What I would love to see in a grand return

[Barron of Gondor]

Imperator Rome is in limbo

They hacked it because of player count, which I think was punitive becuase of the release. IR is not the game it was at release, and they jumped the gun too fast after 2.0.When IR released I bought it, played 5 or so hours, and put it down. The game wasn't fun, and the mechanics were far to different from other PDX games I played. I picked it up again after 2.0 However I had a whole new learning curve to go through. I didn't understand the building system, nor the pop system. The Religious mechanics were completely esoteric, and the Government and internal politics was to foreign to me. So I played it for about 30 hours; then I went back to CK3, Stellaris and HOI. I understood those games and I wasn't in the mood for a steep learning curve.

However, the community drew me back to IR and with EUV... oops I mean project Caesar... in development; I've been coming back to IR on and off. I can say with confidence I understand 75% of what's going on in the game. And I now get a lot of enjoyment from Imperator. The dev's took a hiatus, and us normal players used that time to get a feel of the game. But I think there is much more life in this game.


A Grand Return

Imperator needs to come back with an Iconic patch. Not a huge mechanical reshuffle, but Iconic. I would say name the patch Augustus, however that name is taken by this current beta. So lets name this hypothetical return the Octavian update. This update should extend the base game timeline by 262 years to 235 AD. The years of the Roman Principate, and ending with the crisis of the third century. And be accompanied by a DLC that adds a new start date. The start date should be ether 44 BC, or 40 BC. 44 BC is good for some scripted events that tells the story of the Second Triumvirate and the Liberators' Civil War. 40 BC is good because that is 2 years after the Battle of Phillippi, and the Second Triumvirate has already split the Republic amongst themselves. This update should come with a new Principate government form. The Principate should be a sort of hybrid Republic/Monarchy, and a late game goal for your empire.


Minor Tweaks that I'd like to see

Id like to put Sacred Treasures into Holy sites that I own, that are not in my Pantheon
We still get the benefits of that Holy Site having those Treasures. The stab hit and cooldown for changing a God just to put a treasure in it's holy site is arbitrary.
Rename Pantheon Deities to Patron Deities
This is a Terminology complaint. Your Pantheon should be all the Gods you have access to choose from. A Patron Deity should be the Gods your getting Active/Passive effects from.
Relabel the Legion Terminology
Another Terminology one. The current system has some confusing aspects. "I have 20 Cohorts in Cohors II, Legio Italia". This can be improved by renaming Cohorts to Maniples. "I have 20 Maniples in Cohors II, Legio Italia" Or by renaming Legions to Provencal Armies, and Cohors to Legions. "I have 20 Cohorts in Legio II, Provencal Army Italia"
Noble Privileges assimilate their culture group.
There is no point in giving Noble Civic Rights. Make it to where if you give a culture of another culture group Noble privileges', all cultures within that culture group will assimilate into that culture.
A better Holdings Map Mode
I don't need to see the holdings of other nation within another nation's borders. And the color of the holdings of my great families do not match their family color. As is the holdings of the head of my Junii Family, Consul Agrippa Junius Aficanus (Bad ass name) is yellow. But the Junius Family is light blue. Then there are holdings in Latium that are owed by characters from a Seleukid Satrapy that are red. (Also, if anyone of you could please explain the in's and outs of Holdings, and why some holdings are owed by junior family members, and why some are owed by foreign characters, and how I can revoke holdings owed by foreigners, I would asperate it. Holdings, and Character interactions are still esoteric to me)



Imperator Rome still has tons of life in it. I'm posting because we are seeing some activity from the devs. And I'm optimistic that they take this game out of limbo.

 

[Hootieleece]

I think the devs may be thinking of making an Imperator2 after Europa Universalis V is finished. Other than these charity work patches that we have gotten the game is dead in my opinion.

I enjoy it but even the Invictus mod has become tedious to load making me appreciate the vanilla that much more.

