|
Fuligin posted:Might be the ideal pop fraction in your provinces screwing you over? If that's the case then you want to build more... well I can't remember which building, but the one that gives +citizen fraction The real problem with republics is just how ineffectual it all feels. There's no real weight to the factional interplay, no moving parts the player can influence/attempt to control, no consistent intrigue, and no real differences between the factions. All you're left with is your character and interactions with other states, and caring about your character is pointless when they rule for perhaps 20-30 minutes of game time and then it's on to next random dude and their family. If anything I think they need to take a look at the estate system from the EU4 mod MEIOU and taxes to make republic play at least somewhat interesting.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
Ham posted:The real problem with republics is just how ineffectual it all feels. There's no real weight to the factional interplay, no moving parts the player can influence/attempt to control, no consistent intrigue, and no real differences between the factions. All you're left with is your character and interactions with other states, and caring about your character is pointless when they rule for perhaps 20-30 minutes of game time and then it's on to next random dude and their family. I really think they should just give in and have you play as a family and let you be the dickhead countryman who's out to build up their family at the expense of the Republic while you don't rule the country. The holdings system could be the game you'd play while not in power and give you control of the province with your holdings in it or somesuch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
Trying a new game as Epirus. And uh Macedon just blew me up. Guess they really jacked up the ai aggressiveness? Macedon was guaranteed by Egypt/Phryg so couldn't attack them, and they simultaneously allied everyone around them and brought everything on me in two hell wars. edit: Hmm I guess tips for surviving as Epirus? Tried buddying up with Macedon at the start, but they just got real angry. appropriatemetaphor fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Sep 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
The one thing that still gets me is that most of Egypt and most of Mesopotamia is Macedonian and it's not even 100 years into the game. I really hope Paradox can figure out a way to slow down assimilation because it's still happening at insane speeds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Trying a new game as Epirus. And uh Macedon just blew me up. Surviving Epirus is a crapshoot basically, sometimes Macedon is busy with other poo poo, sometimes they exist to make your life hell. I'd suggest building up that fort on your southern border immediately, sending gifts/improving relations with Macedon to delay their actions, and eating up Taulantia in the North to control the northern mountain passes (you start allied to Taulantia so the alliance should be broken pronto). Then continue working on consolidating your holdings in the southern Greek city states by which point you'll have an army that can manage Macedon. Also avoid being in drawn out wars as much as possible since the AI is heavily weighted to declaring war on you if you're fighting someone else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Trying a new game as Epirus. And uh Macedon just blew me up. Macedon is one of the AI states which get the new "antagonist" feature which includes being super aggressive apparently
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
Switched to semi-relaxing maybe-tall Syracuse game. Gonna chill on some islands. Good thing I got all the Epirus cheevos on v1.0
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Switched to semi-relaxing maybe-tall Syracuse game. Gonna chill on some islands. Man, I'm doing the complete opposite and now I'm spooked. Phrygia please save me
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
Did they ever fix how you had an event to marry Pyrrhus' sister to One eyed's son but it doesn't loving matter because Phrygia is out of "diplomatic range"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 08:46
|
|
|
Ham posted:The real problem with republics is just how ineffectual it all feels. There's no real weight to the factional interplay, no moving parts the player can influence/attempt to control, no consistent intrigue, and no real differences between the factions. All you're left with is your character and interactions with other states, and caring about your character is pointless when they rule for perhaps 20-30 minutes of game time and then it's on to next random dude and their family. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 08:58
|
|
|
Eimi posted:I really think they should just give in and have you play as a family and let you be the dickhead countryman who's out to build up their family at the expense of the Republic while you don't rule the country. The holdings system could be the game you'd play while not in power and give you control of the province with your holdings in it or somesuch. The best thing about I:R is it has characters but doesn't tie you to them the way Crusader Kings 2 do. You're the state, characters are playthings and tools that sometimes rebel. I find it more interesting than shoehorning my idiot falconer dude into the role of the conqueror in CK2.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Macedon is one of the AI states which get the new "antagonist" feature which includes being super aggressive apparently I didn’t see this in the feature list but it sounds good fun in principle, the game was missing the EU4 storylines about the god drat Ottomans/Austria/French always loving you up. Just finishing off a Manchu patch EU4 run before I try 1.2 but it’s sounding good so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 09:15
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This sucks, especially because two of the main countries, one of which the game is even named after, are republics. It seems to me that it's a sort of "balance" for those nations and that it is meant to be significantly more difficult and frustrating to play Republics, because if Rome was a monarchy and did not have to constantly wrestle with the Senate for every small decision, it'd just steamroll everything once southern Italy is conquered (which would be almost instantaneous rather than the current "oh poo poo I'm new and unpopular and all the families are scorned because there's not enough jobs to go around, gotta befriend at least a couple party leaders before being able to declare war on my tiny defensless neighbours or eat a lot of tyranny" thing Rome has).
