|
I've found assaulting forts to be more effective and less costly than in EU4 fwiw, though I still often forget about it
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Flavius Aetass posted:That's the only big Paradox title I haven't played. How did they work? It's been awhile since I last played but: It's just a progress bar that slowly fills once your army enters a province and stays there holding it. The progress bar slowly fills at a steady rate, which can be made faster based on army composition (I.e. artillery and size and, I think, general skill/traits). It can also be slowed down based on fortification level in that province. No rolls, no percentages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
So similar to CK2, which is also vastly superior to EU4's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Mercenaries should not be visible on the map, or at least in their current form. Both bit of an eyesore and not good for immersion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Forts take damage when they're conquered, and it takes a while for them to be fully resupplied. Which is why a fort that was taken recently, will fall almost immediately. Either the walls are too damaged, or there just isn't enough supply in the fort. Me failing 9 42% capture chances in a row and the AI succeeding on their first 7% has nothing to do with the state of the fort, it’s just bad luck on the rolls
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Eimi posted:So similar to CK2, which is also vastly superior to EU4's. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
EU4 combat and sieges are horrible and the worst part of playing EU4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
I don't mind the randomness of sieges? I mean, it's kinda historically accurate that you really can't predict how long a siege will last. Plenty of historical examples of sieges that lasted ages when they should have been short and the other way around based on pure luck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Eimi posted:EU4 combat and sieges are horrible and the worst part of playing EU4. Ck2's war systems still make EUIV look like... hell i dunno chess or go or something. Imperator is significantly better than both in that department
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Me failing 9 42% capture chances in a row and the AI succeeding on their first 7% has nothing to do with the state of the fort, it’s just bad luck on the rolls Not if you had recently captured the fort. If that fort was captured recently, then i garantee you its about fort condition and lack of supplies in the fort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Are you telling me that 42% doesn’t mean that I have a 42% chance capture it at the end of each siege tick and the AI’s 7% doesn’t mean they had a 7% chance?
Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Are you telling me that 42% doesn’t mean that I have a 42% chance capture it at the end of each siege tick and the AI’s 7% doesn’t mean they had a 7% chance? I've read over and over how siege actually works and I don't fully understand it so i can't really ttry to explain it, but here's a great post on the subject. I apologize for sending you to reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Imperator/comments/ba8rsr/siege_indicators_explained/
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 03:25
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Yes God drat it paradox. Thanks for the link
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Sorry for a wall of text but I need to talk about this game in a sad manner. I liked I:R on release. It had a clear vision of what it wants to be. A game where your empire is always defined by a large number of territories (or cities, or whatever) and each territory is defined in rather simple terms - trade good, civilization level, population. You can only build 4 buildings, or rather improve it in 4 directions - if anything, it reminds me most of Master of Orion 1 (not 2). You're supposed to concentrate on diplomacy, warfare (which is more complex than EU4 but still controllable unlike CK2), expanding in the right places to get the right trade goods. Expansion and internal politics create problems that you solve with 4 types of MP, and basically the game is about balancing those things and gambling on whether you'll be able to support your endeavors. My next ruler will be an idiot so right now I'd better not expand into lands where I might need a lot of religious power to convert people. I'm probably getting a civil war after I send this genius commander to beat everyone, but I think I could handle it. Things like that. You might think it's too simplistic, you might think that it's too similar to EU4 and thus this game should not have been made, you might just not like it but it was clear what the game was about. And now I'm deep into Rome campaign, the first serious one I've played since release month. And I don't see a strategy game, I see a mess of mechanics. Not like in, say, Victoria 2, which was developed with indirect control in mind and so you're supposed to have a very loose understanding of what happens with market and population. I:R right now plays like a couple of games stiched together. Devs saw that people unhappy and instead of making a game they thought would be good went to design the game that people ask for, and if you'd let forums design a paradox game you'd have Aurora or Dwarf Fortress but bigger. Now your midgame 200 territories empire is uncontrollable and you're supposed to manually support it. You don't promote/convert people directly, cause it's immersion-breaking, but our immersion is fine when no city in a game can build a market without a direct order from the ruler. Character system felt not deep enough, getting a few important events highlighting the most important characters wasn't enough, so now you get a stream of completely inconsequential events and special "event spam" folder in a corner of your screen. And for the characters to feel important we make you play whack-a-mole with shuffling them around with an interesting choice between scorned family (which means 1/4, 1/5, etc of characters hate you) and getting -5% cost to stability increase instead of -6%. Pops