A thread for suggestions and proposals for a new Paradox game set in Antiquity and, presumably, a successor to Imperator: Rome.
- 9
- 2
- 1
- 1
-
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.
I believe the successor of I:R should make emphasis on war. By balancing the actual system and improving on it, war is very enjoyable in this game.
I:R II could adapt some of the trade mechanics from Victoria 3 as well.
The map should extend to China, for example:
en.wikipedia.org
The starting date should be the end of the Roman Empire before the destruction and separation of the two Romes. I would start on 1AD when I:R ends.
en.wikipedia.org
The game should have flavour and missions for all playable nations. Historically researched and not generic missions.
I:R II could adapt some of the trade mechanics from Victoria 3 as well.
The map should extend to China, for example:
Sino-Roman relations - Wikipedia
The starting date should be the end of the Roman Empire before the destruction and separation of the two Romes. I would start on 1AD when I:R ends.
Roman Empire - Wikipedia
The game should have flavour and missions for all playable nations. Historically researched and not generic missions.
Last edited:
- 9
- 7
- 1
- 1
I'd hope that the civilization builder parts would remain (and maybe also improved): especially building, roads, culture and religion (those last 2 could use sa small improvement imo). Also, keep this gorgeous map. I'd also like if the territory scale would remain similar.
- 14
- 8
I actually feel like the best "Imperator" game perhaps would be at least partially less focused on Rome than this one was. Perhaps it even deserves a new name.
I'd like to see there be multiple start dates:
Early Bronze Age
Late Bronze Age (sea people! -- sack Troy! -- maybe be Aeneas and found 100+ civilizations in the western Med without ever making a "New Troy")
Early Iron Age (Dorian invasions and the like)
A golden age of Greece/Persia launch date
An "Alexander is born" launch date, which isn't so different from the current Imperator start, except you have Phillip AND Alexander still alive
The Imperator launch date with the Diadochi being the immediate thing
1st Punic War
2nd Punic War
Multiple scenarios with late Roman Republic set-ups
Many scenarios with Roman Empire set-ups for various civil wars.
Some Sassanid Persian restoration scenarios
A Marcomannic War set-up
A "restitutor orbis" scenario with the Illyrian emperors
Some later Roman stuff involving Diocletian, Constantine, and even Theodosius
A couple late Roman scenarios where you could play the fall of Rome
The later "Roman" scenarios could be done in the manner of Imperum Romanum I or II, the TT strategy game from ages ago, where you're not really looking to play a whole history but instead do a scenario out over a number of years, but not 100s of them.
There is a lot of room for an ancient world/Rome game, even if the mega-strategy one of play all through has failed twice now (EU:Rome and Imperator:Rome)
I get that the grand campaign here (start in Bronze Age) would quite literally start before even Etruria was well established. And, I get that its weird to have scenarios and a grand campaign in the same game. But, I think this is how you actually make an ancient world game work.
Bonus if you can have India and China in the game as well and have scenarios for them as well. Other than the Three Kingdoms in China, I'm rather ignorant on what people would want in a game of this sort. But, I can assure you having the three kingdoms and the med going in the same game at the same time would be exciting.
I'd like to see there be multiple start dates:
Early Bronze Age
Late Bronze Age (sea people! -- sack Troy! -- maybe be Aeneas and found 100+ civilizations in the western Med without ever making a "New Troy")
Early Iron Age (Dorian invasions and the like)
A golden age of Greece/Persia launch date
An "Alexander is born" launch date, which isn't so different from the current Imperator start, except you have Phillip AND Alexander still alive
The Imperator launch date with the Diadochi being the immediate thing
1st Punic War
2nd Punic War
Multiple scenarios with late Roman Republic set-ups
Many scenarios with Roman Empire set-ups for various civil wars.
Some Sassanid Persian restoration scenarios
A Marcomannic War set-up
A "restitutor orbis" scenario with the Illyrian emperors
Some later Roman stuff involving Diocletian, Constantine, and even Theodosius
A couple late Roman scenarios where you could play the fall of Rome
The later "Roman" scenarios could be done in the manner of Imperum Romanum I or II, the TT strategy game from ages ago, where you're not really looking to play a whole history but instead do a scenario out over a number of years, but not 100s of them.
