How is it? I didn't play the "original" because of the updates and such.
-
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.
How is it? I didn't play the "original" because of the updates and such.
I am very happy to see that the Bronze Age comes back, sort of, to Imperator.
But while I also find that Imperator models most of the Bronze Age better with its system I would lie if I for example didn't think that certain parts of the Bronze Age works better in Crusader Kings III. Like for example Bronze Age Greece. Its hard to get that Homeric/Epic/semi-mythological story and feel in Imperator for Mycenaean Greece.
Essentially I would say that places like Mesopotamia, Egypt and much of Anatolia works better with Imperator. But places that did not have the same kind of centralized rule in place would be better modelled with CK3.
But while I also find that Imperator models most of the Bronze Age better with its system I would lie if I for example didn't think that certain parts of the Bronze Age works better in Crusader Kings III. Like for example Bronze Age Greece. Its hard to get that Homeric/Epic/semi-mythological story and feel in Imperator for Mycenaean Greece.
Essentially I would say that places like Mesopotamia, Egypt and much of Anatolia works better with Imperator. But places that did not have the same kind of centralized rule in place would be better modelled with CK3.
- 1
While I love the CK3 version (love bronze age in general, and the royal drama the CK3 mod allows there), I always thought that Imperator Rome was the better game for a bronze age setting, not Crusader Kings.
CK3 cannot really portray rise and fall of civilizations. You cannot sack cities and make them disappear into dust, forgotten by the sands of time. There is no food, no peasants to die from famines and disease. There is no trade networking, no precious strategic resources for military that bronze age armies were built on. Wonders in CK3 are (right now, but not in future) just preset buildings. The boundaries are not respected by other armies (may or may not be accurate though), forts don't block enemies. It has a more linear technology level, and colonization is limited to "conquer X land and use steward to replace culture in the county in only a few years".
The feeling of "state building" isn't there, because of the feudalism mechanics. All you have to do is gain some money and put it into buildings in fortified cities once, and they'll never devolve for the next 900 years.
It has no ships and fleets, no sea blockades or ability to prevent enemies from traveling upriver and attacking your empire's interior. I don't I know of major sea battles in bronze age (except the very last known major battle of the bronze age - battle of the Delta), but fleets did exist and piracy and control of sea lanes was still a big thing. Imperator does have fleets and pirates and river battles, even if they are imperfect.
And finally a pet peeve example - in the Imperator version of the mod, I was able to take Intef of Thebes and recreate history by suppressing Ankhtifi and his Nubian allies, and then relentlessly driving northwards until I had reunited almost of Upper and Middle Egypt under my 11th Dynasty kingship, all in a single lifetime. This is actually historically accurate - Intef began as a minor Nomarch in a broken, collapsed Egypt and went on to fight and restore half of the country back into shape, and his three descendents reunified Egypt completely. CK3's truce and diplomacy system is fine, but doesn't allow me to do that, only a few wars to conquer a few counties per generation.
It is not the game's fault. In general, CK3 is great for well settled medieval era that it was intended for, but kinda struggles with mechanics to portray other eras. The mod itself is amazing, but the game only allows doing certain things in certain way.
CK3 is great in other areas where Imperator fails spectacularly (anything about characters, dynasties, families, succession, actual intrigue, education and traits, a FAR better religion system, hero duels, actual raiding mechanics and just everything with a deeper immersion), not to mention you can actually change culture and religion of your nation unlike unnecessarily hardcoded idiocy in Imperator.
But when it comes to the overall "theme" of this era, building civilizations and destroying them, Imperator gameplay portrays it a bit better.
All aboard the hype train!
I hope that this is not only kept updated and balanced (with the themed UI, models etc. being added), but also revitalized with more features as time goes on.
CK3 cannot really portray rise and fall of civilizations. You cannot sack cities and make them disappear into dust, forgotten by the sands of time. There is no food, no peasants to die from famines and disease. There is no trade networking, no precious strategic resources for military that bronze age armies were built on. Wonders in CK3 are (right now, but not in future) just preset buildings. The boundaries are not respected by other armies (may or may not be accurate though), forts don't block enemies. It has a more linear technology level, and colonization is limited to "conquer X land and use steward to replace culture in the county in only a few years".
The feeling of "state building" isn't there, because of the feudalism mechanics. All you have to do is gain some money and put it into buildings in fortified cities once, and they'll never devolve for the next 900 years.
It has no ships and fleets, no sea blockades or ability to prevent enemies from traveling upriver and attacking your empire's interior. I don't I know of major sea battles in bronze age (except the very last known major battle of the bronze age - battle of the Delta), but fleets did exist and piracy and control of sea lanes was still a big thing. Imperator does have fleets and pirates and river battles, even if they are imperfect.
And finally a pet peeve example - in the Imperator version of the mod, I was able to take Intef of Thebes and recreate history by suppressing Ankhtifi and his Nubian allies, and then relentlessly driving northwards until I had reunited almost of Upper and Middle Egypt under my 11th Dynasty kingship, all in a single lifetime. This is actually historically accurate - Intef began as a minor Nomarch in a broken, collapsed Egypt and went on to fight and restore half of the country back into shape, and his three descendents reunified Egypt completely. CK3's truce and diplomacy system is fine, but doesn't allow me to do that, only a few wars to conquer a few counties per generation.
It is not the game's fault. In general, CK3 is great for well settled medieval era that it was intended for, but kinda struggles with mechanics to portray other eras. The mod itself is amazing, but the game only allows doing certain things in certain way.
CK3 is great in other areas where Imperator fails spectacularly (anything about characters, dynasties, families, succession, actual intrigue, education and traits, a FAR better religion system, hero duels, actual raiding mechanics and just everything with a deeper immersion), not to mention you can actually change culture and religion of your nation unlike unnecessarily hardcoded idiocy in Imperator.
But when it comes to the overall "theme" of this era, building civilizations and destroying them, Imperator gameplay portrays it a bit better.
Credit: @Snowlet
[mod] Bronze Age Reborn released (for 2.0)
Continuation of the Bronze Age for Imperator 2.0 - now maintained by Snowlet - V2.1.1 You can find the mod here: Bronze Age 2.0 You can find Svanley's continued work for Bronze Age CK3 here. All credit for the original mod to the original...forum.paradoxplaza.com
All aboard the hype train!
I hope that this is not only kept updated and balanced (with the themed UI, models etc. being added), but also revitalized with more features as time goes on.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
- 1