|
RabidWeasel posted:Steppe horses are amazing and you should use them basically all the time unless you have lots of bonuses to HI from your military traditions, though you will want some way of dealing with light cav. Cool, next time I try that achievement I'll try going full steppe horses. Going for true vandals now. I'm pretty much spending all my money, stability and political influence on colonizing as fast as possible and it's pretty fun. The new UI is a lot better.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
So far I have really disliked Imperator because of all the mana making it a game of points and then spending and not of long term investment and strategy. The fact most actions use mana and are instant just took me out. I'm hoping that Johan coming out and saying they want to remove the mana and removing some of the over abstraction really bring me back. I may try it out with this new UI and see how it's feeling as it seems a lot of people are liking it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
I don't really get the argument that people should expect this to be a sequel to the old Rome game since many people didn't know it existed, and the title "Imperator Rome" even sounds like a new IP. Not putting "2" in the title was a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
spartan885 posted:So far I have really disliked Imperator because of all the mana making it a game of points and then spending and not of long term investment and strategy. The fact most actions use mana and are instant just took me out. I'm hoping that Johan coming out and saying they want to remove the mana and removing some of the over abstraction really bring me back. I may try it out with this new UI and see how it's feeling as it seems a lot of people are liking it. Version 1.2 is already available as a beta branch, it has a complete overhaul of the mana system and is quite an improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1149942147627589632 Empire Sprawl ? IN MY IMPERATOR?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 08:23
|
|
|
That's weird, I thought that Johan said that it already worked that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 08:27
|
|
|
The "new mana" symbols in the beta are just placeholders yeah? Like how all the buildings have that Circle/Triangle/Square thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:The "new mana" symbols in the beta are just placeholders yeah? Like how all the buildings have that Circle/Triangle/Square thing. Ja. There's a mod that replaces them, would recommend
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Ja. There's a mod that replaces them, would recommend What's it called? Noticed a couple icon replacing ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
Played a little bit on the beta patch and I have to say Im impressed. Not only am I getting more events where characters interact but the new mana system where they reduced it down to two types helps keep things comprehensible. Plus pops doing things on their own makes them feel like actual units of population rather than just static lumps. There is still plenty of rough edges but we're on the right track.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
After a few false starts, I think that I’m finally starting to get into this game. The new events definitely add a certain flavor, and I like managing the politics (though I am not in it enough to see how deep it goes). Good foundation for a great game further on down the road. What I think about whenever I play a Paradox game is, “What is this game trying to say about the time in which it takes place?” That is to say, Paradox games work best when they create the illusion of making history, of narrative storylines that write history in a plausible and fulfilling way. Paradox games do that by capturing an essence about the settIng. Think of EU4, which is essentially a game about modernizing your state and colonizing for the purpose of creating a strong, centralized state that can support a modern military and survive religious turmoil. That is at least a take on Early Modern history turned into real game mechanics. Perhaps it’s not entirely accurate, but it carries the illusion of history turned into game mechanics. On the other hand, EU3 never captures any kind of historical feeling and felt dull and aimless by comparison. Imperator: Rome doesn’t quite have that illusion of history yet, but it’s going towards that feel to me. What was the ancient era about, in a way that can make for a good story and good gameplay? I think what Imperator: Rome is going toward something like this: the ancient Roman era was about the ability of Rome, through a complex series of political, economic and military actions, to synthesize and connect cultures to form a unified state, culture and economic system, and the inability of the Diadochi to do the same as independent kingdoms. That, combined with the aspects of the game that try to simulate the political instability within a growing Rome and the Diadochi, I think actually makes for a compelling game. I really like the way that the Population system is shaping up, and I think with some more internal mechanics around characters and development, you could have a really solid game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