There is a lot of room for an ancient world/Rome game, even if the mega-strategy one of play all through has failed twice now (EU:Rome and Imperator:Rome)
I get that the grand campaign here (start in Bronze Age) would quite literally start before even Etruria was well established. And, I get that its weird to have scenarios and a grand campaign in the same game. But, I think this is how you actually make an ancient world game work.
Bonus if you can have India and China in the game as well and have scenarios for them as well. Other than the Three Kingdoms in China, I'm rather ignorant on what people would want in a game of this sort. But, I can assure you having the three kingdoms and the med going in the same game at the same time would be exciting.
- 11
- 1
Re: China
Look up the Warring States and the Annals of Spring and Autumn
- 1
Why do you think there will be imperator II at all? Not trying to be negative, just curious.
- 1
- 1
Because I have the trait "Too opptimistic to be saved". I seem to be incurable to hope that some form of GSG by Paradox set in Antiquity will come one day and be successful.
*****
But anyway, if I'm going personally for what I would like I'd love to see a character focused game in Antiquity. Given the multitude of colorful characters in the ancient histories it makes me think that a character focus would be both fun, as seen in the CK-series, as well as have plenty of material to base itself on along with playing differently from the CK-series as the ancient and medieval periods operated along some pretty different frameworks.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
- 2
I would like them to finally make a religion system that's appropriate for non-Abrahamic religions since, you know, that's the vast majority of religions in 300 BC.
- 2
- 2
I would personally like a focus on playing as a character, but without dynasty aspect of CK and with larger focus on what is happening during your life: You play (trying to gain high position, conquer a lot of land, discover something cool or earn a lot of money) until your death, get game over screen and could select next character in this world, influenced by you. Or just more developed character system in case of "spirit of the nation" approach.
- 1
- 1
- 1
- 1
The most important features would basically be everything Imperator failed really bad at.
1. Significantly improved AI.
2. Significantly improved UI.
3. Majority of playable tags need to have fun, replayable internal and regional mechanics.
4. A well working, polished game at release.
1. Significantly improved AI.
2. Significantly improved UI.
3. Majority of playable tags need to have fun, replayable internal and regional mechanics.
4. A well working, polished game at release.
- 3
- 2
- 1
how about the copy the game 1 to 1 and just give it a next try? because at the moment the only things that are worst on this game are the terrible AI, the non historical nations and the bugs
I don't see any other reasons why the game should achieve less than the other titles
I wouldn't change the starting point of the time when Rome is already a superpower because that quickly ruins the fun of the game and I don't think it makes sense to set the point in time until the division of Rome because then it would no longer be ancient but already half in the Middle Ages
but thats my point of view
if there were to be an I:R2 I wouldn't buy it anyway because who can assure me that the game will achieve better success than I:R in the current one
in the end it gets a bad rating and is also left lying around and i'm not in the mood for that
I don't see any other reasons why the game should achieve less than the other titles
I wouldn't change the starting point of the time when Rome is already a superpower because that quickly ruins the fun of the game and I don't think it makes sense to set the point in time until the division of Rome because then it would no longer be ancient but already half in the Middle Ages
but thats my point of view
if there were to be an I:R2 I wouldn't buy it anyway because who can assure me that the game will achieve better success than I:R in the current one
in the end it gets a bad rating and is also left lying around and i'm not in the mood for that
- 6
- 1
- 1
On this I can agree as to war being a pretty fun experience in Imperator. And given how the timeline is in the period of the Dioadochi and the "rise of the west" as in a new power rising martially in the western part of the map, the scenrio does put war in a central place.
Possibly, although I haven't played Victoria 3 yet.
The map should extend to China, for example:
View attachment 907328
Sino-Roman relations - Wikipedia
That could work although I just hope that it won't make China either invincible or slow down the game into a lag by having so many tags and such on the map.
The starting date should be the end of the Roman Empire before the destruction and separation of the two Romes. I would start on 1AD when I:R ends.
