|
I tried a game with Rome and the game is pretty alright now. I haven't fully grasped all the systems yet but most of them are automated at least. I learned the hard way that expanding too fast is really, really bad. I had conquered Tunis and huge chunk of barbarian wastelands in a short time, giving me almost 100 points of aggressive expansion while being very low on manpower. Which led me to an endless cycle of rebellions, where I would lose some revolters to opportunistic neighbours and while AE was ticking down, war weariness was going up and as soon as I had dealt with the rebellions, another was ready to start. So yeah, protip, don't expand too fast.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 11:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
I swear, those loving tribals, Jupiter drat them Rome is still a steamroller, between the claims and the incredibly good land they have, if you manage to not lose the first bunch of wars you'll be untouchable unless you overextend yourself badly or are pretty drat unlucky I need to try an Arvernia game, never managed to get it off the ground in 1.0/1.1 but now it should be a bit better
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:I swear, those loving tribals, Jupiter drat them I am a lot of trouble with the "don't overextend part" and whenever I go to war with Carthage as Rome, always end up in a civil war. I know how to avoid it, I just don't want to. I have this obsession with taking out all of Carthage's territory in the 2nd punic war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I am a lot of trouble with the "don't overextend part" and whenever I go to war with Carthage as Rome, always end up in a civil war. I know how to avoid it, I just don't want to. I have this obsession with taking out all of Carthage's territory in the 2nd punic war. I believe the low warscore cost and possibility to take huuuuuge amounts of land in every war can gently caress you over if you're used to EU4 or CK2 style games where you almost can't overextend yourself unless you're trying, or it is fairly easy to make the revolts go away by giving the extra land to vassals, pushing a happy button in exchange for currency or whatnot. I am also always tempted to just gobble up to the max warscore and annihilate the enemy in one go (or close to) but what's the point if you're just going to lose 80% of that to revolts in Imperator you'll be like "oh ok give me those three regions" without really realizing they have 300-400 pops between them if you're invading Greece, Etruria or Carthage since you won't get a XX% overextension warning, have to pay for coring land or anything of the sort still I don't find it too challenging because I'm a slow, patient player that likes to wait for the best conditions to start a war so I rarely have high AE and tend to focus on one target at a time (and will never do a world conquest but that's OK I guess) TorakFade fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Did they not fixed obvious AI problems like never changing a diplomatic status? I know it's not that impactful in practice but such things are very irritating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 08:48
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Did they not fixed obvious AI problems like never changing a diplomatic status? I know it's not that impactful in practice but such things are very irritating. I think that this one is by design to stop the AI from wasting power changing when it doesn't need to. Obviously they're going to revisit it at some point but diplo stances were a very late addition to development and to have them switch with any kind of logic would need some AI work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Why not making it free for AI and add bigger cooldown from him? Don't think anyone would cry about that particular AI cheat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 10:39
|
|
|
Not sure what you guys are talking about, the AI changes diplomatic stance rarely, but I've certainly seen them do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 11:13
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Why not making it free for AI and add bigger cooldown from him? Don't think anyone would cry about that particular AI cheat. People really loving hate AI "cheats" for some reason, as long as the AI handles its armies in the same way as the player I don't give a poo poo how it runs its economy, I just want it to be able to put up a fight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 11:34
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:People really loving hate AI "cheats" for some reason, as long as the AI handles its armies in the same way as the player I don't give a poo poo how it runs its economy, I just want it to be able to put up a fight. Depends on what you give the AI, -letting the AI ignore ex. attrition, while the player has to lose 3k men a month to it, is the worst buff they could give. -Giving the AI free diplomat movement without wasting its Influence points on that, which the player would hardly notice at all, is good. But i don't need a endgame challenge, like a huge Indian Maurya at end, it's much more fun to see big blobs go down in rebellions and Civil wars. Right now i'm seeing that huge states are super stable, which i don't like. half the fun with paradox game is the random thing that happen in all their games, which makes their replay-ability fun. If your not pushing expanding on a huge scale, and rack up the aggressive expansion to 50+, you will probably not even face a single internal problem atm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 11:59
|
|
|
