|
Super hyped for this game. Loved EU4, which supplanted Morrowind as "GOTY all years". I also loved old mods for Rome: Total War like Europa Barbarorum and Rome Total Realism, but I always preferred the strategic level over the tactical level, and lamented the lack of depth and the schizoid AI that would continuously zerg rush you and never leave you at peace, even when beaten (something something TOTAL WAR). So, this seems like the game I've been waiting for for years... I've said for years, "don't pre-order games, you idiots, you're part of the problem" and I broke that by pre-ordering Battlefield 5... deluxe... which was Not Good. I've pre-ordered Imperator deluxe and I regret nothing (except BF5  ).
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
I'm gonna play as Rome straight out of the box. Game's gonna be good. It'll be better later, too!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
I'm surprised by the amount of hate this game is getting (not just here, elsewhere online as well). I've been playing it since release and I like it and I'm having fun. If anyone is still on the fence, if you like Paradox games and you like classical antiquity, you're gonna like this game. It has some bugs and issues (mostly problems with the UI, imo) but it's perfectly playable and enjoyable. I'm pretty confident after a few patches it's gonna be one of their best titles.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
There's a bug in the hotfix that makes certain island cities or others that aren't directly connected by a land bridge impossible to take during a peace treaty. Allegedly they're working on a hotfix for the hotfix I ran into it today while trying to replicate the Macedonian wars as Rome, turns out I might actually need three of them after all!
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Any way to get the 1.0.2 hotfix for the GOG version? I'm stuck on 1.0.1 with the peace treaty bug (sometimes workable around, sometimes not) and no opt-in beta available. Still enjoying the game, just wishing I'd gotten it on Steam.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Steam reviews are like aggressive expansion, just a number.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
That feel when you get a 257 slave revolt in Roma.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
 Finished my first game  Did the boring vanilla route and tried to role-play a realistic Republican Rome and stick to a roughly historical timeline of conquests (no Byzantion 14/53). Had to speed things up toward the end, owing to truce timers. Tried to keep my borders as clean and pretty as I could, within the region setup. I ended up with about 15 years left in which I just ran down the clock at speed 5 to burn off my AE and make everyone happy again. About all I was missing was Phrygia and Cappadocia, which I don't think were Republican provinces, instead some type of client state? I wasn't really playing optimally until the last hundred years about burning off AE and juggling warscore. Something that hosed me up a few times until I realized it at the end of the run was that if you have a CB on a guaranteed country and use that to draw in their guarantor to 100% the guarantor, they count as only having "show superiority" which inflates their province warscore costs 3x. Along those lines, I remember at some point seeing a "+33% not the war goal" modifier on province costs at some point but I don't remember the exact context. Something about CBs and alliance/guarantee chains. Maybe they were a cobelligerent and they were big enough for it to matter for the first time? Along that line, it seems inconsistent to me when declaring on country A, who is guaranteed or allied with country B, whom you have a truce with, will lead to a truce break stabhit. Half the times it does half the times it doesn't.Phrygia didn't explode in my game, had a sprawling empire through Asia Minor, the Levant, and even beat up Egypt and took the Nile Delta for a while. Phrygia and Egypt both took many wars. I took Iberia in successive waves over several centuries, a giant Gallaecia consolidated the northwest. Gaul remained fragmented all game, with about 30 years left on the clock, right on schedule for Caesar's wars, I lined up about two-thirds of a million legionaries in Transalpine Gaul and declared on about 15 countries spread over 5 wars, and about 5 years later I'd annexed 90% of it. Suebia colonized across the wasteland and blobbed into Belgica, and had to be pushed back to the Rhine.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
I still can't believe how much of a negative reaction there's been to this game. It's good but not perfect, my biggest criticisms would be some missing QoL features from prior games, and the interface and how information is shown, there's lots of things where relevant information is spread across multiple screens instead of one, and managing things takes too many clicks, badly needs a better pop management interface and a fully-fleshed macrobuilder. But I'm confident those things will be improved and built upon, and they're already working on some of it with the next 1.1 patch. Release 1.0 was relatively bug-free for me as well, in contrast to some of their older titles. The only really annoying one was the peace deal bug in 1.0.1, and I'm on GOG which never got the 1.0.2 beta hotfix so I was stuck with that for a week until the official 1.0.2 dropped yesterday. Here's all the possible explanations I can think of: A. People thought the game was going to be something it wasn't. I get this vibe from people who really liked CK2. I loved EU4 and could never get into CK2, so a 70/30 eu4/ck2 split is right up my alley, while I could see how someone who was expecting 30/70 eu4/ck2 would be disappointed. At the same time, though, compared to previous titles, they were super open about the game during its development, with the weekly diaries and all the pre-release streams and previews, so I'm not sure how anyone would've thought it'd be a radically different game than what we got. B. People mad at Paradox about unrelated issues, like their DLC business model. I sympathize with this, I too eventually got burnt out on EU4 and quit buying it (mostly because the game got so bloated with unrelated systems duct-taped on, they need to consolidate everything into EU5 and start fresh IMO) but it feels like people are venting their frustration on Imperator indirectly? D. People who forgot what EU4 and CK2 were like at release, and are comparing vanilla Imperator to those games after years and years of development and dozens of patches and expansions. E. People burnt out on Paradox games in general after thousands and thousands of hours. I've legit read this game called "arcadey" which I think speaks for itself. F. Nerds are whiny and entitled? Sometimes I read the Paradox forums and just go "Jesus Christ". Anyway, I can't think in recent memory of feeling this kind of disconnect between what I think of a game and what the general consensus online seems to be. Vocal minority maybe? Or maybe everyone really does hate it
