Koramei posted:

Oh come on, that's a load of poo poo, there've been plenty of games that've been turned around. Especially with Imperator where its issue is mostly sweet gently caress all in terms of content rather than its core systems being bad, there's every reason to believe it'll become dramatically better as long as Paradox doesn't drop it.

BigRoman posted:

I just want to be able to see a province summary of pops so I can know at a glance if my governor should be culture converting, religion converting, raising civilization, or raising money. There are 10 million cities and no ways to do this (that I know of). How is this not easier to do?

Koramei posted:

Oh come on, that's a load of poo poo, there've been plenty of games that've been turned around. Especially with Imperator where its issue is mostly sweet gently caress all in terms of content rather than its core systems being bad, there's every reason to believe it'll become dramatically better as long as Paradox doesn't drop it.



I think "mostly negative" is pretty unfair but at the same time I don't feel like I really wanna recommend it in its current state either. Paradox has dealt with bad steam reviews plenty of times though so I hope it's not gonna be a big deal.

steinrokkan posted:

No, there haven't. The idea that CKII was somehow bad at launch is blatant revisionist history fueled by wishful thinking. Games that are bad on launch overwhelmingly remain bad, and Paradox games especially. They never fixed HoI3, or original Rome, or Stellaris, according to the majority of the people who disliked it originally, or EU4 according to people who disliked its framework (like me)... And even if you are right about their mystery powers of fixing bad games, they sure as hell aren't going to be fixing Imperator if it tanks.

steinrokkan posted:

Ah yes, bad games are best distinguished by the fact that people like them and vice versa.

Technowolf posted:

Do you have any tips for the start as Epirus? I tried earlier today and kinda bounced off of it.

Eimi posted:

I don't think he's saying EU4 is bad as much as, he doesn't like it from the ground up, and it's fixes haven't fixed that for him. Which I can understand, I'm at a similar point with EU.

Mainly here yeah, this game, even in the flawed state it's in, has a lot of potential and I want it to be good, very good. The classical era is my favorite bit of history, I want to love it as much as I love CK2. Like take a foundational system like combat, I'm not a fan of EU's combat engine and I don't think they are going to pull it out. Not sure why the EU system never sits right, too deterministic? Too closely tied to it's legacy as a board game? As well same with the forts. I'm fine with forts blocking the way, but the EU fort siege system is one of the biggest reasons I do not like that game, and I'm not sure it applies in this era? The CK morale of defenders that goes down would work more than the dice roll and stages.

Zane posted:

there were tons of long and huge sieges in the ancient world. but there's something really off with playing tag with 4 or 5 stacks at a time. although this is a far more general problem (in ck2, eu4, ir, whatever) with the attempt to create compelling operational/tactical gameplay out of pre-modern warfare at this level of abstraction.

TorakFade posted:

I said it on the first page or so, this game really really deserved a couple more months in the oven.

TorakFade posted:

basically, for someone like me who was waiting for the lovechild of EU4 and CK2, this is already a great game and will only become better, so buy buy buy

ilitarist posted:

Yep, what @steinrokkan said. Fixing UI issues and bugs is not turning around the game, they turn the game you like but have some problems into game you like and have fewer issues. Maybe games like Final Fantasy 14 were salvaged but this case was more like remaking a game and putting an old label on it. Still, if you say that the game "has potential" it means you won't like playing it later, unless it's some specific case like it's a sequel that changed a lot and you need time to get used to a new paradigm (like Civilization 5).

steinrokkan posted:

Ah yes, bad games are best distinguished by the fact that people like them and vice versa.

Beamed posted:

Funky Valentine posted:

Get a foothold on Italy or Sicily quick. If Rome has started snowballing, wait until they're fighting the tribes up near the Alps (they almost never get an alliance after they get the ball rolling.) Completely siege down the province you fabricated for and then peace out immediately (their cohorts take their sweet time going down south when Rome is fighting with the Boii or something.)

Rinse, repeat. Assign all provinces to culture convert.

Technowolf posted:

So gently caress Greece, go for Italy?

Also, did you try to get either horses or iron as your first trade good, or just go full on archers?

Senor Dog posted:

i agree with both of the posts you quoted tbqh

cheesetriangles posted:

I think most of my complaints with the game are UI related. Information I want isn't always readily available and commands I want to perform such as related to trade are tedious to setup.

Funky Valentine posted:

I made bootleg armies of 10 archers and 10 light infantry until I nabbed those horse cities in the Balkans.

