|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Titles maybe the next next patch then. I don't know how it is for Rome, but for the Greek folks like every position is "arch-something-acus" and trying to figure out which dude I'm firing or which dude I'm making give up on his dreams is troublesome. Yeah that is a problem. IR has too much CK2 for those of us who abhor that aspect, but apparently too little for those who enjoy juggling families and remembering each of the 100 mopes you had to assign a job to.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:52 |
|
|
For me the problem with characters in this compared to CK2 where you can see 'characters' on the map by their provinces, is that in Imperator they are invisible unless you look at the menu. It's really hard to forget the mega-duke who has control of half your total provinces, it's really easy to forget Menuis Headius who theoretically controls lots of invisible holdings and 'power' but has no real representation in the main element of game UI (the map).
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Game won’t even boot on my computer, after I removed anything that could cause it, fresh install. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 11:02
|
|
|
I've been playing the new Stellaris archaeology DLC (which is nice but meaningless from a game mechanics perspective) and think I understand the backlash against I:R now. Stellaris is Paradox's most popular game and it's essentially a bunch mini-games bolted onto a near non-existent core game. The mini-games are all very evocative and make you feel like you're running your own pet space empire even though each run is more or less identical. I:R has a much better defined core game loop and goal (build the biggest empire) and all the mechanics contribute toward your ability to capture and hold the map. The end result is that I:R is a much more robust strategy game then Stellaris but it also means that you can grok the whole game very quickly as nothing is obscured behind opaque mini-games with the possible exception of character interactions. Personally I love board games and the discipline of design that the limitations of cardboard and meat enforce so I quite enjoy I:R while I can also see how people used to the "sideshow alley" nature of Stellaris, CK and increasingly EUIV would be alienated. n.b. I have over 400 hours in Stellaris so I still do appreciate that style of game as well. NoNotTheMindProbe fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jun 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
They broke warscore from battles, it's making big wars a huge drag
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:They broke warscore from battles, it's making big wars a huge drag Funny thing is that this got tons of reports from the beta and the best response so far is "I think someone's looking into it"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:Stellaris is Paradox's most popular game and it's essentially a bunch mini-games bolted onto a near non-existent core game. This is spot on but you forget about the music. Stellaris has great music. I:R is meh. Jon Shafer (Civilization 5 and, ahem, At the Gates designer) has said that broadly speaking empire building game has Builders and Conquerors players. And those are sort of politically correct names cause Conquerors aren't really about violence, they're about winning. And Builders still would like to win but are more interested in tinkering with mechanics. Many such Builder players only play the game as long as there's new stuff to see and learn. So in Civilization they probably play each Civilization trying to play around its abilities, try various government types or ideas or whatever. In EU4 Builder player enjoys all the various nations due to them having their own National Ideas, missions, events. I think most people get their thousands of hours in EU4 not cause they get deep into mechanics but because there's always something new to experience. Obviously, Stellaris is similar due to all of its events. And now I think that secret mission of new economic system was easy addition of lots of stuff that looks new on the surface - like there's a lot of professions that only exist for some specific ethos or civic. Both CK2 and Stellaris seem to give enough stuff to tinker with to players who consider competitive element secondary. I guess I:R devs hoped that new game will do the same for EU4-style game by making geography, trade goods and ruling character matter much more in a systemic way. So they neglected all the fluff. But CK2 and Stellaris had a lot of fluff from the very beginning: CK2 started with deciding the fate of England so you watched that, then you had global events like Crusades, the rise of Assassins, later you had invasions by Mongols and Timurids. You had very obvious small-scale goals like becoming a king or getting a specific title. You had wenches throwing themselves at you. And, of course, Stellaris was all about events in the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 09:27
