Imperator Rome - A greek tragedy

[Ivanaikos_Magno]

So, to begin with, this is not a post to shit on Imperator, or ask for information on a possible return, but simply a fan of this game who wants to express his sadness.

I love Antiquity, it's my favorite historical period and since I was 7 years old, I have been constantly studying the civilizations that have marked this era. For years I dreamed that Paradox would make a game about antiquity with the same quality as CK2 and EU4, a game that would cross the ages and receive new content even after long years.

When Imperator Rome was announced I was so hyped, I was telling the hours for the release of the game, I even had dreams about it. And when the game came out... I loved it, but to be honest I was so hyped that even if the game was a big piece of garbage I would have loved it.

But over time I realized the limitations of the game, I continued to play the game, but with each update, I lost more and more interest. Imperator seemed like a personality crisis game, he didn't know who he was, he had mechanics, but they seemed artificial.

However, recently I decided to make a new campaign with Thrace using the excellent Imperator Invictus mod and I realized that Paradox had made the game that I had dreamed of for so long, but unfortunately it was already too late.

Imperator 2.0 is an excellent game, I dare say it's at the same level as CK and EU4 and in some aspects it surpasses them. I truly feel like the spirit of a civilization watching my people grow, change, adapt, and integrate (or destroy) other peoples. I had SO much fun trying to recreate Alexander's empire and facing civil wars and rebellions along the way.

And then a deep melancholy fell on me. Even though Imperator 2.0 is one of the best games I've ever played, it was too late to erase the bad taste left by the launch. I try to imagine a world where version 2.0 was the one we played first, and I have no doubt that today we would have hundreds of different mods, a much larger playerbase and games that would have lasted for several years.

Imperator 2.0 is absolutely awesome, but I'm heartbroken seeing the points that still today need to be reworked, trading in this game is still empty and uninteresting (I don't understand why trade routs weren't in the first version of the game, it is one of the most important elements in antiquity), managing large empires is always too easy, Rome needs more mechanics for its senate, indeed republics are always a weak point in the game for me.

And alas, despite the many efforts of the Imperator Invictus team, there are things even they cannot change. Some keep hoping that one day Imperator will be reborn, personally, I don't even think this is possible, but I hope I'm wrong. I'm glad that at least we got Imperator 2.0 and the Imperator Invictus mod...

 

[manager2525]

I agree on so many points with your post.

Seeing how much potential the game has and halting at the edge of something great is even more disappointing.
As you mentioned moders can only change so much. I still hope that Pdx will continue the game at some time since it still has some weak points (that is AI and diplomacy for me). Honestly since I find this time period very interesting I have not yet found a gsg spaning in it that is able to cover this "itch".

If Imperator is indeed a Greek tragedy lets hope that the final "Catharsis" is still on the way!

 

[Aquila SPQR]

It's like one of those important and great movies which flopped at the box office because people went to see another Marvel "masterpiece". So what it's a good game. So what it's a treat for us, ancient history lovers. Numbers are numbers - people don't play this game. We have 2.0, we have Invictus - and people still don't play it. Compare the number of I:R players to the number of HOI4 or CKIII or EUIV. For some reason people are apparently not interested in Paradox-style GSG set in ancient times.

 

[Ivanaikos_Magno]

It's like one of those important and great movies which flopped at the box office because people went to see another Marvel "masterpiece". So what it's a good game. So what it's a treat for us, ancient history lovers. Numbers are numbers - people don't play this game. We have 2.0, we have Invictus - and people still don't play it. Compare the number of I:R players to the number of HOI4 or CKIII or EUIV. For some reason people are apparently not interested in Paradox-style GSG set in ancient times.

Man, this is so sad. The Nice Guys and Imperator Rome needs get more love...

 

[Maultrommel]

and people still don't play it. Compare the number of I:R players to the number of HOI4 or CKIII or EUIV.

Steam is not my way. I play the Game like others only offline with the gog version. CK3, Hoi IV, EU IV are not available on this platform, so its not easy to compare.

IR ist the best PDX Game i´ve ever played. I hope the development will continue.

 

[Aotrs Commander]

Obligatory note that if they bothered to fix the outstanding catastrophic bugs they left in, they might have a few players more.