Roman Empire - Wikipedia
On this I strongly disagree and in particular with the concept of making this a primary war game. Setting the game after most of the great conquests by Rome removes most conflicts in the west and we already know that Paradox games have a problem with blobbing. Thus starting the game with über-blobbs to dominate the map: Rome, Parthian Empire, China and presumably something big and powerful in India as well, would make it very stale from the start in my experience.
On this I totally agree, even if I can accept generic for a time before more are ready.
I'm with you.
All very cool but I think this would have two main drawbacks. The first is that the game would either be killingly expensive and huge to make, or that it would be very shallow and not go very deep into any one period.
I kind of disagree as I think that the current system works pretty well for polytheism at least. What are the flaws that you see with the system that is in place right now and what would you like to see instead?
Entirely possible although I kind of like the dynasty aspects so wouldn't want to lose that. But if one would want to differentiate this further from CK I suppose one could tie the characters one plays together in another way than a dynasty.
Taking 2.0 as a basis for a new games makes alot of sense yet things can be improved and made better.
If it had 2.0 as 1.0 then, yes, it probably would have made a better first impact on people.
I agree that starting with Rome as a superpower takes away from the game, although I would argue that the final division wasn't by far half-way into the Middle Ages. In my personal, and potentially ignorant, opinion the first step from Antiquity to the Middle Ages didn't came until Justinian became emperor.
- 4
My idea for I:R II is to have mechanics for the decadence and dismantling of great empires.
Like the invasion of hordes or the destruction from within due to having too much integrated cultures.
A new mechanics for PDX games will have to be designed for players to fight against the atomization of bigger nations. While smaller nations will have it better.
I believe it is enticing and very much original for PDX to take the challenge.
PS: war being pivotal, does not mean the game isn’t a GSG. The theme will be Empire crushing, instead of Empire Building.
PPS: in fact, big empires may be scripted to dismantle if the player is not able to reform them and the player can choose to continue playing with one of the nations originated from the crumble of the Empire to bring back the glory of old without the problems of the ancient one.
Last edited:
- 7
To be honest, even if they would release it, I wouldnt buy it, because
1) nobody can guarantee it will be better then first one.
2) nobody can guarantee they will not abandon it again.
3) a matter of principle. I already gave them money for first one and got deceived. Im not charity to throw randomly money that I work hard for to earn.
If there is second game, those of us who have purchased first game, should get it for free. Thats the only way I would install it and consider buying dlc's for it.
1) nobody can guarantee it will be better then first one.
2) nobody can guarantee they will not abandon it again.
3) a matter of principle. I already gave them money for first one and got deceived. Im not charity to throw randomly money that I work hard for to earn.
If there is second game, those of us who have purchased first game, should get it for free. Thats the only way I would install it and consider buying dlc's for it.
- 7
- 2
- 1
I believe the successor of I:R should make emphasis on war. By balancing the actual system and improving on it, war is very enjoyable in this game.
I:R II could adapt some of the trade mechanics from Victoria 3 as well.
The map should extend to China, for example:
View attachment 907328
Sino-Roman relations - Wikipedia
The starting date should be the end of the Roman Empire before the destruction and separation of the two Romes. I would start on 1AD when I:R ends.
Roman Empire - Wikipedia
The game should have flavour and missions for all playable nations. Historically researched and not generic missions.
IR is already quite focused on war and I don't think it should do it more. Several Paradox games suffers from war receiving way too much attention and peace time being dull with not much to do except waiting for mana to stack and war exhaustion to drop. A civ builder shouldn't stop at map painting.
I would be happy to see China added to the game, but starting with Rome already nearly at its peak means removing most of the interesting factions and all the fun of actually building the empire.
- 2
- 1
As much as I agree with the sentiment that the game shouldn't be too focused on Rome when there are so many other interesting civs in the game, I think your multiple start dates idea is quite unrealistic. For every possible dates, the devs would have to adapt borders, diplomacy, techs, missions and more importantly pops for every single tag on a map which you want to be even bigger than the one we already have. It would be extremely consuming in terms of time and resources, there's a reason why the team for EU4 stopped working on other starting date than the earlier one and this game doesn't even use pops!