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Jon Shafer (Civilization 5 and, ahem, At the Gates designer) has said that broadly speaking empire building game has Builders and Conquerors players. And those are sort of politically correct names cause Conquerors aren't really about violence, they're about winning. And Builders still would like to win but are more interested in tinkering with mechanics. Many such Builder players only play the game as long as there's new stuff to see and learn. So in Civilization they probably play each Civilization trying to play around its abilities, try various government types or ideas or whatever. In EU4 Builder player enjoys all the various nations due to them having their own National Ideas, missions, events. I think most people get their thousands of hours in EU4 not cause they get deep into mechanics but because there's always something new to experience. Obviously, Stellaris is similar due to all of its events. And now I think that secret mission of new economic system was easy addition of lots of stuff that looks new on the surface - like there's a lot of professions that only exist for some specific ethos or civic. I'm the Builder in this example, 100%, and I agree that Stellaris, CK2 and EU4 all scratch that itch, each in its own way. I:R isn't quite there yet, but it has a lot of promise imo; what's missing is just more fluff, events, and as you say small-scale goals. I mean they barely put these in for the titular country, Rome ... you have the "conquer southern italy" event and claims, later you get claims on sicily, epirus and carthage, and I think that's all? There is a decision or two but they're pretty inconsequential and not memorable, can't even remember what they are about, and no missions or other kind of "focus" to guide you except "let's blob like mad" which is fine in itself, but eh, it can get boring after a few playthroughs if you're the Builder. An EU4-like mission tree system, and a patch/DLC of nothing but events, missions and various other flavor stuff, would go a VERY LONG WAY to making this game a lot better for me. TorakFade fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Jun 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 09:54
|
|
|
I also wonder that maybe Johan looked at the most popular countries to play (which are the most competitive ones usually) and saw how popular mechanics-focused content makers are (Florryworry and Arumba, among others) and decided that there aren't that many "Builders" among fans. DevDiaries were pretty honest about there not being a lot of flavor in the game. Maybe it was even a conscious choice because those events are probably not that hard to make. Like all those EU4 events are often wikipedia-style note about some stuff that gives you 5 prestige or something, or missions - they knew that stuff works and decided not to add it. Like you know FTL and similar games - mechanically-focused roguelikes. Some people liked story and exlporation in those games which was a very wrong way to play them. So the next game from those devs is Into the Breach and it removes all the narrative elements from the game. So now no one would say "this game has too few events" or something cause there are no events, it's clearly not chess on drugs, not a simulator of some sorts. As a "Builder", do you play smaller EU4/CK2 factions that have no events or special mechanics and still find joy in it? Just wondering. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Jun 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 10:03
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:As a "Builder", do you play smaller EU4/CK2 factions that have no events or special mechanics and still find joy in it? Just wondering. Well yes, in CK2 I do play whatever because events are literally game mechanics, most things happen by event. Plus, even the most boring nondescript character will eventually gain traits, rivalries, expand family and holdings in different ways etc. making every playthrough absolutely unique even if you pick the same starting character in Bumfuck, Nowhere! in EU4, definitely not. I have 1130 hours played (  ) and I think I played the same nation uh, 3-4 times at most? Playing any nation twice in a row is not "fresh enough", and I replay countries I played before only when there's new mechanics, flavor packs, map changes or other stuff. Luckily every nation feels very different: just off the top of my head, the most memorable playthroughs I had were as Japan, Ethiopia, Naples, England, Muscovy, Ottomans, Poland, France, Spain, Marocco, Ternate, Inca, Sweden - and each game was incredibly different from the other, because of starting position / ideas / institutions / missions / colonizing or not / and so on and on and on. I still potentially have plenty of countries left to play too, that I never touched and sound different enough from all the others (say Austria / HRE, Native Americans, Indian nations...)! I:R is sadly more EU4 than CK2 in this regard, right now, and it is completely missing what makes one nation different from another. But they're on the good path with the new "national traditions" or whatever they're called, new "personalized" omens, etc. and I bet they will build on that more. The core loop is good, very good, I enjoy it a ton but after I make 1 game as Rome, 1 as Macedon, 1 as a Gallic tribe I can see myself getting bored until they add more gov. forms or events or missions or all the stuff I was saying earlier 
TorakFade fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Jun 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 10:26
|
|
|
In EU4 the mission system and ideas really help to make different countries play differently. There's nothing like this in I:R really. Government types are the closest thing to it, but there are only a handful and much of the time they make very little difference besides things like tribal migration mechanics (which are, although an interesting idea, really not very fun) The underlying mechanics are weak enough that just adding missions wouldn't really help, they really need to flesh out the game systems and give gameplay styles that aren't just conquest before they can do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 10:56