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 09:56
|
|
|
Ham posted:Did they ever fix how you had an event to marry Pyrrhus' sister to One eyed's son but it doesn't loving matter because Phrygia is out of "diplomatic range"? I can definitely trade with Phrygia right at the start so the diplomatic range thing has been fixed. The issue now is that Phrygia has a lot of diplomatic relations at start, so you need to finesse a way to keep Macedon cool. Apparently Macedon is actually amenable to an alliance at start as well, so maybe there's a way through there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
Got my first reasonably challenging achievement in IR tonight, No More Worlds to Conquer, as the Seleukids. I was hoping to get To the End of the World in the same run but I've only got 6.5 years left so that's not gonna happen. Would have definintely been doable if I'd been less lazy though. By the end I had basically infinite money and could have raised enough troops to fight in the East and West simultaneously but it would have been a lot of extra clicking to raise that much. Is there an army template feature I've missed somewhere? Anyway the game is pretty fun now. Even though I took one of the big blobs at the start it was still challenging as I was fighting other big blobs in some pretty epic wars. Egypt especially was a tough nut to crack, they had a fuckton of units and were allied with Colchis and Thrace so every war with Egpyt was a war on two other fronts as well. They also kept declaring while I was fighting Phyrgia. Twice I had to cut wars with Phyrgia short in order to defend against Egypt and friends, and just when I was starting to push into their territory, Maurya would declare as well, so I'd have to cut the Egypt wars short and run off to defend in the East. Unit automation was invaluable in the late game because I was frequently fighting in multiple theatres and the tiny provinces means you've got millions of stacks running around everywhere and it just gets unmanageable to try and do manually. I wish I'd embraced the automation sooner. One thing I found kinda annoying was 100% warscore isn't much territory if it's heavily populated. It took four or five 100% war score wars just to take the parts of Egypt I needed for the achievement which got pretty miserable.  Sampatrick posted:The one thing that still gets me is that most of Egypt and most of Mesopotamia is Macedonian and it's not even 100 years into the game. I really hope Paradox can figure out a way to slow down assimilation because it's still happening at insane speeds. If it was any slower it would make expanding into wrong culture group territory barely worth it, as soon as you rack up a bit of AE it'll all secede and you'll have a massive war on your hands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 11:00
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:It seems to me that it's a sort of "balance" for those nations and that it is meant to be significantly more difficult and frustrating to play Republics, because if Rome was a monarchy and did not have to constantly wrestle with the Senate for every small decision, it'd just steamroll everything once southern Italy is conquered (which would be almost instantaneous rather than the current "oh poo poo I'm new and unpopular and all the families are scorned because there's not enough jobs to go around, gotta befriend at least a couple party leaders before being able to declare war on my tiny defensless neighbours or eat a lot of tyranny" thing Rome has). ...the quote is that republics are boring, not that they’re more difficult. Though, to be fair, I’ve not felt that monarchies or tribes are any more interesting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:...the quote is that republics are boring, not that they’re more difficult. I don't get either what monarchies and tribes have that makes them "more interesting" than republics, I really don't feel much difference besides the mechanical ones ... and the mechanical differences are mostly flavor, different laws/council positions, some +10% bonus here instead of there, and the fact that due to the senate republics are harder to play than tribes, and due to clan chiefs tribes are harder than monarchies, in my limited experience the original quote is Ham posted:The real problem with republics is just how ineffectual it all feels. There's no real weight to the factional interplay, no moving parts the player can influence/attempt to control, no consistent intrigue, and no real differences between the factions. All you're left with is your character and interactions with other states, and caring about your character is pointless when they rule for perhaps 20-30 minutes of game time and then it's on to next random dude and their family. and ... uh, I can't agree with this, I do agree that Republics feel hard and finicky to "control" and I believe that's WAD as said, but the bolded part is just plain false because you HAVE to influence and attempt to control the senate if you want to achieve anything. I can believe that if you never tried to make friends with party leaders, or bribe someone, or put an important guy in control of an army, or endorsed a faction, or any of the other possible actions you can take to influence the senate (I agree there's not enough of them, btw, and I too would love to have more control)... yeah I guess that would feel boring and ineffectual. Like trying to play Call of Duty as a pacifist is boring - but I don't think it's fair to say