Because it's funny, getting your game nuked 30 hours in from a consistent CTD bug that started ten-fifteen-twenty hours previously does not make you inclined to pick it up again (or rush to buy anything else PDX puts out, despite previously being something that was a regular spend).

 

[manager2525]

It's like one of those important and great movies which flopped at the box office because people went to see another Marvel "masterpiece". So what it's a good game. So what it's a treat for us, ancient history lovers. Numbers are numbers - people don't play this game. We have 2.0, we have Invictus - and people still don't play it. Compare the number of I:R players to the number of HOI4 or CKIII or EUIV. For some reason people are apparently not interested in Paradox-style GSG set in ancient times.

Although many have tried to answer if the reason for failing (as in not having a large enough player base) is the specific time period of the game or something else I tend to go with the latter. To be more accurate I tend to blame the rocky start.
I mean when the game was announced there was definitely enough hype and everyone knew the time period it would roughly cover. Early player base was still substantial and gradually dropped. Other games that cover this time period either strategy (Total War) or other gender (Assasins Creed, Ryse) are quite popular so why wouldn't a GSG also be. Also stoping development has not done imperator any favors. If you were to take CK 3 and stop development today it would go the same way as imperator (probably keeping the analogy of current player base but still drop).
As for the moders even if they are doing a fantastic job with Invictus they can't really change everything. Even if they are able to add content they cannot change some core mechanics like poor AI behaviour, diplomacy or trade that much.
Lets hope that one day development will continue and we will not need to wait 10 years like for Vic.

 

[olivenkranz]

...
As for the moders even if they are doing a fantastic job with Invictus they can't really change everything. Even if they are able to add content they cannot change some core mechanics like poor AI behaviour, ...

@Snowlet actually integrated parts of Glavius' AI mod, making the ai more of a challenge. The developers from PDX could probably improve it even further however.

 

[Will Steel]

I always felt that abandoning this game was a big mistake, especially when it finally found its wings. At least as a 'civilization builder'

If they just went back with a team, took a few months and -

Spoiler: did these

- fixed the DOA civil war system

- fixed the republics by actually making them proper republics (instead of sham monarchies they are now where you manually appoint everyone)

- added back terms system that original EU-Rome had, where characters would actively run for office every few years (not just ministers but also governors, generals/admirals, quaestors/researchers etc.) which ties into the automatic elections/proper republics mentioned above

- added the crucial family and character system back into the game (it was IMO badly gutted in one of the early patches IIRC, and the shell that remained only got kinda worse over time) so that the game would get its RP element potential back, and important historical dynasties like Julians/Junians would last more than 20 years from start

- added a slightly better trade system, especially if it involves long distance trade like India->Egypt->Rome

- optionally, added back the diplomatic and intrigue character agents back since the alternative hasn't proven to be any better with the game's current diplomacy features, at least there would be roleplay potential

- added better army and especially navy automation, and restored the ability to assign them to work in areas, to reduce tedium

- added smaller fixes and quality of life stuff (monarch able to lead legions, ability to rename units and ships, removal of weird restrictions on character interactions outside monarchies)

- allowed us to change government types better (because they are currently very limited) and possibly added a couple more

- finally allowed us to change cultures and religions more freely, and let non-core integrated cultures (like Greek under Roman Empire) spread freely

- obvious final bug fixes and glitch fixes

- completed the package with some nice flavour text, portrait elements like headwear (which exist in the game but were never used) and so on

With that, Imperator in my opinion would finally get the closure it deserves, at least. They would've fixed a lot of main greivances, and could finally leave the game in peace.
That would be a great final base from which modders would be able to pick it up and bring it to the level of CK3 and other quality titles.

 

[Tir93]

Unfortunately the development seems dead for good. At this point I expect some bug fixing patch at most. I'd pay good money for some mechanics expansions and culture dlcs, but I can't see them coming. What a waste...

If at least they took the effort to say something, ANYTHING about this game...

 

[olivenkranz]

... ability to rename units and ships...

can't you do that already? after renaming, hit enter.

 

[SAS]

Obligatory note that if they bothered to fix the outstanding catastrophic bugs they left in, they might have a few players more.