|
|
|
So, as far as I can tell, playing as a Celt, the primary consequence of the omen revamp is that all the omens I want to use have been removed and replaced with omens I don’t want to use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
Jesus, I didn't realize how insanely stacked the province of Latium is. Farmlands Iron and another city with Iron just so you can get the export bonus for free.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
Rome is not overpowered!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Jesus, I didn't realize how insanely stacked the province of Latium is. Farmlands Iron and another city with Iron just so you can get the export bonus for free. It actually got a bunch of farmlands added because it wasn't "good" enough, it used to be hilly. EU4 missions are like the perfect example of the sort of thing I want kept away from Imperator with a big stick so it's easy to see how it's difficult for the devs to keep everyone happy when adding more content. For the most part EU4 missions are totally vacuous non-content which have suffered from massive power creep and add zero interesting decisionmaking, they just reward you for choosing the right tag and doing stuff you probably wanted to do anyway. Which is a shame because I was initially very excited about the missions rework, but they went down the road of making missions tied mostly to tags rather than making missions adapt to the changing conditions that your state finds itself in. "Missions done right" - and probably tied into republican factions and character loyalty somehow - would be an amazing addition to Imperator. The new war council interaction is a very, very lightweight version of the sort of thing I'd expect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
I hear you. In many ways mission rework was regressive. Originally missions were dynamic, adapting to the situation. Would be nice to see the same for national ideas too. But no, we don't care if your Spain inherited France and now dominates Europe, its genetic Spaniard code has colonization in it. Just like Russia needs to go colonize Siberia even if Mongol Empire reforms there and Russia successfully conquers all of Poland. Funny thing is EU Rome is the first Paradox game with missions, I think. And they still remain in some form as character ambitions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
I've put in maybe 5 or 6 hours with the patch and I'm enjoying it a lot, but the warscore stuff is just too annoying and actually ends up distorting a lot of the game. If it gets hotfixed before Paradox heads to summer break then I'll probably put a lot more time in. If not, then uhh lol i guess
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
IMO pike infantry needs to be made a distinct unit type separate from light and heavy infantry like in CK2. Right now HI is meant to model both Roman Legions and Macedonian-style Sarissas, and IDK if condensing those two into one type of unit makes sense compared to the granularity of the other unit types. If Pike Infantry also relied on iron (or even timber) as a resource requirement, and maybe even replaces Heavy Infantry for Greek Tradition nations, then there’d be a little more variation in infantry compositions for armies. And yeah there needs to be more early-game flavor events, at least just to make the Diadochi go to war more consistently like the Hundred Years War/Burgundy events in EUIV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Funny thing is EU Rome is the first Paradox game with missions, I think. And they still remain in some form as character ambitions. I believe EU1 had missions actually. I know for sure EU2 did they were just awful and not worth paying attention to https://eu2.paradoxwikis.com/Missions - the only reward was "Victory Points" which were how you "won" at the end of the game and the missions would be things like "Royal Marriage with Papal States" which was impossible. Not really relevant just Paradox trivia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
I definitely disagree with the idea that I:R is more robust than a game which has MP chat and maintains alliances across reloads, but I think the comparison to At the Gates is.. surprisingly apt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I definitely disagree with the idea that I:R is more robust than a game which has MP chat and maintains alliances across reloads, but I think the comparison to At the Gates is.. surprisingly apt. Was At The Gates received poorly? I missed that whole thing, except the lead up to its release and the coverage of a Civ designer going off to Do Things
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
At the Gates release was basically a beta and things like "AI" are still being implemented. The response was generally it's not much of a game, but good that Jon worked through his personal issues and actually released something that looked like vaporware for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
I still want a lot more UI improvements, the top being a quick way to see how many slaves are in a city so I can optimize my marketplace placement (and cockblock anyone trying to get a holding in a non-farmland city). That said, I've finally reached the point where I actually have to sit down and work on revolt risk, and being able to suss out the most optimal way to spend points on reducing unrest using only the macro builder is great. Also I want the culture overlay to only be wholly your color when there literally aren't any more non-ruling culture pops. I like to be optimal with these provincial edicts since they're really powerful. toasterwarrior fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jun 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
