|
Whoever made it so that pillaging/razing settlements gives you aggressive expansion, should try to play a tribe a few turns. In my game, it's the only way to progress in tech, but i only get between 1-2 tech points per sack. but 2 AE. So that 100-200 AE for each tech as a tribe... way too much. Getting techs as a tribe is too hard as it is anyway.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2019 10:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Descar posted:Whoever made it so that pillaging/razing settlements gives you aggressive expansion, should try to play a tribe a few turns. The way to get techs as a tribe is to stop being a tribe. Centralise, reform, build some cities and put libraries and academies in them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
Trap options still huh 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
The way I see it, it’s not really an option so much as a different start, like how in early CK2 start dates in some parts of the map you can also start as a tribe and reform into a kingdom or republic.
Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
I am no expert in CK2 but as I understand starting as Pagan Tribe in CK2 means much bigger manpower pool, fewer problems with vassals and much easier expansion and development. However you're crippled with succession laws and your power cap is much lower than for civilized rulers. What I mean is it's viable alternative, you can create a huge tribal empire much faster than if you start as a Feudal ruler that is not Charlemagne.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 09:38
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:The way I see it, it’s not really an option so much as a different start, like how in early CK2 start dates in some parts of the map you can also start as a tribe and reform into a kingdom or republic. Tribes have large advantages and disadvantages there, making for a different playstyle. Nobody would want to play them if it was the same style as everyone else, but inexplicably worse in tech, like early EU4 non-european tech/unit groups(good riddance to those)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 10:48
|
|
|
I hated being stuck with gavelkind in ck2 and personally never saw it as a viable long term option for my play style. You could imprison and execute your poo poo sons but that was gamey as hell and not infallible. Not saying they weren’t actually playable though, so that’s a fair point. To be fair there is the decentralisation law route for tribals in Imperator which I haven’t explored at all yet but it has some good morale and manpower boosts iirc. Not sure if that’s worth the trade offs or maybe it is a trap option. Also not sure if you could go with decentralisation and still build cities to get techs? Seems counterintuitive but maybe it works. Also have no idea what’s up with the migratory tribe mechanics, I haven’t tried them at all (only a few settled tribe runs where I centralised) so maybe they’re powerful somehow? Has anyone tried them out yet? Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 10:59 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 10:57
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I am no expert in CK2 but as I understand starting as Pagan Tribe in CK2 means much bigger manpower pool, fewer problems with vassals and much easier expansion and development. However you're crippled with succession laws and your power cap is much lower than for civilized rulers. What I mean is it's viable alternative, you can create a huge tribal empire much faster than if you start as a Feudal ruler that is not Charlemagne. Tribes in CK2 aren't really meant to be a viable alternative for the entire game, they are designed to be really good in the early start dates but get worse as the game goes on, to incentivise you to reform. The good CB selection but bad succession law options mean tribes can expand quickly but are hard to keep unified compared to the reformed govt types. The holdings are cheap but you get way fewer upgrades than other govts so a few centuries into the game, your land is a lot less productive, you can field less units, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
Anyone tried (in a non-gamey fashion) overrunning the major Christian or Muslim states as a tribe, exploding once or more upon succession, and then converting to feudalism? Wondering how that would go. Generally for players being pagan isn't much of an issue but I always see the AI pagans struggle and it does get annoying playing world police and trying to protect every podunk pagan state that happens to pop up. Edit: forgot I was not in the CK2 thread. Sheep fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 12:42
|
|
|
haha gently caress, i just paid off some barbarians while at war so of course they immediately cross the border to enemy land i've occupied and start capping it off me and even besieging a fort i've occupied, and now i can't take it back or kill them because they're non-hostile 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 13:07
|
|
|
New DD out - looks like missions are coming to Imperator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:I hated being stuck with gavelkind in ck2 and personally never saw it as a viable long term option for my play style. You could imprison and execute your poo poo sons but that was gamey as hell and not infallible. Not saying they weren’t actually playable though, so that’s a fair point. imo the quintessential CK2 experience is starting as some duchy with gavelkind, painstakingly forming a kingdom, ramming primogeniture into law, and preparing a highly competent 16 year old heir with a good wife to inherit the new empire. Then the heir randomly dies from sickness or some such thing and your second son, literally retarded and possessing of multiple zero stats, gets everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:New DD out - looks like missions are coming to Imperator. Really not a fan of missions as currently extant in EU4, but hey, they’re putting a spin on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
