|
Last Emperor posted:Dev Diary on religion and the new naval mechanics: Oh my god the naval tactics icons; good choices.
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
Taear posted:Like not to poo poo on your work but I've said it before in here - you DON'T need to neighbour one. It's an either or thing. Hm, nope, that wasn't how it worked for me. I had enacted the necessary law years earlier but couldn't take the decision. I waited for the decision to become available and I was starting to get worried there wasn't much time left in the game, so I sold a province to Carthage, waited for the monthly tick, then I could take the Embrace Democracy decision. Then I was immediately able to take the form Gaul decision. Then I took the screenshot and quit.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
Dreissi posted:Oh my god the naval tactics icons; good choices. Agreed, those are amazing. In fact, they should make all icons animal based. Civet for civic power?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Naval combat seems... Complex. I'm all for more interesting mechanics but it makes me sad with how EU4 did it. No matter how much complexity they added to ships you only need those for transport. And in case of war bigger fleet wins but all it does afterwards is just adding some penalties to enemy trade income, so it only ever makes sense when it's a naval trade empire against naval trade empire. I'm afraid that navies will be complex but useless. They still have that rule from EU4 that if you control both sides of the straight then you don't care about enemy blocking the way, right? I'm afraid that navy will still be a drain on your resources and attention without being all that important unless you're Crete or something.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
I like the navy stuff, and the river stuff. Hopefully the navies are meaningful. They definitely were during the time period. I'm hoping that with the naval range zones also comes stuff like effects on trade incomes etc. I hope there is some revamping of piracy such that it isn't just some flat chance to spawn pirates. I'd like to see nations themselves funding the pirate fleets and trying to prey on trade incomes. As it is now I rely on ships to get my armies around the Mediterranean in a timely manner and to bring in fresh legions and take away battered ones so I could see it mattering a lot in terms of logistics/supply although yeah that's just transport I suppose. I hope that they don't do the "if you control both sides then you can cross the straight just fine." ilitarist posted:all it does afterwards is just adding some penalties to enemy trade income, so it only ever makes sense when it's a naval trade empire against naval trade empire. I hope this is more meaningful in Imperator. Rome couldn't have sustained its empire without a strong navy to keep its shipping secure - strangled trade should mean something significant. As it is now I don't see much reason to go to war with Carthage as Rome other than it's what I'm supposed to do. It's not like they're actually some trade competitor or pirating my ships.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
Judging by the screenshot, Carthage's naval range doesn't reach to Phoenicia, which is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Naval combat seems... Complex. Being able to zoom down the Nile etc. and dump troops wherever the gently caress you want seems like a big deal
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Actually, before the first Punic war Rome had pretty much no navy at all. (Source: Richard Miles)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Hm, nope, that wasn't how it worked for me. I had enacted the necessary law years earlier but couldn't take the decision. I waited for the decision to become available and I was starting to get worried there wasn't much time left in the game, so I sold a province to Carthage, waited for the monthly tick, then I could take the Embrace Democracy decision. Then I was immediately able to take the form Gaul decision. Then I took the screenshot and quit. I've done it twice and absolutely 100% not been bordering anything other than tribes. Both as a Monarchy and a Kingdom. Even the way it displays is just like the "or" events in every other Paradox game.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:Actually, before the first Punic war Rome had pretty much no navy at all. (Source: Richard Miles) Is there a point to this observation? Before the first Punic War Rome wasn't much of an empire. They only controlled the Italian boot, with no overseas holdings (not even Sicily or Sardinia yet). The creation of maintenance of empire absolutely required them to form a navy. That's why they did it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Being able to zoom down the Nile etc. and dump troops wherever the gently caress you want seems like a big deal Dunno. All the important cities are in the delta. And it's just one country. Was it ever a historical concern? This is a very situational concern. I understand that devs are very hesitant to make fleet as necessary as it was for a decent empire. So pirates are rare and small. If they'd wanted they'd have coastal cities gain a fort level or two unless they're blockaded. But this would make for a very one-sided relations, e.g. landlocked tribals not being able to do much except raiding a countryside. Which would be realistic and add interesting dynamics but it would be very frustrating to players I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 19:29
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:
I think this still holds but it's control, not ownership, so capturing one side would do it
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
 Mostly Negative
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:If they'd wanted they'd have coastal cities gain a fort level or two unless they're blockaded. They do gain a bonus