So! Re: warscore buggery, turns out this is a very simple fix for players. If you go into defines and change... 'battle_scale' or something like that from 0.02 to a higher number (I settled on 2.0, which I assume was the intended value), it works pretty well! this has actually made Pompey playable for me and the world is more interesting and dynamic as well. I've been having a fun campaign trying out the new internal management stuff as thrake, would recommend
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Looks like there was no bump from the new patch that many here theorized would happen: The numbers sorta obscure the middle but you can see the relevant stat; it hit about 1500 from 1000 Wednesday at least. I'm not sure.. what the game's path will be from here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
I read that it was a few hundred right? But yeah still not much. e: oh you say that, sorry I'm part of that honestly, at this point I'm waiting on the mana removal patch before I try it out again. Koramei fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
Rome was bumped for a day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Looks like there was no bump from the new patch that many here theorized would happen: isn't this just a beta release? i wasn't aware that it had actually made it into the full game yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
For me at least I got a bunch of new games from the summer sale, so playing those.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Yeah I got this Stars in Shadow game for cheap, MOO2-like, and it's the best MOO2 take I've seen ever so I've been playing it back and forth with 3K Total War and the Imperator beta. Not really the best timing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
i expect the september mana patch will be the hyped up real 'relaunch'. pompey is more like... just getting the game into a much more playable state. I'm having a lot of fun with it right now at least, having fixed the warscore poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:isn't this just a beta release? i wasn't aware that it had actually made it into the full game yet It went live Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
Beamed posted:It went live Wednesday. I only heard when the beta came out, and nothing when the patch actually dropped. I guess this is the downside of releasing betas to patches, kills some of the buzz?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 07:34
|
|
|
What determines naval battle row length, is it just sheer amount of ships? I mean, I have to assume so, at least for the open seas...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
I dove back in with the Pompey patch and I'm kind of shocked at how negative the reviews still are. This is a solid game and I'm having a fun run of it as Syracusae. There's some balance issues to work out as I'm drowning in Civic and Religious power and there's still more UI improvements to make, particularly getting the necessary information to competently decide governor policies into the nation overview screen, but it's a solid game. Honestly the worst part of the patch in my opinion was the change to stability, I thought it was a lot cleaner and intuitive with the "mana" approach, but maybe that's just because I've been playing since the first EU and I'll get used to the new mechanic. I understand it doesn't scratch the right itch for everyone but its currently getting reviewed like its shovelware.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Canasta_Nasty posted:I understand it doesn't scratch the right itch for everyone but its currently getting reviewed like its shovelware. I think it has a lot to do with pent-up frustration/backlash at the Paradox doing their whole "we will get it right somewhere down the road" approach after the peak. I hope that they will manage to balance their continuous development model with more attention to the fundamentals, rather than having to get redesigns going after the release of their games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
Having number of ports impact your provincial trade routes is interesting, there's a gently caress ton of different factors to take into account now when you're choosing a capital. Having your capital in an inland province totally sucks though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Double posting but from the sound of a recent post by Johan they're reworking pops to have migration, promotion and assimilation similar to V2. Guessing that this will be detailed on on tomorrow's dev diary, but I can't see any other way to read having increased migration attraction etc. as building modifiers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Double posting but from the sound of a recent post by Johan they're reworking pops to have migration, promotion and assimilation similar to V2. Guessing that this will be detailed on on tomorrow's dev diary, but I can't see any other way to read having increased migration attraction etc. as building modifiers. Next step: move the start date 2140 years ahead, but keep the name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:52 |
|
|
Waiting for mana to fill up to assimilate pops = bad. Waiting for gold to fill up to buy a building that assimilates pops = good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 01:57
|
|