|
trapped mouse posted:He seems quite bitter, but on the other hand some of the things seem quite nice. The things I like most: If you were held to impossible standards for every game you make you'd probably be bitter too. People are treating Imperator like it should have the content of EU4 plus five expansions and then acting like the game is garbage when that's not the case. I mean a mostly negative on Steam, for this? That's absurd.
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
TBH if I'd been making a game and as open with the development process, the design perspective of the game, and had 100s of hours of streams running a week before the game comes out, and still had people telling me I was like an evil mastermind for somehow making them buy my game that they hate because of <insert subjectively detested game mechanic>, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Making an EU: Rome sequel and presenting it as a new IP was always a risky idea.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:He seems quite bitter, but on the other hand some of the things seem quite nice. The things I like most: Man how "You fucks don't appreciate what we've done" is all of that? I'm not saying the changes are bad, but calm down. RabidWeasel posted:TBH if I'd been making a game and as open with the development process, the design perspective of the game, and had 100s of hours of streams running a week before the game comes out, and still had people telling me I was like an evil mastermind for somehow making them buy my game that they hate because of <insert subjectively detested game mechanic>, I'd be pretty pissed off too. I watched the streams but they focus very much on how the players are interacting with each other and VERY little on how the game actually plays.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 13:54
|
|
|
Taear posted:I watched the streams but they focus very much on how the players are interacting with each other and VERY little on how the game actually plays. Not the MP dev streams, the pre release stuff where they gave the game to a bunch of streamers. But yeah the way they present their MP streams is really bad for anything other than having fun japes, unfortunately I think the people who actually watch the streams are there for the fun japes and not to find out how the game works
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 13:59
|
|
|
What I don't get is the giant hangups people have with "mana". What's the issue with it exactly? Why is it different from ducats, prestige, piety, unity, political power etc.?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:What I don't get is the giant hangups people have with "mana". What's the issue with it exactly? Why is it different from ducats, prestige, piety, unity, political power etc.? Same, I have my problems with the game but the use of points isn't one of them and everyone else identifying the "mana" as the source of the problem seems really weird when things like the UI, Pop management and countries/regions being too samey are much more immediate and obvious problems that even paradox is admitting are issues. I could maybe say that there are too many types of mana and they don't all seem to be equally useful and thus should probably be consolidated into 2-3 but beyond that I've got nothing. EU4 had three types of mana and not once has it ever taken me out of the game or made my actions feel any more or less strategic, but it also had the good sense to have only three obvious types of mana that are all sufficiently distinct and useful. AnEdgelord fucked around with this message at 14:16 on May 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
I legitimately think that the naming is a large part of the problem, if there was some non-awkward way to refer to it than "x points" people would like it more (except for the guys who have now decided that it is The Enemy and must be destroyed).AnEdgelord posted:Same, I have my problems with the game but the use of points isn't one of them and everyone else identifying the "mana" as the source of the problem seems really weird when things like the UI, Pop management and countries/regions being too samey are much more immediate and obvious problems that even paradox is admitting are issues. I could maybe say that there are too many types of "mana" and they don't all seem to be equally useful and thus should probably be consolidated into 2-3 but beyond that I've got nothing. No it's just a small minority of people who get super pissed off about it, most of the complaints are about things that are actually in need of improvement but the mana guys are in a desperate battle for survival with the DLC conspiracists with who can be the most loud and annoying (Team No Mana is currently winning) But yeah I hope that they look at some of the power costs so I don't want to kill myself when my king has 0 oratory.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
For some reason monarch points didn’t bother me much in EU but kind of do here. I think it’s because this game has characters that could be much cooler if they did some of that stuff instead. I’d love to see more things offloaded to characters only.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
Sheep posted:If you were held to impossible standards for every game you make you'd probably be bitter too. People are treating Imperator like it should have. This is just game development 101. Glad to see they are addressing things but being passive aggressive in a public post is dumb. Agreed on the Dev Clash being a bad pre-release stream, said so at the time. It is great for stream viewership I’m sure but you get no view of the game, just backstabbing diplomacy hijinks that don’t exist in the product. Fellblade fucked around with this message at 14:27 on May 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
Dev clash is very unrepresentative of the games they play, for example you might think that Stellaris has a functional diplomacy system based on the last dev clash
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