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:I think this still holds but it's control, not ownership, so capturing one side would do it It's true. I war in a war and let the enemy cross to the side I controlled before moving my boats in and stack wiping their armies.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Agreed, those are amazing. In fact, they should make all icons animal based. Civet for civic power? Civet for populists.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Stupid question but how do I add a mod to the game? I made some small changes for my own use but the mod structure doesn't seem to be the same as EU4/CK2.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
Firebatgyro posted:They do gain a bonus That bonus is negligible. I:R has a nice system where each level of fort means you need 5000 more people to siege. So you put 3 level fort on a border with barbarian lands and it's fine forever, or force enemy to get a lot of attrition on siege. Something like an additional fort level for every coastal city (so you need 5000 more people to siege it and it will take longer) would make the dynamics between naval and land powers much more interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Are there any uses of tyranny decay as a 'resource' in the early game, for monarchies? As in, are there any useful actions you can take which do something good but also cause tyranny? If you're an aristocratic monarchy you get a huge amount of monthly tyranny decay but it's not actually very useful most of the time and only comes into play much later in the game when you're having to set lots of province policies. It's really annoying because this would be a godsend as a republic and it feels wasteful.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:
It's a pity. I love stuff about Rome, but I had grave misgivings from the first information they started showing about this.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
You should never ever trust a score aggregate. It’s mostly meaningless. Use only reviews that look for the same thing you do.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Personally I'm having fun with it but it's real rough around the edges and clearly not the greatest value in the universe right now. The only people I would recommend it to without reservation are people who are already Paradox fanatics, and they probably bought the game before it even released. So yeah in that sense the reviews aren't unfair imo. And I'm having some fun playing? Yeah. Am I ok having paid $40 for this? Yeah. Am I looking forward to things to come? Sure am! Would I recommend it to basically anyone who doesn't already love EU4/HOI/CK2? No I would not.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Personally I'm having fun with it but it's real rough around the edges and clearly not the greatest value in the universe right now. The only people I would recommend it to without reservation are people who are already Paradox fanatics, and they probably bought the game before it even released. I can second this. I like it a lot but unrefined aspects frequently make me angry and there’s a lot they should add.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
The game has issues but I have had more fun with Imperator in the last week than I've had with EU4 in ages. The most fundamental basics of the game just feel so, so much better that the lack of 'depth' is totally fine for me at least.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Judging by the screenshot, Carthage's naval range doesn't reach to Phoenicia, which is pretty funny. Is it though? We're modeling military navies here, not trading fleets. Keeping galleys supplied is no small feat even in friendly territory, much less halfway across the Mediterranean. The naval range shown in that developer diary honestly looks pretty good to me. Sheep fucked around with this message at 22:32 on May 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
I fall on the Mostly Negative side of things. To me, the game is a map painter with an extremely shallow helping of CK2/EU4/Stellaris systems, the only thing you have real agency with is building cohorts and conquering, the rest feels like meaningless busywork with no real impact on how your game goes. - The characters are meaningless fluff and don't hold a candle to the CK2 character focus. While I understand it was probably not Johan's intention to have the game focused on characters, why even include them and make them a big focus of your game and pre-release marketing? Surely they understand why people like the character focus of CK2, so you're only setting yourself up to fail by just having nice portraits and cool trait icons. You have no way of managing your character, no way of influencing education. The traits are meaningless and randomly assigned, the characters' relationships are non-existent or meaningless, the little interactions there are, are gated behind (ORATORY POWER), the UI for character interactions is infuriatingly opaque. Whether playing a republic or a monarchy, you can safely ignore this part of the game, except for bribing the occasional disloyal general. You have no way to see what the hell other characters are upto or knowing what is going on in your nation, let alone other nations. - There is nothing to do in peace-time except go micro-heavy and do a bunch of busy work moving pops from city to city, and spending your occasional mana pool on converting pops culture. Nothing you do in the game feels like it matters. You get to stack some modifiers with generic omens, inventions, and ideas and wait for the next round of conquests. Maybe I am jaded, but the game as is just bores me.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
So as Epirus, Egypt and a few others declared war on me. I've managed to get a few of the others to back out of the war. This leaves Egypt and one other nation still at war. I occupy the smaller nation completely, but I can't get them to do anything, not even a white peace. The same thing goes for Egypt. I'm sitting at 7 war score with no way to move the score up. As there is no hold a territory to create a monthly increase in war score. I can't white peace. What do I do? I can't even white peace while owning like 15 of their territories?
