Single player game flow experience

[IsaacCAT]

This post from @Nak'Arosh has made me wonder what is the most common experience for single player games in I:R related to expansion and AI responsiveness.

My experience is:

Date	Extension/Expansion	Money	AI Responsiveness	Comments
450-470 (start)	Depending on the starting nation, I am very active and for small nations I usually double my territories	Tight	Engaging: Diadochis wars, alliances, aggression from Antagonists or big players
470-540 (first century)	With 2-3 10K mercs armies and integrated cultures with at least 1,000 POPS (100K levies/ 80K legions)	Enough surplus for investing in buildings but not yet wonders	Muted, no active opposition, they only wait to be gobbled up by me
540-650 (mid game)	not enough experience	not enough experience	not enough experience
650-750 (end game)	not enough experience	not enough experience	not enough experience

What has been your experience?

 

[Marcus Pica]

I ussually roleplay minor tags and I consider the expansion allowed by the game a bit immersion breaking for those, so my expansion is stable throughout the game reaching perhaps the size of a region or two.

At the start I am all enthuasiastic about my nation that I chose with the help of wikipedia, historical papers and other resources, I carefully examine all aspect of my starting position, trying to find sources and location of in-game territories on the map (pleiades, digital atlas, google maps), immersing myself in the environment, also I go through all the characters and the families they belong to, shuffle job positions, trying to imagine their livelihoods etc., carefully study invention paths etc.

In the early game and the first century I expand according to the missions, just enough as to feel secure with my size and alliances.

In the mid game I am building up my nation, tailoring it with the civilisation aspects of the game

Late game is when it gets boring and i think about why I love this game or any PDS game at all.

Then the cycle repeats. I also play in other ways, but this is my usual playthrough.

 

[Ducky251]

First Century - your governors will be aggravating as ‘proverbial’, you will civilise to increase tech levels, money will be ok (profit of 25-45 a month), effects of your culture and religious spreading will begin to take effect

Mid game - May get a slight problem with governors still, Rome will appear on your doorstep, Maurya will have conquered 80% of India, manpower will be manageable (80k spare pool)

Late game - so much money, manpower at insane levels (Hellenic empire gives about 750k spare), only a few major powers left (Rome, Egypt, Maura usually)...AI cities will be mostly empty but some will have 5 academies and basically all possible rural buildings will be built.

 

[Torugu]

Oh, this is an interesting one!

For me it looks somewhat like this:

Date	Extension/Expansion	Money	AI Responsiveness	Comments
450-470 (start)	This is where I expand most aggressively. Usually to goal is to find the biggest guy and beat them up so I can talk all of their stuff. It's not unusual for me to expand my territory to 5 to 8 times its original size.	Usually spent on building academies. If absolutely necessary I'll hire a few mercenaries, but this is only necessary for the smallest starts.	Usually the AI is distracted fighting each other. I try to be firmly in the driver seat during this period, if the AI is declaring war on me unexpectedly, it usually means a restart (but that very rarely happens).
470-540 (first century)	Unless I'm going for a WC, this is where i sit back to stabilise and develop my new conquests. I'll still expand, but it's more deliberate now, trying to grab high value areas.	A lot of money is spend on internal development. So even though income is higher, money actually is tighter during this phase.	At this point I'm already one of the largest countries in the game, so the AI rarely ever attacks me. I still worry about the AI, but it's about whether my expansion targets are getting eaten - not whether they are a threat to me.
540-650 (mid game)	The slow, deliberate expansion from phase 2 continues, but at this point it has turned me into a massive blob that covers a huge chunk of the map. I no longer care about internal development because individual territories and pops no longer matter.	Infinite moneys. Of course income is even higher now, but I'm also no longer spending as much on internal development.	Surprisingly maybe, this is when the AI is at its most aggressive. Usually at this point I will border at least 2 or 3 great powers, and the AI of those countries sees every war that lasts longer than a few months as an opportunity to dog pile you. (Rome and Maurya are the usual culprits.)
650-750 (end game)	If I'm still playing at this point, I control so much of the map that expansion becomes trivial.	"15,000 gold for 10% Freeman Output? Meh, why not. It might look pretty."	AI very scared. AI run away now.

 

[IsaacCAT]

In the mid game I am building up my nation, tailoring it with the civilisation aspects of the game

Late game is when it gets boring and i think about why I love this game or any PDS game at all.

