Imperator has always been better than Stellaris, even better than all the other titles whose names aren't even worth remembering
- 4
- 2
- 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.
EU4 was killed the moment it was given to the 3rd party company. I have the game for a spin from time to time having stayed at the 1.30.6 patch refusing to upgrade.
But compared to Imperator 2.0, EU4 and CK2 feel outclassed.
- 6
- 1
I have enough time with this game and still surprises me. Something that Stellaris will never do.
Had the last Antigonid ruler died (great great great grandson of Antigonus), idk why his son, governor or Thrace, didn't pick up as there were no pretenders, and got a popup to change the name to either "Kingdom of Syria" or "Kingdom of Asia". A Persian took over. And was a semi-peaceful game from the usual hectic ones with smaller Hellenistic countries like Syracuse.
Next game with Antigonus, going to pick Pella while Demetrius is the king, and move the capital there to be safe no foreigners will take power. After all I will be following the steps of the the great Demetrius, who lost everything and became a great king.
- 3
You might think so, but most players didnt. There were plenty of updates and reworks of Imperator, but the number of players stayed very low. Even after 2.0 most players will tell you that its a shit game and that paradox is a greedy company etc. (Try talking about imperator in any gaming forum and you will see.) When they didnt see any increase in player numbers after 2.0 the fate of the game was probably sealed.
Stellaris on the other hand is still very popular.
- 5
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
I enjoy all history to some extent, but I vastly prefer the premodern period, so I:R started with a considerable advantage relative to all other PDS titles except the CK series.
That said, I confess that I was hoping for a character-driven game in Antiquity—which does not mean a reskinned CK, as there are plenty of other ways to execute the concept. For me the appeal of Ancient Rome is the personalities, the politics, and the sociocultural context. I:R is a bad Rome game because Rome is just one tag, and not a particularly fun or interesting one.
And the game has no flavor, no personality. Even as it stands, it's about little more than managing modifiers and putting checkmarks on busywork. Nothing about the design or mechanics screams Antiquity to me; see how religion and trade just act as simplistic but micro-intensive ways to stack further numbers on your empire, a la CIV.
That said, I confess that I was hoping for a character-driven game in Antiquity—which does not mean a reskinned CK, as there are plenty of other ways to execute the concept. For me the appeal of Ancient Rome is the personalities, the politics, and the sociocultural context. I:R is a bad Rome game because Rome is just one tag, and not a particularly fun or interesting one.
And the game has no flavor, no personality. Even as it stands, it's about little more than managing modifiers and putting checkmarks on busywork. Nothing about the design or mechanics screams Antiquity to me; see how religion and trade just act as simplistic but micro-intensive ways to stack further numbers on your empire, a la CIV.
- 6
- 2
- 2
- 1
Maybay don't use the Mana in a modern game of 2019 and sacrifice them for understand a thing can player say in forum from...well years? Another thing are can I:R don't as a Soul...don't had a identity are a modded crusader kings with Eu4 blobbing. Nobody else. Some good thing arrive in 1.5/2.0 but when are too late. Game reputation was already ruined.
While I agree that the character part could be improved in Imperator, I don't think that Stellaris ever got the backlash that Imperator got. Being best is good but being most popular is even better.
But there is no way that Imperator could be om pair with CK for characters. CK is a character focused game in a period with notoriously weak central power contra local power players. Thus it should be expected that country management would favor a state centered game like Imperator.
- 2
If Imperator had the aggressive expansion system of EU4 , people love that and alot of people play EU4 despite being 10 year older than Imperator because it is a fun puzzle to not get into a coalition. In Imperator you can expand as much as you want and nothing stops you.
- 2
I don't doubt that IR has its issues in this department, but regardless how good (or not,; I can't judge as I'm not playing it) EU4 handles it...that alone wouldn't have changed anything about IR's fate. IR suffered a lot more from all the good stuff having been added since 1.1 not being in 1.0. Just browse through the changelogs of the big patches and you realize how much was missing.
- 2
- 1
Although I think that this alone would not have been able to keep the game afloat I really missed that puzzle like feeling of EU in Imperator. Not only in regards to coalitions but in diplomacy in general. In EU the AI always tried to put some hurdles your way. Even the weakest OPM would try to ally as strong and as many tags as possible. In Imperator it is often the case that the AI is stoicly waiting its fate (being taken out by the player) without putting much effort in diplomacy.
- 2
The reason they stopped development was because Imperator wasn’t a competitor for CK3. Or EU4. Or HOI4. It wasn’t competitive, as in it didn’t sell. It didn’t matter how good it was by 2.0, people weren’t buying it. Continuing development was just wasting money, because they couldn’t get the fan base back after the botched release.
- 2
As far as I know it simply wanted to be Europa Universalis with same silly mana system (that's the worst bit in that game).
- 2
Thats false mana was removed from Imperator 3 years ago.
I actually am not so sure it was good to remove mana. They did it because people like you complained on the forum, but that made the stats of the characters pointless.
- 4
- 3
- 1
- 1
Stats are useful, only charisma can be argued to be useless. For each point of zeal f.ex. you get 0.01 stability per month.
- 4
- 1
Plus that Finesse and Martial also matter a lot in regard to the capital region the ruler is administrating respectively its levy army he is commanding in case.
- 2
- 1
they all are useful, and al lot lot lot better than that silly mana system in EU4. It makes Imperator Rome a lot more interesting and a lot less dull and boring as the EU4 is.
- 4
- 1
- 1
I dont care about -0.01 Tyranny per month , tyranny isnt so bad to have anyway.
Also if you play republic you get new rulers quickly anyway.
The most important stat now when appointing govenors for example is
Family, Loyalty, corruption
Also if you play republic you get new rulers quickly anyway.
The most important stat now when appointing govenors for example is
Family, Loyalty, corruption
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
- 2
Honestly, my only issue is that I feel the 2.0 release should have been given more marketing and hype. It represented an incredible effort by the developers and a complete transformation of the game, and yet it was just not given the kind of promotion that such a huge overhaul deserved. I suspect, looking back, that the decision to shelve it had already been made, and obviously I have neither the skills nor the information to judge whether that was a good move from a business standpoint, but it always sat quite badly with me.
I don't think it's ever necessarily too late to win people back to a game that had a bad first impression. Most of us who are still here defending I:R probably weren't very excited by the release build, but were won back later by the post-release improvements. The trouble is you need both real improvement to the product itself, which the developers delivered, and efforts to communicate that improvement to the people who might have been put off by the bad release. The latter I think was missing.
I don't think it's ever necessarily too late to win people back to a game that had a bad first impression. Most of us who are still here defending I:R probably weren't very excited by the release build, but were won back later by the post-release improvements. The trouble is you need both real improvement to the product itself, which the developers delivered, and efforts to communicate that improvement to the people who might have been put off by the bad release. The latter I think was missing.
- 6
- 3