Perhaps GSG players will discover and appreciate this gem of a game

[Marcus Pica]

I was hopping the scale of the V3 map would be on the level of I:R and CK3. Rather, as Leana Haver has stated, the map is split into states (for managing) and provinces (for army movement) with the latter roughly corresponding to the number of provinces in HOI4. This is understandable as the playing area is much larger, i.e. the whole world and it would be hard to provide the same detailed spatial scales as in I:R and CK3 due to: 1. The amount or research needed to populate the map and 2. processing power

Contemporary PDS GSGs now have maps with roughly two different kinds of scales:

• GSGs covering the World (HOI4, V3, EU4?) - less detailed
• GSGs covering the Africa-Eurasia (I:R, CK3) - more detailed

The best PDS GSG map in terms of scale is undoubtedly Imperator:Rome (the scale of the CK3 map is less detailed). Arguably the best looking map also belongs to Imperator: Rome.

EDIT: Interestingly Imperator: Rome is the game that covers the most ancient period on which knowledge is the most scarce, but its map is the most detailed.

Sorry, I dont play or own EU4 so I cant provide a comparison there.

View attachment 721787
View attachment 721788
View attachment 721789
View attachment 721790

I havent played Victoria 2, but Imperator:Rome has spoiled me for granularity and I completely agree with the OP.

I know that the I:R map is much smaller and that pops are more granual and detailed in Victoria 3, and that there are issues of performance as well as the amount of research that goes into achieving greater granularity while adequately considering history.

Nevertheless I want to be able to deal with pops, buildings and resources at the same granularity (spatial resolution) as in Imperator.

As a Slovene, in Imperator I could deal individually with as much as 10 territories covering tha area of todays Slovenia (each one is about 45x45 km or about 2000 square kilometres), each one has its own unique trade good, can be either a settlement or a city with multiple buildings available, can house a great wonder or a holy site with relics affecting the pops. Characters can own holding in each territory, each territory has dozens of pops (depending on being a city or a settlement) individually belonging to a myriad of cultures, religions, and one of 5 classes with simulation going on with the promotion, demotion, emigration, immigration, conversion, assimilation. By fighting wars I can enslave pops in foreign territories that get distributed to my territories. Each territory also has individual pop happiness on the level of a single pop (depending on culture, religion, class, trade goods present or imported on the province level) and unrest indicators. Each terrritory has modifiers affecting much of the above mentioned that appear after flavorful multiple choise events like for example the establishment of a colony (increasing assimilation of pops to tag culture, decreasing indigenious culture pop happiness), a promotion of a local religious festival and so much more.

What I described above and could continue describing with all the intricacies and interconnectedness with other game mechanics (military, levies, cultural customisation, religion etc) is what drives my motivation for playing Imperator, looking at how all the territories and their contents (above described) change trough time due to AI simulation or player impact.

I expected nothing less from Victoria 3 and I share the same gameplay style as the author of the OP. We dont know much yet, but I share the OPs concern about granularity, especialy as it seems a downgrade from the previous instalment. I dont care too much about performance as I play these games at speed one, immersing myself into all the described details or I dont play these games at all. If I play at speed 3 then I am already bored. Even when there is nothing to due, I plan ahead, appreciate the map or what the AI is doing or looking at how the world has changed in all its details.

I dont know how the area of my native Slovenia will be covered in Victoria 3, but at best there will be a Carniolan state as a historical crownland (covering in area about 4 of the 10 Imperator territories) and the rest will probably be split into neighboring crownlands (Styria, Goricia, Istria, Zala, Vas) where the Slovenes are a minority. I have no clue how these minorities will be represented but it now seems that they will be just pops floating in those states instead of being tied to individual provinces.

Now the area of Slovenia is just something I hold dear as I am a Slovene, but consider it a case study, that has implications for other cases and the granularity of the world map in Victoria 3 as a whole.