I agree with this, although I do not have enough experience with mid and late game to confirm.

What in your opinion will thrill you with a built up nation? Political reform is something I would like to see, with EMPIRE as a type of government that needs many reforms before you can get it. The most important inventions have already been discovered by mid game.

 

[Marcus Pica]

I agree with this, although I do not have enough experience with mid and late game to confirm.

What in your opinion will thrill you with a built up nation? Political reform is something I would like to see, with EMPIRE as a type of government that needs many reforms before you can get it. The most important inventions in mid game have already been discovered in mid game.

Probably more internal (political, diseases) and especially external (plagues, tribal, migratory invasions) threats.

In my recent CK3 game I was e.g. motivated to continue playing as I expected scripted events like the Mongols. They didnt reach far though and collapsed so that was a disapointment. So yes, I love to play my particular althistory in a more or less historical context so I would like to see some scripted events for the mid and late game. We have historical scripted events for the eaely game, I think they should flesh out those for the later years. Perhaps there could then be an option of historical vs random (in the first the AI would follow more hustorical paths of the missions and scripted events would appear, in the latter the AI would follow the missions according to circumstance and scripted events appear only if certain conditions are met.)

 

[IsaacCAT]

Surprisingly maybe, this is when the AI is at its most aggressive. Usually at this point I will border at least 2 or 3 great powers, and the AI of those countries sees every war that lasts longer than a few months as an opportunity to dog pile you. (Rome and Maurya are the usual culprits.)

Have you lost any war to them? Made any territory concessions? I did once to Egypt in order to peace out. It does not feel good to loose, but gives you a nice excuse to declare to them in the future.

I think my question is if the AI is competent enough to military beat you when you have reached critical mass. In my game with Egypt they won by throwing big numbers to me.

Infinite moneys. Of course income is even higher now, but I'm also no longer spending as much on internal development.

Trade and/or Taxes? Do you see possible any crisis altering this? Maybe weather related, like droughts. We take income from trade and taxes for granted, like food. It would be nice if other nations will also be able to affect those incomes. do you trade with the other great powers in mid game? Could they embargo/block you somehow?

 

[Torugu]

Have you lost any war to them? Made any territory concessions? I did once to Egypt in order to peace out. It does not feel good to loose, but gives you a nice excuse to declare to them in the future.

I think my question is if the AI is competent enough to military beat you when you have reached critical mass. In my game with Egypt they won by throwing big numbers to me.

I have never lost a war, but I was also always in a very secure position (lots of strategically placed forts). But I have been forced to white peace out multiple times, which for me is basically a loss (normally being in a defensive war is the best thing you can hope for).

I'm not sure if the AI is "competent". It's not like they are using advanced strategies or anything. But the AI can certainly conduct an aggressive offensive that puts a lot of pressure on the player. In fact, I would say the AI does MUCH better in offensive wars then in defensive ones - probably because they know when the war is coming and can prepare appropriately.

Trade and/or Taxes? Do you see possible any crisis altering this? Maybe weather related, like droughts. We take income from trade and taxes for granted, like food. It would be nice if other nations will also be able to affect those incomes. do you trade with the other great powers in mid game? Could they embargo/block you somehow?

Trade mostly. I think embargos would just be frustrating (it's already a bit annoying how your trade partners decrease as you expand), and I'm not sure crises are the solution either.

Maybe if having Cohorts was actually a significant advantage over using levies/royal army. Mid-to-Late game a more powerful, standing army is probably the only thing I would be willing to invest significant sums into.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Maybe if having Cohorts was actually a significant advantage over using levies/royal army. Mid-to-Late game a more powerful, standing army is probably the only thing I would be willing to invest significant sums into.

This to be honest. Professional armies where a drain to Roman treasury. A significant military advantage plus a hefty cost should be the game to play in the mid to late period for supremacy.

 

[EricMN93]

I usually divide my game into 3 parts:

Early game (450-550)

I am dedicated to expanding and creating an infrastructure that allows me to maintain a stable long-term economy.

Army: Levies.

Economy: Based on trade.

Cultural and religious integration: I don't worry about it except if there are threats.

War style: Total war.

Internal management: I only worry about disloyal characters.

Mid game (550-650).