I don't think they intended or inferred their dev clashes to be representatives of the games and game mechanics, there's dev diaries, streamer previews and their own single player videos that showcase the game. Dev clash was not the only Imperator preview they showed, to be fair, far from it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
Can anyone think of a reason why fabricate claims shouldn't cost mil power? Because that would be a really loving quick + dirty way of balancing the costs out a bit. And makes choosing to save up for military traditions into more of an active decision.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Can anyone think of a reason why fabricate claims shouldn't cost mil power? Because that would be a really loving quick + dirty way of balancing the costs out a bit. And makes choosing to save up for military traditions into more of an active decision. Oratory power makes sense if you understand it as "leader makes big speech to do x". It makes sense that you need to convince people why you want to invade a country.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
Why does it even cost anything? It costs time in EU4, time/luck in CK2, time (and infamy if unlucky) in V2. Why is a cost needed in Imperator? I'd like it to be time based and cost
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
My problem with the mana is it isn't really balanced like religious points are useful for gently caress all and I never have the civic or oratory.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
Actually, the
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
Thoughts so far, after playing two games for Rome to the end (and not getting much farther than Italy either time) - I’m always out of Civic and stockpiling everything else. - Haven’t figured out warfare yet. As Rome, I had good luck using 15 stacks of all HI (because that’s what 99% of your bonuses are for) but they are expensive and horrible for sieges, so I switched to the trick someone mentioned of a trailing siege legion of 10k LI and that seems to be helpful. Haven’t felt the need for LC or Archers yet - are they useful against any particular enemy? - Is there a way to see how much food my province has? - game feels a lot more rushed than EU4 / CK2. Like, you’re on a timetable, first to conquer as much as possible before someone else blobs up, and second to actually take land fast enough from the big guys before the game over screen. My second run I wrecked Carthage handily but couldn’t take enough land from them so every successive war was a grinding hellwar in which I had to conquer N Africa province by province. - By the time I start loving around with Greece, Phrygia has usually guaranteed everyone. So any attempt to expand is going to hit an alliance of Macedon, Phrygia and sometimes also the Seleucids. So far in every game that’s been the big check on my expansion. - I love the unit automation. When I’m rolling in cash it’s great to just grab some bunch of mercs and tell them “go defend”. Would be nice to be able to set regional targets tho. - aaaaahhhh moving slaves out of Rome one by one when I conquer someone is a pain - populists are loving awful, basically they are pod people, I start the game with 20 of them and then BAM there are suddenly 60 in the senate and everyone’s walking around saying “oh no Imperator, I’m a populist, I’ve always been a populist” and I have no idea WTF is going on except no bonuses and everything costs extra. Et cetera, gently caress populists Game owns, having a ton of fun although there is without doubt a lot of polish that could be added.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Can anyone think of a reason why fabricate claims shouldn't cost mil power? Because that would be a really loving quick + dirty way of balancing the costs out a bit. And makes choosing to save up for military traditions into more of an active decision. The Roman Republic at least seems to have generally gone out of the way during this period to (appear to) have valid pretext for engaging in wars, trying to paint themselves as the defenders and such (helping the Mamertines in Sicily, protecting Greek liberty from Macedonian encroachment, responding to the Asiatic Vespers as pretext for the first Mithridatic war, etc). It would make way more sense for most of the Republic's CB-generating button presses to consume oratory power, regardless of whether those CBs are given from events or diplomatic button presses. As for other nations, the Roman Empire, etc. I guess I could see why you could make the argument for using military power but then you're missing the forest for the trees: who cares which type of point it costs if it works within the gameplay? There could surely be some more uses for military power beyond military traditions, building roads, and hiring mercenaries, but unless your end goal is to greatly constrain expansion (possibly not the worst thing in the world) then this probably isn't the way to do it, at least not at ~180/press. I think a better system might be to uncouple military traditions from military points since in almost all cases it's unwise to spend military points on anything but the traditions, so things are weighted a little too heavily there. I'm not sure what I'd tie them to though, maybe some function of military technology unlocks + military technology levels weighted against current time in game or something. If my options are spend military points on CBs or just eat -2 stability then it's going to be no-CB wars the entire game, which I don't think anyone is really going to argue for. Sheep fucked around with this message at 16:14 on May 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Maybe you could make it so you can use different points to declare different CBs: military for a war of aggression (say like imperialism in EU4), civic to justify it (the actual claim CB), religious for a holy war (must be against different religion?). Then you could tie different bonuses/drawbacks to it: a military CB is increased morale and discipline or manpower, but increases aggresssive expansion; civic has less AE but increases tyranny, religious could risk other countries of same religions to join in (like in CK2). Different types of CB could also increase influence/reduce happiness of the parties/families/characters, depending on which one you use.