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:Expecting that QoL features from both games, implemented in DLC or not, would be there on release is hardly some draconian gamer entitlement. Most people who point to EU4 and CK2, at least here, don't bemoan the lack of equivalent and equal amounts of content, but rather that the game lacks QoL and features that are present in EU4 and CK2. That what is there wasn't polished doesn't help. I do completely agree with this here, IMO it's the most valid criticism of the game. I still think it's fun and good (calling it "early access" is quite the stretch I think) but I think a lot of the things that were sorted out through EU4's development history should've been included at release. E.G. All belligerents have access to territory any of them have access to, so you can't hide in a third party's lands.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
How the hell do you pronounce Macedon, anyway? I've seen it Anglicized as "Makedon" before (Europa Barbarorum what up!) Hard K, there was no soft C right?
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:Pronounce how your heart tells you to "loving bastards guaranteeing everyone in Greece while I'm over here trying to Make Sparta Great Again"
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Rome gets events when they conquer Judea to simulate that resistance. You can either try to force them to convert which leads to more events (national unrest, dead pops, forced conversions, and allegedly rebellions if they aren't converted in time) and also have the option to "Oh, give them their kingdom..." and release them as a client state. E: Also, re: tribesman having a base of 100% happiness, they also get a happiness penalty from the civilization value, while citizens and freemen are made more happy as civilization goes up. So in the boonies they're easy to keep happy, but in civilized provinces they become increasingly unhappy. Azuren fucked around with this message at 16:45 on May 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
I do agree that large empires are generally too stable if you're diligent about culture converting, and you don't crazy overextend yourself from day one. Sticking to a historical timeline as Rome, I never got close to having any rebellions or civil wars at all, just mashing "culture convert" policy for a century until it's 100% and stacking garrisoned light inf until -5 unrest. By the time it was the second half of the game and I was blobbing at turbo speed and riding 80-100 AE, I already had 3/4ths of my provinces at any one time fully happy and converted.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:What're the penalties for going over 50 AE? Are they as bad as going over 100 OE in EU? Not as bad, but the big effects are that you get a penalty to primary culture happiness (not just wrong culture/wrong group happiness) as well as a blanket increase to all power costs. Both are scaled to how far over 50 you are. However, the higher your AE is, the less AE you gain and the faster your AE decays, so the "optimal" way to play if you're mega-blobbing is to crank it as high as you can go, ideally while not spending any power points, then alternating with periods of peace where you let it burn off back below 50, then spend all your stockpiled points now that you aren't eating the power cost penalty anymore, then go on another conquering spree.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
Finally have a good and really fun run with Sparta going, after a half-dozen or so restarts I finally got lucky with how the early game played out. Started out nibbling at all my neighbors in the Peloponnesian peninsula, got lucky and played it by ear according to the alliance chains and who was at war with whom. Eventually I've consolidated the whole peninsula except for Macedon's Corinth and whoever their feudatory is that they start the game with just south. I rebuild the legendary Spartan Navy, invade Crete, eat half of it, notice that Macedon is in a prolonged war with some Greek minors and their manpower is in the toilet so I declare on them to snipe Corinth and their other city, leaving either straits or Phrygia between us. They couldn't get access so the ticking war score was enough to peace out for those two cities, leaving a short truce. At this point, Macedon had blobbed into every other Greek polity. Phrygia had some real bad revolts and halfway imploded (first time I've seen Phrygia melt down in any of my games so far) but still have half their land and all their feudatories in Asia minor. I set out to conquer the rest of Crete, and then notice that Egypt has a total of zero ships, so I declare on them and snipe the Aegean islands from them. At this point Macedon just fabricated claims on me so I panicked and shipped my army back home. Macedon has about double my pops, double my income, double my cohorts, and ties me for manpower. They declare, the two routes into my land are either over a strait onto a hill fort, or through the Corinthian chokepoint leading to a mountain fort. They send an 18 stack across the strait and besiege my hill fort, I let them eat attrition until they're closed to sieging the fort down, so I counter attack with my whole army (16 heavy inf, 6 archers, no one in Greece knows how to raise horses so we ride archers around to flank) and beat them easily. They retreat across the strait, I send my fleet out from port to block them, causing them to stackwipe. Macedon doubles down and sends their entire army of 30 onto the fort. I again wait for the timer to run down then counter attack with my 22 cohorts. The battle lasts a long time and losses are significant, I lose about 6k in the battle but Macedon is defeated and flees, again blocking the strait and wiping them. Now, Macedon has zero cohorts, I rush north and start sieging their forts and capitals. They hire a mercenary doomstack. Sparta, however, has been religiously beating up the other nerds in Greece and taking their lunch money, and refusing to invest gold onto frivolities like "statues" or "temples" or "philosophers" or "literally anything that doesn't give us more manpower or better soldiers" and I have a hefty warchest and bribe their mercenaries, who promptly turn around and behind sieging Pella. At this point Phrygia just DOW'd me so I quickly peace out with Macedon for better terms than even I expected, a healthy amount of gold, all their provinces in Greece and Epirus, and Thessaly, giving me access to sweet, sweet horses for the first time and pushing my borders to within spitting distance of Pella. Phrygia is bigger and richer than me but my troops are better, our navies are matched, and they'll struggle to reach me. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
 "If."