They should make Rome about the story of your family in your chosen state. Maintaining your Gens estate and holdings while taking part in whatever gets you a bigger share of the pie. You could even keep playing if another state annexes you because they don't have to crucify you all. Anyway that's my thoughts. Looking forward to playing this again when it's finished
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
I really like the sound of the mission system in dev diary. I've really only played as Rome so far, but I like the events they get that drive the "story" forward. The ones to unify Italy, "Into Greece", the chain with the Carthaginians, and so on. Having more of those and giving you options or where you want to focus your efforts sounds good both mechanically and aestheticly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:They should make Rome about the story of your family in your chosen state. Maintaining your Gens estate and holdings while taking part in whatever gets you a bigger share of the pie. You could even keep playing if another state annexes you because they don't have to crucify you all. Anyway that's my thoughts. Looking forward to playing this again when it's finished Railed against this forever but I very much do not like playing as the state. But it seems that this is the bizarre hybrid system they want to work with. If they want to keep you as the state characters should be more of a hand off thing where you just react to Publius Dickius loving the state over instead of caring that he has a rivalry with the consul you are playing as at the moment. I don't know. It's a loving mess as is and they do not seem to be threading that needle any time soon. The system as is mostly works for monarchies and tribes but fails at republics when you would figure getting the republic experience right would be the first thing they did.  The mission tree system they are talking about sounds really nice. I like that it's about making choices in missions instead of just following a tree like in EU4, or the rng old EU4 was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
Is this game enjoyable enough as it is right now or it's another Paradox half baked potato which will need several paid DLCs? I love the era but what I've heard of the game at launch wasn't good at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Eimi posted:Railed against this forever but I very much do not like playing as the state. But it seems that this is the bizarre hybrid system they want to work with. If they want to keep you as the state characters should be more of a hand off thing where you just react to Publius Dickius loving the state over instead of caring that he has a rivalry with the consul you are playing as at the moment. I don't know. It's a loving mess as is and they do not seem to be threading that needle any time soon. The system as is mostly works for monarchies and tribes but fails at republics when you would figure getting the republic experience right would be the first thing they did. I think playing as the state is fine but I agree it's implemented very awkwardly. Not sure what the solution is, but if I indulge myself in armchair game design I think the they need to really flesh out the senate and the position of consul to make Rome feel good playing. imo the senate should be a lot more involved in your politics, but you should have more ways to affect them as well. Right now most of what the senate does is randomly decide to block your attempts at declaring war (at least it feels random to the user), which is very frustrating. And if they do, you have relatively little ability to do anything about it. If you aren't considering starting a new war, then you basically have no reason to give a poo poo what the senate thinks about anything. They're minimally involved, but when they are involved it feels bad and there is little recourse. To me, republics need something like a "senatorial support" rating basically done similarly to stability. Have it go up/down based on [things] with an option to boost it for [costs]. Basically, I think the senate should be involved in a lot more things, but that circumstances and your own actions should affect them more as well. Have senatorial support affect political power income, have it affect happiness, have it do things other than yes/no your actions seemingly at random. But at the same time, give the player more ability to curry senatorial favor, balanced versus other needs. At the same time I think the consul role needs to be more important. There is currently no reason to pay any heed to what party your consul belongs to, other than to keep in mind what bonus you have active. I think this should change, and the consul's party + party strength + senate influence should give moderate incentives/disincentives to different actions. This way you have to pay a little heed to acting like the current consul, instead of a mind-controlling brain parasite that moves from host to host every five years. Meme Poker Party fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Oct 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Missions in imperator looks great and I can't wait for 1.3 now. Can I say that I hate claims not being instant anymore? Unless you get them for free near start, it's just a timer to delay your first conquest by 2 years or so. It doesn't add anything to *my immersion* and just stops me from having fun right now. Yeah yeah so you must plan your expansion in advance yada yada, or just claim everything during truces. Again, no "strategy" involved, just slowing things down for the sake of it (eg. People crying over how it's not realistic) I would honestly like to see this mechanic get canned for EU5 too, it is just boring having to wait for claims. IMHO, it only makes sense in ck2 where you have other avenues of expansion and/or can just play the internal game and it's actually fun and good...
