What mechanics would you like revamped if they ever returned to Imperator?

[G0DOG]

Of course we know the likelihood of this happening is low. But it does make me think what else could or needs to be changed for IM to be great? I don't think too many new mechanics should be added to the game just for the sake of bloating it like EU4, but some changes to some mechanics that still feel raw would be cool I think. Here's my ideas in no particular order:

• Trade Rework - As far as I know I think they were working on a revamp of this for the next patch before the team was sadly pulled away to work on other projects. Trade as is isn't that bad, but it is pretty boring. A rework of this system to make it way more dynamic and interesting could be the extra layer the game needed to elevate it I think. Other than just hoarding all the bonuses there's not really too much thought you have to give to trade. You can leave it automated after all. Only thing to worry about would importing food but that's a pretty niche issue once you realize how it works.
• Migration Rework - If there was any mechanic in Imperator that was sorely lacking and needed a complete overhaul still, it's this. Mass migrations of Tribes was a big deal and constant threat that many empires during this time (and after) faced. But as is the mechanics are completely lacking. The AI is completely incapable of using it. And the work arounds that the devs and the Invictus team have had to use to try and simulate important migrations are pretty haphazard (Dahae/Parthian invasion and the forever buggy Galatia invasion in Invictus). Unfortunately it sounded like there was some mechanical issues they faced trying to fix this broken system back then, so a completely new system would be much preferred. I honestly think it should just follow the CK2 system and make it a special CB type.
• Cultural Conversion/Cultural integration rework - I know this is a pretty popular request I see a lot. Personally, I don't mind the current system even if it's not that realistic, but of course seeing CK3's culture mechanics have made everyone really take a hard look at how every other Paradox game (badly) handles cultural conversion and assimilation. Adding some granularity to the whole process would be nice, and it is kind of a bit too easy to just blob into a land, immediately give the biggest culture rights, and then they suddenly are willing to die by the thousands for your empire and help you push your empire even further.

 

[Chaostrian]

I would like to have an overhaul of the governments

for example: if you play a monarchy then you play a family in the game that has a relatively large number of options

if you play a republic then you play the party that is currently in power and accordingly have more options or if you play a tribe you play all families and according to the circumstances you have an extreme number of options to do something because in the current state you are as tribe is far too weak to fight against a monarchy or republic, especially if your squads are constantly split between the different leaders

at the current time you playing just the leader of the nations and his childrens but you cant do anything with the childrens und your options with your leader are very limited (in my opinion)

 

[olivenkranz]

Religion should be reworked as well.Conversion as is in the game wasn't that common on a large scale and most states were pretty syncretist.

 

[manager2525]

One other element that the devs wanted to touch, but did not get the time to is diplomacy. I remember them discussing that interactions between client states and overlords where to change. For sure there is much needed room for improvement imho in the diplo part of the game.

 

[DukeLeto42]

I'd second the trade. I'm quite happy with trade on the production side, as # slaves / surplus was a good way to create trade goods. However, the movement of goods is where it was lacking, and while gathering trade bonuses on the capitol isn't a bad design, we just don't see the full possibilities of big empires drawing in the trade good production of their realm, as Rome did.

In addition to migration, I'd add in generally a tribes rework. The tribal levies system doesn't play well with the total rework to how militaries operate, so it feels like a system the didn't get the 2.1/2.2 treatment (cleaning up and adjusting old systems to fully reflect how the game has changed).

 

[Gurkhal]

What I've been thinking on is both more buildings to build for a city as well as allowing for synergy effects and extended effects from what buildings are built and where. Thus essentially stealing a page from classical city-builder games set in Antiquity to make the creation of cities have a significant impact and also feel different depending on where and how its done.

 

[Ir0nSlug]

- More of a bug fix, but the levy composition bug I find pretty grating
- Trade, I agree it's not that bad but it could use being more developped
- Diplomacy, while serviceable could be improved (capturing provinces for vassals / using vassal claims for instance), as it is the AE oratory inventions tree is a must have for any kind of expansion. Some good ideas in EU4 and Stellaris (overlord) for this.
- Religion is completely anachronistic
- Making democracy (power of the demos) and republic (power of the oligarchy) as two different systems
- Pop rebalance? Not sure, but I just don't see the point of freemen.

 

[olivenkranz]

...
- Pop rebalance? Not sure, but I just don't see the point of freemen.

The freemen are the people that aren't slaves but also have no citizenship of the state they live in. For a modern state this seems almost unthinkable, but an expat is comparable to that: he has no citizenship of the country he lives in, but also isn't a slave (which would be denuded of rights).

 

[Ciciro]

I think a government rework for republics would be in order. I think if the system was more aligned to have victoria 3 republics work where you have different interest groups within partys it would make for more interesting gameplay.

 

[Ir0nSlug]

The freemen are the people that aren't slaves but also have no citizenship of the state they live in. For a modern state this seems almost unthinkable, but an expat is comparable to that: he has no citizenship of the country he lives in, but also isn't a slave (which would be denuded of rights).

Oh I know very well what it is supposed to represent, I was talking in gameplay terms

Freemen seems like the less valuable pop to have (outside of tribemen, that are a paraticular case). They provide taxes, but very little, and manpower, that citizens also provides. Sure citizens provides two times less manpower than freemen, but in theory only because it is dependent on their happiness, and you want your citizens to have high happiness. Maybe in tiny countries you want freemen, but if you expand, they become very rapidly not interesting.