Any explanation from the devs would be greatly appreciated.

There arent many posts on the Imperator forums so I thought of sharing my I:R appreciation threads that I posted on the V3 forums as a way to compare the map scale and granularity of I:R to other GSGs and particularly V3.

I still think I:R player numbers might tick up as GSG players look for new games after they are getting bored with EU4, CK3 (waiting for Royal court) and waiting for Victoria 3.

I am stll angry by the fact that PDS didnt allow even a small team of devs on I:R. Lets look at The Architect: Paris, a long awaited game that I own or Ancient Cities, a long awaited game that I wantbto buy. Bith games are in Early access on Steam and have about 10 concurent players, while Imperator has about 100 times as much. How can the devs of those games survive and continue developing those games while Imperator is supposedly such a drain on a comparatively huge PDS that they cant even leave a single developer on it.

 

[IsaacCAT]

I hope they do not work with ratios (dev/player) to take investment decisions. But this is how companies work. Overheads are divided by sales and poor sales/revenue or low players make games look bad on accounting books.

This is the reason small studios can develop small games while big studios will not even bother.

I think this is a mistake, but I understand the logic behind it. Too long to develop but the main culprit is how accounting values potential and goodwill.

Or else, we can only hope that someone with the talent of Johan opens a small studio like Tinto and keeps developing for the fan base.

 

[hansnoetig]

Or else, we can only hope that someone with the talent of Johan opens a small studio like Tinto and keeps developing for the fan base.

Looking at the release of I:R and Tinto's achievement with EU4, you sure you don't mean that ironically?

Not to diss Johan, i liked some of his older stuff alot (EU3 or like how HoI3, with all it's bugs and glitches is >>>> HoI4), but i'm certain it was I:R's terrible release and the bad rep it got from it that ultimately killed it during an accounting meeting.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Looking at the release of I:R and Tinto's achievement with EU4, you sure you don't mean that ironically?

Not to diss Johan, i liked some of his older stuff alot (EU3 or like how HoI3, with all it's bugs and glitches is >>>> HoI4), but i'm certain it was I:R's terrible release and the bad rep it got from it that ultimately killed it during an accounting meeting.

Your conclusion from true facts may be misleading. Why should be the terrible release and bad rep the only factors that motivated the result?

I will not jump into conclusions, as there were other games with terrible releases that made a come back and games with no problems that were not successful.

My point was not to achieve commercial success for Imperator but continued development. For such a niche game we have better chances with a small studio than with PDS (although I still hope PDS will be able to use Imperator as an experimental and training ground for their future GSG).

About Tinto success, I do not know their future, but I will always bet for creative and risk taking individuals for future returns, no matter how many bumps initially. You will be better off than with conservative and rigid schemes (unless in a monopoly or oligopoly).

 

[hansnoetig]

Your conclusion from true facts may be misleading. Why should be the terrible release and bad rep the only factors that motivated the result?

It was more like a jab, Johan is just hit or miss for me

But you got me wrong, the factors that motivated the result were money. The terrible release and subsequent bad rep greatly diminished PDS ability to earn said money (disgruntled people are not buying DLCs). And instead of using "2.0" as a stepping stone to improve the rep (which it did, as we all know) to increase their earning (lets say like No Man's Sky did), they used it as a milestone that makes or breaks the game, even assuming beforehand that it won't reach their arbitrary number, putting the dev team in a terrible spot.

It would've been a completely different story if it had a release like CK3, we'd have a Vercingetorix DLC by now (but no QoL things and everything is boring ). Therefor the terrible release killed it, because of it the game didn't generate enough money to warrant further development in PDS managements pov.

Yes, i'd love some Indie Devs to take over I:R, i'm a sucker for the era and the game has a lot of potential (even now, it's pretty good and fun to play once in a while). I'm sure the game made enough to have a rump team working on some events and flavour, maybe even improve some mechanics. But PDS isn't in it for the passion or aspiring for quality anymore (talking about management, not the devs), it's a publicly traded corporation that's only in it for the money alone. I think the entire Tinto disaster displays this pretty well (would've been easy to postpone a clearly not ready release).