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Missions in imperator looks great and I can't wait for 1.3 now. Just organise a war council if you don't want to wait?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:Just organise a war council if you don't want to wait? Yeah if war councils didn't exist I would agree but it's a neat little setup they managed to cook up where if you want an immediate CB you can get one but if you want to be selective you need to wait. The missions look cool, it's nice to see that someone apparently recognises that the setup in EU4 at the moment is really bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
I usually go with the old first month no-cb open. You’ll take a stab hit and some AE but with no disloyal provinces or characters at the game start it doesn’t really matter at all unless maybe if you’re the Seleucids or someone with lots of off culture/religion pops at the start. The AI hasn’t usually signed any alliances during the grace period in my experience so you can ally some other guys and immediately gangbang a juicy target to kickstart your run. After that then yeah war council or plan ahead and fabricate in advance.
Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Oct 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
Angry Lobster posted:Is this game enjoyable enough as it is right now or it's another Paradox half baked potato which will need several paid DLCs? I love the era but what I've heard of the game at launch wasn't good at all. I got about six hours at launch and shelved it. After the latest patch I got about 35 more hours, finished a single game, and I'm putting it back on the shelf for a while. I'm not pissed I bought it or anything - ~$1/hr of entertainment isn't bad - but imho it needs quite a bit before it's really something I want to go back to. I also feel like they dropped the ball ending the game as early as they did. My game just felt like it was entering mid-game when I got the win screen. It felt WAY shorter than EU4 or CK2 and even shorter than HO4. I know some people ITT disagree with me on this one, but the fact that they say they're never extending the time frame out past where it is now (~60 BCE or so is when it ends) kind of leaves me with a sour taste. If you're way into Paradox poo poo I'd buy it. If you just want a Rome game I'd probably let it mature a bit and maybe wait for some good mods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
Couldn't they push the start date back if that's the direction they wanted to go?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
Angry Lobster posted:Is this game enjoyable enough as it is right now or it's another Paradox half baked potato which will need several paid DLCs? I love the era but what I've heard of the game at launch wasn't good at all. If you're a big fan of EUIV i'd say go for it. It's very much in that style but without the enormous amount of accumulated goodies from year of support. Imo it mostly makes up for that with the mechanics that are unique to it and the pop system. Ymmv
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:Just organise a war council if you don't want to wait? Well I completely missed that option. Was it ever explained somewhere that there's an "instant" claim option? I might have missed the dev diary when that was introduced or something  my fault for not hovering over and clicking every button in the UI, I guess?  also, if the solution could be "just no-cb because it doesn't matter" and that is valid for every game in 99% of possible starting situations, I find myself questioning the usefulness of the mechanic in the first place. It's not like it's hard to conquer huge amounts of land in this game, adding a time sink does not feel necessary at all (while I could see the "balance between getting more claims for single provinces to reduce AE/admin points spent after the war or going to war now while the enemy is weak / their allies are busy" function it has in EU4, in Imperator AE feels like an afterthought by comparison, especially because everybody nearby will hate you anyways past the first 20 years if you're expanding or a competing power, and enemy allies will basically always join any kind of defensive war) but hey I'm the crazy one who was perfectly ok with "monarch power" and instant actions, so don't mind me too much; the game is getting better with every patch anyway and I trust it'll keep improving 
TorakFade fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Oct 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 08:50
|
|
|