Zotix fucked around with this message at 02:42 on May 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
I only became a Paradox fan with Stellaris (of which I'm a huge fan) and only did a single play through of EU4 and bounced off CK2. Maybe not being able to compare it to either of those spared me some grief because I'm really digging Rome so far. After a couple of early game aborts, I'm finally doing alright as the Bosporan Kingdom. Fending off Scythia and all her allies has been brutal but I've slowly turned the tables after I somehow won the last war. A few questions. 1. In a monarchy is there any reason to have tribesmen or should I promote them all to freemen and citizens. 2. Is war the only way to get slaves? 3. My primary heir has pretty crappy stats but one of his younger brothers has excellent stats. Is there anyway to get his brother next in line?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 07:24
|
|
|
Ham posted:- The characters are meaningless fluff and don't hold a candle to the CK2 character focus. While I understand it was probably not Johan's intention to have the game focused on characters, why even include them and make them a big focus of your game and pre-release marketing? Surely they understand why people like the character focus of CK2, so you're only setting yourself up to fail by just having nice portraits and cool trait icons. This argument I don't get at all and it makes me mad. Again, it's about flavor, not strategy. I:R has much more interesting strategic decisions about characters. In CK2 all you care about is the single number for their council job and how much your vassals and spymaster like you. All of your army is commanded by a loathsome guy who hates you? No problem, you only want him to have a high sword stat. Character traits affect AI behavior and special events but you'll only see it in extreme cases when they're mad. Choosing a governor in I:R (all of his stats have some effect on his effectiveness) or general (need someone good at war and someone I could control) is much more interesting than any character decision in CK2. But, of course, you don't have events about horses and manure bombs, so there's no depth.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 08:49
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:This argument I don't get at all and it makes me mad. That post didn't say anything about strategy so uh, so loving what?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
When I use the “resume” button from the launch page the game freezes while loading. If I go the normal route via the game menu it works fine. Do others experience that problem?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 09:44
|
|
|
I'm playing as Bactria (horse archers punch hella above their own weight) and I feel like satrapies should have a way to break away from their overlords. The Seleucids are a pitiful rump state in southern Iran, why do I have to pay them poo poo?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 10:03
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:This argument I don't get at all and it makes me mad. Not sure where you're getting strategy from that post, but if you mean making meaningful decisions, CK2 is much more than select best stat for council. Even if Imperator takes more of the governors stats into account when determining their effectiveness, the characters don't feel real or realized. Case in point, I hire the governer once and can then happily ignore him for the rest of the game till he dies and I have to replace him, because there is nothing else to do with him. Even the startegic area is better done in CK2 1.0, where you can assign different jobs to each councilor depending on what you wanted, and how they were each free to plot behind your back. I can't tell you how many times a disloyal spymaster caused a rulers downfall, or the amount of gold that gets embezzled, or the fuckery that councillors do in regencies. But feel free to carry on thinking this is just about poop jokes.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
johnsonrod posted:I only became a Paradox fan with Stellaris (of which I'm a huge fan) and only did a single play through of EU4 and bounced off CK2. Maybe not being able to compare it to either of those spared me some grief because I'm really digging Rome so far. After a couple of early game aborts, I'm finally doing alright as the Bosporan Kingdom. Fending off Scythia and all her allies has been brutal but I've slowly turned the tables after I somehow won the last war. 1. No, promote them. Livestock and precious metals help with this, and the Civilization policy is quite effective over time as well. 2. Primarily. You don't have to conquer territory though, you can do subjugation wars (this is where light cav armies are really effective at hoovering up large swathes of unfortified provinces.) I think the Greeks get an option to raid for slaves but I don't know how effective it is. Pop growth can also get slaves but as of now that's really slow. 3. Others might have some ideas. Maybe try to get him captured as a general. I don't think you can actively plot his assassination or imprison him. I'm not sure what would happen if you say assign him as governor to a crappy province and then manipulate his loyalty so low that he rebels in a civil war. I've had heirs go on random murder sprees but that's just luck - once I had an heir murder his step mom (who to be fair had tried to murder him first.) I threw him in jail and had him participate in gladiatorial combat. He won. He then murdered one of his younger step brothers by his slain step mom, I threw him in jail yet again buy once more he won his gladiatorial fight. Since none of that king's children were all that special the murdering heir became a king.. Blackluck fucked around with this message at 13:19 on May 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 10:47
|
|
|