I agree with the last part, what we need is a competitor, things will not improve without, on the contrary.

 

[lazerglov]

Meh, I've discovered it just now, played for 10 something hours and so far I'm disappointed. The game feels like a simple map-painter. But a bothersome one. I honestly don't understand what people see in that game. Pops? Without actual population numbers, they don't feel like a real thing in comparison to Victoria II. War? It's torture on so many levels... Characters? They are here, I guess.

Edit:
I can't really say what exactly is wrong with the imperator, but I can say that if instead of the game it is it was a Victoria or Crusader Kings mod set in the roman age, I would have had much more fun playing the game.

 

[Marcus Pica]

Meh, I've discovered it just now, played for 10 something hours and so far I'm disappointed. The game feels like a simple map-painter. But a bothersome one. I honestly don't understand what people see in that game. Pops? Without actual population numbers, they don't feel like a real thing in comparison to Victoria II. War? It's torture on so many levels... Characters? They are here, I guess.

Edit:
I can't really say what exactly is wrong with the imperator, but I can say that if instead of the game it is it was a Victoria or Crusader Kings mod set in the roman age, I would have had much more fun playing the game.

I am certain that you just dont appreciate the game because you dont know the mechamics deep enough. Imperator provides a really deep simulation, flavour and overall interconnectedness of mechanics but it is bad in presenting this to the player so the player thinks the game is actually shallow. But not all players are willing to put in the time and appreciation. The innovative combination of various GSG mechanics (pops, characters, map painting, buildings etc) from other games is a great idea and even in the current state the game connects these mechanics rather well, but the synergies are mostly hidden from the player. And then the player quits either because the game seems too easy (the interconnected mechanics are not meaningfull enough) or the player is frustrated as he doesnt understand whats going on and whats the point of all of this.

 

[Marcus Pica]

The past week has seen an uptick of players on Steam

 

[JBolt]

As a non-Imperator player who has all the other Paradox Grand Strategies, it just doesn't look like it would provide a new experience for me. Map painting is EU4's domain, and EU4 does it best. Pops and economy are Victoria's domain, and right now Victoria 2 clearly does it best. Characters are CK's domain, and CK does it best. Trade? EU4. War? HOI4 and EU4. Why would I play a game that doesn't give me anything profoundly new? And, as much as Imperator keeps being pushed and has it's cult following, it looks shallow and bland to me. There doesn't seem like there's enough story, not enough events and decisions, and not enough history and alt-history scenarios outside of expanding into various areas and taking over the map. There's not much that really grounds me in that ancient early Rome setting. And even the most beautiful map and terrain isn't going to push me past 5 hours of gameplay, at which point my money will be wasted because I can't refund.

Another issue I see is lack of differentiation. Looking at Youtube videos, there's like a couple categories of country, within which each country plays exactly the same barring some modifiers and placement on the map, or a couple of essentially cosmetic differences. That's a big deal. Even between supposedly very different civilizations there isn't really that much difference. Even just playing 30 hours of Imperator would be a waste of money for me, considering that Paradox games are all about that replayability.

If Paradox ever comes back, I may give it a buy on heavy sale. But as it stands, I see not much reason to buy this type of game, a game that currently is not even being expanded upon by the developer despite it's lack of notable and distinguishing features.

