I would really like to see Paradox Tinto get to work with Imperator

[ESKEHL]

Basically what the headline said. If Tinto is a studio that basically only exists to update EU4, it seems reasonable that at some point EU4 basically is considered finished, and they get onto updating Imperator or develop EU5. EU4 is soon to be nine years old (which in itself is impressive that it has gotten support this far), so the time seems about right.

Preferably, I would like to see Johan back at the helm of Imperator. EU4 is a genious game, albeit with some dated mechanics such as development instead of pops etc. But it has some of the best diplomacy systems I have encountered in a grand strategy game. I think that if Imperator got the proper attention it could become what it was meant to be in the first place. And what better way to do this, than put the EU4 crew at the helm.

 

[giant_sloth]

Will be a chance for Johan to earn the ultimate redemption.

 

[Trunting]

I would like to see a triumvirate: Wiz, Arheo and Johan.

 

[Chehabian]

It's important to remember that the culture mechanics were Johan's idea after he realized that the community were not happy with the original release of Imperator.
The guy has skills/ideas and can adjust. I wouldn't mind if they gave it back to him in order to start developing the game again.

 

[Beagá]

Is this game dead/unsupported?

 

[manager2525]

Is this game dead/unsupported?

The official statement is that it has been put on hold till at least 2022. A new team is supposed to be put to work on it.

 

[Beagá]

Good to know. Growing bored with EU 4

 

[Chehabian]

The official statement is that it has been put on hold till at least 2022. A new team is supposed to be put to work on it.

*Fingers and toes crossed*

 

[CPU Taro]

*Fingers and toes crossed*

Every body part imaginable crossed.

 

[Marinakis]

The bones of IR are so good now... if it would just get some love in terms of warfare (especially naval), trade/economy and diplomacy, the game would be so good.

This is one of the rare examples of a game that I think just had a start date too early. The game really should have started durring the Pyrrhic War or First Punic War.

 

[Chehabian]

The bones of IR are so good now... if it would just get some love in terms of warfare (especially naval), trade/economy and diplomacy, the game would be so good.

This is one of the rare examples of a game that I think just had a start date too early. The game really should have started durring the Pyrrhic War or First Punic War.

Hard disagree on this one as to the latter part of your comment. The wars of the Diadochi is a great start as it is a massive moment of realignment within the Eastern Mediterranean. It also provides the players with lots of different interesting political and military conditions to deal with which are not as available at a later start date.

 

[Marinakis]

Hard disagree on this one as to the latter part of your comment. The wars of the Diadochi is a great start as it is a massive moment of realignment within the Eastern Mediterranean. It also provides the players with lots of different interesting political and military conditions to deal with which are not as available at a later start date.

I agree, I just feel like its better from a game-play perspective to ensure the major players are major players - Being Rome, Carthage, Macedon, Ptolemy and Seleucia. Also, by starting at the Pyrrhic and/or Punic war, you can better script a re-emerging non-Hellenic Parthia (or Sassanid). At the games-start, it is too easy for Rome to fall early and it take too long for them to become a major player. Regardless of who I am playing, I want Rome to feel like a menacing threat and any game which involves Rome falling to some minor Italian state just destroys immersion/fun for me.

With that said, I get your point, and its valid. I think it just comes down to personal preference. I personally feel the game is too Hellenistic-centrist at the actual game start which tends to lend to a more homologous end-game of massive Hellenistic states and/or the East becoming a hodgepodge of Hellenized minor splinter states (states which are eventually gobbled up by India). personally, I want to see a game involving the major powers or Rome and Carthage smashing heads over multiple wars, a reemerging Iranian-based Parthia and Hellenistic Empires (Primary Macedon, Seleucia and Ptolemy) desperately fighting for their lives. Starting the game a little later also allows for a strong Armenia and emerging Nabatea.

Personally, I just find that more interesting than which of Alexanders generals will hold his gargantuan empire together.

 

[Samitte]

Starting the game a little later also allows for a strong Armenia

If you start later Armenia only becomes weaker, losing the wealthy regions of Commagene and Sophene, (and only grabbing a tiny bit of Armenia Minor in return) until you get to the 2nd century. Earlier would be better in this case. Though its depicted way poorer and less populated then it should be. (But it doesnt help that large parts are wastelands, including fertile floodplains...)

I wish they'd started in 323 after the Settlement of Babylon, with Cappadocia still undecided between Ariarathes and Eumenes, and a whole bunch of different little successor states. Would also lead to a weaker Rome which in turn could lead to a much better setup for Italia instead of the mess we got with big unified Samnites, Etruscans, Umbrians, and over half the tribes and city states missing.

 

[Marinakis]

If you start later Armenia only becomes weaker, losing the wealthy regions of Commagene and Sophene, (and only grabbing a tiny bit of Armenia Minor in return) until you get to the 2nd century. Earlier would be better in this case. Though its depicted way poorer and less populated then it should be. (But it doesnt help that large parts are wastelands, including fertile floodplains...)

I wish they'd started in 323 after the Settlement of Babylon, with Cappadocia still undecided between Ariarathes and Eumenes, and a whole bunch of different little successor states. Would also lead to a weaker Rome which in turn could lead to a much better setup for Italia instead of the mess we got with big unified Samnites, Etruscans, Umbrians, and over half the tribes and city states missing.

You clearly like the Macedonian civil war aspect. That's fine, its your taste. I just prefer a larger conflict between non-hellenic great states.

Armenia and Sarmatia in 270 BC (Time around the Pyrrhic War) was pretty decent. Rome, Carthage, Macedon, Seleucia, Egypt also all strong. Only 30 years from the Parni taking Parthia. Nabatea was also hanging around in 270 BC. Modestly strong greek leagues, Epirus, Syracuse, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia and a decent Massilia all existed. Pergamon also existed and an independent entity.

 

[Moridin997]

The bones of IR are so good now... if it would just get some love in terms of warfare (especially naval), trade/economy and diplomacy, the game would be so good.

This is one of the rare examples of a game that I think just had a start date too early. The game really should have started durring the Pyrrhic War or First Punic War.

Strongly agree with the first part of your comment.

In particular, the weakness of the trade and naval gameplay is a huge turn-off, especially when this should be the major focus of countries such as Carthage.

The dominance of specific sea-lanes to secure crucial maritime trade routes was of vital interest for several powers, and a major driver of conflict in the Mediterranean world (this is a primary reason for why Carthage fought and bled for centuries against Greeks and Romans to secure Sicily, i.e. to secure strategic coastlines and project naval might in order to protect the maritime trade between the two halves of the Mediterranean).


As of the current patch, if Rome doesn't present a significant invasion threat, I as Carthage can give up on Sicily, disband my entire fleet and continue to be a prosperous mercantile power, trading with anybody near or farther way...