canepazzo fucked around with this message at 16:27 on May 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:
I went with my Total War composition of like 8-10 HI, 2-4 LI, 4 archers, 2 light cav and 2-4 heavy cav and it seems to be able to kill stacks up to 2x larger assuming the enemy stack is the usual light infantry tribal garbage, though a lot depends on the martial skill of your general (and theirs). I've noticed the difference is fairly extreme between the lower martial people and the higher ones. I haven't really been paying too much attention to the specifics honestly so take with a grain of salt but; if the combat goes in phases like previous Paradox games do it then there is 0 reason to not have archers because your infantry is just standing there doing nothing during the shoot phase or whatever. I suspect cavalry is similar in that you're getting 0 out of the "cavalry shock/flank phase." E: google/Reddit says there is definitely a skirmish and flanking phase so you're getting hosed up by enemy LI and archers if you have none of your own and it is just 15 HI standing there getting shot at. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 16:39 on May 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Not the MP dev streams, the pre release stuff where they gave the game to a bunch of streamers. Paradox have said that they consider their MP streams valid playtesting for a variety of reasons. The fact they still forgot to include MP chat is, uhhh.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
I think Johan had every right to tell people off in that post. A lot of people definitely need to understand that it isn't fair to compare EU4/CK2 now to I:R at launch. I don't recall any of the youtube complaint videos even acknowledging the fact that CK2 has 7 years of iterative work and EU4 has almost 6 years. Usually when developers get pissed off it's fair to deride them because they made a bad game and/or hid the bad stuff. But Paradox did the absolute opposite of hiding the game, you really can't deny that. You won't find any youtubers firing up old versions of CK2/EU4 to show off their superiority to I:R, because it wouldn't be true. On a more positive note, I've actually found a lot of really useful tooltips spread around the game. Like the War screen showing Manpower/Cohorts/Treasury saved me a lot of clicks. Including Stability is of course extremely redundant (since it's already showing on the screen), but it does seem that they just didn't have time to trim the tooltips. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
L0VE posted:Usually when developers get pissed off it's fair to deride them because they made a bad game and/or hid the bad stuff. But Paradox did the absolute opposite of hiding the game, you really can't deny that. Completely agree with this. Paradox has been very open about the game in general. L0VE posted:You won't find any youtubers firing up old versions of CK2/EU4 to show off their superiority to I:R, because it wouldn't be true. I don't know if this is true, though. CK2 on release was really good! A very huge breath of fresh air at the time, especially given its polish and stability at release. I honestly don't remember EU4 on release enough, though, which could mean either way. (Youtubers probably won't fire up those old versions because they're lazy shitheads doing it for the views, but that's a side point  )
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
EU4 on release lacked a lot of character IMO; CK2 had weird character poo poo at its core so at least things felt vibrant and alive if a bit janky at times.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
L0VE posted:I think Johan had every right to tell people off in that post. There was no telling off just passive aggressive ‘We’re doing this but just so you know only because you are forcing us not because we think it’s correct.’.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
MP makes sense as playtesting for most of the features, granted it’s harder to test AI with so many humans but I assume it’s not the only play testing they use