My main criticisms right now are: 1. As Rome I dont feel like I have any credible threats in my local area in the same way that you do in, say, eu4. It seems too easy to just steamroll the entire Italian peninsula and then use your superior size and resources to crush Carthage and Greece before conquering anything that strikes your fancy. 2. In a republic the time that you play your "character" is so short that many of the rivalry mechanics feel totally superfluous. By the time Ive really spent enough time to get to know anyone another election has happened and handed me a new person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:What I think about whenever I play a Paradox game is, “What is this game trying to say about the time in which it takes place?” That is to say, Paradox games work best when they create the illusion of making history, of narrative storylines that write history in a plausible and fulfilling way. Paradox games do that by capturing an essence about the settIng. Think of EU4, which is essentially a game about modernizing your state and colonizing for the purpose of creating a strong, centralized state that can support a modern military and survive religious turmoil. I don't think that's true in the case of EU4. CK2, for example, has a message of "great man theory is actually rad, but they are also not that great". Everything is decided by great men, but you also know that your great conqueror has dreamed about miller's son in his youth and he's a board game geek and also enjoys praising old gods with human sacrifice. But EU4 is more about mishmash of regional stories. And patches and expansions mostly got you new stories. On release you had the story of the West colonizing the New World, big empires getting bigger, non-Western countries can still be OK if they become Western, China has their weird Divine Wind thing, endgame might see a revolution. If there's a single thread to it all is that the world becomes less fragmented but it's hardly counts as a story. Even, say, Civilization has a clearer vision of history with its mechanical circlejerk about SCIENCE and tech tree as well as people having a genetic destiny that gives everyone an equal opportunity to become exactly like the modern USA. If anything, Rome has a much more clear vision of history than EU4. You have civilization raising and turning people into specialists. As empires grow big they become uncontrollable and opportunists carve their own kingdoms. But it lacks those regional special stories from EU4. Everyone can have the same problems as Rome if they're big and republican.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 09:51
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:My main criticisms right now are: In fairness, this is pretty accurate to history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 11:42
|
|
|
Communist Bear posted:In fairness, this is pretty accurate to history. Rome was easily able to crush Carthage: hence, why there was only one Punic war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
Also, all this Samnium thing was a tutorial for Total War Rome 2 hence it was probably very easy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 13:42
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:Rome was easily able to crush Carthage: hence, why there was only one Punic war. This isn’t really a good point. The first Punic war was long and brutal but Rome got everything they possibly could have wanted. Ancient wars generally weren’t to the death especially amount decently sized powers
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
Rome's rise to hegemony was neither preordained nor a cakewalk, they got their asses kicked on many occasions and frequently took horrendous casualties. So yea they shouldnt have a greased slide into power
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
The problem is if they don't get greased up and glide straight into a superpower the AI will almost never grow into a huge Rome and people will complain about that instead. If you then give them AI bonuses to make sure they grow when AI, people will complain about lovely Rome AI needing to cheat 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:This isn’t really a good point. The first Punic war was long and brutal but Rome got everything they possibly could have wanted. Ancient wars generally weren’t to the death especially amount decently sized powers You make it sound like the second Punic war didn't involve Rome's biggest defeat until Teutoberg. e: In fact, I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the second Punic war. That one ends with Rome's hegemony over the entire western Mediterranean; the first Punic war only had them grab Sicily. Arrhythmia fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jul 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Rome's rise to hegemony was neither preordained nor a cakewalk, they got their asses kicked on many occasions and frequently took horrendous casualties. So yea they shouldnt have a greased slide into power 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Rome AI needs a special ability to just magic up extra armies and -1000 to make peace to be historical
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Noir89 posted:The problem is if they don't get greased up and glide straight into a superpower the AI will almost never grow into a huge Rome and people will complain about that instead. If you then give them AI bonuses to make sure they grow when AI, people will complain about lovely Rome AI needing to cheat Idk it works just fine for Muscovy or Castille in eu4
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Rome AI needs a special ability to just magic up extra armies and -1000 to make peace to be historical Italian territory should get a bonus to manpower or something to represent it's extra fertility at this period, since along with a refusal to surrender just having more bodies to throw at things was a Roman strength. And if it's Italian territory in general the other powers in the area have that same advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:You make it sound like the second Punic war didn't involve Rome's biggest defeat until Teutoberg. No I’m talking about the first Punic war as that is what the post originally was talking about. Rome could not have realistically governed North Africa and They desperately did not want oversea possessions. The islands didn’t count for reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:No I’m talking about the first Punic war as that is what the post originally was talking about. Rome could not have realistically governed North Africa and They desperately did not want oversea possessions. We are talking at cross purposes. I am saying being able to crush Carthage in, (A) an easy war and (B) a single war, is not accurate to history at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1154114549219508224