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Building roads while playing tall owns. I have updated my GOG review from 4/5 helots to 5/5 helots accordingly. After spending a century consolidating the Aegean basin, the kings of Sparta discovered a newfound passion for infrastructure and spending the massive stockpile of military points, and spent several decades at peace, for possibly the first time.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
I think Imperator is fun and I like it and I think it's good, and I've been playing Paradox games since EU2 and HOI, with ~2300 hours in EU4 (first game of the year all years since Morrowind imo). I wouldn't say to anyone "you're wrong for not liking this thing and thinking it's not fun" (I'm pretty sure someone in this thread or the PDX general thread used the phrase "objectively fun", lol) but I do think the criticism and negativity it's received are greatly out of proportion for what it is: a decent game with some flaws and that is almost certainly going to become great with some patches and DLC. Most pressing issues IMO are the UI being a bit clunky and not showing all relevant information on certain screens, and moving pops being super tedious and clicky (they're working on addressing the former and almost certainly will address the latter). The power points are somewhat imbalanced in their usefulness as well, if you're blobbing oratory is your main constraint followed secondarily by civic, which is in short supply for nearly everyone, while military and religious tend to pile up.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
I think there's a lot of people who are interested in the game and are waiting for the first patch(es) and DLC before picking the game up and playing. The conventional wisdom for Paradox games is often "wait for 6 months and/or the first sale". I'd guess that most of the people who bought and played it on release date were generally hardcore Paradox fans who've played most of their other games too, often for hundreds or thousands of hours. Secondly, if you (and I'm using the general 'you' not directed at anyone in particular) think the game is irredeemable garbage and not worth playing... why keep hanging out in the thead for discussing it to badmouth it? I see that a lot online, here, Reddit, the Paradox forums. Last time I wrote off a game as a steaming pile of poo poo *cough*Battlefield 5*cough* I gave up on it and moved on.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Yep. I think peak eu4 was sometime around Art of War or maybe a couple expansions after that. It's just too full of poo poo by now. We need another condensing + new game cycle. Eu5 when? I'd say it peaked with Rights of Man and went downhill after that. Especially after Mandate of Heaven came out, any time I ever wanted to go back and play EU4 again I rolled back to 1.19. I'd be interested in seeing how the latest DLCs have sold for it, seems like a lot of folks got burnt out and quit buying it.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:To wrap this back around to Imperator I would like to see them follow the newer pattern of DLC from both HoI4 and Stellaris where its all in one dlc with no seperate content pack and I hope that when they add a legitimate QoL improvment to the game they don't put it behind a paywall. I think they got enough backlash to their DLC policy during the lifecycle of EU4 that this will definitely be the case, hopefully having learned their lesson. Frankly, it feels to me like a lot of that backlash is being redirected into the negative reaction Imperator has received, over and beyond what I think it deserves ("game is decent but needed a few more months in the oven, UI tweaking and QoL improvements from prior games, and more flavor events" is pretty reasonable, imo, 2/3rds of Steam reviews being "game is poo poo, gently caress Paradox" is not)
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Otoh that means you as the consumer are more enticed to buy DLC you'd otherwise not have any interest in. That was the problem, though. Rather than just flavor packs like "if you want to play region X, get this DLC, otherwise skip it. If you want to play religion Y, get this DLC, otherwise skip it." they became such a mish-mash of features that there ended up being a lengthy list of "required" DLCs just to play the game, especially when things like QoL features were locked behind a paywall, or for a while in the middle of EU4's lifespan there was a tendency to include the bad half of a mechanic in the free patch, while locking the good half behind the DLC. Eventually they lessened up on that (I believe things like development were eventually made part of a free patch, but I'd quit playing EU4 by then) but that's where a lot of the ill will regarding the DLC policy came from. The net result was that if you had been playing since release, it was no big deal to throw twenty bucks every six months or whatever to fund the continued evolution and development of the game, but it was effectively a daunting barrier to new players looking to get into the game, even with the periodic sales. And it contributed to the aforementioned feature bloat where there's a dozen bolted-on mechanics and numbers and buttons and the game badly needs to be consolidated into EU5 rather than continuing to add more. I never got into CK2 so only speaking of my experience with EU4 here. And I feel like Paradox learned from the backlash and eased up on the things people complained about, so I feel like Imperator's DLCs will be more along the lines of the good style rather than the bad.