that it's the game's fault  of course I wish for more possibilities for interaction and making things better so you don't get bored anyway, but this game seems to really have gathered a ton of unwarranted disdain from people that just don't like the game as is designed and would like it to be a completely different game, which I'm afraid is not really going to work out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:If it was any slower it would make expanding into wrong culture group territory barely worth it, as soon as you rack up a bit of AE it'll all secede and you'll have a massive war on your hands. That seems like desirable behavior to me. Conquering wrong culture group provinces shouldn't be essentially free and less stable empires makes for a more fun experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:That seems like desirable behavior to me. Conquering wrong culture group provinces shouldn't be essentially free and less stable empires makes for a more fun experience. It's not "essentially free" now. Have you tried taking a big chunk of off-culture land at once? poo poo hits the fan in a big way if you take too much. Personally I like being able to conquer land in the game about conquering land, sitting around forever waiting for pops to assimilate and AE to tick down sounds pretty boring. It feels about right to me as it is now Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Sep 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
cultures basically didn't shift very much during this period, mediterranean empires didn't enforce their own culture on their conquered territory
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
as we all know, the seleucid empire historically converted all of mesopotamia and iran to macedonian culture, as did the ptolemaic dynasty and phrygia. it is good game play when empires basically dont fall apart because multicultural empires rapidly transform into monocultural empires. also kinda laughable to claim that making conquest more difficult to consolidate would make the game less fun. having to go to war multiple times would make the game better because you would no longer be able to quickly snow ball completely out of control the way you do now. making it so that large empires cant keep on snow balling and have to expand in different ways would also just kinda make the game more fun as you get 100+ years in. having a game about conquest where the only wars that matter are like your first three and the rest is just snowballing out of control is bad gameplay. shades of blue fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Sep 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:cultures basically didn't shift very much during this period, mediterranean empires didn't enforce their own culture on their conquered territory Cultures mostly only shifted with movements of populations, as in migrations or colonizing new territory, or founding new cities. (veteran warriors settle on won land comes to mind) let's say in game, in Alexanders old empire, culture shifts should need a Greek pop in the territory nearby to make the locals to shift. Republics and monarchy's could ex establish new cities from their home country to culture spread, while tribes gives better/more fertile lands to their own clans by moving their people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:cultures basically didn't shift very much during this period, mediterranean empires didn't enforce their own culture on their conquered territory nonsense, everyone knows british culture was invented by brutus of troy
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Perhaps that culture thing would work better if pops had, so to say, original and "tolerated" culture or something. E.g. those Greeks you conquer as rome gradually become labeled "Roman Greeks" and for mosrt intents are considered Roman (maybe not as good at providing manpower or something). But if they were reconquered by any Greek power or rebel they are as Greek as any Greeks. Probably slowly lose Romanness on their own. What do you think of this idea? This wouldn't make much sense with religion so maybe those poos should instead eventually get something like "integrated" status, and you get this faster with right policy or if culture or religion was right in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Perhaps that culture thing would work better if pops had, so to say, original and "tolerated" culture or something. E.g. those Greeks you conquer as rome gradually become labeled "Roman Greeks" and for mosrt intents are considered Roman (maybe not as good at providing manpower or something). But if they were reconquered by any Greek power or rebel they are as Greek as any Greeks. Probably slowly lose Romanness on their own. What do you think of this idea? steal a page from how some of the religions end up working in EUIV (I think Tengri, Confucian, Fetishist?) and let ruling cultures choose to syncretize, dominate, or tolerate others within their territory on a case by case basis ching chong bing bong so simple
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