AE is the brake on your expansion, it definitely doesn't feel like an afterthought to me. High AE makes your off-culture pops super mad and generates unrest in their provinces, which in turn makes the provinces disloyal. Get too many disloyal provinces and you'll get a rebellion where all your disloyal provinces secede and declare war on you. Also restive pops are very difficult to assimilate, so you end up in a catch-22 where your pops are mad because they're not assimilated, and you can't assimilate them because they're mad. I have just found a button for assigning troops to provinces to reduce unrest which I missed earlier (like you my bad for not mousing over every single thing the tutorial doesn't explain (ie most things) or not reading dev diaries religiously) which I guess is supposed to be the counter to that so you can keep expanding - sink money into garrison troops to keep unrest down while you assimilate and continue to conquer, because even with appeasing stance on 24/7 it takes forever for AE to tick down. For the record I was fine with monarch points too. EU4 had them and everyone seemed okay with it, I have no idea why they were such a big deal here. Was it CK2 players mad that EU4 mechanics were being used in Imperator when they wanted it to be CK3? Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Oct 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:AE is the brake on your expansion, it definitely doesn't feel like an afterthought to me. High AE makes your off-culture pops super mad and generates unrest in their provinces, which in turn makes the provinces disloyal. Get too many disloyal provinces and you'll get a rebellion where all your disloyal provinces secede and declare war on you. Also restive pops are very difficult to assimilate, so you end up in a catch-22 where your pops are mad because they're not assimilated, and you can't assimilate them because they're mad. I have just found a button for assigning troops to provinces to reduce unrest which I missed earlier (like you my bad for not mousing over every single thing the tutorial doesn't explain (ie most things) or not reading dev diaries religiously) which I guess is supposed to be the counter to that so you can keep expanding - sink money into garrison troops to keep unrest down while you assimilate and continue to conquer, because even with appeasing stance on 24/7 it takes forever for AE to tick down. Hmmm you must be right, I just had a couple back-to-back games as Iceni->Pritania and as Rome, and I did not run into this problem simply because there's pretty much no off-culture pops for them for a long while unless you go out of your way, and when you get around to conquering off-culture stuff you're already pretty huge and stable. Also I tend to play slowly and let things tick down when they're high, wait for some pops to get assimilated before switching out the relevant province policy etc... I rarely go "let's conquer as fast as I can" for the sake of it. Wafflecopper posted:For the record I was fine with monarch points too. EU4 had them and everyone seemed okay with it, I have no idea why they were such a big deal here. Was it CK2 players mad that EU4 mechanics were being used in Imperator when they wanted it to be CK3? I believe so, yes
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 13:26
|
|
|
For the record, a lot of people didn't like EU4 monarch points and the game in general. "Mana points" was always a derogatory term implying that stuff happens by magic instead of "real" resources or waiting. No one had problems with the earlier envoy system (as a whole, people were mad about Magistrate limitations) which was more or less mana but less gradual: you earned 0.2 Missionary per month and once you've launched him that's it, he's gone. Now agents are limits on what you can do simultaniously and MP replace them but also expand into a lot of other areas. I suppose at the time devs decided that CK2 is their perfect simulation/roleplaying game so EU4 will be a less mechanically complex game where almost every resource is controlled directly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
Monarch points didn’t replace envoys. Diplomats and merchants and missionaries are still there. Monarch points replaced spending money for tech.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
The problem with monarch points in imperator is they just didn't work. Some were way more important than others and most of the time you were just waiting for enough oratory power to play the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:The problem with monarch points in imperator is they just didn't work. Some were way more important than others and most of the time you were just waiting for enough oratory power to play the game. Whereas now we're waiting for Political Influence to tick up AND then wait for the claim to finish being fabricated so we can play the game, and I'm still a bit confused on how is this better I'd have rebalanced the powers and found a use for the less-useful ones while toning down the too-useful ones, rather than going all "remove everything except a single currency, but add a lot of waiting around for things to tick up/down" but again, that's just me... ilitarist posted:For the record, a lot of people didn't like EU4 monarch points and the game in general. "Mana points" was always a derogatory term implying that stuff happens by magic instead of "real" resources or waiting. Really? As far as I can tell it's widely regarded as the best grand strategy game out now (and ever), and I think there's no denying that Paradox are the undisputed masters of the genre I might certainly be wrong here, I just wouldn't know how to "prove" this one way or the other
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
I like the change from four-color-mana to PP. However, I would like it a lot more if I didn't have to blow 25 points on every single province I ever capture, because the provincial capital is always in some completely nonsensical location. Like it seems practically 100% of the time the province capital will be some random settlement, never a city. Wtf is that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
