Why do I not like Imperator

[Tisifoni12]

As an older player of PC Strategy Games, who has studied the 'Classical World' much of my life I do not like Imperator. Why ?

Part of it comes down to TMI:

• Ancient states had variable information on how many people there were and most information was held locally. Rome had an official censor, but his duties were limited to keeping a record of the families of the Equestrian class, of which the senatorial class was a sub-set; so keeping records of approximately 1,000 families. His staff would be whatever scribes he had as household staff supplemented by perhaps one or two 'interns' from equestrian families as a first stage on a political career.
• A treaty might state that an allied community must provide Rome with X legionaries when called on, but Rome had no real idea if that community could provide X men. In the later stages of the Second Punic War some communities provided only reduced drafts. What evidence we have (Livy and Polybios) suggests this was a surprise to Rome.

Part of it comes down to Ahistorical armies:

• Rome had a military system that raised legions. The Seleucid army comprised phalangites raised from certain communities or raised as mercenaries, cavalry raised from certain elites or communities, specialists raised as mercenaries, for example 'Cretan archers', where the Cretan may refer not to specific origin, but to training. A military reorganisation could mean significant social and / or economic reorganisation.
• There were no large mercenary armies sitting around waiting for someone to employ them. There were small colonies of foreigners that provided small drafts of 'distinct' troops to the states in whose territory they lived, for example Galatians in Ptolemaic Egypt. There were mercenaries who were recruited from abroad, for example Greeks from Greece and Greek colonies who served in the armies of Hellenistic Kingdoms. Iberians and Numidians who served the Carthaginians for silver. These really aren't much different from auxiliary units recruited by the Romans from Gaul, Iberia, North Africa. These are units raised by the ancient states they served, not ready made idle armies.

Part of it comes down to period inappropriate game tropes:

• Research happens in HOI4, in EU4 there is the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the development of transformative technologies like printing. In the period of the 'Macedonian and Punic Wars' there really isn't much technological development and what there is not the product of 'research programmes'.
• Religion tin the 'Classical World' wasn't about 'chasing buffs'. It was part propaganda, to reassure the people, or emphasise some linkage to a particular deity, for example Hannibal sacrificing at sites associated with Hercules / Herakles because of that demi-god's association with the Carthaginian deity Melquart. It was also part piety; fear of the displeasure of the gods, hope for the favour of the gods yes, but hoping for a 5% buff, er, no . . .

 

[Grandpa Maur]

In general i agree but i feel the pop transparency issue is quite understandable game design decision.

Research is tricky since it is kind of not really controllable although a model like CK2 or even less would be better (or get rid of any direct player impact on it)

But mercs or religion, yeah, this is basically make some typical game features for fun and to hell with accuracy, although my main gripe here is culture and assimilation not religion. Especially mercs can be though as abstract (the sitting mercs do not really exist) and religious buffs are fairly minor, fortunately.

 

[Samitte]

Ancient states had variable information on how many people there were and most information was held locally. Rome had an official censor, but his duties were limited to keeping a record of the families of the Equestrian class, of which the senatorial class was a sub-set; so keeping records of approximately 1,000 families. His staff would be whatever scribes he had as household staff supplemented by perhaps one or two 'interns' from equestrian families as a first stage on a political career.

I think like most stuff, the answer is it varies by region and over time. But complex administrative systems predated the Hellenistic period by centuries, and were constantly being adjusted to go with the times. With the level of population abstraction we have in Imperator, this is not "TMI" at all for most of the more organised states. Its rather "TLI", with the complex systems that went as deep as family structure, names, village, "ethnicity", employment status, etc. We lack most of that info today, but states in this period had some rather complex and sophisticated administrative systems that gave them a lot of useful data.

Rome had a military system that raised legions.

Early Hellenistic Roman armies were not that different from those of the Near Eastern powers, especially when we add some abstraction needed for the game to work. In fact, the way you describe the Seleukid army fits the Romans as well in general terms.

Research happens in HOI4, in EU4 there is the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the development of transformative technologies like printing. In the period of the 'Macedonian and Punic Wars' there really isn't much technological development and what there is not the product of 'research programmes'.

This is a fair point, the tech system is terrible and makes 0 sense (Water mills as religious inventions are still my favourite). Most technologies were already discovered and centuries or millennia old at that point and employed by nearly everyone. But the Hellenistic period into the Roman period did technological and social change, its just that the tech tree is not there to represent anything like that but more functions as a "pick your favourite modifiers to stack" system.