I hope PDX just go 'gently caress it ' and announce a ton of DLC for this at PDXCON. Everyone who's pissed at them has already given a negative review and more content for the game would rule. Stuff at the level of that crazy Spanish Civil War tree in HOI4 would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:I don't get either what monarchies and tribes have that makes them "more interesting" than republics, I really don't feel much difference besides the mechanical ones ... and the mechanical differences are mostly flavor, different laws/council positions, some +10% bonus here instead of there, and the fact that due to the senate republics are harder to play than tribes, and due to clan chiefs tribes are harder than monarchies, in my limited experience Granted, I have not played the game or republics since the first two months after release so things may have changed for the better. I'll run a Rome playthrough now and check the changes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:cultures basically didn't shift very much during this period, mediterranean empires didn't enforce their own culture on their conquered territory Sampatrick posted:as we all know, the seleucid empire historically converted all of mesopotamia and iran to macedonian culture, as did the ptolemaic dynasty and phrygia. it is good game play when empires basically dont fall apart because multicultural empires rapidly transform into monocultural empires. gameplay > realism Assimilation is this game's coring from EU4. also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_(cultural) quote:also kinda laughable to claim that making conquest more difficult to consolidate would make the game less fun. having to go to war multiple times would make the game better because you would no longer be able to quickly snow ball completely out of control the way you do now. making it so that large empires cant keep on snow balling and have to expand in different ways would also just kinda make the game more fun as you get 100+ years in. having a game about conquest where the only wars that matter are like your first three and the rest is just snowballing out of control is bad gameplay. Wow you're kinda rude. Sorry for having a different opinion on what constitutes fun gameplay. What "other ways" to expand are you suggesting anyway? And what's wrong with having other big blobs to provide challenge in the mid to late game instead of a harder speed limit on expansion? Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Sep 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Perhaps that culture thing would work better if pops had, so to say, original and "tolerated" culture or something. E.g. those Greeks you conquer as rome gradually become labeled "Roman Greeks" and for mosrt intents are considered Roman (maybe not as good at providing manpower or something). But if they were reconquered by any Greek power or rebel they are as Greek as any Greeks. Probably slowly lose Romanness on their own. What do you think of this idea? This is basically what EU4 does with accepted cultures and I'd be on board with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:gameplay > realism I think it'd be a lot more fun to make managing the tension between Hellenistic cities and native rural areas part of the game, as well as more immersive, vs., well, what we have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
If they made it more interesting I'd be fine with that, but simply slowing down assimilation in its current implementation just means waiting longer before you conquer more off-culture land. That's not a fun and interesting challenge in maintaining a stable empire, it's boring waiting around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Hmm well tried a game as Syracuse and Carthage immediately killed me. Can you only play as major powers now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Hmm well tried a game as Syracuse and Carthage immediately killed me. Can you only play as major powers now? Carthage is an antagonist, if you want to play a minor state bordering a major you should try one that doesn't border Rome, Carthage, Macedon or Thrace or commit yourself to restarts I guess. The ultra-passive AI was secretly the worst thing about 1.0 so it's good that the AI is aggressive now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Carthage is an antagonist, if you want to play a minor state bordering a major you should try one that doesn't border Rome, Carthage, Macedon or Thrace or commit yourself to restarts I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:gameplay > realism Romanization didn't happen the way you seem to think it did. It wasn't an automatic process, it was the result of active colonization and settling of Romans within the provinces. It also didn't result in people becoming Roman, it resulted in people becoming Roman influenced. I've been saying for a while now that what Imperator needs is dynamic transitionary cultures. Assimilation would also be better if there was an active component to it ie it was done by founding cities/colonies that would gradually influence nearby settlements toward a syncretic culture. Do you see how this would be a more engaging gameplay experience than the current one? quote:Wow you're kinda rude. Sorry for having a different opinion on what constitutes fun gameplay. What "other ways" to expand are you suggesting anyway? And what's wrong with having other big blobs to provide challenge in the mid to late game instead of a harder speed limit on expansion? Client states, feudatories, other vassals. There's a complex subject system in Imperator that you should be incentivized to use when expanding into wrong culture group areas. The AI is just always going to be worse at expanding compared to a player and so once you have snowballed up to a certain size it's pretty trivial to go ahead and outpace all of the AI countries. This is especially clear if you are playing a tribal or expanding into tribal regions. You just get big much faster than the AI feasibly can and so the only real blobs that are possibly threatening are like Maurya, the Seleucids, and Phrygia and that's only because they start off so large.