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Johan's always been frank and honest and I think it's pretty lovely to get pissy about it here. On the one hand yeah he's a little (kind of understandably) passive aggressive, but on the other hand he's openly admitting problems with the game, and has been since the launch really. Anyway it's a kind of minor thing in the grand scheme of things but: quote: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. I feel like this will make such a difference. Right now I just have no loving idea who to play half the time, there's no real draw to half the countries other than the handful of big names I know. In EU4 checking out the ideas really helps with that, so I'm glad they're adding an analogue.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I don't know if this is true, though. CK2 on release was really good! A very huge breath of fresh air at the time, especially given its polish and stability at release. I honestly don't remember EU4 on release enough, though, which could mean either way. I won't argue against CK2 being innovative, but if we ignore the character stories we created ourselves the game was very limited. Remember: * Catholic monarchies only * A handful decisions, shared by everyone * Troop composition was whatever your levies/mercenaries brought * Buildings were: Castle, City, Church Definitely more but it's been a long time since I played CK2 at all. I remember being so pumped when we could finally play as muslims. In EU4 yea you could play anywhere in the world, but unless you were playing in Europe (or Ming) it was the same, only you were just worse. In Imperator we start off with somewhat appropriate mechanics for everyone, not just the civilized world! Tribes would've been DLC in CK2 and EU4, but in I:R it's in at release. We also have pops that can dynamically change the value of a city. In CK2 Holdings were (still are?) hard coded, and Development was DLC in EU4.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
L0VE posted:I won't argue against CK2 being innovative, but if we ignore the character stories we created ourselves the game was very limited. L0VE posted:* A handful decisions, shared by everyone L0VE posted:* Troop composition was whatever your levies/mercenaries brought L0VE posted:* Buildings were: Castle, City, Church L0VE posted:Definitely more but it's been a long time since I played CK2 at all. I remember being so pumped when we could finally play as muslims. L0VE posted:In Imperator we start off with somewhat appropriate mechanics for everyone, not just the civilized world! Tribes would've been DLC in CK2 and EU4, but in I:R it's in at release. We also have pops that can dynamically change the value of a city. In CK2 Holdings were (still are?) hard coded, and Development was DLC in EU4. But again, this is all sort of secondary to how frustrating it is that Paradox has removed so many of their UI improvements for seemingly no reason. That.. is harder to justify than content, for me. I think Autonomous Monster earlier was right that it was the engine move, but then EU4 is definitely not becoming 64-bit this year. And if that wasn't it, then I'm even more baffled! EDIT: I think it's worth talking about another point, too - you brought up "if we ignore the character stories" - why? This is meant to engage you with characters, right? So why would we ignore how valuable that contribution was to CK2 when comparing it to Imperator, when it's a deliberate design decision to have them as well? Beamed fucked around with this message at 17:29 on May 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Christian monarchies only, you could play orthodox fine. Also you could play as muslims technically, you just couldn't START as them, which was something they actually took away the ability to do despite saying 'we will never take anything away from the base game.' (Not saying they were wrong to do so, it's just funny that they said they wouldn't and then managed to do it at literally the first opportunity.)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Christian monarchies only, you could play orthodox fine. Also you could play as muslims technically, you just couldn't START as them, which was something they actually took away the ability to do despite saying 'we will never take anything away from the base game.' (Not saying they were wrong to do so, it's just funny that they said they wouldn't and then managed to do it at literally the first opportunity.) that owned lol, I remember one of the computers I was on ran the game too slowly, so at speed 5 it wouldn't tick fast enough to accidentally lapse you into playing a Muslim.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Sheep posted:The Roman Republic at least seems to have generally gone out of the way during this period to (appear to) have valid pretext for engaging in wars, trying to paint themselves as the defenders and such (helping the Mamertines in Sicily, protecting Greek liberty from Macedonian encroachment, responding to the Asiatic Vespers as pretext for the first Mithridatic war, etc). It would make way more sense for most of the Republic's CB-generating button presses to consume oratory power, regardless of whether those CBs are given from events or diplomatic button presses. Uhhh mil is one of the types of points I always have tons of, I regularly float over 1k because very few of the traditions are worth picking at full cost. Oratory and civic are the highly demanded ones. I just couldn't think of any reasonable way to make fabricating claims use religious points.