I am dedicated to creating a strong and stable state. I designate some imaginary maximum boundaries.

Army: levies and one legion.

Economy: Based on the construction of mines, agricultural settlements and places of slaves (in the settlements).

Markets and tax offices (in cities).

I give more importance to internal trade.

Integration: I build great temples and theaters in the most rebellious areas.

Internal management: I try to give many properties to the ruling family so that they have more power, as well as keep an eye on characters who may pose a threat.

War style: War of conquest and wars of subjugation.

Late game (650-720)

There are few reasons to reach the end, I usually get bored earlier and play something else.

Reasons for reaching the end:

1-Get a trophy.

2-View the content of a mission.

3-Get x decision.

4- See x event.

Everything is exactly the same as the mid-game except that in the end I try to make 100% of my armies legions.

 

[scriptkiddy]

Date	Extension/Expansion	Money	AI Responsiveness	Comments
450-470 (start)	Gain full ownership of capital region, anything beyond client state and tributaries, participation in allies’ wars for slaves; cultural and religious assimilation	Sacking, pillaging, razing for investing in buildings and cities in capital province	Threatening, some wars lead to game over or rage-quit restart
470-540 (first century)	Integration of vassals, first integration of a foreign culture, control of capital legion and mercs for warring, levies on auto defend borders	More buildings and more cities, upgrades to metropolei	Challenging due to army logistics and first encounters with other majors
540-650 (mid game)	Armies (legions, 2-3 mercs for challenging wars) on auto independent, full focus on micro of internal affairs and vassals	no changes to previous stage, not enough for wonders	Avoiding other blobs (usually Rome and Mauria), the rest is nuisance tier due to logistics
650-750 (end game)	not enough experience	not enough experience	not enough experience

That’s mine so far, mostly with a couple of Hellenic tags as well as one Germanic, one Persian and one Jewish.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Avoiding other blobs (usually Rome and Mauria), the rest is nuisance tier due to logistics

If there was an alliance of sorts of small countries against you, will they pose a threat similar to other blobs?

 

[olivenkranz]

Date	Extension/Expansion	Money	AI Responsiveness	Comments
450-470 (start)	Depending on Campaign, but quick expansion. Little to no building. If useful for quick unlock of a mil tradition integrate a culture (e.g. Italiotan for the Romans). Maybe integrate a culture for levies (f.ex. Macedonian) Exception: Mosylon or the like. Peaceful building up because cant do anything lol.	Tight; if small I have mercs with high Martial. Sacking	Threatening, some wars lead to game over or rage-quit restart in the worts case. Depends also on location.	Really depends on starting position
470-540 (first century)	Expanding and building up, especially Grand Theaters and Grand Temples and later Foundries. Slower expansion in realation to size before. Found new Cities and first Metropoleis.	Income surges	Usually without much issue. I play rather carefully, since I am not sure if the local Blob is able to overpower me. Sometimes I get declared on.	Start of Development. I have a tendency to build Roads everywhere and citeis and the fill them up. In the core territory usuayll with libraries and markets, besides the big Foundry, Theater and Temple. Sometimes also the Pop ratio buildings. Holds true for later stages as well.
540-650 (mid game)	Imperial Challenge the Blobs and clean up borders. Build Cities	Income is usually high, one legion at least by now	Blobs die. Sometimes declare war.	Be sure to be able to win, if necessary peace out to not lose your capital or something.
650-750 (end game)	Imperial Challeneg the blobs and clean up borders. Build Cities	Build wonders because bored	Clean up. Barely any challenge in my campaigns that I played so long.	Since I am not so much conquest driven, I am a lot on speed 4 and 5. Normally 4 anyways but...

 

[scriptkiddy]

If there was an alliance of sorts of small countries against you, will they pose a threat similar to other blobs?

Small countries like to hire mercs while I rely on levies, vassal troops and allies as I rather prefer investing in the infrastructure, this gives them a massive advantage until I‘ve unlocked my capital legion, from when with every further buff via inventions, national ideas and military traditions their advantage diminishes. In addition to that, my borders are always fortified, and any siege is quickly repelled by the defending troops, provided they even make it so far because the usually just end up sieging my vassals or just running away.

So I think they won’t pose a threat even if they managed to expand their alliance betwork and field more troops. I also don’t know yet how good Mauria and Rome actually are as I‘m just keeping avoiding them. Maybe they’re just scary paper tiger, maybe not.