travel around and grow in different ways, I guess I can affect it by building a couple of libraries in some of my cities, which will change the desired ratio of citizens in a single city (of a couple of dozens) for 3% and will be ready in several months and a decade later I'll probably have 1 more citizen in that town of 30 pops in my empire of 1500 pops. I hope that's the action that this "bad research ratio" popup wants from me. Yes, in the base game you could solve all of those problems by throwing MP at it, but the point was that on a certain stage you have no MP to solve every problem and it all becomes interesting. I can clearly see this game going Stellaris way. Not improve the game but instead add stuff to it. It worked for CK2 which had clearly switched to being a roleplaying game (though it still has problems as it clears devs didn't anticipate RPG side to be so big and so UI and some basic stuff doesn't support that; I'm not yet convinced they're going to do it right even in CK3). A lot of people seem happy genociding religious ants as dictatorial cats. Maybe that's what I:R will eventually transform into, a game that you use to produce screenshots like "my Icenia chief is now Jewish Ptolemei" or something. But it's a rollercoaster producing fun stories, not a game where you solve interesting problems. It's not EU4 where I decide which resources to spend on my well-defined provinces, each one important. And it's not Victoria 2 where I apply some pressure in important places with focuses and laws on a state level. It's an uncontrollable mess where I spend minutes to find which of my hundreds of territories will benefit from me throwing money at it. Some of the new stuff I like, like changes to warfare. Managing army food and composition is interesting, even if Romans are railroaded into heavy infantry. My Bosporus game was more engaging cause I had access to cool horse archers while my Greek traditions favored a completely different approach. Dynamic missions are great. But again, they'd work better in a release version of a game. I get Roman Colonies in captured territories and those territories would become special if there weren't all those complexities for every territory. And it gets increasingly obvious to me that basic problems of the game that I could forgive were not addressed, it all went into feature creep and replacing mechanics with new mechanics. Apparently several months of intensive patching was not enough to tell AI that selecting national ideas and getting a bonus is one of the most important things it can do. I've discovered that demanding the release of new countries in a peace deal means those new countries having +50 opinion on you due to release and -100 cause you declared war on them - and I doubt it's a new bug instead of a persistent obvious issue making certain playstyles unviable. New features don't really work well too, basic missions promise me a reward of "5 times", and it's after a couple of patches on top of mission systems. And just now I've got one of my older families replaced with " " (empty space). So it looks to me like Stellaris all over again. At least it's not breaking state of the art PCs with turn processing, and there are things to do in the early game. I also understand that it's a game that a lot of people would like - just like CK2 and Stellaris, it's a game where you'll constantly get new features and new stuff to see. It's not a game where it will be interesting to see some Florryworry guy cleverly use systems to get a difficult achievement in record time. I've played Paradox games since EU2 and liked such an approach too - you play through history and see weird stuff happen. But with EU4 Paradox made me believe that such an approach can be combined with a game that is a great strategy game in addition to a march of history experience. And no amount of feature creep and questionable patch decisions changed that yet. Now I wonder whether it was an aberration and from now on they're going to make Dwarf Fortress/RimWorld/Stellaris style games where it's all about exploring systems, not mastering them. So now I'm pessimistic about seeing anything like EU4 ever again. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 09:52
|
|
|
Yeah but have you thought about how EU4 is also just systems layered upon systems layered upon systems, a good half of which can be generally ignored because they dont add enough to make them worth noticing for most players? I love EU4 but to claim that its anything but a system bloated mess (that happens to be more than the sum of its parts) is kinda absurd to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 12:25
|
|
|
I feel like many issues would be solved if governors could build stuff as well, rather than just deciding stance, if the AI can handle it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 12:40
|
|
|
sometimes I think it might just be that all paradox games are a little bit broken and nonsensical if you look too closely and that the way to enjoy them is to maintain a bit of distance and suspension of disbelief.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
Drone posted:Yeah but have you thought about how EU4 is also just systems layered upon systems layered upon systems, a good half of which can be generally ignored because they dont add enough to make them worth noticing for most players? Naturally, especially with expansions adding inconsequential forgettable modifiers activated by a button in a government screen or whenever. And of course, it's not like I'm talking about the objective metric of the elegance of game design. My point is that the meat of EU4 is a clear interaction of those systems. We might talk about how its systems are very wide and not deep, and how you can directly affect almost every value or at the very least the value that affects the value we need. But in the end, it turns out to be a series of interesting decisions. There might be too many decisions when I want a relaxing game, and so I might not, say, optimize my provinces by giving them out to estates, or split my merchant fleet to cover trade zones more effectively. Those are fiddly low-impact decisions and I feel fine when I'm not bothered with them. I know that I can really concentrate on everything that happens and