The supply in Italy doesn't really like heavy infantry armies though so I never really made a fully switch over.

Azuren posted:

Any way to get the 1.0.2 hotfix for the GOG version? I'm stuck on 1.0.1 with the peace treaty bug (sometimes workable around, sometimes not) and no opt-in beta available. Still enjoying the game, just wishing I'd gotten it on Steam.

cheesetriangles posted:

I think most of my complaints with the game are UI related. Information I want isn't always readily available and commands I want to perform such as related to trade are tedious to setup.

Beamed posted:

TorakFade posted:

basically, for someone like me who was waiting for the lovechild of EU4 and CK2, this is already a great game and will only become better, so buy buy buy

for someone who expected a game that was radically different from the other Paradox games, eeeeh, it's more a "get it on sale" or "get it after a few DLC/patches"

ilitarist posted:

Yep, what @steinrokkan said. Fixing UI issues and bugs is not turning around the game, they turn the game you like but have some problems into game you like and have fewer issues. Maybe games like Final Fantasy 14 were salvaged but this case was more like remaking a game and putting an old label on it. Still, if you say that the game "has potential" it means you won't like playing it later, unless it's some specific case like it's a sequel that changed a lot and you need time to get used to a new paradigm (like Civilization 5).

Zotix posted:

I'm not sure what's going on in my game, but like 100 years in and none of my character are rolling well on military. Like everyone died off, and all of the next generation blows at combat. I've incorporated quite a few families along the way of conquering as well.

Weebus posted:

This happened to me too but you'll often have a bunch of dudes with really high martial skill who won't be listed as potential generals because they're not citizens. Go into the character tab and sort unemployed males (male part not necessary if you can have female generals) by martial, select the best ones and grant them citizenship. You can fill out other openings like this too.

Weebus posted:

This happened to me too but you'll often have a bunch of dudes with really high martial skill who won't be listed as potential generals because they're not citizens. Go into the character tab and sort unemployed males (male part not necessary if you can have female generals) by martial, select the best ones and grant them citizenship. You can fill out other openings like this too.

TorakFade posted:

ok they really need to explain character interactions much, much better. Had no idea that this was a thing, I had noticed the greyed out characters but thought there was nothing I could do with them (just like many other character interactions that are "hidden" and only displayed in specific situations). Why would it be a thing? How do you, and why would you, have not-citizens living in your court? What's the pros and cons of granting them citizenship?

Taear posted:

gently caress, is this why I have a list of people who are grey?
Why don't they have citizenship?!

TorakFade posted:

ok they really need to explain character interactions much, much better. Had no idea that this was a thing, I had noticed the greyed out characters but thought there was nothing I could do with them (just like many other character interactions that are "hidden" and only displayed in specific situations). Why would it be a thing? How do you, and why would you, have not-citizens living in your court? What's the pros and cons of granting them citizenship?

RabidWeasel posted:

Johan posted a thing

The new WIP UI looks good, hiding the city pane is a really good idea, and pie charts!

quote:

Lack of Flavor
There has been a lot of feedback of the game about how most countries just feel the same to play, and there are no variations. While most people appreciate that there is enough difference between settled tribes, migratory tribes, monarchies and republics, there is not much difference between the different tribes other than their starting location.

While we did not view this is a flaw, we hear you, and will add some distinct flavor to 1.1, some new to our games, and some familiar.

First of all, we are adding bonuses to each religion, so that different religions have different impacts. That in itself does not make the game suddenly great, but it gives a bit more flavor.

Secondly, we are diversifying Omens, so that different religions, or even different countries can have unique omens for them. We will go into more details on this soon.

Finally, we are adding something we call Heritages to countries. This is something they start with, which gives 2 bonuses and 1 drawback. There will be lots of “generic” heritages for countries, which depends on their geography, but we aim to add as many unique ones as possible in 1.1, and then keep adding them.

Percieved Shallowness
A lot of the things that happens has not been visible enough to the player, like you don’t see the things characters do with each other. This will be changed for 1.1, where you will be able to always see what a character is up to, besides just an ambition.

Another thing is that the game has been tuned so a lot of the mechanics is not required to think about, especially when you are a big power. I’ve seen a lot of comments about how great the game is when you play smaller, compared to Rome where you just rofl-stomp everything, and don’t have to care about any challenges. One thing we are reworking in 1.1, is how a characters “power base” is calculated, which is the amount of troops, holdings, wealth or territory he or she may hold, and that power base will have much more impact.