Completely uninspired and keeps me from wanting to come back to the game. Come on, paradox, you're so close to making this one of your best games.
- 14
- 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 haven't played TW...but Civ5 - and honestly, I don't see the copying you claim? Can you elaborate what you exactly mean and especially what should be improved? Because even if there should be similarities, there is no mandatory need for me to reinvent the wheel just to be different.
- 1
Honestly, even if that is true, I can't fathom how such a thing could keep one from even playing the game?
Granted, taste is subjective, of course, so everyone is within their rights to reject the game, but I just can't understand how it can be seen as such a big issue one can't even play the game at all?
Granted, taste is subjective, of course, so everyone is within their rights to reject the game, but I just can't understand how it can be seen as such a big issue one can't even play the game at all?
- 1
- 1
I agree, but you're wrong on it being drawn from Rome TW2 and Civ 5. Far from it. Its a copy paste from EU Rome, which came way before those two games.
- 4
- 3
- 3
Never played Civ5, but played both R2 TW and IR extensively and frankly I fail to see what it is that you claim was copied from R2 to IR in terms of production and trade system.
- 3
- 1
Care to elaborate? Have you played any of those games?
---
Rome 2 doesn't have a detailed production or trade system. It is mostly a wargame, like most other TW games from that time.
Everything "produced" is just based on level of industry building in a town, which is based on tech requirement and money you invest in building them up. Level 6 glassware factory will produce more glass than level 1 glassmaker village, and that is all there is to "production" in that game.
After that, the resources produced just get exported to whoever you have trade agreement with (if they need them). The less they have, the more price of that commodity, and thus more money that trade route will earn. All that does is generate money for both parties.
The one major thing that sets it apart from other big games is that you can actually go pirate and hijack trade routes to siphon income.
---
Production in Civ 5 is just a representative of a city's industrial power. Its a permanent currency that is constantly generated as long as a settlement exists, from provinces/resources laying around/buildings, and any citizens you put on working on those areas. It produces things (units, buildings, wonders, specialization etc.) with the speed depending on how much production a city has.
Trade is more complex, as trading comes in internal, international and diplomatic form. Internal trading is automated with ports, roads, railway and airports and generates some passive income and happiness. Alongside that you can use caravans to transfer some food and production around by defining a starting and ending city. Same caravans can also conduct international trade. And the final is diplomatic trade where you can send X resources to Y nation for Z turns alongside usual diplomatic deals. The only PDS game to have diplomatic trade is Stellaris.
The one major thing that sets it apart from other big games is that is that in CIv 5, international trade actually creates an actual exchange of technology, religion and culture alongside gold. And allow you to secretly bully city states via influence but that's a diplomatic thing. And that stuff is true to history, which makes this aspect of Civ 5 trade actually better than Imperator or Rome 2.
---
So, how is Imperator's trade and production directly taken from any of those games? It is different from both, even though they share some systems and end results since they are all based on history.
I agree that there needs to be a lot of improvement in trade and production system of Imperator, but what are your ideas on this that keep you from coming back? I fail to see what you wanted from that post.
Last edited:
- 6
- 1
Well it's 50% of your income and give different boni, so it's a huge part of the game. If you don't like it, it might make you want to play an other game
- 1
Most strategy games handle economy/production pretty similar if you ask me, and out of all the strategy games you could have picked from, I certainly don't see the huge resemblance between Rome2 and Civ5. The only similarity seems to be that you can manually trade for goods in Civ5, but that's about it.
I find the trade system to be very simplistic and uninspiring too. But that's because I've played EU IV and I've developed a phobia of stacking rediculous amount of modifiers upon modifiers. It's boring, but you just have to put up with it since it's a central mechanic.
I'm grateful for the automation feature they expanded upon in the latest patch. I just put all trade on auto and forget about it.
I'm grateful for the automation feature they expanded upon in the latest patch. I just put all trade on auto and forget about it.
- 1
Wrong, it's taken directly (warts and all, at first) from Europa Universalis: Rome which preceded it.
Edit: someone beat me to it lol
Edit: someone beat me to it lol
- 1
...speaking as someone who plays both of those games as well: what are you talking about? If you're referring to bonuses from access to specific resources... I mean, I guess? But that's hardly unique to either of them. That kind of mechanic goes back to board games that predate videogames, full stop, and has been found in many, many games since. And having literally just taken a pause from my Bactria campaign in Rome II, I genuinely don't know what you're referring to there. It's really nothing like I:R's trade system, outside of... uh... building certain buildings can increase your resource production, I guess? Even then, though, it's pretty different.
I get not caring for the trade system. There are definitely things that could be done better. But that's just kind of a bizarre comparison to make.
I get not caring for the trade system. There are definitely things that could be done better. But that's just kind of a bizarre comparison to make.
- 1
These games designs for the economy are a little over two decades out. Civ 5 probably is the one that stole ideas
Civ 5 you gain access to a resource and you get its bonuses and +4 happiness. You get more of that good, it doesn't stack, but you can trade it for another good for another +4 happiness.
Tw2 you click trade and boom trade type appears. Totally lame
Tw2 you click trade and boom trade type appears. Totally lame
- 2
Neat, but what does any of that have to do with Imperator.
- 4
Oh, if you're talking about that side of Civ5 trading (rather than routes) then that is just a worse version of IR trade, sure.
Eh...and where is here the similarity, let alone equality, to how IR works? I'm getting 6 times a 4% happiness increase for importing 6 times leather, for a total of 24%:
And we haven't even spoken of the special effects of imports in the capital province or the calculation of trade revenue in terms of money (which is completely different to Civ5)
Sorry, but I just don't get your point here at all
- 1