 

[Will Steel]

I think the devs may be thinking of making an Imperator2 after Europa Universalis V is finished. Other than these charity work patches that we have gotten the game is dead in my opinion.

Is there a source for this? Because I love the idea. Been craving for an Imperator game, but with a proper character system and actual politics/economics this time.

 

[Hootieleece]

Is there a source for this? Because I love the idea. Been craving for an Imperator game, but with a proper character system and actual politics/economics this time.

The first post from this thread......https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/why-developing-i-r-2-when-you-can-come-back-to-i-r.1711264/

 

[zorkman]

Extending the timeline forward will make it worse & even less of a challenge as Rome will be at its most powerful. Any timeline should go back to when Rome formed & the Greek states were strong.

 

[The Russian Empire]

Extending the timeline forward will make it worse & even less of a challenge as Rome will be at its most powerful. Any timeline should go back to when Rome formed & the Greek states were strong.

If they extend the timeline forward, it will likely be during the Migration Period when both East and West were buckling under barbarian incursions and new political entities were forming. Personally, they can move the timeline to whenever they want, just so long as they get rid of the ridiculous ab urbe condita dating system.

The problem with moving it back too far is the lack of primary source documentation, which would mean that much of the map has to be guessed at.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

Extending the timeline forward will make it worse & even less of a challenge as Rome will be at its most powerful. Any timeline should go back to when Rome formed & the Greek states were strong.

Extending the timeline is necessary. Base game Imperator Rome has a very short timeframe. Only 277 years of playtime. In comparison EU4 has about 400 years, and CK3 has 600. Extending the game to 235 AD will almost double the playtime, and give us 539 years to play. However, I feel your issue is the alternate start date I recommended. So perhaps I did not clarify what exactly I meant. I recommended the devs extend the base game to 235 AD with a free update. So if you started a normal 450 AUC game; the game would run to 989 AUC. (304 BC-235 AD)

So my alternate start date recommendation was for a paid story driven DLC, starting in 40 BC. Not to replace the normal 304 BC start date. This start date is during Second Triumvirate. This start date would see Rome divided into 4 separate tags, following the assassination of Julius Caesar. The 4 Romes' would be like Diadochi Successor Kingdoms. Each having unique mission sets, and Heritages. Reuniting Rome would be the goal of each one of them. Augustus would be the most powerful of the 4, However He would be alone against a Mark Antony, *Cleopatra, and Lepidus coalition(Cleopatra is not one of the 4 Romes' Egypt was allied to Mark Antony). The 4th Rome would be Sextus Pompey, the younger son of Pompey Magnus. His mission tree would focus on restoring the power of the senate.

EDIT
To rehome the need for more time: Imperator Rome is the shortest Modern Paradox game. Not shortest by date, but shortest by playtime. Each Paradox game uses game ticks. For most of the games each day is a tick. But some use other metrics. HOI4 uses hours, and Vic3 uses day phases. IR uses days as ticks.
CK3 Tick count: 213,890
Vic3 Tick count: 146,000
EU4 Tick count: 134,000
HOI4 Tick count: 105,120
IR Tick count: 101,005

The fact that Hearts of Iron beats Imperator Rome in game time, is astonishing. Imperator is a Civilization game focusing on the rise of your civilization. Hearts of iron is a war game focused on a very specific decade in history. Imperator should be around the same playtime as Crusader Kings.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

If they extend the timeline forward, it will likely be during the Migration Period when both East and West were buckling under barbarian incursions and new political entities were forming. Personally, they can move the timeline to whenever they want, just so long as they get rid of the ridiculous ab urbe condita dating system.

The problem with moving it back too far is the lack of primary source documentation, which would mean that much of the map has to be guessed at.

I do love me some Late Roman Empire, but I don't think that period would play well into the mechanics of the game. That saw the Rise of Christianity and Islam. Those two religions don't work with the current Religion mechanics. Judaism is the only Monotheistic religion in the game, and they get away with it by just renaming Deities to Profits. But that still has suspension of disbelief problems with synchronization. The 3 Abrahamic faiths are kind of a "my way or the highway" thing. There needs to be another Religion rework for that to work.

