Imperial Challenge is bad

[BarbarianHunter]

how many trucebreaks would you need to full annex the stereotypical late game maurya? how long would it take to snag a close to 100% peace deal on that many trucebreaks compared to carpet sieging everything?

I don't know the answer btw, but I imagine imperial challenge is extremely valuable for the big nations

I don't know either. I think it's situationally useful, but generally I think less than optimal relative to innovation opportunity cost to invest elsewhere (specifically something like the civics tree...gold...max research rate). It's all a matter of preference and planning relative to preference. I could head toward Maurya and cripple them, then devote resources elsewhere, come back and finish them with standard warring.

Not saying it's useless, I just don't have the same sentiment I had immediately post Marius that the Imperial CB is the ultimate.

 

[Less2]

When I do imperial challenge I have enough happiness/conversion/-AE boosts from both tech and wonders that I can just continue going through majors endlessly and have no stability problems. Beelining it immediately is probably your issue. If you do that then you should expect to need a long recovery period after each imperial war.

The occupying each individual territory thing does suck. Poor stack AI that ends up with multiple stacks sieging the provinces also sucks.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

I have some data to share. If your opponent hasn't blobbed hard (Maurya), and perhaps even if they have, Militant Epicureanism and truce breaking works as well (if not better). I ran a high tyranny and burned off enough AE during the normal war declaration and two subsequent truce break wars with Carthage and their ally Egypt so as to keep the AE manageable. I was able to take a lot of land without the Imperial CB.

Conclusion: Who needs Winning the Land by Spear when you have Militant Epicureanism.

Spoiler: Pre War

Spoiler: Post 3 Wars (2 Truce breaks)

 

[lambda x.x]

well the issue is you've spent 8 years to conquer just that. I just browsed my vods and I full annexed Carthage (which was like half the size compared to your run) in around 6 months using the cb.
I also conquered all the Diadochis (therefore all of Egypt) in 5 years at game start whereas you've taken 8 years to finish maybe 2/3 or 3/4 of Egypt.

I think there's a significant IGT speed boost to using imperial challenge, even though it's extremely tedious and maybe even more time consuming IRL.

And IMO, the reality is there aren't too many attractive techs for a WC playstyle, so I think you're overstating the opportunity cost of spending a bunch of innovations to unlock that cb. My run is currently 506, and I've already spent around 6 innovations on minor boosts that I didn't really care for (although getting innovations from Hellnistic empire mission helps a lot, so for nations that don't have that luxury, I imagine 550+ is a reasonable comparison).

For some pics:

Spoiler: 1

Spoiler: 2

 

[BarbarianHunter]

well the issue is you've spent 8 years to conquer just that. I just browsed my vods and I full annexed Carthage (which was like half the size compared to your run) in around 6 months using the cb.
I also conquered all the Diadochis (therefore all of Egypt) in 5 years at game start whereas you've taken 8 years to finish maybe 2/3 or 3/4 of Egypt.

I think there's a significant IGT speed boost to using imperial challenge, even though it's extremely tedious and maybe even more time consuming IRL.

And IMO, the reality is there aren't too many attractive techs for a WC playstyle, so I think you're overstating the opportunity cost of spending a bunch of innovations to unlock that cb. My run is currently 506, and I've already spent around 6 innovations on minor boosts that I didn't really care for (although getting innovations from Hellnistic empire mission helps a lot, so for nations that don't have that luxury, I imagine 550+ is a reasonable comparison).

For some pics:

Spoiler: 1

View attachment 701825

Spoiler: 2

View attachment 701826

I've seen the series on YouTube and clearly the Imperial CB is not useless (as is demonstrated by your impressive results). I think my point is it can be worked around for a moderately paced WC.

It comes down to preference and options. For me, I'm not really interested in the speed at which I conquer per se. I tend to enjoy come from behind races and am more interested in a lack of revolts and taking a moment to build a few cities up & what-not. For a speed run such as the one you're playing there's no better choice. For my playstyle and goals, it's generally not worth it.

With the tech tree redo in Marius both goals are easily achievable. Well done devs!

 

[lambda x.x]

I've seen the series on YouTube and clearly the Imperial CB is not useless (as is demonstrated by your impressive results). I think my point is it can be worked around for a moderately paced WC.