There is one thing though that just striked my mind, and I‘m surprised I haven’t mentioned it yet, I miss ways of converting monarchies into republics. I find republics in general to be more interesting. Right now, unless playing tribes or some tags with scripted events/missions sich as Syracusae or Athens, you are pretty much locked to the government form of your starting tag.

 

[IsaacCAT]

In addition to that, my borders are always fortified, and any siege is quickly repelled by the defending troops,

Something the AI should learn to do

As in this example, I am using the truce to build forts and protect my cities and provincial capitals but the AI will be obliterated without much effort by the player:

 

[tpapp157]

IR's Game Scope to Decision Scope balance is still broken beyond the early game. It's better than it was, and it's better than most other strategy games, but the game's core systems are still designed around small-mid sized nations and progressively fall apart as nations become larger.

I've said it before, but I think a core way of solving the problem while simultaneously making the game more historical and more interesting is a stronger emphasis on subject states. The reality is that territorial expansion, as currently depicted in IR, has in human history been a practical reality. Empires throughout human history, and especially during antiquity, were really just amorphous amalgamations of functionally and/or legally autonomous subject states that formed and fractured and reformed based on the ebb and flow of the overlord's strength. I would say ~80% of an empire's land in IR should be owned by subject states.

This has a number of benefits:

• A more realistic representation of time period.
• A better balancing of Game Scope and Decision Scope across the scope of the game. Instead of a player needing to tediously micromanage literal thousands of game entities across their large empire, consolidate most of them under the banner of a handful of subject states.
• Conquering territory no longer removes gameplay. Every foreign nation a player conquers removes an aspect of gameplay from the game, and while it's replaced with some new gameplay to manage that territory the overall balance is still net negative. With subject states, the amount of gameplay remains more consistent with a natural transition from managing external foreign nations to managing internal subject states.
• Increase the complexity and overall threat level of internal politics. While IR does a much better job than any other PDX game of actually making internal management an interesting aspect of gameplay, it still doesn't go nearly far enough. In real world politics, it's often said that foreign policy is just an extension of domestic policy, but in all Paradox games this relationship is unfortuantely reversed.
• Better overall power balance of the game across nations of different sizes. Currently, a nation's power grows fairly linearly with its territorial size which of course makes no realistic sense. IR's core mechanics in general need significantly harsher diminishing returns around territorial expansion and subject states can be a cornerstone of that.

 

[scriptkiddy]

Currently, a nation's power grows fairly linearly with its territorial size which of course makes no realistic sense.

I don’t feel that it’s the case since the introduction of levies and culture mechanics. The reason why I keep so many vassals is because annexation of territories with wrong culture and religion is de facto useless. You just get some taxes and manpower out of it, in exchange for regular civil war because the province loyalty tanks. I’m also very hesitant with integrating newly conquered cultures, 3 is my absolute limit because I prefer my stability and loyalty of my characters, especially of those holding offices, being high. Vassals are way more useful.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Currently, a nation's power grows fairly linearly with its territorial size which of course makes no realistic sense. IR's core mechanics in general need significantly harsher diminishing returns around territorial expansion and subject states can be a cornerstone of that.

I don’t feel that it’s the case since the introduction of levies and culture mechanics.

Interesting, I agree with you both, your military strength is function of which cultures you integrate (type of units + number of levies). However, those POPs are based in territories, more territories equals more POPs.

This is the ledger of my latest game, the correlation between POPS and territories is almost lineal. I am the one trying to prove it wrong, can you spot me?

I am also trying to be rich without having all the trade routes, but the most profitable. This is tricky, you have to found cities where the most valuable goods are.

The metric for this indicator is harder to find in game. For example, sorting the trade overview window for exports and by income:

But you cannot see what is the average income for trade routes, or the median for that matter. You cannot even know how many trade routes you have!

 

[Kadanz]

Look at all those beautiful tables. The excel fix I didn't think I needed.

 

[scriptkiddy]

My bad, I didn’t know that with „nation‘s power“ you were actually referring to the ingame metrics. Tbh, I wasn’t focusing on it because I don’t know how it’s being calculated anyway, and my personal „winning condition“ is achieving my achievement goals. That’s why I haven’t played until the end yet, and it’s when you need that score, no?