But I second your Ab Urbe Condita remark. That wasn't used during Roman times... Like at all. Not even during the Byzantine era. That was used during the Medieval Renaissance. And only used for about 200 years. The way they told time during the Republic was by who had Consulships. "The year of Spuius and Tullus" for example. So if we are already using an inaccurate calendar, might as well be the more understood Gregorian Calendar. (BCE, CE and BC, AD both fall under the Gregorian Calendar umbrella).

 

[The Russian Empire]

I do love me some Late Roman Empire, but I don't think that period would play well into the mechanics of the game.

I agree, but for players wanting to see a Roman Empire on the map that isn't all-powerful, you're limited to eras such as the Crisis of the Third Century (Gallic/Palmyrene Empire, copied from Empire Divided in TW), the Tetrarchy, and the Empire post-Constantine. Perhaps the Year of the Four or Six Emperors for civil wars that could be exploited. Your earlier suggestion about the Second Triumvirate would work, and perhaps even the First Triumvirate, which would place the player in the late Republic when the Empire is just on the horizon, and recognizable characters such as Caesar, Pompey, Crassus, Cicero, Cato, Antony, and others are active.

But I second your Ab Urbe Condita remark.

The vast majority of players likely have no idea what the AUC is nor Roman calendar conventions exhibited by the Fasti vindobonenses. As you say, whether it be CE or AD, the Gregorian Calendar is what most players, especially in the West, use every day and is far more accessible.

 

[Will Steel]

The first post from this thread......https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/why-developing-i-r-2-when-you-can-come-back-to-i-r.1711264/

I looked at the thread. Some interesting ideas and stuff there - although still barely any indication that this game would actually be revived.

A lot of people have pointed out (both in that thread and in other recent ones I am reading) that factions and nations of the ancient era aren't as well known as the kingdoms and realms of medieval era by a lot of people, hurting the player count. That's kinda obvious, you have like 7-8 interesting civilizations with 7-8 well known nations, and the rest are made far worse by the bland game mechanics.

This could've been countered by adding a better character system like its own predecessor - EU Rome (somehow even that primitive game had better characters than Imperator lmao), taking heavy influence from CK. And also tie them properly to politics, so that they run for offices on their own, raise children, participate in feasts and ceremonies, build careers, earn money, fight court cases, build friendships and rivalries and use them for their gain, fight private feuds that ties into the overall party politics/succession themes (all of them were present in EU-Rome with mods but not in this one lmao), and in general build fun stories over their lives that the player can engage and follow.

That style of gameplay will always bring in players seeking immersion and fun, because ther. It works with both long peace gameplay (the main requirement for expanding into the Roman Empire timeline) as well as map painting. Not to mention loads of potential amazing mods - just imagine a post-apocalyptic scenario or high fantasy or early modern Europe 1648-1848 mod for example, with Imperator mechanics + heavily expanded character and political systems.

CK games are popular despite having nothing else outside of characters, because immersion is magnetic. Map painting is fun but you can only do it so many times, immersion and depth is endless for those that enjoy it. Imagine where a Rome/Hellenistic era game could be, with immersion AND all the other good things like economy and diplomacy. That's what people wanted with Imperator, and that's where the hype often comes from.

Spoiler

On top of that character/family/politics system, they could've built the economy rework that was already in works before abandonment IIRC (could be wrong), created a new religious system with open slots for gods that we could've flexibly added our own choices to as wished, instead of fixed lists of deities in categories; added a nice trade route and goods system so that Silk Road would happen, and reworked the diplomacy to make it as flexible as EU4 and removed all the bad/unnecessarily hardcoded stuff like inability to interact with anyone beyond borders after growing up. After that they could've finally worked on stuff like mission trees and monuments. And as the last DLC, they could expand to China and the rest of Asia while touching up India. It would've been perfect.

