DLCs that will actually attract people back to IR

[ray243]

We now that development for IR has practically stopped and it may not get restarted. Part of the problem is the lack of interest in I:R. People who bought it and found it not to their taste are not coming back to the game no matter how many updates and patches the game is receiving.

If there is going to be a way to generate serious interest in the game again, it will require DLCs that can hype up the game and get people excited for the game again. This meant that smaller DLC culture packs is probably not going to generate that much of an interest.

The kinds of DLCs that can generate interest is probably DLCs that features different eras/start dates for the game. A 2nd Punic War-centered DLC campaign might revive interest and generate enough talking points about what Hannibal's invasion of Rome is going to bring to the franchise in terms of features and gameplay mechanics. A Late Republic civil War DLC might again revive interest and get people talking about possible new features that will be developed in order to reflect the dynamics of Roman society at that particular point in time.

There's not enough personality in the current IR DLCs that can really bring people's attention back to the franchise. Being able to play as Hannibal, Caesar or Cleopatra as characters and all the challenges those historical figures faces might be the thing that bring people back to IR.

 

[IsaacCAT]

A rework similar to 2.0 for politics, including the tribes and a new empire type of government that modifies the middle and late game will be interesting.

If you add the extension of the end date with some content tied to the political rework you can have the hype I:R restart needs.

 

[DukeLeto42]

New start dates are generally a non-starter. Past experience (esp. CK2 and EUIV) has shown Paradox that multiple start dates tend to lead to the one that gives the longest total runtime being played to the exclusion of all others. Additionally, maintaining multiple start dates significantly increases the burden of updates, as new mechanics need to be retroactively applied.

A later end date, though... that's an option. It does mean reckoning with the birth of Christianity, so you've got 30 years to add where it poses no issue, and about 60 years before you hit Christ's death.

Frankly, the culture packs are a good option simply because they don't incur the development burden of other forms of DLC. You don't have to play around what might or might not be in a given person's game, since all that's missing is missions and culture pack-specific events and trappings.

 

[Godd_Howard]

esp. CK2 and EUIV) has shown Paradox that multiple start dates tend to lead to the one that gives the longest total runtime being played to the exclusion of all others.

I like the first 3 start dates in CK2 before 1066 because they give you a diferent set up not just the ability to play longer. The iron century start date was a pleasant surprise and has some good things.

But in Imperator rome since the character system is not the main goal of the game I don't think adding historical figures will save the day. It needs more work on the battles and economy side of gameplay which are the main attraction.

 

[IsaacCAT]

. It needs more work on the battles

Yes, the game should allow for better battle simulation, with formations and generals leading main and flank armies.

For that, the game should differentiate between skirmishies and battles. Skirmishies will be resolved as they are now and battles should have the new 3D representation of the new PDS game that will be announced this friday (speculation).

 

[Herennius]

Disagreeing with the OP. Why should a DLC (=you have to pay for it!) with a 2nd start date magically should bring base game owners more likely back to the game than free patches/updates which improve core game experience? Isn't it more likely that people will give it another try, if they get something for free? Not that I see this free stuff happening and sadly the chances increase from day to day that nothing will restart IR at all, but I don't get how this particular kind of DLC will be the solution.

@DukeLeto42 already explained the problem attached to a 2nd start date and if something is done in regard to the timeline, than a simple extension to the period of the Roman Imperium would do.

 

[Limbojack]

I disagree. The main problem with I:R hasn't changed since release: there are aspects of the game that feels completely underwhelming, even though they've worked pretty hard on fixing this. If they were to announce a new DLC that focuses on bringing historical characters into the game, it would probably lead to a small spike in interest, but unless they actually improve trade/economy, diplomacy/vassal mechanics, and internal stability/republics most people will simply give the game another campaign or two before leaving it once more. Once the base game mechanics are improved, as they were in 2.0, PDX would have been able to consider something like what you're suggesting.

 

[Qantrix]

I reckon that there are quite a number of people who own Imperator but don't play it: those people are unlikely to pay for DLC to rediscover a game. I would say that the updates should focus on a number of different aspects. I do reckon that parts of the underlying game mechanics have already greatly improved to previous versions, but (free) upgrades should focus on key elements:

Flavor
Mission trees, decisions, formable nations. It is crucial to make playing different nations feel fundamentally different and unique and currently that is not the case. Much of the flavor is currently put into DLC and while that is understandable you are unlikely to buy DLC if you are already feeling lukewarm about the game. Adding flavor for different countries in the base-game adds to replayability and are what makes people buy DLC.

Graphics
Ignoring game dynamics but focusing on graphics CK3 from the start has felt like such a more polished release and I would say part of this are the graphical style: abstract menus, country/crest symbols have a coherent style and the character portraits are interesting to look at. The Imperator character portraits are incredibly grainy and in terms of quality look worse than CK2, the marble style for menus and turquoise buttons looks dated and the symbols used for country flags are incoherent. I understand if this feels incredibly shallow but it does play a role in how people look at a game and want to play it. The map looks fine as it is and some steps in terms of menus were already made with 2.0.

Start and end date
Extending the end date into the late Roman Empire and adding a start date revolving around a collapsing Roman Empire would add a great amount of flavor and replay value. Several mods for both CK2 and EU4 try to stimulate that era. This would require such an amount of work (rise of christianity, tribal and horde mechanics) that it would likely only be possible as a paid DLC (which fair enough). But I reckon having the option to try to defend the West Roman Empire from collapse or to carve out your own lasting state as the Huns, Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, etc. is incredibly appealing to a lot of players. The challenge of preventing Rome from collapsing ought to be difficult but not impossible (much like preventing the collapse of East Rome in 1444). It would also be such a rework that it would lead to a lot of extra interest.