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
Poll needs an option for ambivalent. I don’t actively dislike it, it just provokes no real emotion at all right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 07:47
|
|
|
That poll has been pretty consistent 40/60 like/dislike since he put it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Rome AI needs a special ability to just magic up extra armies and -1000 to make peace to be historical Having AI with an actual personality would be too much for Paradox, they don't want to do it even in Crusader Kings 2 which begs for such a thing. But some sort of Lucky Nation setting would be great for this game. Give AI you're not playing some age, maybe conditioned one. Like having one till they lose a war to another lucky nation - thus you will be guaranteed to have at least one hegemony contender by the endgame. Same buffs you probably give to the player on Easy. These things didn't make much sense in EU4 cause we don't see the end of the period as a total hegemony by one nation. You have arguably dominating Britain but their domain is limited, you may just as well make the case for Russia, Ottomans, France, Austria, maybe Qing which will probably not even exist. Rome endgame demands for a superpower fighting itself, maybe a world divided between a couple of superpowers. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Jul 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 08:32
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I don't think that's true in the case of EU4. CK2, for example, has a message of "great man theory is actually rad, but they are also not that great". Everything is decided by great men, but you also know that your great conqueror has dreamed about miller's son in his youth and he's a board game geek and also enjoys praising old gods with human sacrifice. But EU4 is more about mishmash of regional stories. And patches and expansions mostly got you new stories. On release you had the story of the West colonizing the New World, big empires getting bigger, non-Western countries can still be OK if they become Western, China has their weird Divine Wind thing, endgame might see a revolution. If there's a single thread to it all is that the world becomes less fragmented but it's hardly counts as a story. Even, say, Civilization has a clearer vision of history with its mechanical circlejerk about SCIENCE and tech tree as well as people having a genetic destiny that gives everyone an equal opportunity to become exactly like the modern USA. I think that you and I view this question through a slightly different lens. I take your point about what the story is as it relates to the player’s role in it. My point is more along the lines of, the constraints and the incentives that the player faces along the way through the mechanics. To me, what is immersive about a Paradox game is when it forces me to make the same considerations that a ruler would naturally make given the problems facing them. To give an example of CK2, it is to some extent about Great Men, but what stands out and what gives CK2 its drama is the constraints that are put on these Great Men as they try to build an empire. It runs counter to the typical grand strategy experience, in that it forces the player to give us their power and disperse it among the landed gentry in their realm. That mechanic captures a hard limitation of power in the medieval era, which was an inability to organize a central state and a dependence upon local powers, such as the nobility, cities and the laity, to actually wield influence. Of course, it becomes possible to game the system (megadukes, etc.), but to me that’s the driving theme of the whole game. It’s the whole reason why you don’t play as a state, because the state as we think of it was too weak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
He’s got a plurality though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 10:01
|
|
|
Sucks that Joann is basically going through an existential crisis because this game was DOA
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
We can't comprehend the scale of this endeavor. https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1155541333903364096
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 08:25
|
|
|
I wanted to try Parthia out to see if the other great empire of this period had a similar "golden path" to Rome but apparently the Parthia on the map isnt the one that actually did that. So who do I have to start as in order to form the Parthian empire?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:We can't comprehend the scale of this endeavor. This looks really exciting, a sensible way of differentiating between more and less developed parts of the map, a way of making buildings in low pop cities (which will presumably now be settlements) worth doing and also reducing micro since settlements only have 1 building. AnEdgelord posted:I wanted to try Parthia out to see if the other great empire of this period had a similar "golden path" to Rome but apparently the Parthia on the map isnt the one that actually did that. Parnia is the tribe which eventually formed the Parthian empire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:Sucks that Joann is basically going through an existential crisis because this game was DOA It's probably not helping that the only interactions he's having with the public are plebiscites about how much it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Honestly when you look at it objectively, it's not like it was worse than launch Stellaris.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
I definitely plan to pick this up but I'm waiting for the consensus to say when it's good and also a sale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
Jabor posted:Honestly when you look at it objectively, it's not like it was worse than launch Stellaris. Eh. Stellaris was more fun for a longer period of time than Imperator by a pretty large margin in my case and the Steam numbers don't exactly paint me as an aberration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 17:53
|
|