Religion tin the 'Classical World' wasn't about 'chasing buffs'. It was part propaganda, to reassure the people, or emphasise some linkage to a particular deity, for example Hannibal sacrificing at sites associated with Hercules / Herakles because of that demi-god's association with the Carthaginian deity Melquart. It was also part piety; fear of the displeasure of the gods, hope for the favour of the gods yes, but hoping for a 5% buff, er, no . . .

While I severely dislike much of the religious system, I'd argue that describing it as "chasing buffs" is not that far fetched. Its perhaps the only decent part of the system. The ancient world was a supernatural/magical place for its inhabitants (as the world continued to be well until the early 20th century, and still is for many people to this day). I don't see how giving a small buff is a bad representation of what people hoped to achieve - divine assistance in whatever goals they wanted to achieve. One prays to a fertility deity because one wants children, a war god to achieve victory, an agricultural deity for good harvests - is that not asking for "buffs"? Sadly there are no ways for it to go wrong or do nothing, and because of the way the entire game is about stacking buffs.

I do think in a better version of Imperator, sacrificing for temporary buffs has a good reason to exist and make the game more interesting - while still also being historical.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

, its just that the tech tree is not there to represent anything like that but more functions as a "pick your favourite modifiers to stack" system

Tbh, that's why i am somewhat happy with Imperator development stopping.

I am sure they would transform it into disgusting modifier collection game EU4, HOI4, and now also Stellaris became...


(Tech names themselves never made much sense in CK, either, but i don't care since i can suspend disbelief and just treat it as a generic technology improvement, ahistorical naming aside)

 

[Tisifoni12]

@Samitte
Yes different areas had administrative systems, but how much hard evidence did the ruling authority have. Forces are raised according to treaties or political obligations. Polity X is supposed to contribute 5,000 men, but the ruling authority doesn't know if it can or not until either 5,000 men show up or 3,000 with an apology that they cannot provide more due to losses already sustained, or 'the white plague' or . . .

On the other hand a Hellenistic Kingdom might be able to rely on 16,000 settler families each contributing a phalangite, 2,000 noble families each contributing a cavalryman with armour, the Galatian 'mercenary' community settled just outside the capital contributing 600 swordsmen, etc.

Military systems tended to be based on factors that were difficult to change. The role in which soldiers or warriors served was based on ethnicity, relationship to the state, etc., as you say, so changing army composition could mean socio-economic change to facilitate that; military service in return for land for example.

Yes, religion effects should be a bit more random.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Yes different areas had administrative systems, but how much hard evidence did the ruling authority have. Forces are raised according to treaties or political obligations. Polity X is supposed to contribute 5,000 men, but the ruling authority doesn't know if it can or not until either 5,000 men show up or 3,000 with an apology that they cannot provide more due to losses already sustained, or 'the white plague' or . . .

And the game models that, just not through levies. Take a look at the modifiers to pop output. Pop happiness is one of the dominant modifiers to overall output, and dominant culture being integrated has another massive impact. Yes, it doesn't directly impact levy output, but it does directly impact your ability to extract the top-of-the-bar values that sustain your military.

Military systems tended to be based on factors that were difficult to change. The role in which soldiers or warriors served was based on ethnicity, relationship to the state, etc., as you say, so changing army composition could mean socio-economic change to facilitate that; military service in return for land for example.

While it's fair to say that legions being so freeform is an issue, it's worth noting that levies already reflect how militaries are a reflection of their pops, as their composition is the mix their population provides. As such, the transition to legions is the move away from home-driven roles to a more centralized, consistent military structure. Moving to legions also involves a law change (and thus costing PI and stab, the very measures of social change) and eats into your levy supply while altering how military costs are structured.

Now, you've an interesting point about how the legion system doesn't reflect something like auxiliaries very well, and that's fair. It would have been interesting to see that played out, but the levy/legion system was really only the second rework the game received before development was suspended; unlike territories, buildings, and food it really didn't get the time it needed to bake (see how tribes interact with the system).

Research happens in HOI4, in EU4 there is the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the development of transformative technologies like printing. In the period of the 'Macedonian and Punic Wars' there really isn't much technological development and what there is not the product of 'research programmes'.

No. Just... no. While you are correct that weren't things like a research program, trading on ideas that pre-early-modern periods were times of technological stagnation or no appreciable change is very ahistorical (and one of those pet peeves in my own area of work, on par with using the words "Dark Ages").

Religion tin the 'Classical World' wasn't about 'chasing buffs'. It was part propaganda, to reassure the people, or emphasise some linkage to a particular deity, for example Hannibal sacrificing at sites associated with Hercules / Herakles because of that demi-god's association with the Carthaginian deity Melquart. It was also part piety; fear of the displeasure of the gods, hope for the favour of the gods yes, but hoping for a 5% buff, er, no . . .