 

[olivenkranz]

As a non-Imperator player who has all the other Paradox Grand Strategies, it just doesn't look like it would provide a new experience for me. Map painting is EU4's domain, and EU4 does it best. Pops and economy are Victoria's domain, and right now Victoria 2 clearly does it best. Characters are CK's domain, and CK does it best. Trade? EU4. War? HOI4 and EU4. Why would I play a game that doesn't give me anything profoundly new? And, as much as Imperator keeps being pushed and has it's cult following, it looks shallow and bland to me. There doesn't seem like there's enough story, not enough events and decisions, and not enough history and alt-history scenarios outside of expanding into various areas and taking over the map. There's not much that really grounds me in that ancient early Rome setting. And even the most beautiful map and terrain isn't going to push me past 5 hours of gameplay, at which point my money will be wasted because I can't refund.

Another issue I see is lack of differentiation. Looking at Youtube videos, there's like a couple categories of country, within which each country plays exactly the same barring some modifiers and placement on the map, or a couple of essentially cosmetic differences. That's a big deal. Even between supposedly very different civilizations there isn't really that much difference. Even just playing 30 hours of Imperator would be a waste of money for me, considering that Paradox games are all about that replayability.

If Paradox ever comes back, I may give it a buy on heavy sale. But as it stands, I see not much reason to buy this type of game, a game that currently is not even being expanded upon by the developer despite it's lack of notable and distinguishing features.

I think that what Imperator does really well is peace-time gameplay, and not from the same perspective as CK.

 

[JBolt]

I think that what Imperator does really well is peace-time gameplay, and not from the same perspective as CK.

And Victoria 2 has it well and solidly beat there. You’ve got politics, economy, trade, colonization, and population management and trends in greater detail in that game.

 

[olivenkranz]

And Victoria 2 has it well and solidly beat there. You’ve got politics, economy, trade, colonization, and population management and trends in greater detail in that game.

I can't compare since I never played Victoria II, but I hope you have fun
I for one enjoy Imperator, but that has probably something to do with my general playstyle however...

 

[Napoleon1971]

And Victoria 2 has it well and solidly beat there. You’ve got politics, economy, trade, colonization, and population management and trends in greater detail in that game.

I was always disappointed with Vicky II because I expected it to build off of Vicky I differently so perhaps I've not judged it fairly. But, I've found Imperator:Rome to have a lot more to do with population management than I did in Vicky II. Depending on how you set up each city and move the unpromoted pops to it, either slaves or tribesmen, you can have the same site be vastly different. Maybe I need to go back and replay Vicky II because I haven't in a while. But, I was never overawed with it, which is a shame because I enjoyed the first one quite a bit.

 

[JBolt]

I was always disappointed with Vicky II because I expected it to build off of Vicky I differently so perhaps I've not judged it fairly. But, I've found Imperator:Rome to have a lot more to do with population management than I did in Vicky II. Depending on how you set up each city and move the unpromoted pops to it, either slaves or tribesmen, you can have the same site be vastly different. Maybe I need to go back and replay Vicky II because I haven't in a while. But, I was never overawed with it, which is a shame because I enjoyed the first one quite a bit.

Well, a system where you set up a city and move pops to it, is completely unrealistic. Victoria has better population management in my opinion since it actually provides a complex simulation where you can only indirectly influence a population, and your population does what they do on a daily basis. You can’t just move a “pop” to a different city in real life. People naturally migrate to job opportunities and higher quality of life, which is what Victoria 2 simulates very effectively. Vanilla Vic2 is quite rough however, I give you that, but most everyone plays it with some kind of mod, and that’s the experience I’m talking about here.

 

[Napoleon1971]

Well, a system where you set up a city and move pops to it, is completely unrealistic. Victoria has better population management in my opinion since it actually provides a complex simulation where you can only indirectly influence a population, and your population does what they do on a daily basis. You can’t just move a “pop” to a different city in real life. People naturally migrate to job opportunities and higher quality of life, which is what Victoria 2 simulates very effectively. Vanilla Vic2 is quite rough however, I give you that, but most everyone plays it with some kind of mod, and that’s the experience I’m talking about here.

You haven't done much reading on the ancient world I guess. There are lots of examples of coerced migration of decently large chunks of people (especially those who do not control their own destinies) in the ancient world.

