- Dec 14, 1999
- 22.085
- 263.937
True.
The original vision for Imperator was that religion should not be as important, so we did not design features for it to make the different religions unique.
-
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.
True.
The original vision for Imperator was that religion should not be as important, so we did not design features for it to make the different religions unique.
I think one of the problems is that you can become so unified culturallly and religiously. It should be much harder to do so. I understand it is a goal and all but I think there should be a reason not to do so as well.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 22.085
- 263.937
Appreciate the hard work Johan. Congrats for the smooth launch.
Imho the biggest issues with the game right now is balance more than lack of content (though more flavor is always good). Many mechanics are there but they do not have the desired effect (or not enough of an effect, pirates and barbarians are not enough of a threat and there are too much information given about "revolts" while not enough about why they fail. Seeing a guy raise an army "out of nowhere", allow you to replace him at the top of his army a year later then do it again a bit later breaks immersion.
For tribes, the army created by the familiies should stay within the family and go to their heir rather than being given back to the player and forcing us to disband them to avoid treasury issues.
The only thing I did find missing was events and mapmodes with a lack of clear economic view (even the "building" option did not allow to see what was already built so will I be building a marketplace where there is already one and what will be its effects to the tax of the province I can't see in that mode).
Finally, pop movement is tedious once your country grows.
Colonization lacks depth as well though it's definitely easier to handle than it was in EU:Rome
Aside of that EU: Rome was one of the games I love and I'm really happy to see Imperator: Rome coming out with such a good base, I'm sure it'll become a really great game through the years but yeah more flavor, better interface and some balance will help it out for sure.
Imho the biggest issues with the game right now is balance more than lack of content (though more flavor is always good). Many mechanics are there but they do not have the desired effect (or not enough of an effect, pirates and barbarians are not enough of a threat and there are too much information given about "revolts" while not enough about why they fail. Seeing a guy raise an army "out of nowhere", allow you to replace him at the top of his army a year later then do it again a bit later breaks immersion.
For tribes, the army created by the familiies should stay within the family and go to their heir rather than being given back to the player and forcing us to disband them to avoid treasury issues.
The only thing I did find missing was events and mapmodes with a lack of clear economic view (even the "building" option did not allow to see what was already built so will I be building a marketplace where there is already one and what will be its effects to the tax of the province I can't see in that mode).
Finally, pop movement is tedious once your country grows.
Colonization lacks depth as well though it's definitely easier to handle than it was in EU:Rome
Aside of that EU: Rome was one of the games I love and I'm really happy to see Imperator: Rome coming out with such a good base, I'm sure it'll become a really great game through the years but yeah more flavor, better interface and some balance will help it out for sure.
Johan (and the dev team!), you deserve a sincere thank you for the wonderful game you've put out and the amazing potential it carries. I've sunk thousands of hours into CK2/EU4/HoI4/Stellaris and I agree that Imperator: Rome is by far the most polished of them, even if it has some imperfections and oversights on release.
Much of the criticism seems to be out of place. The AI definitely feels a lot more 'alive' than in previous games to the point where I actually enjoy playing I:R in singleplayer (I play almost exclusively the multiplayer parts of the games I own, including other PDX titles). There being little difference between neighbouring nations is definitely one aspect I felt could use improvement so I'm glad you're working on that.
Ui improvement also look fantastic and how actively youre handling player feedback makes me incredibly excited for future content.
Keep it up
Much of the criticism seems to be out of place. The AI definitely feels a lot more 'alive' than in previous games to the point where I actually enjoy playing I:R in singleplayer (I play almost exclusively the multiplayer parts of the games I own, including other PDX titles). There being little difference between neighbouring nations is definitely one aspect I felt could use improvement so I'm glad you're working on that.
Ui improvement also look fantastic and how actively youre handling player feedback makes me incredibly excited for future content.
Keep it up
I'll try to give it a shot.
- Aragon has dozens of special events, including several DHE's like the Iberian Wedding
- Aragon has a mission tree, and in the base game, it had special Old Missions.
- Saxony is an elector of the Holy Roman Empire, with all the diplomatic effects it brings. It starts in the middle of the HRE, making expansion a complex affair.
- Aragon and Saxony have unique national idea sets, different from their neighbours and themselves.
- Aragon and Saxony both share Papal religious mechanics, yes, but those mechanics are different than any other religion. They also can convert to two other deonominations of christendom, further expanding their options. Saxony frequently goes protestant.
- Aragon and Saxony have massive economical differences, and as such Aragon can afford better advisors and get a bigger monarch power output, while Saxony has to make do with what they have.
- Aragon starts with a personal union over far off Naples, forcing the player to take on the ''naval'' game. EU4 always had had 4 ship types, IR has one.
- Both have unique flags, instead of RNG patterns. I know handcrafted flags for so many tags as in I:R is a tall order, but the system makes tags feel ''samey'' and often during wars i couldnt tell who's who, and i had to install a flag mod.
- 3
Aww but that was part of the fun from EU4. Gimme my elephants. I happily buy all the content packs.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 22.085
- 263.937
- Dec 14, 1999
- 22.085
- 263.937
I've just had an idea: naming the levels might make it feel more flavourful for the people who are complaining about the buildings. So instead of having x granaries, you go storehouse > granary > aqueduct, or whatever.
Obviously feel free to ignore me utterly, just trying to be helpful. Thanks for the great game
thats one nice suggestion.