Ham posted:Not sure where you're getting strategy from that post, but if you mean making meaningful decisions, CK2 is much more than select best stat for council. Even if Imperator takes more of the governors stats into account when determining their effectiveness, the characters don't feel real or realized. Case in point, I hire the governer once and can then happily ignore him for the rest of the game till he dies and I have to replace him, because there is nothing else to do with him. Strange that I have to explain how character choices in I:R are important but fine. Hiring a governor in I:R means that he's free to plot against you. Depending on his traits he applies different policies to provinces. His traits define which of systemic events will happen at that province. His corruption stat (which is important in many character interactions) affects the province greatly. In case of civil war he may chose a side depending on his relations. If you set troops to patrol the province the governor will command it himself. His own religion and culture interact with the populace in addition to the state own. CK2 councilors get plot power but apart from spymaster none of them does anything with that. There are very rare random events for lunatic councilors but that's it. You don't empower a family by putting someone in a council seat, it's a political decision only if you have Council DLC and even then it's trivial. I remember some time ago CK2 had events where characters asked to be placed in council but I think they removed those events. Character ambitions are more varied and they actually ask to get a job. Sometimes you get a character with some sort of plan that will require taking one of the seats. Plus there's this whole government thing with clans/preferred successor/party that adds to the character. And yes, outside of poop jokes I don't see any character in CK2 characters. They've got a lot of traits but all of it is noise, AI is affected by those traits but you won't notice unless it's those extreme events, or when they summon demons I guess. You don't care about any of those traits and thus you make no strategic decisions. In I:R chosing a character for any job is a balancing act. In CK2 you can generate characters for your council with trivial cost till you get the biggest number and it describes the depth of the system perfectly well. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 12:11 on May 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 12:08
|
|
|
Blackluck posted:1. No, promote them. Livestock and precious metals help with this, and the Civilization policy is quite effective over time as well. If you don't need the manpower you may be better off leaving them as tribesmen for the tax increase: freemen give base 10 manpower; tribesmen are 5 base manpower and 0.015 tax (half a slave). Tribesmen also have higher base happiness (100% vs 25% for freemen) so better to not promote them in areas you've recently conquered if loyalty/revolts are a risk. Manpower has never been an issue for me after I've passed ~250k so I just leave tribesmen as-is from about then on. I'd rather convert freemen to citizens for the commerce and research increase than convert tribesmen to freemen and lose tax money while gaining manpower I don't need. Edit: another consideration is the production tech, which heavily favors tribesmen, especially early on: tribal researve at 0 (5%) devolved responsibility at 2 (5%) land tithe at 5 (5%) tribal advocates at 9 (5%) right to religious observance at 13 (5%) = 25% increase at tech 13 for tribesmen first freeman is code of rights at 4 (2.5%) curb the tax collectors at 8 (2.5%) water pumps at 13 (2.5%) state fire brigades at 16 (2.5%) Triumviri Capitales at 20 (5%) = 15% at tech 20 (end game) for freemen Sheep fucked around with this message at 12:52 on May 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
Ham posted:I fall on the Mostly Negative side of things. To me, the game is a map painter with an extremely shallow helping of CK2/EU4/Stellaris systems, the only thing you have real agency with is building cohorts and conquering, the rest feels like meaningless busywork with no real impact on how your game goes. Have to agree to be honest. The game is sadly lacking in many many areas. I suspect it'll be another year or so before it becomes something worth playing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 12:43
|
|
|
CK2's actual character-driven narrative has been what people have been repeatedly saying Imperator lacks. This idea that CK2 didn't even have it is a new baffling development from people who think this is Paradox's Best Release Yet. I think how inactive this thread became for a brand new Paradox game is a real shame, but an indicator of the community's overall reaction.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
Sheep posted:If you don't need the manpower you may be better off leaving them as tribesmen for the tax increase: freemen give base 10 manpower; tribesmen are 5 base manpower and 0.015 tax (half a slave). Tribesmen also have higher base happiness (100% vs 25% for freemen) so better to not promote them in areas you've recently conquered if loyalty/revolts are a risk. That's a good point I had not considered. I suppose I get caught up in the negative civilization score when I'm trying to reform as a tribal nation (which is all I've been playing of late.)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
So the whole revolt mechanic seems to be fairly trivial to deal with once you get to late game. It looks like the max unrest you can get from pops is +10, so if you station ~30 troops with the governor for -5, take the blessing for like -2.5, and have -unrest laws running you just don't get revolts ever. I've been at 110-120 AE for around 50 years straight and haven't been close to a revolt (when i had the open temples event I didn't have a single disloyal province).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 14:52
|
|