Because it's funny, getting your game nuked 30 hours in from a consistent CTD bug that started ten-fifteen-twenty hours previously does not make you inclined to pick it up again (or rush to buy anything else PDX puts out, despite previously being something that was a regular spend).

What bugs are causing this? I have 100's of hours in imperator with no CTD's.

 

[Will Steel]

can't you do that already? after renaming, hit enter.

Units and ships, not armies and fleets.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Units and ships, not armies and fleets.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Although many have tried to answer if the reason for failing (as in not having a large enough player base) is the specific time period of the game or something else I tend to go with the latter. To be more accurate I tend to blame the rocky start.
I mean when the game was announced there was definitely enough hype and everyone knew the time period it would roughly cover. Early player base was still substantial and gradually dropped. Other games that cover this time period either strategy (Total War) or other gender (Assasins Creed, Ryse) are quite popular so why wouldn't a GSG also be. Also stoping development has not done imperator any favors. If you were to take CK 3 and stop development today it would go the same way as imperator (probably keeping the analogy of current player base but still drop).
As for the moders even if they are doing a fantastic job with Invictus they can't really change everything. Even if they are able to add content they cannot change some core mechanics like poor AI behaviour, diplomacy or trade that much.
Lets hope that one day development will continue and we will not need to wait 10 years like for Vic.

Currently there's a guy on reddit who is arguing the game is performing badly because it had a bad start and that it's still a bad game. I disagree, I believe I:R is a good game now, if not great. It's easily better than EU IV to me and I even prefer it to Stellaris (which is the best space 4X game out there IMO). The main argument seems to be "if the game was good, people would play it".
I believe people don't play it, because they're not interested in that kind of game that much. There are reviews (latest ones for 2.0 are very positive), there are 2.0 gameplays, there are recommendations on forum and reddit... and people still don't play it as much as they play EU IV or HOI4. It's not that average player can't stand I:R because "consuls term is 5 years onstead of one year, literally unplayable" or "Gades don't have unique mission tree, literally unplayable!" Hardcore ancient history lovers can have issues with it, not average player.
Of course it's not a definitive proof of anything, but the people I know prefer medieval and WWII history than ancient. I assume a lot of them prefer invading nazis as US or US as imperial Japan or colonize the world as England or do the world conquest as Ottomans than play as Parthia (many of them would be "WTF is Parthia?") or Arverni.
Total War series has its own rules - it's mostly about tactical battles (which I:R fortunately lack). AC:Origins/Odyssey also is probably more appealing to casual player.

To me I:R is currently better than EUIV. It has many things that are better (economy, pops, techs, stability, armies, characters etc.) and people still play EUIV more. I don't believe they do it because I:R is a worse game than EUIV (because it isn't and there is plenty of 2.0 content and reviews they would have to be blind to miss). They have to do it because they are not interested in I:R then.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Currently there's a guy on reddit which is arguing the game is performing badly because it had a bad start and that it's still a bad game. I disagree, I believe I:R is a good game now, if not great. It's easily better than EU IV to me and I even prefer it to Stellaris (which is the best space 4X game out there IMO). The main argument seems to be "if the game was good, people would play it".
I believe people don't play it, because they're not interested in that kind of game that much. There are reviews (latest ones for 2.0 are very positive), there are 2.0 gameplays, there are recommendations on forum and reddit... and people still don't play it as much as they play EU IV or HOI4. It's not that average player can't stand I:R because "consuls term is 5 years onstead of one year, literally unplayable" or "Gades don't have unique mission tree, literally unplayable!" Hardcore ancient history lovers can have issues with it, not average player.
Of course it's not a definitive proof of anything, but the people I know prefer medieval and WWII history than ancient. I assume a lot of them prefer invading nazis as US or US as imperial Japan or colonize the world as England or do the world conquest as Ottomans than play as Parthia (many of them would be "WTF is Parthia?") or Arverni.
Total War series has its own rules - it's mostly about tactical battles (which I:R fortunately lack). AC:Origins/Odyssey also is probably more appealing to casual player.