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Technowolf posted:Do you have any tips for the start as Epirus? I tried earlier today and kinda bounced off of it. You essentially have to be a scavenger, and pick off any small bits of Greek territory or chunks of Italy you can early on. Epirus can field a pretty solid standing army early on, but you're going to be outclassed by Macedon for a while. Cancel your alliance with Taulantia at the start so you can pick them off when the truce expires and avoid getting drawn into bad wars with the balkan barbs, and try to gobble up as much of southern greece as you can before Macedon/Phyrgia does. If you take Taulantia's mountain provinces, you can build forts there that will keep you relatively safe from Macedon. The balkan provinces are honestly kind of a trap to expand into, you won't be able to get that many of them per claim and they'll drain your manpower dry with the horrible supply limit. Stick to the coasts. After you do that, you should be powerful enough to take on the various states in Magna Graecia, and then you just have to win one or two wars against Rome to gobble up some of those big beautiful Italian provinces. No-CB warring Crete and Cyrenaica is a good idea too, you can get access to iron from crete and horses from Cyrenaica and they're greek-culture so you don't eat too much aggressive expansion. Don't forget to do your unique national decision too, it's not a big deal but it helps your economy in the long term.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Priests doing a divination to confirm your insert-prefered-god-of-war wants you to head over and murder those dudes? Could even make them give different CVs if you want to be fancy about it. I don't mind "mana" I just think its weird that I can conquer a territory and instantly turn parts of it into my culture or religion, something that should take time. But it is in no way a big deal, it's just something that bothers my "head cannon" for that playthrough a bit
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
When it comes to mana I think a lot of the gripes over it, or at least my own bad feelings, are how its interactions are instant and guaranteed. (The guaranteed part might just be my ck love talking). If generating a claim cost mana over time instead of a lump sum all at once, for example it would feel better. Representing you putting the diplomats of your country to work for that, instead of just magically getting a justification. And I think everyone has complained about instant conversions of pops.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
You can just not fabricate a claim and use religious points to put your stab back up! Basically the same thing imo
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
It's childish to act like all criticism of this game comes from people having unrealistic expectations. This game fails on its own merits even if you don't compare it to EU4/CK2. Like why does it take dozens of clicks through a very awkward interface to move POPs between cities? Why do you build roads one city at a time in a game with thousands of them? Why does changing your power ranking instantly break all your alliances? It feels like nobody actually played this game for more than an hour because every major gameplay loop is filled with problems like this.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
Changing power rank is supposed to break your alliances and it's cool and good (it also auto allies you with anyone who's guaranteed you and is now the same power level as you!)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Changing power rank is supposed to break your alliances and it's cool and good Having some kind of scaling intimidation modifier to discourage small countries from allying with big ones is fine but a hard line at 25 cities, then 100 cities, etc. leads to all kinds of nonsensical and frustrating results.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
zhuge liang posted:Uhh no it's freaking not. Try playing a tribal and going from local power to regional power. You're not really any stronger (24 cities to 26 cities is really not a meaningful difference in low POP areas) but suddenly you can't ally any of your neighbors anymore and all the knives start coming out. I got around that by vassallizing a couple neighbours instead of outright annexing them, that way I kept them when I got too big for the pond.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2019 19:12
|
|