squeeze more out of my empire with less effort that it takes to decide how to spend 100 gold in the current version of I:R. And it was similar in the release version of I:R. But fiddling with the economy and other aspects of the current version of I:R reminds me of Victoria 1 where you had to manually split pops to double their productivity. In EU4 I can imagine running an empire that is exactly what I decided it should be considering all limitations put on me. In I:R I can clearly see that I'm not supposed to have full control, but not because of limitations like in an indirect control game a la Victoria 2 or most city-builders, but just because I'd be bored to process all of that. In EU4 I know that rebellion is coming, I can spend precious resources directly to stop it or I can see list of provinces that are sad and see why are they sad on the same screen. I:R tells me about brewing rebellion and proposes to find the problematic province myself, see which territories contribute to falling loyalty, find those territories in a separate list, check their pops, scroll the list of pops and find the ones who are not happy and then I can probably do something about it. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:I feel like many issues would be solved if governors could build stuff as well, rather than just deciding stance, if the AI can handle it. I agree. It would also add to a decision for choosing a governor. You already have some of that with governor deciding on the policy and affecting province loyalty depending on their culture. It would be even more interesting decision if we'd assign military guy knowing he'll build fortresses and camps or populist guy knowing he'll appease angry people. This way you might really concentrate on your own central province getting to know it properly. But again, we can't foresee what chain reaction will this change start. I:R was released with the simplest province management in a Paradox game apart from HoI, and now it probably has the most complex one yet the scale is still somewhere around HoI4. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Dec 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
Adding tons of new buildings was definitely a bad move but for some reason the "my immersion" crowd are infinitely horny for that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Adding tons of new buildings was definitely a bad move but for some reason the "my immersion" crowd are infinitely horny for that sort of thing. Isnt the point of buildings that they let you steer the new pop system indirectly without the weird direct interaction of Imperator's initial release?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
I bought this game at release and liked it then; played through several campaigns and thought it's going to be great with a few more patches and maybe some DLC. So I read through the dev diaries and watched some random 'what's new' video and fired it back up for the first time since about a month after release. Holy poo poo I was flailing. I remember less than I thought and/or there's a lot more new stuff than I realized. Anyone have recommendations for decent I:R streamers? The few streamers I usually follow all seem to have dropped I:R. I need to ease myself back into this game instead of diving straight into the deep end. I'm trying to decide on where to play next. How tough a start is the Bosporan Kingdom?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:Isnt the point of buildings that they let you steer the new pop system indirectly without the weird direct interaction of Imperator's initial release? Yes but the current implementation is weird because so many of the buildings are effectively mutually exclusive unless you're intentionally playing badly
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Yes but the current implementation is weird because so many of the buildings are effectively mutually exclusive unless you're intentionally playing badly What do you mean? Not necessarily disagreeing, im just not up on the city meta or whatever. So far the only thing i've been making sure to cram everywhere are academies
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Libraries increase your proportion of citizens, forums increase your proportion of freemen, mills increase your proportion of slaves, but as the proportion is (weight) / (sum of all the weights), if you combine them they effectively cancel each other out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
A governor set to auto build to his theme would be preferred. I rarely build outside the missions or the capital province.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 06:10
|
|
|
Azuren posted:Libraries increase your proportion of citizens, forums increase your proportion of freemen, mills increase your proportion of slaves, but as the proportion is (weight) / (sum of all the weights), if you combine them they effectively cancel each other out. They also have a secondary effect of making a corresponding class more productive but yeah, there's little reason to not specialize city into a class-specific ghetto. AnEdgelord posted:Isnt the point of buildings that they let you steer the new pop system indirectly without the weird direct interaction of Imperator's initial release? Direct interaction is weird, but really it's less weird than ruler deciding on every functioning building in the empire only cause we're used to playing Age of Empires or such. And from the gameplay perspective, those direct interactions were about your ruler using a valuable resource to resolve an explosive situation in a not very effective way, in a bigger empire you had to rely on governor policies to do almost all promotions and conversions. If anything, now you're interacting with the system more directly cause buildings that do conversion or affect promotions are the ones you build the most, now most of what you do in the economy is throwing resources at pop mechanics. The difference is now those actions have some inertia. Which also means that you see that your actions lead to conversion 20 of your 1500 over the next 10 years and you'll never notice it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 09:25
|
|
|