I'm with you here, the only real way to make a proper difficulty slider (and in case of complex strategy games any difficulty above "tutorial game") is to make AI cheat. The important way is for AI to cheat in a way that simulates a better player as opposed to cheats that make specific strategies better and other worse. E.g. in Civ5 cheats make direct war is AI a bad decision, but paying AI to attack others is easy on any difficulty, so you can beat diety by never going to war with AI making sure it fights other AIs. Also, AI gets huge bonuses up-front so you should never try to compete in the early game but instead boom and only fight defensive worse like it's a horde mode. Letting AI have spare diplomat the way EU4 does it or letting them freely change diplomatic stance is fine in my books cause it emulates AI being more foreseeing but without spending time on calculations. There are very few instances where things like that can give AI an advantage, and there are no tactics that will work on a player but won't work on AI because of those bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 12:10
|
|
|
Yeah I'm on board with that too. I remember playing warcraft back in the day and kid me being really disappointed when he discovered he couldn't beat the AI with his genius strat of "camp their gold mine" - turns out they get infinite gold and you can kill all the peons you like, they'll keep building more purely to give the illusion the ai actually needs them and also continue to spam units at your base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 12:50
|
|
|
I think I just unintentionally found an exploit 25% pop cap and 40% slave output in a city seems pretty good and a little extra food doesn't hurt. I was putting buildings down in the province and forgot that I'd already started building a city in one of the territories. The city finished just before the slave estate and didn't cancel the build order.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1181131253086642176?s=19 Army supply 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 09:59
|
|
|
We are AGEOD now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 10:02
|
|
|
Supply trains are nice but Imperator's done a great job modeling attrition so far and I hope this won't trivialize that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 11:56
|
|
|
Hopefully, it's compensated by harsher attrition. One of the things that are strange about EU4 is how to tame attrition is, and it's mostly present during sieges. Your army will die in beautiful Italian coastal farmland cause there's a fort there to siege, getting into the middle of Africa or India is fine on the other hand. Of course it's a gameplay decision rather than take on history, and it's heavily influenced by what would make AI competetive. The hope is they really convinced AI will work with mechanics like that, release Imperator AI seemed to be much more menacing than current HoI4 or Stellaris one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Hopefully, it's compensated by harsher attrition. One of the things that are strange about EU4 is how to tame attrition is, and it's mostly present during sieges. Your army will die in beautiful Italian coastal farmland cause there's a fort there to siege, getting into the middle of Africa or India is fine on the other hand. Of course it's a gameplay decision rather than take on history, and it's heavily influenced by what would make AI competetive. The hope is they really convinced AI will work with mechanics like that, release Imperator AI seemed to be much more menacing than current HoI4 or Stellaris one. I win every war by letting the Ai come in first and kill their entire manpower with attrition. Not sure what you mean by menacing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
I got an Arverni game off the ground, and the problem you get is the same you used to get before: once you become a regional power, you "lose" defensive leagues and alliances and everybody pounces on you as soon as you dare declare war on someone else, and being a relatively dirt poor tribe and completely surrounded by others, you can't really fight off everybody else combined. Which might make for fine gameplay, I guess, if you like that feeling of "oh I just lost half of what I worked to get, let's build back up again", but I really don't Also there's some fuckery going on with clan retinues, I had a few "warhost" armies that used to be clan retinues, but then the clan leader died and half the cohorts became "mine" while half remained "clan retinues", also I am 100% sure I had an army with 6 heavy infantry (because I used it to win the first wars with neighbours) and 20 years later, I had a grand total of 2 heavy infantry between all my armies, and I have no idea where the other 4 HI ended up. So eh, I tried a game as Knossos and after you unite the island (which takes about 10 years) you really have to enjoy waiting. Everybody is either guaranteed by Phrygia, Macedon or in a defensive league with 9-10 other nations and contrary to EU4, countries are willing to join defensive wars even if they're fully occupied and with high war exhaustion (and both Phrygia and Macedon have been super stable, actually expanding, for 100+ years), I managed to snipe a couple settlements from Rhodos thanks to their being in a defensive league with Halikarnassos which was not guaranteed by any big dog, but when I got around to it everybody had so much money that they just hired 80k mercs and plopped them on their capitals, so I could only get the undefended small island which is part of Crete province, and Halikarnassos' capital (because for some reason they could not send the mercs there) Anyway, now I think I'd try an England game - what's the best nation to pick there? I'm guessing somebody near the coast or some kind of bottleneck so you don't have to worry being attacked from all directions like it happens with the Arverni...
