You could say that IR is "boring". But this "boredom" is definitely not caused by the lack of content, but by the lack of interaction between these mechanics. I would like to leave aside the subjective factors of the players and just discuss the mechanics of the game. For players who can find immersion, IR is still interesting enough.
I think the flow of IR can be abstracted as a cycle of energy between the economic system and the military system. Economic output is consumed by warfare, and pops and goods from expansion are then fed back into warfare through the economic system, and so on and so forth. The two main areas of activity for the player - economic building and expansion - are crucial in this cycle. If the player has exhausted his imagination and can no longer find meaning in either, then the game cannot continue. The mission tree almost compulsively gives the player a formal goal to keep expanding and building. Aside from the many drawbacks of the quest tree, its positive aspects, such as narrative possibilities and immersion, still do not solve the core problems.
As I mentioned earlier, IR is actually quite rich in content. But this content is not tangibly involved in the way the game works. Rather, it takes the form of a weak and seemingly dispensable buff that acts as a catalyst to speed up the circulation of energy between the war and economic systems. These subtle 2.5% modifiers, stacked from the massive amount of content, feed an unstoppable war machine. There are only three ways for this war machine to consume energy: expansion, crushing rebellions, and civil war. The latter two, however, take place in a way that the player will do his best to prevent. In the end, the sheer amount of mechanical repetition involved in the painting process can easily lead to boredom. To make matters worse, there are even a number of formal mechanics set up within the game that limit expansion, mechanics that are largely unexplainable by historical logic and almost unresolvable by in-game action.
Of course, without being a fastidious simulationist, IR could be considered a "complete" game if only the community would continue to add richer narrative content. But I'm not sure that's still a worthwhile point, and I'd like to talk about what I think the best IR should be. Since I don't have any game design experience, it might be naive to discuss this only from a player's perspective. My core idea is to put players in more aspects of stress to keep their attention and drain their energy.
Early stage, the economy in the expansion phase and the balance of war.
1. Citizenship
Citizenship determines the quantity of the army, class determines the quality of the army and manpower determines the sustainability of the war. In most phases of the game, overwhelming numerical superiority is almost the only factor determining victory.
Firstly, the process of granting citizenship would not be blocked by the conservatives in the first place, as the player's action directly overrides the character and the government. Secondly, the only negative effect of granting citizenship in large numbers is pretty much just a reduction in happiness. If you start the game with Rome, import all kinds of happiness-increasing goods into your capital, give citizenship to the Samnites and Etruscans at the beginning, and conquer them quickly, you'll get almost 100 cohorts in the first ten years. Since happiness is too easy to stack and the capital province is always loyal, you could say that the happiness mechanism is completely broken.
Regarding the two questions above, I think they can be addressed in two ways. Firstly, all existing citizens would certainly hold on to their citizenship for dear life. Until there is a serious shortage of labour and the country is about to die. Let the process of granting citizenship be handled by an in-game system, such as Senate approval. Even if the player ends up granting citizenship in some way, the faction system can be used to stop it. The current faction system lacks the negative consequences that can occur when support is very low - think of what happened to the Gracchi brothers. Second, the widespread granting of citizenship in a classical republic has unforeseen consequences. This relates to my thoughts on government overhaul, which I will discuss in more detail in a later section.
2. Economy
Let's reconsider trade goods and happiness.
The happiness bonuses in the current trade goods are linearly stackable, so it is not difficult to maintain a high happiness level. To limit this, my idea is to grade them. The level of the item would determine the maximum happiness bonus, and the number of items would determine the number of people covered by the bonus.
3. Diplomacy
Much of the imbalance in the difficulty of war comes from the imbalance in the diplomatic system.
On the one hand, the player's allies are a little too loyal. I don't know if you've ever played a small Gaulish tribe. Once you declare war, you don't even have to send troops, your allies can help you finish the conquest, and as long as you have a claim, the land you fought over will always be yours. Historically, even the vassal states, most of them were just sitting on the fence.
On the other hand, I think alliances should be the most advanced form, very, very difficult to achieve. More often than not, they should be temporary alliances, in the form of organised invasions and requests for help, for example. The former should be similar to the great holy wars of the CK series, where numerous small tribes are gathered to plunder or colonise an entire region as a target. I think such a mechanism would be vital for the migrating tribes. It might also make the borders of the civilised world a little more tense. Requesting aid, on the other hand, is an act of diplomacy in which something tangible is offered in exchange for another country's military assistance. Historically, there have been many small countries that have asked larger countries for military assistance when they were facing a crisis, such as Rome against Pyrrhus and the First Punic War. Also, I think the diplomatic system should be similar to Total War and Civilization.
4. Supply
For one thing, the supply system is too rudimentary. Rome may not even be able to conquer the Samnites if the first road is not built. In the game, cohorts are basically reinforced by airborne paratroopers. If the supply line mechanism is introduced, it will no longer be possible to replenish troops once they have penetrated deep into the enemy territory. The supply line can also be cut off by the enemy.
The current food system in the game is in desperate need of a numerical rebalance. The pressure of food shortages is barely felt. A large part of the reason for this could be that the regional penalties after raising taxes do not include a food reduction, and the very low manpower levels could lead to a reduction in food income. In addition, long-term mobilisation and war damage can even cause permanent economic damage. These can be turned into incentives for actors to develop their economies.
5. Internal drivers
As I said before, what IR needs most are bridges that allow the different mechanics to connect with each other. I think there is no better way to do that than with characters. Characters are representatives of the pops and naturally have economic attributes, the class. They are also involved in political life and can be the driving force behind domestic policy. At the moment there is almost no interaction between economics and government. The two systems are controlled by the player almost independently of each other. should continue to deepen the character system so that characters can influence player decisions more, perhaps in the form of a more active faction goal. Even the class conflict that Rome has long faced can be recreated.