Instead PDX took the game in the opposite direction - they completely gutted and locked up the character/family system and holdings over the patches, fixed none of the issues with politics related to said characters and it was extremely bad as always, religion remained underwhelming on the 'click 100 times to get bonus' basis and remained unengaging, economy remained the insane tedious clickfest it was since release ...and on that diminished game base they instead tried to turn the game into a bad EU4 clone with none of the flexible diplomacy and heavy reliance on mission trees.

This eventually drove a huge chunk players away (a lot of those that come back don't find things engaging enough compared to other PDX games, get bored after finishing a few games and put the game down), and thus the game died.

I do love me some Late Roman Empire, but I don't think that period would play well into the mechanics of the game. That saw the Rise of Christianity and Islam. Those two religions don't work with the current Religion mechanics. Judaism is the only Monotheistic religion in the game, and they get away with it by just renaming Deities to Profits. But that still has suspension of disbelief problems with synchronization. The 3 Abrahamic faiths are kind of a "my way or the highway" thing. There needs to be another Religion rework for that to work.

I agree.

Though even if we don't go into the 6th century stuff, a big factor is that Rome of the Late Empire period (284-395 AD) didn't function like a normal monarchy as presented in any game ever. Reforms of Diocletian created the Tetrarchy system that replaced and reformed the centuries old imperial government, which after his abdication evolved into the Dominate system.

Here is my wall of text describing its basics -

Spoiler

Late Roman Emprire was divided into separate 'courts' (not actual separate empires) where constantly changing hierarchy of up to four or sometimes more emperors (with the senior and overall 'high emperor' usually being in the east, with its vast resources, wealth and large military). The rest had their own lot, with -

- each taking up two or more Dioceses under their control as their assigned area (the large 'regions' or 'viceroyalties' of the Roman Empire established by Diocletian from 286 AD onwards, simply based on already existing general regions of ancient world, grouping provinces within their areas together, and each came with its own large army that had replaced the outdated legion system)
- each minting their own coins and controlling judges and punishments in their areas
- each appointing their own officers, bureaucrats, governors and commanders
- each having autonomous diplomatic authority on their fronts, albeit the senior eastern emperor had the power to intervene (Diocletian with his junior Galerius for example)
- each setting up in an existing diocese capital or a city of their choice with their followers and friend away from Rome
- and eventually, each of them fighting each other in civil wars for control over more dioceses (or the entire empire) with their armies, also resulting in numerous usurpers whenever the governors (Vicars) of these dioceses rose up with their army

Sometimes one powerful emperor would reunite the empire under one authority again (Constantine, Julian, Valentinian initially, Theodosius etc.), giving out the same 4 to 7 groupings of dioceses held by rival emperors to their own officers or family members as "Praetorian Prefects". Which emperor controlled which region varied wildly over the years, but the basic system and the administrative and military units below never changed. Constantine went ahead so far that turned his newest personal base (Byzantium) into a city directly rivaling Rome, moving all actual court and administrative offices there and creating a new (still completely powerless) Senate for the eastern nobility to play in, although Rome never stopped being the informal and cultural capital and heart of the empire.

It eventually settled into two 'courts' now commonly referred to as Western and Eastern Roman Empires from 395 onwards. But this weird dance would've continued into the 5th and 6th centuries had WRE not been destroyed. And when WRE was destroyed, in formal terms nothing changed - the barbarian warlord Odoacer simply indicated that Roman Empire is just reunified under single court again (regardless of the fact that half of it was actually under foreign control), declared himself the nominal vassal and viceroy of the emperor, and the (eastern) Roman Emperor Zeno reluctantly acknowledged this as he was busy fighting a deadly civil war against self-proclaimed emperor Basiliscus.

All the while (contrary to 150+ years of bad pop history) Rome actually remained one single nation and one state, under one single constitution. It was never formally divided into separate 'empires' and was always a single realm. This was true even in 1453.