I think you need to spend some more time with the religion system. Choosing pantheon deities of other religions gives a happiness bonus to those pops, reassuring them of the state's support of them, while slowing conversion, making a strategic choice for pluralism stabilizing but at the cost of long-term flexibility.

Meanwhile, the "chasing buffs" is far more about what aspects of a faith players push forward, particularly with regard to omens. Keep in mind that omens never fail - it's not about arguing for the gods' existence or their impact, but rather suggesting that putting, say, Mars first in the pantheon supports militarism in your society organized in a given direction. Deifying a ruler and using their omen, therefore, does not mystically strengthen its power, but reinforces the ties between worship of the god and support of the state, making dedications to that god more useful.

 

[HistoryDude]

No. Just... no. While you are correct that weren't things like a research program, trading on ideas that pre-early-modern periods were times of technological stagnation or no appreciable change is very ahistorical (and one of those pet peeves in my own area of work, on par with using the words "Dark Ages").


I think you need to spend some more time with the religion system. Choosing pantheon deities of other religions gives a happiness bonus to those pops, reassuring them of the state's support of them, while slowing conversion, making a strategic choice for pluralism stabilizing but at the cost of long-term flexibility.

Meanwhile, the "chasing buffs" is far more about what aspects of a faith players push forward, particularly with regard to omens. Keep in mind that omens never fail - it's not about arguing for the gods' existence or their impact, but rather suggesting that putting, say, Mars first in the pantheon supports militarism in your society organized in a given direction. Deifying a ruler and using their omen, therefore, does not mystically strengthen its power, but reinforces the ties between worship of the god and support of the state, making dedications to that god more useful.

This time period did indeed have many technological advancements. Maybe tying some of them into event chains could make the game feel more unique, though? The corvus, for example, was created by necessity during a war.

On the other hand, that would either end up with either a) historically successful nations being OP or b) a lot of events with a lot of triggers. Such a system might be hard to code.

As for religion, changing deities can also model changing religious ideas (which also exists on the research tree, for that matter).

 

[DukeLeto42]

This time period did indeed have many technological advancements. Maybe tying some of them into event chains could make the game feel more unique, though? The corvus, for example, was created by necessity during a war.

On the other hand, that would either end up with either a) historically successful nations being OP or b) a lot of events with a lot of triggers. Such a system might be hard to code.

As for religion, changing deities can also model changing religious ideas (which also exists on the research tree, for that matter).

Part of the issue is the effort to particularize inventions, going for "the corvus" as opposed to a broad scope of innovations bundled together. I quite like CK2's tech system (or the EUIV Institution system which followed in its footsteps) that showed tech as a per-province value.

Still, it's worth noting that I:R's "tech tree" is not really that at all. It's less a progression than it is a series of pathways to spec a nation in, akin to an rpg's skill tree. The bonuses from tech level are appreciable, but ultimately rather minor, while innovations instead feel more like what developments in the world your nation has embraced.

 

[Tisifoni12]

No. Just... no.

Research developments should be associated or generated by events rather than 'research programmes'. If you look at Alexander's fleet built for the return from India it includes quadriremes and quinqueriremes. The Romans had no quinqueremes until the wreck of a Carthaginian quinquereme washed up on a beach. It was quickly taken apart, 'back-engineered' and Rome rapidly built a fleet of 200 - 300.

Necessity is the mother of invention and the Corvus was the product of "We're not as good at ramming and stuff as they are, but we're better than them if we can get aboard their ships and fight on the deck. So how do we improve our chances of getting onto their decks."

The Marian reform of the legion was more a social and political change than a technology change and a response to dealing with different enemies further from home.

 

[Ivashanko]

Your issue isn't with Imperator, your issue is with the way Paradox gamifies historical periods.

Every single one of your problem exists in just about every single Paradox games. Lets go down the list:

1) TMI? Check.
2) Ahistorical methods of summoning men to arms? Check.
3) Unrealistic mercenaries? Well, neither Victoria nor HOI4 have mercenaries, but the systems present in CK3 and EU4 are ridiculous. Partial check.
4) An ahistorical research tree that is directed by government decree? Check.
5) Religions being poorly portrayed? Check.
6) Arbitrary and overly common buffs? Check.

 

[Ir0nSlug]

TMI feels a bit like cheating, but opacity is really hard to do. It generates player frustration (see Vic3 for reference), and players are prompt to deem a beaviour as "buggy" when they cant see the reasons for it happening under the hood. I feel like it's a good compromise.