I think the flow of IR can be abstracted as a cycle of energy between the economic system and the military system. Economic output is consumed by warfare, and pops and goods from expansion are then fed back into warfare through the economic system, and so on and so forth. The two main areas of activity for the player - economic building and expansion - are crucial in this cycle. If the player has exhausted his imagination and can no longer find meaning in either, then the game cannot continue. The mission tree almost compulsively gives the player a formal goal to keep expanding and building. Aside from the many drawbacks of the quest tree, its positive aspects, such as narrative possibilities and immersion, still do not solve the core problems.
As I mentioned earlier, IR is actually quite rich in content. But this content is not tangibly involved in the way the game works. Rather, it takes the form of a weak and seemingly dispensable buff that acts as a catalyst to speed up the circulation of energy between the war and economic systems. These subtle 2.5% modifiers, stacked from the massive amount of content, feed an unstoppable war machine. There are only three ways for this war machine to consume energy: expansion, crushing rebellions, and civil war. The latter two, however, take place in a way that the player will do his best to prevent. In the end, the sheer amount of mechanical repetition involved in the painting process can easily lead to boredom. To make matters worse, there are even a number of formal mechanics set up within the game that limit expansion, mechanics that are largely unexplainable by historical logic and almost unresolvable by in-game action.
Of course, without being a fastidious simulationist, IR could be considered a "complete" game if only the community would continue to add richer narrative content. But I'm not sure that's still a worthwhile point, and I'd like to talk about what I think the best IR should be. Since I don't have any game design experience, it might be naive to discuss this only from a player's perspective. My core idea is to put players in more aspects of stress to keep their attention and drain their energy.
Early stage, the economy in the expansion phase and the balance of war.
1. Citizenship
Citizenship determines the quantity of the army, class determines the quality of the army and manpower determines the sustainability of the war. In most phases of the game, overwhelming numerical superiority is almost the only factor determining victory.
Firstly, the process of granting citizenship would not be blocked by the conservatives in the first place, as the player's action directly overrides the character and the government. Secondly, the only negative effect of granting citizenship in large numbers is pretty much just a reduction in happiness. If you start the game with Rome, import all kinds of happiness-increasing goods into your capital, give citizenship to the Samnites and Etruscans at the beginning, and conquer them quickly, you'll get almost 100 cohorts in the first ten years. Since happiness is too easy to stack and the capital province is always loyal, you could say that the happiness mechanism is completely broken.
Regarding the two questions above, I think they can be addressed in two ways. Firstly, all existing citizens would certainly hold on to their citizenship for dear life. Until there is a serious shortage of labour and the country is about to die. Let the process of granting citizenship be handled by an in-game system, such as Senate approval. Even if the player ends up granting citizenship in some way, the faction system can be used to stop it. The current faction system lacks the negative consequences that can occur when support is very low - think of what happened to the Gracchi brothers. Second, the widespread granting of citizenship in a classical republic has unforeseen consequences. This relates to my thoughts on government overhaul, which I will discuss in more detail in a later section.
2. Economy
Let's reconsider trade goods and happiness.
The happiness bonuses in the current trade goods are linearly stackable, so it is not difficult to maintain a high happiness level. To limit this, my idea is to grade them. The level of the item would determine the maximum happiness bonus, and the number of items would determine the number of people covered by the bonus.
3. Diplomacy
Much of the imbalance in the difficulty of war comes from the imbalance in the diplomatic system.
On the one hand, the player's allies are a little too loyal. I don't know if you've ever played a small Gaulish tribe. Once you declare war, you don't even have to send troops, your allies can help you finish the conquest, and as long as you have a claim, the land you fought over will always be yours. Historically, even the vassal states, most of them were just sitting on the fence.
On the other hand, I think alliances should be the most advanced form, very, very difficult to achieve. More often than not, they should be temporary alliances, in the form of organised invasions and requests for help, for example. The former should be similar to the great holy wars of the CK series, where numerous small tribes are gathered to plunder or colonise an entire region as a target. I think such a mechanism would be vital for the migrating tribes. It might also make the borders of the civilised world a little more tense. Requesting aid, on the other hand, is an act of diplomacy in which something tangible is offered in exchange for another country's military assistance. Historically, there have been many small countries that have asked larger countries for military assistance when they were facing a crisis, such as Rome against Pyrrhus and the First Punic War. Also, I think the diplomatic system should be similar to Total War and Civilization.
4. Supply
For one thing, the supply system is too rudimentary. Rome may not even be able to conquer the Samnites if the first road is not built. In the game, cohorts are basically reinforced by airborne paratroopers. If the supply line mechanism is introduced, it will no longer be possible to replenish troops once they have penetrated deep into the enemy territory. The supply line can also be cut off by the enemy.
The current food system in the game is in desperate need of a numerical rebalance. The pressure of food shortages is barely felt. A large part of the reason for this could be that the regional penalties after raising taxes do not include a food reduction, and the very low manpower levels could lead to a reduction in food income. In addition, long-term mobilisation and war damage can even cause permanent economic damage. These can be turned into incentives for actors to develop their economies.
5. Internal drivers
As I said before, what IR needs most are bridges that allow the different mechanics to connect with each other. I think there is no better way to do that than with characters. Characters are representatives of the pops and naturally have economic attributes, the class. They are also involved in political life and can be the driving force behind domestic policy. At the moment there is almost no interaction between economics and government. The two systems are controlled by the player almost independently of each other. should continue to deepen the character system so that characters can influence player decisions more, perhaps in the form of a more active faction goal. Even the class conflict that Rome has long faced can be recreated.
Last edited:
- 8
- 3
- 1