Even in late 6th century, Emperor Tiberius II was considering resurrecting the western court (i.e. Western Roman Empire) from the territories reconquered by Justinian, so he could properly focus on the sudden incoming invasions of Slavs and Avars in Greece and Balkans, and the massive war with the Persian Empire. He set up his son-in-law Germanus to be this new Western Emperor at some point in the future (while his other son-in-law, the future Emperor Maurice, would inherit the still intact eastern court). He even sent envoys across Europe and North Africa through all the former Roman territories (notably as far as Britain, possibly making him a part of the Arthurian legend), and recreated the original Roman senate. But this failed - Tiberius II suddenly died in a food related accident/assassination, Germanus himself refused to be a part of this idea, and Maurice turned the Dioceses of Italy and Africa into Exarchates (new military government version of Praetorian Prefectures) instead, and let them fight their brutal wars of defense against barbarians while he was busy with his great war with the Persians.

A better example - the late empire can be compared well to like the Second Triumvirate of Antony, Octavian and Lepidus - all three of them carved up their own 'courts' within the dying Roman Republic (Antony setting up in Antioch but actually living in Alexandria with Cleopatra, Octavian in Mediolanum and Rome, Lepidus in Carthage and Syracuse), minting their own coins and appointing their own governors, fielding their own armies and launching separate campaigns against outsiders.

Nothing like this is possible in the game. Not in Imperator, nor in any other game I've seen so far.

And expansion into the high antiquity imperial golden age period (27 BC - 249 AD) would again need something for players to engage with outside of warfare and expansion, i.e. very fun characters, families, politics, careers, society, culture, religion and economy. Which Imperator doesn't have as of final version.

 

[Metz]

An Imperator 2 has a lot of potential if they expand the way you deal with characters and pops. Republican Rome was basically a free for all between Patrician families trying to become the most prominent. It was during the late republic that it basically came down with the Julii rising above and then fusing with the Claudii through Livia Drusilla that they managed to consolidate power and turn the Roman state into an empire. If you could have more control (and a better UI/UX) over ruling families and the way they interact with other families (this goes for other houses in other countries) it would make the game more interesting and dynamic. Currently, the character system feels like it was stamped on the game as something to watch out for rather than to harness in a sort of narrative-drive way. The families could be implemented in a similar way to how you have interest groups in Victoria 3.

 

[Hootieleece]

An Imperator 2 has a lot of potential if they expand the way you deal with characters and pops. Republican Rome was basically a free for all between Patrician families trying to become the most prominent. It was during the late republic that it basically came down with the Julii rising above and then fusing with the Claudii through Livia Drusilla that they managed to consolidate power and turn the Roman state into an empire. If you could have more control (and a better UI/UX) over ruling families and the way they interact with other families (this goes for other houses in other countries) it would make the game more interesting and dynamic. Currently, the character system feels like it was stamped on the game as something to watch out for rather than to harness in a sort of narrative-drive way. The families could be implemented in a similar way to how you have interest groups in Victoria 3.

If Imperator2 is to have more Character and Family focus you have to move up the start date to when Rome was the preeminent power say 110 BCE and chronicle the rise of Gauis Marius and the background for the Civil Wars that led to the establishment of the Empire and make 14 CE the end date.

Such a character focused strategy game only works with a focus on Rome with all the other "factions" as NPC's. That would piss off about half the fanbase that want to be Germanic Conquerors of Rome.......

 

[Will Steel]

If Imperator2 is to have more Character and Family focus you have to move up the start date to when Rome was the preeminent power say 110 BCE and chronicle the rise of Gauis Marius and the background for the Civil Wars that led to the establishment of the Empire and make 14 CE the end date.

Such a character focused strategy game only works with a focus on Rome with all the other "factions" as NPC's. That would piss off about half the fanbase that want to be Germanic Conquerors of Rome.......

Not really, that's just too limited.

Rome is not the only interesting power in the game. There were nations before it with interesting historical persons and events (the Diadochi, Carthage, Sicily, Spartans, Maurya, Bactria, Galatia, Parthians, Galatians, Odrysians, even the old Achaemenid remnants, and more). What you say only works if Rome was the only nation playable, and only in the Late Republic/Augustus era. That is not the only period of big personalities lol, imagine if CK3 was just 1 century long, people wouldn't buy that game.