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:I got an Arverni game off the ground, and the problem you get is the same you used to get before: once you become a regional power, you "lose" defensive leagues and alliances and everybody pounces on you as soon as you dare declare war on someone else, and being a relatively dirt poor tribe and completely surrounded by others, you can't really fight off everybody else combined. Which might make for fine gameplay, I guess, if you like that feeling of "oh I just lost half of what I worked to get, let's build back up again", but I really don't Iceni have unique heritage, let you employ women as generals, and are camped out in the middle of a swamp. I had fun, anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 07:37
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Anyway, now I think I'd try an England game - what's the best nation to pick there? I'm guessing somebody near the coast or some kind of bottleneck so you don't have to worry being attacked from all directions like it happens with the Arverni... I went with the guys in Cornwall, they worked well enough. Trouble with England is it's so far from any powers that once you're the local hegemon there's no-one to challenge you nearby, and everywhere outside of the isles is foreign culture so you can't quickly conquer to fight someone interesting, you just get bogged down assimilating Gauls. It's fun up til that point though
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 11:41
|
|
|
Thanks, will give those two a good look and a spin tonight  When I will become hegemon I can just quit the game if it's too boring, like I did with Knossos after unifying Crete (and waiting a bunch to see if I could expand)oh, and, new dev diary : quote:The reinforcement mechanic of Imperator is basically the same as EU3 has, which every game since then, from Victoria 2 to HoI4, have used. You lose soldiers to combat and attrition, and slowly recover them from your manpower pool, with a speed that depends on multiple factors. plus some other small things not really worth mentioning. This is ... nice. The possibility to "lose" sieges is just great, removing attrition as a man-killer if you can manage your supply is awesome and will reward good tactical planning, toning down the incredible importance of manpower is also good and all in all this change could really make some fortifiable/high-attrition lands very tough to crack indeed. I hope this bleeds over to other games too (EU5 when?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
DevDiary posted:- Armies no longer lose soldiers to normal attrition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:lmao what? So now heat/cold/rain/snow/disease no longer affect armies? Am I missing something here? "Attrition now drains the food supply of an army, with high attrition increasing this."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
Probably good that a large (Roman) army walking from Rome to friendly territory in Magna Grecia during peace time will no longer result in thousands dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:"Attrition now drains the food supply of an army, with high attrition increasing this."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I didnt miss that. It doesnt change the fact that it doesnt matter how much food you have, if it snows/rains a lot/its super cold/you're standing the middle of the Sahara for weeks on end/disease breaks out in your army, you lose men. Food doesnt fix those things. Take food to mean "provisions" instead. I think this creates more mechanically evocative army compositions - load up on camels for your desert campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I didnt miss that. It doesnt change the fact that it doesnt matter how much food you have, if it snows/rains a lot/its super cold/you're standing the middle of the Sahara for weeks on end/disease breaks out in your army, you lose men. Food doesnt fix those things. Yeah, they’ve failed to disaggregate those. Kind of weird but hey-ho. Maybe we’ll get a “food-penetrating attrition” mechanic later. HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:I think this creates more mechanically evocative army compositions - load up on camels for your desert campaign. Well, this would seem to raise another factor the system doesn’t seem to capture-different unit types are going to perform differently in different terrain types. The properties of a camel that make it good for the desert aren’t going to be any use in a swamp, but both are “low supply”. Might get a bit fiddly, though, that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
I wonder how this will affect attrition on boats? It was always annoying losing a few thousand men because I decided to sail uneventfully from Rome to Carthage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I didnt miss that. It doesnt change the fact that it doesnt matter how much food you have, if it snows/rains a lot/its super cold/you're standing the middle of the Sahara for weeks on end/disease breaks out in your army, you lose men. Food doesnt fix those things. What? if you have decent shelter, water & food, doesn't matter where you are, your fine. The point being, that it's harder to supply troops during winter, or in the desert, that will first strike your "food" first, then your troops. It's silly that troops that just stand around lose 1% during winter months ex.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I wonder how this will affect attrition on boats? It was always annoying losing a few thousand men because I decided to sail uneventfully from Rome to Carthage. Probably just stack up on supplies at port, same as armies with friendly provinces.