Royals dropping big sums of cash on buildings around their domains is one of the major phenomena of this period (in the Hellenistic East) - not every single building was royally funded, but big works like Gymnasia, Temples, Stadia, Aqueducts? Huge amounts of royal, court and elite cash going into these.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Yeah wasn't the reason Roman cities had all this dope poo poo was that to run for office you basically have to build a stadium or a bath house.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Yeah wasn't the reason Roman cities had all this dope poo poo was that to run for office you basically have to build a stadium or a bath house. Not quite like that, that was the cursus honorum which was more a long series of posts that you had to hold to be eligible to go up to the next rank. You could think of those building projects as campaign advertisements though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Def voting for Marcus "extra sponges" Marcus the bathhouse builder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Def voting for Marcus "extra sponges" Marcus the bathhouse builder. His name is Marcus Marcus?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:His name is Marcus Marcus? His brother's Luigi Marcus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Astroclassicist posted:Royals dropping big sums of cash on buildings around their domains is one of the major phenomena of this period (in the Hellenistic East) - not every single building was royally funded, but big works like Gymnasia, Temples, Stadia, Aqueducts? Huge amounts of royal, court and elite cash going into these. Not royals but local governors. Most of famous examples like Agora or Roman projects come from city-states or capitals. You can imagine Pompei funding temple of Jupiter in some Eastern capital he conquers, but it's not like Republican Consuls had total control over the economy. This era is also known for decentralized states and a lot of private capital. Before Roman Imperial administration huge Roman Republic was governed by a very small bureaucratic apparatus and Eastern Kingdoms were divided into private domains.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2019 09:24
|
|
|
I'm totally new to this game coming from a lot of Stellaris and I'm seeing this as my new Rome:Total War but with less of the manual warring and more of the strategic map (hopefully that's not a terrible way of looking at it) and is there any reason NOT to play with Mixed Gender Rules outside of grognard ~my immersion~? To me it sounds like it gives me a bigger pool of people to choose from when I want a better chance to get bigger numbers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
This erases some of differences between cultures. Some of the tribes have more tolerant gender rules which give them an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Mixed gender rules makes it comically easy to always have good people in office/tech/I think leading armies(?) which really trivializes that part of the game. Having lovely advisors introduces lots of flavor events (and vice versa) and is one of the few places where the game can actually be a little challenging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Not royals but local governors. Most of famous examples like Agora or Roman projects come from city-states or capitals. You can imagine Pompei funding temple of Jupiter in some Eastern capital he conquers, but it's not like Republican Consuls had total control over the economy. This era is also known for decentralized states and a lot of private capital. Before Roman Imperial administration huge Roman Republic was governed by a very small bureaucratic apparatus and Eastern Kingdoms were divided into private domains. Oh locals definitely are playing a huge role in civic life and building (and less "governors", more the civic elites within the cities, at least in the Hellenistic era [which is after all the focus of the game]) But ignoring royal benefaction in this era would be insane - open any book about Civic/Royal Relations in the Hellenistic Era and trust me, you will find *a lot* about Royal Euergetistical building. The classic collections of evidence are Gauthier's Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs and Klaus Bringmann et Hans Von Steuben's Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechischen Städte und Heiligtümer - shorter articles include The King as Benefactor: Some Remarks on Ideal Kingship in the Age of Hellenism and Grain, Timber and Money. Hellenistic Kings, Finance, Buildings and Foundations in Greek Cities by Bringmann. To quote from the former article: quote:But the founding of new cities was by no means the only benefaction Greeks expected of a Hellenistic king. Whatever he did to support, to protect, and to improve the Greek commonwealth of self-governing cities was appreciated as benefaction (εὐεργεσία). This included, for example, the protection of Greeks from barbarian raids, the preservation or restoration of peace, freedom, and democracy (whatever might be meant by those terms), support in cash and kind, the building of temples, theaters, and gymnasia, the granting of land, and a wide range of privileges such as ἀτέλεια and ἀσυλία.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
I’ve had about 4 long games as different countries and during all of these Roman AI flopped, without any direct action on my part. Ruined any attempts for mid/late game challenge. Would be nice to have a function such as in HoI4 were you could dictate a counties strength levels and other scripted outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/imperator-dev-diary-1-13-2020-the-future.1307887/ New DD. Seems to me they're going to do smaller patches focusing on fixes and balance and polish for some time. In the following "season" they're focusing on culture and religion in two updates. I'm glad to see that cause I was quite disappointed that supposedly better version of I:R is full of bugs and some of the older obvious issues persist (like I don't know, AI not filling its ideas for centuries and thus missing huge obvious bonuses). I may not quite like the new direction but it's a good game and it needs some polish, not further mechanics replacement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 15:37
|
|