It comes down to preference and options. For me, I'm not really interested in the speed at which I conquer per se. I tend to enjoy come from behind races and am more interested in a lack of revolts and taking a moment to build a few cities up & what-not. For a speed run such as the one you're playing there's no better choice. For my playstyle and goals, it's generally not worth it.

With the tech tree redo in Marius both goals are easily achievable. Well done devs!

Right, I agree -- I think in the end it comes to how much one values their own sanity and real time over doing it fast in game.

I just wanted to point out that if you are okay with harming your soul and losing your sanity, the imperial cb seems to be "OP" in the sense that there doesn't seem to be a close contest with other options. Right now, it feels like it's "balanced" only because of how tedious and painful it is and pretty much nobody wants to use it to its full potential (and for the record, me neither... I quickly degenerate from microing every 500 stack every day to ignoring some stacks to oops I let an enemy sneak through me).

 

[Dan the cynical barbarian]

I also dislike imperial cb. To much effort and not enough roi.
So much AE per territory is absolutely ridiculous. It was supposed to be a flexible way to dominate to a great enemy. You actually pay much effort on this - useless inventions and the result clearly does not worth it.

It only has meaning on a last enemy ( Maura) when going for wc, as a last resort.

Also is boring , you cannot do war business in such a way per city. It is clearly neither productive , nor fun.

I mean that was how history worked when two empires meet, the Romans and Iranians wage war for over 600 years, from the Republic to the Empire and from Parthia to the Sassanids, and still there were only minor longtime territorial changes for both sides. For me it makes sense that you cannot take huge chunks of land of another empire, it should be mostly about border wars and wars over influence

 

[MikeyPeanut]

It's true there are shortcomings with the current implementation. Mainly the introduction of carpet sieging when I:R otherwise has a much better occupation system.

I still really like the idea of it though. It has the potential to add an interesting tactical element to keeping enemies out of your land, especially with geographical features like mountain passes and river crossings. Plus I just like the variety of having a different war mechanic.

 

[Vohen]

It has the potential to add an interesting tactical element to keeping enemies out of your land

I guess it does that, but only if you're able to deploy WW1 frontlines in this classical antiquity game.
Forts aren't helpful at all, as you're able to bypass it by flipping the neighboring province.

If they can't make a rule for occupation flipping a whole province at once only when every territory there is occupied, then I'd hope they'd at least be able to make this mechanic obey zone of control, so every territory neighboring a fort would be safe from flipping until that fort fell.
That way, we'd at least be able to keep a strategic defensive line.

 

[Napoleon1971]

Sounds like the overpowered part of this equation is “militant epicurean,” not the imperial conquest cb. That invention should probably just be killed, it doesn’t make any sense and it’s always going to be tough to balance. Imperial conquest is definitely not over powered though, it may not be severely underpowered as some think, but it’s definitely not overpowered.

Fair enough. I admit I was shocked when I found a way to basically ignore stability for the rest of the game if I gave up most of my omen affects. I hadn't really pre-planned any of it. I was just plowing through and was like "oh, I guess I will finish this as a WC then, won't I?" when I found the militant epicurianism.

Without the combination with imperial conquest cb it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful though. That combo is brutally effective.

 

[Napoleon1971]

Perhaps allow stacking similar to Divine Sacrifice? Allow stacking of holy site desecrations but each successive desecration buff is reduced by 50%.

The more I think on the Imperial CB, the less useful it becomes. Why take at least 12 innovations for Winning the Land by Spear when you can take Militant Epicureanism in conjunction with truce breaking? 3 successive truce break wars will trigger a major and all allies. At the end, you'll have say 175 AE. And? Stand down, go appeasing, and let the AE evaporate.

Militant Epicur + Imperial CB = no stopping for anything.....just kill, kill, kill.....unless you're foolish and let yourself have a point with no legit casus belli. Even then you could afford a truce break at full cost, just not again and again and again.

 

[Lord Lambert]

I mean, you can only use Imperial Conquest against Major powers, and after you've taken the bigger nations to the east you're probably not gonna have that be a thing for Gaul/Iberia/Britannia/Germania

 

[olivenkranz]

I mean, you can only use Imperial Conquest against Major powers, and after you've taken the bigger nations to the east you're probably not gonna have that be a thing for Gaul/Iberia/Britannia/Germania

I go for Carthage only once they have a decent chunk of Iberia (as Rome at least). You know, less wars.