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Well, this would seem to raise another factor the system doesn’t seem to capture-different unit types are going to perform differently in different terrain types. The properties of a camel that make it good for the desert aren’t going to be any use in a swamp, but both are “low supply”. Didn't you know? Hannibal famously crossed the Alps with elephants due to his supply camel corps. For real though, it's a good step in the right direction. There'll be some weird outcomes here and there, but I just hope that that's modable so folks who want the full granularity can have it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Descar posted:It's silly that troops that just stand around lose 1% during winter months ex. It makes complete sense that if an army is low on food it takes more attrition but to say it takes ZERO attrition if it has food makes no sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:No it is not silly. People get sick and die all the time despite being well fed. More people get sick and die in winter/peak summer in the desert/whatever bad weather even when supplies are plentiful. Sailors get sick and die on boats that were loaded up with food in this time period all the time (and all the way through, what, the 1800s?) all because they didnt have citrus in their diet on the boat. This is one of those intersections of reality and gameplay. We can sit here and nerd out about how really, having 10,000 dudes in a single field is going to be a hotbed of disease just from the latrine situation, but from a gameplay standpoint it sucks losing a huge thwack of manpower just marching from Rome to Gaul, and it's something the AI has problems with. poo poo, just look at how often the AI chooses to just go all in on mercs because they're manpower hosed. One time I watched Carthage just dissolve a 50k army into nothingness sitting in some low supply province on Corsica. From a purely gameplay standpoint I think it's going to improve things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:No it is not silly. People get sick and die all the time despite being well fed. More people get sick and die in winter/peak summer in the desert/whatever bad weather even when supplies are plentiful. Sailors get sick and die on boats that were loaded up with food in this time period all the time (and all the way through, what, the 1800s?) all because they didnt have citrus in their diet on the boat. You seem real hung up on zero. I mean I guess they could do a scaling attrition % so that as supplies go from 100% to 0% attrition scales from 0% to 5%. But that doesn't seem more fun just annoying. Like you'll be trying to keep 100% supplies anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:No it is not silly. People get sick and die all the time despite being well fed. More people get sick and die in winter/peak summer in the desert/whatever bad weather even when supplies are plentiful. Sailors get sick and die on boats that were loaded up with food in this time period all the time (and all the way through, what, the 1800s?) all because they didnt have citrus in their diet on the boat. It's silly for gameplay purposes. A guy or two dying here and there makes sense realistically, but to the player it says "hey you're doing something wrong, fix this". Cyrano4747 posted:This is one of those intersections of reality and gameplay. We can sit here and nerd out about how really, having 10,000 dudes in a single field is going to be a hotbed of disease just from the latrine situation, but from a gameplay standpoint it sucks losing a huge thwack of manpower just marching from Rome to Gaul, and it's something the AI has problems with. poo poo, just look at how often the AI chooses to just go all in on mercs because they're manpower hosed. One time I watched Carthage just dissolve a 50k army into nothingness sitting in some low supply province on Corsica. Yeah. Mechanics should evoke history, not be a slave to it. We're not playing Campaign for North Africa and tracking the Italians' increased water ration consumption due to their need for pasta.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:It's silly for gameplay purposes. A guy or two dying here and there makes sense realistically, but to the player it says "hey you're doing something wrong, fix this".
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Fair enough but to me its one of those "immersion breaking" type of things. I just dont think you should be able to load up absurd amounts of food and march Hannibals army from Spain to Calabria and take zero casualties on the way simply because you have food in the army's baggage. I guess I feel it is too far in the other direction - I want my choices to matter and with this news it makes me feel like I can send an army and not care about the terrain or weather because I gave them enough food to carry around. From what I understand, it seems like the worse the attrition would've been in the old system, the faster the army's supplies will dwindle. So maybe wait to see how it's implemented first. For all we know, you'll have to bankrupt/starve your nation to supply enough food for Hannibal's army to cross the Alps unscathed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:From what I understand, it seems like the worse the attrition would've been in the old system, the faster the army's supplies will dwindle. So maybe wait to see how it's implemented first. For all we know, you'll have to bankrupt/starve your nation to supply enough food for Hannibal's army to cross the Alps unscathed. Yeah we have basically no idea how it will all turn out, it's way too early to start crying foul. Also, quote:- Elephants will not require more food than they can carry, while Camels can carry more. I believe that's a typo and elephants WILL require more food than they can carry, so Hannibal crossing all of spain with his elephants will probably require an ungodly amount of food and supply trains (or conquering some stepstones along the way in order to resupply), and I doubt armies will be able to just march on for a long time with their "base" amount of food especially if some unit types, the best ones like elephants, HI and HC, will require lots more of it. My Iceni game is going pretty well  But now every other nation in the isles hates my guts so much that they're willing to not go to war with each other, they're all in a defensive league so if I want to keep conquering I'll have to go up against about 100k troops, and I'm too poor to field enough of my own (I can get around 50k total as you see in the screenshot without going into debt, and I'm already maximizing money gained in any way possible so I doubt I'll be able to double that), any tips on how to proceed? My own armies are composed of 4 HI / 4 Archers / 2 chariots each, and while better than the average tribal army, they can't really take on double the troops TorakFade fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Oct 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:20 |
|
|
if you cannot go north, go south conquering from the bottom of britain to the top of britain is actually the hardest way to do that imo you basically have to wait for them to go to war with each other or else you cant feasibly win. the best plan right now would probably be to move into continental europe and see if you can get some colonizing going on. to be completely honest idk if you will ever be able to take on everybody in the north put together. shrink your army and build a navy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 22:57
|
|