I agree on the other points, but they doesn't prevent me from enjoying the game.
It has me thinking how cool it would be to be able to hire mercs from unintegrated pops or levies from other countries instead of how it works now.

Religion is a bit frustrating tho.

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

As an older player of PC Strategy Games, who has studied the 'Classical World' much of my life I do not like Imperator. Why ?

Part of it comes down to TMI:

• Ancient states had variable information on how many people there were and most information was held locally. Rome had an official censor, but his duties were limited to keeping a record of the families of the Equestrian class, of which the senatorial class was a sub-set; so keeping records of approximately 1,000 families. His staff would be whatever scribes he had as household staff supplemented by perhaps one or two 'interns' from equestrian families as a first stage on a political career.
• A treaty might state that an allied community must provide Rome with X legionaries when called on, but Rome had no real idea if that community could provide X men. In the later stages of the Second Punic War some communities provided only reduced drafts. What evidence we have (Livy and Polybios) suggests this was a surprise to Rome.

Part of it comes down to Ahistorical armies:

• Rome had a military system that raised legions. The Seleucid army comprised phalangites raised from certain communities or raised as mercenaries, cavalry raised from certain elites or communities, specialists raised as mercenaries, for example 'Cretan archers', where the Cretan may refer not to specific origin, but to training. A military reorganisation could mean significant social and / or economic reorganisation.
• There were no large mercenary armies sitting around waiting for someone to employ them. There were small colonies of foreigners that provided small drafts of 'distinct' troops to the states in whose territory they lived, for example Galatians in Ptolemaic Egypt. There were mercenaries who were recruited from abroad, for example Greeks from Greece and Greek colonies who served in the armies of Hellenistic Kingdoms. Iberians and Numidians who served the Carthaginians for silver. These really aren't much different from auxiliary units recruited by the Romans from Gaul, Iberia, North Africa. These are units raised by the ancient states they served, not ready made idle armies.

Part of it comes down to period inappropriate game tropes:

• Research happens in HOI4, in EU4 there is the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the development of transformative technologies like printing. In the period of the 'Macedonian and Punic Wars' there really isn't much technological development and what there is not the product of 'research programmes'.
• Religion tin the 'Classical World' wasn't about 'chasing buffs'. It was part propaganda, to reassure the people, or emphasise some linkage to a particular deity, for example Hannibal sacrificing at sites associated with Hercules / Herakles because of that demi-god's association with the Carthaginian deity Melquart. It was also part piety; fear of the displeasure of the gods, hope for the favour of the gods yes, but hoping for a 5% buff, er, no . . .

Having better overview of the situation than you would IRL is a characteristic of...pretty much all videogames. If you want proper historical accuracy, GSGs will never satisfy you. And thats coming from someone who heavily favours realism in GSGs.

Simplified recruitment system is there as heavy simplification for gameplay purposes. I'd say military wise much bigger problem is that they are using manpower system when they have pops; it just leads to very boring "elastic" wars with inconsequential battles.

In the way they are implemented now, mercs are just there to buy military power when you are down on manpower. It does indeed suck.

Religion has buffs because you need some sort of mechanic to represent this important part of society. The buffs are somewhat understandable because they represent values held by general society, if god associated with trade will be strongly revered in your society your society will obviously value mercantile traits and thus incentivize development of mercantile skills.

PDX forces their linear research into games because "thats how strategies are made" and because finishing research is big dopamine generator. Some level of technological differentiation between civilizations and its dynamic development are however necessary.

In general, you need to ask yourself the following questions before criticizing: "How hard would it to be to develop a proper system?" and "Would it be fun?". Apart from research merceneries, thats pretty weak criticism.

 

[Tisifoni12]

In general, you need to ask yourself the following questions before criticizing: "How hard would it to be to develop a proper system?" and "Would it be fun?".

I'm old, I remember the sort of board games that preceeded the age of computer games. They generally had a higher level of abstraction, but tended to be more strategy, less economy and buffage.

Is the current system 'fun' ? Depends on how you determine what fun is.

 

[st360]

TMI feels a bit like cheating, but opacity is really hard to do. It generates player frustration (see Vic3 for reference), and players are prompt to deem a beaviour as "buggy" when they cant see the reasons for it happening under the hood. I feel like it's a good compromise.

Exactly this. Unless you design your entire game to revolve around "this is a fog of war game", you're just going to end up with a lot of posts ala "WTF it said I have a 98% chance to succeed and I still failed, thanks for encouraging RNG savescumming instead of implementing skill mechanics Paradox!"