Would I like to play a Paradox game taking place in the Bronze Age? Most certainly, but it would work better as its own game, with its own mechanics and probably a smaller map than Imperator (with huge chunks of Europe missing).
You also have to take balance into account, every starting date featuring the Achaemenids having already conquered Mesopotamia and Egypt would need to artificially nerf them to the ground to prevent them from steamrolling the world without any opposition, to the point they would be unfun both to play as or against, and the same is true to a lesser extent for every scenario with a strong Rome.
Last edited:
- 3
Agree with you, but I think the take on Empire Crumbling has its merits on originality. PDX cannot do the same game over and over.
By providing a game with Imperial internal management with the following loop:
Fall of the Western Roman Empire - Wikipedia
Last edited:
- 2
Honestly I believe that an IR 2 is needed more in regards to marketing than the actual things they should change from the current version of Imperator.
Imho if I were to make a new IR this is what I would change.
1) Diplomacy. More options and of course a better AI. This could be done also to IR 1 with not much changes.
2) Trade. Current trade system really does not force you to make any strategic decisions past the early game. Trade and economy overall should be a more integral part of your strategy. Creating a maritime trade empire with many small enclaves of trading posts should be possible. This could be done to IR 1 with some changes.
3) Have different game play for centralised "highly civilized" tags of the Middle East, India and East Mediterranean vs the tribal tags of Central North Europe and the Stepps. Tribal land should be considered colonizable for a northwards expanding Rome for example. So occupying Germania should not be considered the same as occupying the Greek city states. Rome would need to severely change the first one (infrastructure cities etc) before bringing into par with a Mediterranean province. This would need quite some changes from the current version of IR.
4) Focus more in events than in missions. I believe that this makes the game more fluid and replayable. For sure different tags would need different kind of events according to culture, religion, character traits, religion etc. Also specific nation could have also some decision to take. This is something that could be done in IR1 with not much changes.
Imho if I were to make a new IR this is what I would change.
1) Diplomacy. More options and of course a better AI. This could be done also to IR 1 with not much changes.
2) Trade. Current trade system really does not force you to make any strategic decisions past the early game. Trade and economy overall should be a more integral part of your strategy. Creating a maritime trade empire with many small enclaves of trading posts should be possible. This could be done to IR 1 with some changes.
3) Have different game play for centralised "highly civilized" tags of the Middle East, India and East Mediterranean vs the tribal tags of Central North Europe and the Stepps. Tribal land should be considered colonizable for a northwards expanding Rome for example. So occupying Germania should not be considered the same as occupying the Greek city states. Rome would need to severely change the first one (infrastructure cities etc) before bringing into par with a Mediterranean province. This would need quite some changes from the current version of IR.
4) Focus more in events than in missions. I believe that this makes the game more fluid and replayable. For sure different tags would need different kind of events according to culture, religion, character traits, religion etc. Also specific nation could have also some decision to take. This is something that could be done in IR1 with not much changes.
- 1
- 1
I don't really agree. Relying on too much events prevent you from planning anything and forces you into a reactive role rather than an active one.
This is the time period that was literally all about war though, and not even war as we think of it in these games (with a formal declaration of war between two states, then invasions, etc) but also never ending low level raiding, civil wars and looting. Like what CK tries to do but on steroids.
If any Paradox game should be about war, it should be this one.
I think making it a civ builder is also a pretty bad idea (that's literally what the much more popular Civilization series does and in a better way), and Paradox should've spent a little more thought on working out unique mechanics for this game series rather than just doing an EU reskin and with ingredients from their other games thrown in. Like mentioned above, religion is a giant missed opportunity. The relatively pointless trade micro is clearly filler for not having anything else to do in peacetime.
The real appeal of this series (aside from setting) was that it promised a different gameplay loop than usual Paradox games. Instead of start --> get bigger --> mega blob WC, civil wars could come along and deblob the map. They seem to have toned that down in Imperator by making it easier to avoid, but internal politics is something that should be emphasized thoughtfully in any new game and would give it a uniqueness.
- 2
- 1