Senior Dog posted:Monarch points didn’t replace envoys. Diplomats and merchants and missionaries are still there. Monarch Points do the same thing envoys did: limit what countries do no matter what size they are. Tech was scaled from the number of provinces previously but everything else depended on envoys or gold. Envoys allowed you to build new buildings in addition to gold (and at first MP were needed for buildings in EU4) and they were finite repleneshing resource like MP as opposed to current envoys who rather work like national/geographic focus as in they're immortal and always available, you just move them around. Now it depends on envoys to a much smaller degree and on gold to a much smaller degree and on MP. Gold scales with the size of your country while MP don't. Therefore MP replaced envoys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
I think a lot of the complains around the old MP were that they just come from your ruler's stats with no way to influence them in IR. In EU4 there are advisers and national focus to offset a bad ruler. In CK2 you could educate your child and try and direct how their stats turn out, but not IR. Political influence works a lot better just because it comes from something you can control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 19:01
|
|
|
no game is The Final Word on monarch points. they are good in eu4 - or at least less bad than eu3 which tied literally everything to gold - but were bad in imperator on launch how an abstract currency system is hooked into the rest of the simulation matters a lot more than what those points are called. everything is just points - gold is just points, prestige is just points, manpower is just points. their identity and value come from their role in the game. TorakFade posted:Whereas now we're waiting for Political Influence to tick up AND then wait for the claim to finish being fabricated so we can play the game, and I'm still a bit confused on how is this better timers are important for immersion. i know some folks treat paradox games as abstract board games but to me, pressing a button and getting instant results feels like playing as a god, not a government. governments make decisions and then wait to see what happens while those decisions are slowly implemented at the ground level. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Oct 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:I have just found a button for assigning troops to provinces to reduce unrest which I missed earlier (like you my bad for not mousing over every single thing the tutorial doesn't explain (ie most things) or not reading dev diaries religiously) which I guess is supposed to be the counter to that so you can keep expanding - sink money into garrison troops to keep unrest down while you assimilate and continue to conquer, because even with appeasing stance on 24/7 it takes forever for AE to tick down. For anyone else who overlooked this, I've been playing with it a bit now and it's really strong. Seems very important if you want to expand quickly enough for some of the achievements. If it was anyone but Paradox I'd be amazed it wasn't in the tutorial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:AE is the brake on your expansion, it definitely doesn't feel like an afterthought to me. High AE makes your off-culture pops super mad and generates unrest in their provinces, which in turn makes the provinces disloyal. Get too many disloyal provinces and you'll get a rebellion where all your disloyal provinces secede and declare war on you. Also restive pops are very difficult to assimilate, so you end up in a catch-22 where your pops are mad because they're not assimilated, and you can't assimilate them because they're mad. I have just found a button for assigning troops to provinces to reduce unrest which I missed earlier (like you my bad for not mousing over every single thing the tutorial doesn't explain (ie most things) or not reading dev diaries religiously) which I guess is supposed to be the counter to that so you can keep expanding - sink money into garrison troops to keep unrest down while you assimilate and continue to conquer, because even with appeasing stance on 24/7 it takes forever for AE to tick down. Aggressive Expansion is just a number. Ok for real, I've been trying hard to the the Nostre Mare achievement and what I learned from my multiple attempts is, sometimes when you conquer people, you gotta make them vassals or tributary in order to only eat 50% AE. Its the only way to keep on expanding
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:For anyone else who overlooked this, I've been playing with it a bit now and it's really strong. Seems very important if you want to expand quickly enough for some of the achievements. If it was anyone but Paradox I'd be amazed it wasn't in the tutorial. Where is this button?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Where is this button? When you have an army selected, dismiss the general. There are 6 buttons on the right side of the Army panel. One kinda looks like a little flag or something. Click on this and it will assisn that army to the region. The flag icon will change to a bird or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2019 16:21
|
|