EDIT: Formatting for readability.

 

[Nak'Arosh]

... but unless they actually improve... and internal stability/republics most people will simply give the game another campaign or two before leaving it once more. Once the base game mechanics are improved, as they were in 2.0, PDX would have been able to consider something like what you're suggesting.

I really don't have problem with stability in Republic, since many of these nation were unstable in this period. If people like to play game with high stability just play a RTS that don't even has this to manage.

Been sincerely here, I just think that I:R don't get all the attention its deserve because the game is more challenge than the others and if the Devs implement a Diplo/Spies and improve the trade and economy, this should make the game a real challenge. But the problem with I:R was because of the launch and when the things were starting to go well they release CK3 and them Leviathan. CK3 I think were more expected them I:R, and the paradox problem with Ten Thousands DLC's were the trigger to kill I:R.



If they give us options to a better customization of army forces like: Hoplites,Triarii, Principes, Eagles Corhort, Pretorians, Gallic Hunters,Socii Equites and all of them based on production of Weapons and Armor using Iron as raw source, them I should announce that Imperator:Rome is gonna fight for number one spot of Paradox game.

 

[Nak'Arosh]

- Graphics: Ignoring game dynamics but focusing on graphics CK3 from the start has felt like such a more polished release and I would say part of this are the graphical style: abstract menus, country/crest symbols have a coherent style and the character portraits are interesting to look at. The Imperator character portraits are incredibly grainy and in terms of quality look worse than CK2, the marble style for menus and turquoise buttons looks dated and the symbols used for country flags are incoherent. I understand if this feels incredibly shallow but it does play a role in how people look at a game and want to play it. The map looks fine as it is and some steps in terms of menus were already made with 2.0.
- Start and end date: Extending the end date into the late Roman Empire and adding a start date revolving around a collapsing Roman Empire would add a great amount of flavor and replay value. Several mods for both CK2 and EU4 try to stimulate that era. This would require such an amount of work (rise of christianity, tribal and horde mechanics) that it would likely only be possible as a paid DLC (which fair enough). But I reckon having the option to try to defend the West Roman Empire from collapse or to carve out your own lasting state as the Huns, Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, etc. is incredibly appealing to a lot of players. The challenge of preventing Rome from collapsing ought to be difficult but not impossible (much like preventing the collapse of East Rome in 1444). It would also be such a rework that it would lead to a lot of extra interest.

Yeah the UI of CK3 is more well developed than I:R but the Map I would say tha is a draw. Your point here show again that what I thought were correctly CK3 seems better polished on using the new Graphics to produce a better experience for the user. Which I:R failed and with 2.0 tried to improve. Maybe I:R tried to keep the EU4 UI and CK3 just go to a new way that in my opinions is better.

 

[Qantrix]

Yeah the UI of CK3 is more well developed than I:R but the Map I would say tha is a draw. Your point here show again that what I thought were correctly CK3 seems better polished on using the new Graphics to produce a better experience for the user. Which I:R failed and with 2.0 tried to improve. Maybe I:R tried to keep the EU4 UI and CK3 just go to a new way that in my opinions is better.

Yeah the map is indeed great, and the unit graphics are quite good too. But even after Marius when I look at the GUI I sometimes have the idea I am watching at a CIV2 or AoE menu.

 

[IsaacCAT]

I just think that I:R don't get all the attention its deserve because the game is more challenge than the others

Is this a consensus?

I was tempted to say that I:R has a target for older players but this is anecdotal (the sample is myself).

 

[Lamisatr]

DLC 's aren't bringing people back to IR, and they're not going to make them anyway. Releasing paid products to a game only the community is playing is never going to happen, there's no money in it for PDX. That ship has sailed whether people like it or not.

The future of the game lies with the modding community.

And one thing that will never happen is another a start date I guarantee that.

 

[Nak'Arosh]

Is this a consensus?

I was tempted to say that I:R has a target for older players but this is anecdotal (the sample is myself).

In my Game-play I:R show superiority in challenge. EU4 for me it's hard because I'm trying to play with minor and unpopular nations like underdog style play, but even on that I can spark trouble to the big Master-super-european-league . But in I:R even playing with Rome that is easy you can find a real challenge. I saw a lot of videos and people saying that I:R were map-painting for me is similar to EU4 and Stellaris.

Maybe I:R is for Olders player or for who want more deep in strategy.

 

[Nak'Arosh]

Yeah the map is indeed great, and the unit graphics are quite good too. But even after Marius when I look at the GUI I sometimes have the idea I am watching at a CIV2 or AoE menu.

They last UI design did a great job. Was hard change all the UI, when they start implement a unique GUI for the main nations the game will start to get to the right path.

 

[Cagallo]

battles should have the new 3D representation of the new PDS game that will be announced this friday (speculation).

Wot?

 

[Limbojack]

I really don't have problem with stability in Republic

I should have formulated it better: what I meant is that I'd like to see some more depth to republics.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Wot?

This Friday at 19:30 at PDXCON REMIXED PDX will announce a new game from PDS.

Many think that Martin 'Wiz' Andward will be the Game Director that will present the new game.

Wiz was in charge in Stellaris and they introduced the beautiful 3D battles on space:

For this reason, and because I think they need to introduce something that makes their existing games obsolete, the game will include 3D battles representation like in war games, with a very limited tactics or no tactics at all:

 

[Lord Lambert]

Any suggestions or ideas about adding new start dates is instantly a fail, imo. New start dates will not help.

 

[Herennius]

Not really keen on 3D-battles Call me a pessimist, but anything 3D here so far came together with losing oversight and graphic effects dominating gameplay/AI.