 

[olivenkranz]

Oh I know very well what it is supposed to represent, I was talking in gameplay terms

Freemen seems like the less valuable pop to have (outside of tribemen, that are a paraticular case). They provide taxes, but very little, and manpower, that citizens also provides. Sure citizens provides two times less manpower than freemen, but in theory only because it is dependent on their happiness, and you want your citizens to have high happiness. Maybe in tiny countries you want freemen, but if you expand, they become very rapidly not interesting.

It is a closer relation with reality. For example the Romans were for a long time the only culture with citizen rights in Rome - until the social wars in the 1st century bc. And everyone got the citizenship only in the eraly 3rd century AD after the Edict of Caracalla. Citizenship was a privilege, and nobility even rarer.

 

[Gurkhal]

The freemen are the people that aren't slaves but also have no citizenship of the state they live in. For a modern state this seems almost unthinkable, but an expat is comparable to that: he has no citizenship of the country he lives in, but also isn't a slave (which would be denuded of rights).

I feel that I must disagree with this view. To me people without citizenship are POPs of culture that does not have civil rights and thus are not integrated. Freemen looks more like the working class to me while Citizen POPs are the middle class.

 

[Ir0nSlug]

It is a closer relation with reality. For example the Romans were for a long time the only culture with citizen rights in Rome - until the social wars in the 1st century bc. And everyone got the citizenship only in the eraly 3rd century AD after the Edict of Caracalla. Citizenship was a privilege, and nobility even rarer.

We are really not talking about the same thing, I'm talking purely in a game balance aspect. And I think that you can safely assume that everyone still hanging on the forum of a game about rome dead for 2 years is well aware of what you described.

If game wise the freeman pop type is something that you should want to get your pops out of as fast as possible, that's a success. If it was meant to be a useful pop type that you should carefully balance the number of against other pop types, I think it's a miss. Theyr don't produce research, like citizens and nobles, and they produce less money than slaves (and with no happiness impact), that have the added benefit of assimilating faster.

 

[IsaacCAT]

We are really not talking about the same thing, I'm talking purely in a game balance aspect. And I think that you can safely assume that everyone still hanging on the forum of a game about rome dead for 2 years is well aware of what you described.

If game wise the freeman pop type is something that you should want to get your pops out of as fast as possible, that's a success. If it was meant to be a useful pop type that you should carefully balance the number of against other pop types, I think it's a miss. Theyr don't produce research, like citizens and nobles, and they produce less money than slaves (and with no happiness impact), that have the added benefit of assimilating faster.

Freemen are essential for manpower.

Without them your wars are only sustained by mercs. And mercs are paper thin when confronted with seasoned legions.

In our MP games barracks and training camps are always sought after. Every POP has a function in I:R. If anything the lackluster pop type is citizen, not freemen.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

Of course we know the likelihood of this happening is low. But it does make me think what else could or needs to be changed for IM to be great? I don't think too many new mechanics should be added to the game just for the sake of bloating it like EU4, but some changes to some mechanics that still feel raw would be cool I think. Here's my ideas in no particular order:

• Trade Rework - As far as I know I think they were working on a revamp of this for the next patch before the team was sadly pulled away to work on other projects. Trade as is isn't that bad, but it is pretty boring. A rework of this system to make it way more dynamic and interesting could be the extra layer the game needed to elevate it I think. Other than just hoarding all the bonuses there's not really too much thought you have to give to trade. You can leave it automated after all. Only thing to worry about would importing food but that's a pretty niche issue once you realize how it works.
• Migration Rework - If there was any mechanic in Imperator that was sorely lacking and needed a complete overhaul still, it's this. Mass migrations of Tribes was a big deal and constant threat that many empires during this time (and after) faced. But as is the mechanics are completely lacking. The AI is completely incapable of using it. And the work arounds that the devs and the Invictus team have had to use to try and simulate important migrations are pretty haphazard (Dahae/Parthian invasion and the forever buggy Galatia invasion in Invictus). Unfortunately it sounded like there was some mechanical issues they faced trying to fix this broken system back then, so a completely new system would be much preferred. I honestly think it should just follow the CK2 system and make it a special CB type.
• Cultural Conversion/Cultural integration rework - I know this is a pretty popular request I see a lot. Personally, I don't mind the current system even if it's not that realistic, but of course seeing CK3's culture mechanics have made everyone really take a hard look at how every other Paradox game (badly) handles cultural conversion and assimilation. Adding some granularity to the whole process would be nice, and it is kind of a bit too easy to just blob into a land, immediately give the biggest culture rights, and then they suddenly are willing to die by the thousands for your empire and help you push your empire even further.

Could you elaborate on that CK3 approach? How does it handle culture that is the new quality in PDX?

As for mu 2c, rebellions so they are kind of stronger (i mean, maybe rarer but encompassing more, like opposite of Maurya decline rebellion fest) and some kind of mechanism representing declinign ability of central control with size due to communication technology limitations. So Gaul f.e. contributes only 10% of manpower/tax to Rome it would contribute to Auveregne based polity.

 

[jobarin94]

The trade system is the main thing preventing me from feeling excited about the game whenever I think about it. I also remember the whole character system as a bit of a nuisance: too many characters around but very few actually relevant, resulting in too much work for very little satisfaction.