them.

4. It's old, but you might try Great Invasions. Literally the game you described and yes it includes your favorite Lombards too. Shockingly it wasn't a commercial success.

5. If you want something newer but less historical you can try At the Gates, that puts you as a warlord who may or may not be Lombard. Shockingly not a commercial success...

6. But if you think this pattern of missed opportunities in your dream setting was just a fluke, great! Rise of the Foederati is in development right now. Surely this will validate the commercial basis for this setting and everyone can stop setting their games in the Middle Ages and WW2.

Does Great Invasions still run on modern PCs? I'm tempted to buy it if it does.