Though I do agree on the notion that the latter part of the game timeline is the most interesting and well known by most, and that's what people imagine when seeking a Rome theme game or movie (that or the Roman Empire).

The 304 BC start date is fine IMO, and the alternative 280 BC start date is slightly better, both work in general.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

The 304 BC start date is fine IMO, and the alternative 280 BC start date is slightly better, both work in general.

I always felt the 304 start date was boring as Rome. 304 highlights the Diadochi, and their wars. A Rome run never gets fun for me until the Punic Wars.

 

[Will Steel]

I always felt the 304 start date was boring as Rome. 304 highlights the Diadochi, and their wars. A Rome run never gets fun for me until the Punic Wars.

Indeed, 304 BC is much better for non-Roman factions as a whole (the Great Diadochi War, Maurya-Seleucid War, India and its wars of unification and religious reformation, Sicilian invasion of Carthage, Celtic invasion of Greece and Anatolia and creation of Galatia, Massalian exploration of Atlantic).

280 BC is better as Rome, because that year is the start of the Pyrrhic War, and the First Punic War begins just 19 years afterwards. And it is fun to play because almost all starting realms are already consolidated and stable (a big reason Rome/Rome 2 Total War and EU-Rome chose years around this as start date).

Both are good, provided the game being played was actually made properly (this one wasn't).

 

[Gurkhal]

I find the current start date to be greatly superior for everyone but Rome. And while Rome is probably the most popular tag, it really, really isn't the only interesting tag around in the period. Hence 304 BC is what I support as a start.

 

[Zarket]

Honestly, I'd love to see the entire system of religions, cultures, and citizenship redone. The way religions and cultures (specifically conversion) are handled is completely anachronistic, and the citizenship system is relatively adequate for everyone except Rome.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

Honestly, I'd love to see the entire system of religions, cultures, and citizenship redone. The way religions and cultures (specifically conversion) are handled is completely anachronistic, and the citizenship system is relatively adequate for everyone except Rome.

Well, during this time period the concept of being a part of a particular religion, wasn’t widespread. Sure people worshiped their gods, but if you were to take a Time Machine back to 304 BC and asked a Roman or Greek citizen “what religion are you?” They wouldn’t say Greco-Roman Pagan. They’d say “What is a religion?”

So the whole “state religion” thing is completely ahistorical. It was very common for people to worship both Zeus and Ba’al.

 

[Gurkhal]

Well, during this time period the concept of being a part of a particular religion, wasn’t widespread. Sure people worshiped their gods, but if you were to take a Time Machine back to 304 BC and asked a Roman or Greek citizen “what religion are you?” They wouldn’t say Greco-Roman Pagan. They’d say “What is a religion?”

So the whole “state religion” thing is completely ahistorical. It was very common for people to worship both Zeus and Ba’al.

Such it is.

At the same time religion has to be included in some manner given its importance in the ancient world and personally I find that the current system gets the job done.

Edited: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good

 

[Barron of Gondor]

Such it is.

At the same time religion has to be included in some manner given its importance in the ancient world and personally I find that the current system gets the job done.

Edited: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good

Agreed. But disagree on it getting the job done. There is definitely room for improvement. The holy site mechanic is fun to mess around with, but clunky. Like my OP said more freedom in my holy sites and their altars would do wonders.

One thing that I found myself doing was just going to the religious screen and clicking on all the holy sites in my empire just to read the mythology text about that god. It added to immersion. Same thing with the sacred treasures.

One annoying thing about the current system is I will have Hellenic Holy Sites in my empire that I can’t do anything with. Turan, for example; I can’t put anything in her holy site in Tuscany. Why? Idk.. but I can put something in Tanit’s alters.

Idk. It’s annoying that some gods I can do things with their holy sites, some gods I can’t.