I think it is an issue in the world I don't think it is anything against specifically design more with the world that you start with. I'm not going to compare Aragon and Saxony but I'd rather compare say Burgundy and Palatinate. Both are really close together but both have pretty different 'feels to them' from events, formable decisions, enemies around them, alliance potential, mechanics (i.e unions v HRE) and interesting ai decisions that can cause a pretty unique game session.
Issue with the Roman World is that with Rome or Macedon or Phrygia or Seleucids or Egypt you are nearly always going to go the same gameplay path. If the AI do stupid things like Rome goes mental attacks everyone and collapses you're always going to be able to take advantage of this as Rome effectively for the rest of the game has no way out as there's no major powerful allies, to ally with. There's very little in the way of bad diplomatic decisions you can make in IR than say in EU4.
- 1
These quotes confirm to me how arrogant the management is and how unfit they are to be directing development. They're basically saying we're right you're wrong. If you don't like it too bad. And are in complete denial about the biggest issue Paradox fans have with all their recent games. They need to go. Need new leadership. If the Steam user rating was 5% they would still be in denial about everything. I think they are intentionally misrepresenting the community's clear issues and concerns with Imperator and all the recent Paradox games.
p.s. What's with all the typos?
- 1
Not everyone is an english native, and not everyone can speak nor write perfect english.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 22.085
- 263.937
And having rules makes it LOT harder for their AI developers, as they need to consider all rules, and test lots of permutations.
hoi4 rules are easier in that it is basically balance boosts.
Hey no being mean. I know you are frustrated with some things but they are honestly trying their best. There are just competing ideas in where the game should go.
Thank you for the insight Johan!
I myself really, really love imperator! I am having so much fun with this, specially that I'm such an ancient history nerd, and I agree that people look at games that are being updated for years now while this is a great base game actually! Besides CK2 this is now my favourite game and i feel like in years of development it migth become the very best game of yours!
I don't think the AI is bad, it actually often proves to be quite good. And when it comes to the ledger, I personally find it to be more of a cheat. I even wish that it doesn't show you exactly how much army or money a country has when you click on it, but it's just my personal opinion.
The thing i wish for the most is more diversity in religions and technologies. I also wish there are more events that make you feel like your country is actually alive, so to say. But I'm having a lot of fun in this game, and I can't wait for the future updates!
I myself really, really love imperator! I am having so much fun with this, specially that I'm such an ancient history nerd, and I agree that people look at games that are being updated for years now while this is a great base game actually! Besides CK2 this is now my favourite game and i feel like in years of development it migth become the very best game of yours!
I don't think the AI is bad, it actually often proves to be quite good. And when it comes to the ledger, I personally find it to be more of a cheat. I even wish that it doesn't show you exactly how much army or money a country has when you click on it, but it's just my personal opinion.
The thing i wish for the most is more diversity in religions and technologies. I also wish there are more events that make you feel like your country is actually alive, so to say. But I'm having a lot of fun in this game, and I can't wait for the future updates!
I have been enjoying the game very much. My main gripes is that oratory power is used for way too many interactions, thus you can't actually do any of those interactions. Families die off too much, considering they don't get automatically replaced with a new family when they die. I should always have access to enough citizens to fill all government/military positions. Also, when your vassals have a civil war, and they lose, you lose the vassal. But you can't help them.
I do not believe the game is shallow or boring. It really is a good game.
I do not believe the game is shallow or boring. It really is a good game.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 22.085
- 263.937
I don't get how your comment got 5 'downvotes'. You've made sensible points in a level-headed and reasonable manner. Hardly the sort of rage-filled screaming which people quite rightly get annoyed by!
- 1
Please don't conflate EU4's monarch points/I:R's powers with other types of abstracted currencies and assume that critics hate the concept in general. I think it comes down to intent.
Prestige in CK2 and influence in Stellaris are in those games to fill a gap in the simulation of playing a feudal king or spacefaring empire that hard currency alone can't represent. It enhances the roleplay and immersion.
Monarch points/powers, on the other hand, do the opposite. They seem to exist because EU4 and I:R are multiplayer-focused, board-game-style titles where game balance is critical. The points serve as control rods; in the event of snowballing or exploitation, adjusting the point costs or sources of point generation can usually fix the issue since so many systems are tied together with these currencies. Eventually the points take over the game, and the player stops seeing the game as a world and sees it as a bunch of numbers to optimize; speaking for myself, it all just feels a bit soulless.
A board game approach is perfectly valid and perfectly satisfies many players. However, any community is diverse, and a lot of people enjoy Paradox games for the simulation and sense of re-enacting history. I think this--more than anything--lies at the heart of these complaints.
Prestige in CK2 and influence in Stellaris are in those games to fill a gap in the simulation of playing a feudal king or spacefaring empire that hard currency alone can't represent. It enhances the roleplay and immersion.
Monarch points/powers, on the other hand, do the opposite. They seem to exist because EU4 and I:R are multiplayer-focused, board-game-style titles where game balance is critical. The points serve as control rods; in the event of snowballing or exploitation, adjusting the point costs or sources of point generation can usually fix the issue since so many systems are tied together with these currencies. Eventually the points take over the game, and the player stops seeing the game as a world and sees it as a bunch of numbers to optimize; speaking for myself, it all just feels a bit soulless.
A board game approach is perfectly valid and perfectly satisfies many players. However, any community is diverse, and a lot of people enjoy Paradox games for the simulation and sense of re-enacting history. I think this--more than anything--lies at the heart of these complaints.
- 1