To me I:R is currently better than EUIV. It has many things that are better (economy, pops, techs, stability, armies, characters etc.) and people still play EUIV more. I don't believe they do it because I:R is a worse game than EUIV (because it isn't and there is plenty of 2.0 content and reviews they would have to be blind to miss). They have to do it because they are not interested in I:R then.

I will add that learning a new game is a daunting task and you have to be attracted to it to spend many hours with the game.

However, there are many new players that do not play EUIV or HOIV that could play I:R but are not playing it. Reasons are multiple: a bad start, poor marketing with 2.0 and the typical difficulty to learn a PDX game. For me the last reason is very important and it could be helped.

I:R is not enticing new players with enough entry content that keeps them interested in the game. For example, the initial missions for every nation that help a player know the mechanics and enjoy the history as it plays. PDS tried hard to do them with every DLC and Invictus mod is doing a great work adding more. But the game required this type of guidance for many more nations for new players to get hooked with the game.

It also could be that I:R is a niche game like VIC2 that hasn't entry content either. Being a niche game is not bad thing though. PDS can have successful commercial games and niche games that promote their leadership on GSG. What it is bad is not continuing support/development for one of their most recent games when this is one of the company most praised business model.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

I will add that learning a new game is a daunting task and you have to be attracted to it to spend many hours with the game.

However, there are many new players that do not play EUIV or HOIV that could play I:R but are not playing it. Reasons are multiple: a bad start, poor marketing with 2.0 and the typical difficulty to learn a PDX game.

That as well, but EUIV/HOI4/CKIII fans are accustomed to PDX games and should learn I:R relatively quickly. If other players learned how to play other PDX games - they should also learn how to play I:R. I:R being quite complex and difficult probably isn't appealing to many players, but if people like other complex PDX games - then why they don't "migrate" to I:R? I wouldn't blame everything on bad early reception as some people do. It happened 2 years ago and it's in the past now. Since then a lot of things were improved and added and people still don't flock to I:R on a massive scale. The growth is tiny (though it seems there is growth in players even now, when the game was de facto abandoned).
Maybe I'm unique, but I don't care about rocky start. I look at current, latest reviews. If the game has mixed reviews and very positive latest reviews - then it means the devs put an effort to make it better - good enough to earn positive reviews in the current state. And if so - it's tempting to try that game now. So what the 3 or more years ago the game sucked. Now it doesn't.

Paradox style game set in ancient times is probably less appealing to people than WWII or sci-fi or good, old EU. With proper marketing the number of players would probably constantly grow, but even if all wet dreams of hardcore fans would be realised and the game was deemed "perfect" even by them - I'm sure people would still play other games more. Like I said - it's like with movies. A lot of movies considered an important masterpieces are ignored by mass audience. Not because they are bad, but because mass audience is interested in something else more.

 

[Maultrommel]

A lot of movies considered an important masterpieces are ignored by mass audience. Not because they are bad, but because mass audience is interested in something else more.

This reminds me of the movie Blade Runner. When he appeared, no one wanted to see him. Now he is a cult and has shaped the current SF.


For me, Paradox games as a whole have never been mainstream. That's the attraction for me. Today all developers seem to just maximize their profits. Now this development seems to have reached Paradox as well.
The result is that the games completely submit to the most lucrative market. All developers go to the largest audience.

These aren't the players that made Paradox great.

 

[Will Steel]

View attachment 802864​

Spoiler

That is what I am talking about. You cannot rename units (like ships and cohorts) in Imperator like you could in every other PDS game (minus similarly weird Vicky2), only full armies and fleets.

 

[Aotrs Commander]

What bugs are causing this? I have 100's of hours in imperator with no CTD's.

At the risk of repeating myself, since I also linked this i another thread this is the bug report thread I filed, the but long and short of it I made the heinous mistake of splitting my legion to reduce attrition when I was only allowed one legion (and, unlike the mercenary units, it LET me split it) and when I tried putting them back together after the war (and even disbanding and re-raising it), I ended up with what I can only describe as a "ghost" legion which seems to only half-exist in the code, but is also tied to the existing, actual legion; so when it attempts to award a promotion earned by said actual legion to the "ghost" legion many hours later (one of the pulsed monthly ones) it causes an immediate CTD.

In said other thread, however, another poster described what sounded like a similar experience, which suggests that it wasn't just me.