Imperator Rome: Rome wasn't patched in a day!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Imperator Rome: Rome wasn't patched in a day!

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

A note regarding multiplayer, the game will have segregated multiplayer across the different platforms, so a GoG user wouldn't be able to play with a Steam user. The currently planned MapGoon MP game will be using Steam.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2019 10:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 06:05

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

Chomp8645 posted:

What the hell. Why???

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/status-and-future-of-paradox-multiplayer.1168127/

They're exploring having a beta branch for cross platform multiplayer similar to Stellaris but it won't be available on release. No word on how long it'd take either.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2019 19:04

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

Taear posted:

I ordered off GMG ( and got the collectors for �32 which is pretty amazing I'd say), I also got two copies of Stellaris pre-ordered from there before it came out.
But I wish they'd give me my code already, it's just two hours left!

If it's any consolation there's no preload.

1.3GB download for standard edition, 2.1GB for deluxe.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2019 14:20

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

ilitarist posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uaRPRFx6_c

Another video review. Pretty harsh too, but more self-conscious. He doesn't like lack of personality like many others but argues about gameplay, not about fluff. He doesn't like MP too but is more eloquent when explaining why and comes to it from more of a psychological side. He doesn't say it's unrealistic or non-strategic or something. He cares about it feels like it's too much about waiting for enough resources to instantly do a thing as opposed to following the progress as it is with tech. It's also telling that he has his own impression of the importance of specific types of power: he says Oratory is the most important while many people cry about it being useless. Which to me tells that there are different playstyles that people naturally fall into.

This guy seems credible (even though he mentions that Greeks should have a Phalanx tactic or something... which they have). He says he played 300 hours and it was fun. So perhaps he's right and 300 hours later I'd say that I'm done with that game while I have much more in EU4 which I consider inferior as a game. It's still fine. Even 10 hour strategy game (like Into the Breach or something) is great and costs its money as long as it feels good.

Who thinks oratory is useless? It is objectively the most utilized resource in the game.

# ¿ May 2, 2019 13:21

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

I fall on the Mostly Negative side of things. To me, the game is a map painter with an extremely shallow helping of CK2/EU4/Stellaris systems, the only thing you have real agency with is building cohorts and conquering, the rest feels like meaningless busywork with no real impact on how your game goes.

- The characters are meaningless fluff and don't hold a candle to the CK2 character focus. While I understand it was probably not Johan's intention to have the game focused on characters, why even include them and make them a big focus of your game and pre-release marketing? Surely they understand why people like the character focus of CK2, so you're only setting yourself up to fail by just having nice portraits and cool trait icons.

You have no way of managing your character, no way of influencing education. The traits are meaningless and randomly assigned, the characters' relationships are non-existent or meaningless, the little interactions there are, are gated behind (ORATORY POWER), the UI for character interactions is infuriatingly opaque. Whether playing a republic or a monarchy, you can safely ignore this part of the game, except for bribing the occasional disloyal general. You have no way to see what the hell other characters are upto or knowing what is going on in your nation, let alone other nations.

- There is nothing to do in peace-time except go micro-heavy and do a bunch of busy work moving pops from city to city, and spending your occasional mana pool on converting pops culture. Nothing you do in the game feels like it matters. You get to stack some modifiers with generic omens, inventions, and ideas and wait for the next round of conquests.

Maybe I am jaded, but the game as is just bores me.

# ¿ May 7, 2019 01:07

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

ilitarist posted:

This argument I don't get at all and it makes me mad.

Again, it's about flavor, not strategy. I:R has much more interesting strategic decisions about characters. In CK2 all you care about is the single number for their council job and how much your vassals and spymaster like you. All of your army is commanded by a loathsome guy who hates you? No problem, you only want him to have a high sword stat. Character traits affect AI behavior and special events but you'll only see it in extreme cases when they're mad.

Choosing a governor in I:R (all of his stats have some effect on his effectiveness) or general (need someone good at war and someone I could control) is much more interesting than any character decision in CK2.

But, of course, you don't have events about horses and manure bombs, so there's no depth.

Not sure where you're getting strategy from that post, but if you mean making meaningful decisions, CK2 is much more than select best stat for council. Even if Imperator takes more of the governors stats into account when determining their effectiveness, the characters don't feel real or realized. Case in point, I hire the governer once and can then happily ignore him for the rest of the game till he dies and I have to replace him, because there is nothing else to do with him.

Even the startegic area is better done in CK2 1.0, where you can assign different jobs to each councilor depending on what you wanted, and how they were each free to plot behind your back. I can't tell you how many times a disloyal spymaster caused a rulers downfall, or the amount of gold that gets embezzled, or the fuckery that councillors do in regencies.

But feel free to carry on thinking this is just about poop jokes.

# ¿ May 7, 2019 10:41

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

ilitarist posted:

The narrative is exactly what I'm saying CK2 has. I:R doesn't have much of it. Instead it has meaningful choices about characters.

The narrative CK2 has is because of the meaningful choices the player and the characters make, and because of the interplay of their differing goals and abilities. But let's not derail this thread into further CK2 talk.

Chalks posted:

I still think the entire character thing could be dropped without much loss. Pretty much the only good thing it gives is the army commander loyalty discouraging large stacks, but this could be achieved in other ways.

There's so much stuff around the character system that's either pointless (marriage, children, imprisonment) or actively unfun (that bloody disloyal families screen) that dropping it and spending the development resources on other aspects would be a big improvement all round.

I agree, if this meant improved political and nation-building mechanics.

# ¿ May 7, 2019 16:00

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-new-currency-design.1181893/

Johan gave in:

- Monarch power is gone, to be replaced by 'political influence' a currency based on your cabinet and their loyalty.
- Converting and moving pops remains a one-time action since they can't re-balance it for the new system in time for 1.1
- Money, aggressive expansion, stability and legitimacy will play a much bigger role in government/character actions to account for the removal of monarch power.

Doesn't really cover what this means for character stats, especially ruler ones.

# ¿ May 26, 2019 19:45

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

Fellblade posted:

I would say that gave in is a really bad way to phrase it.

It takes a good character to admit you may have been wrong and move on to be positive and productive so good job Johan.

It was only in a literal sense, didn't mean it negatively. I appreciate the position he's in, and acting on this feedback when he's passionate about his own game and designs can't be easy.

# ¿ May 26, 2019 20:07

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

Annath posted:

I have hundreds of hours in Crusader Kings 2.

Is this game the successor to CK2 I've been waiting for? IE: is this a character/lineage focused game, or is it more like EU and Stellaris and focused exclusively on the Macro scale, nation-state stuff?

Because I really like the lower-level detailed gameplay and bizarre events that are possible when you're playing as one dude/dudette.

You can't die by summoning Cthulhu when you're playing as a Nation-State

No, this game will bore you out of your mind if you're looking for that CK2 drama. The character aspect is thin flavor at best.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2019 03:28

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

Sampatrick posted:

should i go republic or monarchy in my albion play through

Monarchies are more fun due to character/dynasty continuity, if nothing else.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2019 00:56

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

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

^^agreed that monarchies are more fun to play right now. The constantly changing leaders in republics are kind of a pain in the rear end. I think if their terms were longer, and could be extended via tyranny (which already might be in, it's been a minute), and the party effects were stronger or otherwise significant, that would help a bit.

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

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

appropriatemetaphor posted:

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.

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

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 06:05

Ham: Apr 30, 2009; You're BALD!

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

the original quote is

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.

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

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Imperator Rome: Rome wasn't patched in a day!