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:gameplay > realism Yea but ideally gameplay should immerse you in the game's theme. Managing the contradictions of a large, multicultural empire was a big part of Roman and Ancient history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Romanization didn't happen the way you seem to think it did. It wasn't an automatic process, it was the result of active colonization and settling of Romans within the provinces. I don't know what I seem to think to you, but isn't that what setting the policy is supposed to represent? It's not automatic now, you have to set the policy and there's an opportunity cost that comes with that - not choosing another policy that would make the territory more productive. quote:It also didn't result in people becoming Roman, it resulted in people becoming Roman influenced. I've been saying for a while now that what Imperator needs is dynamic transitionary cultures. Assimilation would also be better if there was an active component to it ie it was done by founding cities/colonies that would gradually influence nearby settlements toward a syncretic culture. Do you see how this would be a more engaging gameplay experience than the current one? Again, isn't that what the mechanic is supposed to represent? "100% Roman" doesn't necessarily mean some Scottish tribesman is suddenly and literally assimilated to be indistinguishable from someone born in Rome, it's an abstraction to represent that the locals are becoming accustomed to Roman rule and the changes to their day to day life that it brings, and not actively rebelling as soon as Rome becomes a little overstretched. It could certainly be improved to be a bit more interesting than setting a policy or spamming theaters though. quote:Client states, feudatories, other vassals. There's a complex subject system in Imperator that you should be incentivized to use when expanding into wrong culture group areas. In my experience diplomacy is worthless outside of the early game because as soon as you have any AE at all nobody wants to peacefully integrate. Now I'm not saying that's good design but if you slow cultural assimilation down then it'd need to be balanced by making the AI more amenable to diplomatic integration. There's still the option of forced subjugation of course (I'm assuming that's in Imperator but honestly I haven't looked) but I'm not convinced invade->force vassalisation->manage pissed off vassal is that much different (outside of flavour) than invade->annex->manage pissed off pops. quote:The AI is just always going to be worse at expanding compared to a player and so once you have snowballed up to a certain size it's pretty trivial to go ahead and outpace all of the AI countries. This is especially clear if you are playing a tribal or expanding into tribal regions. You just get big much faster than the AI feasibly can and so the only real blobs that are possibly threatening are like Maurya, the Seleucids, and Phrygia and that's only because they start off so large. Well sure if you start out in Britain or something yeah but there's tons and tons of minors close to majors so it's that Paradox map game thing where you set your own difficulty based on who you pick. Start closer to a big power and see if you can get strong enough to fight them before they eat you. I get the sense that we're talking past each other a little. My initial read was that you were saying cultural assimilation should just be scrapped or way slower and nothing else changed. Which sucks if you like expanding aggressively and not being railroaded into always taking the same territory first. But what I think you're actually saying is that it should be slowed but other ways to expand be made better at the same time. Which is cool, I never meant otherwise. I wouldn't mind waiting longer for off-culture pops to chill before starting my next war if there was anything else to do in the game than fighting wars. e: So yeah, basically this: Mantis42 posted:Yea but ideally gameplay should immerse you in the game's theme. Managing the contradictions of a large, multicultural empire was a big part of Roman and Ancient history. I never meant that this stuff couldn't be better represented in the game, I was just looking at it from how it would affect the rate of expansion vs waiting around for a clock to tick down before you're allowed to conquer again if you just nerfed cultural assimilation. If there was more to do during peacetime and better alternatives to annexation that would be okay. Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Sep 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Please tell me that Phrygia is not an Antagonist. The irony will probably kill me. No, Thrace and Macedon are the only Diadochi antagonists. The rest are IIRC Carthage, Rome, Arvernia, Parnia, and some state in India. I'm sure I forgot at least one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
IIRC Bactria is an antagonist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:No, Thrace and Macedon are the only Diadochi antagonists. The rest are IIRC Carthage, Rome, Arvernia, Parnia, and some state in India. I'm sure I forgot at least one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2019 00:34
|
|