I didn't really give Vicky II much playtime compared to Vicky I (which I played the heck out of many years ago -- 2003 through 2005 I believe). What mods do you recommend?

 

[Nevars]

Well, a system where you set up a city and move pops to it, is completely unrealistic. Victoria has better population management in my opinion since it actually provides a complex simulation where you can only indirectly influence a population, and your population does what they do on a daily basis. You can’t just move a “pop” to a different city in real life. People naturally migrate to job opportunities and higher quality of life, which is what Victoria 2 simulates very effectively. Vanilla Vic2 is quite rough however, I give you that, but most everyone plays it with some kind of mod, and that’s the experience I’m talking about here.

lol I;R pop migration management is hundred times better than hardcode new world migration in vic2.

So no, pop management in vic2 isn't better nor is it anywhere realistic.

 

[juanpacirca]

Well, a system where you set up a city and move pops to it, is completely unrealistic. Victoria has better population management in my opinion since it actually provides a complex simulation where you can only indirectly influence a population, and your population does what they do on a daily basis. You can’t just move a “pop” to a different city in real life. People naturally migrate to job opportunities and higher quality of life, which is what Victoria 2 simulates very effectively. Vanilla Vic2 is quite rough however, I give you that, but most everyone plays it with some kind of mod, and that’s the experience I’m talking about here.

You can only move slave pops between territories, or tribesmen if you are a tribe. You can promote the migration of freemen to a city if you build enough buildings and increase the civilization level of the city, and I consider that "natural migration to job opportunities and higher quality of life". Overall I find the system very fitting to the historical setting, and the only weird thing I see is the slave/tribesmen chains for colonization (e.g. moving 5 slaves from Northern Italy to the Rhine in order to colonize a single territory due to the culture and religion requirement).

 

[Samitte]

You haven't done much reading on the ancient world I guess. There are lots of examples of coerced migration of decently large chunks of people (especially those who do not control their own destinies) in the ancient world.

Aye but Imperator doesn't represent that, it allows you to move slaves so you can produce goods which you could file away under "historical abstraction" (and do gimmicky stuff like change the local culture/religion, and create assimilation factories), and tribesmen if you are a tribe, which makes little sense because everything else about tribes is about how decentralized it is. So what is represented in game is unrealistic. The other way you coerce migration in game not discussed above is taking slaves in war. This is represented alright if you play one of the big slave states like Rome or the Hellenes, not so much if you don't. So all and all it really isnt that good.

The other ways of historical "coerced migration" are deportations (either with or without enslaving them) which usually happen following a war or revolt which are not included, usually of one or more cities (with the alternative usually being a massacre, leaving them be, or plundering the city.) But this is not in game.

 

[JBolt]

lol I;R pop migration management is hundred times better than hardcode new world migration in vic2.

So no, pop management in vic2 isn't better nor is it anywhere realistic.

Hardcode new world migration? That’s categorically false, even in vanilla pops move between European countries all the time, and I’ve seen pops from Mexico move to the US, so intra new world migration exists too. And I mod Vic2, and in the regions file you can literally remove new world favored migration entirely.

 

[Nevars]

Hardcode new world migration? That’s categorically false, even in vanilla pops move between European countries all the time, and I’ve seen pops from Mexico move to the US, so intra new world migration exists too. And I mod Vic2, and in the regions file you can literally remove new world favored migration entirely.

Well I will admit that I said hardcode is a bit much because you can mod it out but in vanilla, pop is 4 times (iirc it overshadowed literally all modifier you can stack so you need to rely on them being suck instead) more likely to migrate to new world just because the they are some degree of democracy and is in new world.

So unless all of new world nations are absolute monarchy, dictatorship, etc. or they are so devastated by war and old world nations stacking migration attraction modifier then 99% pop will migrate to new world.

Being able to mod it out is irrelevant cuz if you accept mod then IR too can be mod.