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I think it'd be better if they'd pretend you have envoys or agents or something, but of course it would still be strange to have hundreds of 1-use agents. This was how EU3 worked and it was loving terrible, and replacing them with monarch points was a tremendous and well-received improvement.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Anyone have an idea when 1.2 officially drops? I know sometime in September, just wondering if there's been any details. Itching to get back into this, I enjoyed it at launch and thought it was perfectly playable, but lost interest in continuing to play once they announced they were totally overhauling the mechanics (wanted to just wait for the new mechanics and get used to them then).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
There a good effortpost for what's changed between release and 1.2? Lots of stuff seems different now, boats, buildings, inventions, pop migration and assimilation, cities vs settlements, food and population cap, those would be the big ones I'm wondering about. Felt like I knew what to do with the release mechanics, now I'm kinda lost. What's optimal and efficient now?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:... not from a general. It sorta makes sense, they're being reassigned from the control of the general, to the province's governor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Playing as Rome, wrapping up the last war against Syracuse to unify Italy south of Cisalpine Gaul... Carthage actually declared the Punic Wars against me  Don't think I ever got DOW'd my whole first Rome playthrough when the game came out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Yesterday my fleet of 130 ships (mostly comprised of hexareme and Qua.. (poo poo i can't spell it out)) engaged the Carthaginian navy of 80 ships. Despite having more ships and higher moral, my entire fleet was wiped out. Everything was going well until at one point my number of ship was literally cut in half mid battle. I still have no idea wtf happened but I had 3 armies on that fleet and thagt literally lost me the game. Historically accurate I'd guess they either had a better leader, and/or used a tactic that beat your chosen tactic. Carthage also gets a boost to ship damage inflicted from their heritage, I believe.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Does AE scale with pops? Seems like it's a flat +1 per city taken (while warscore does scale with pops, I believe). If that's the case, seems it's a lot more efficient to go for densely-populated areas, over the same amount of pops spread out over low-density low-civ lands (for that and other reasons). I've been trying a Rome run with the goal of getting to the maximum borders of the Empire before the game ends (in vanilla I got to the Republican borders) and trying to conquer stuff in the historical order, first consolidated Italy, then beat up Carthage for Sicily + Sardinia, and then again for coastal Iberia, then Cisalpine Gaul, then I just won my first war against Macedon and am gonna consolidate Greece then Illyria. Conquering all that poo poo tribal land put my research efficiency in the dump (as low as 40-something percent). I've been trying to keep it high by spamming libraries and academies in the key cities, but it gets diluted bad... Never really noticed it until I was fighting Macedon while I had 4 mil tech and they had 6
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
I've been keeping cities to the historical ones that exist at game start (in the civilized lands) and razing the new ones that the AI builds in dumb spots (fortunately, if they build on a food tile, razing the city brings it back). In barbarian lands with zero starting cities, I build only one per province, in the best spot possible (farmland, coastal, next to a river, with a port, is ideal, depending on the province you might have to settle for plains with 'nearby river' pop capacity bonus) and make that the capital. It's ideal to only have one fat city per province, having more than a couple with decent population will run into food issues most likely, but in barbarian lands that's likely never gonna happen, so if i have to plop a city on a farmland producing grain, or a coastal port producing fish, I don't feel too bad about it. I likewise spec my cities for research. They suck for producing trade goods unless the population is insane (my cities have a 22% slave ratio and currently require 18 slaves per surplus, so they need a minimum population of 82 for a single extra trade good) I build a single theater, a single temple, then three libraries. You get rapid diminishing returns on multiple libraries, since all the buildings that adjust the desired fractions are really adjusting weights, with the final percentage being that pop type's percentage divided by the sum of all the different pops' desired weights. And for that reason, combining libraries, forums, and mills is counter-productive. Anyway, I did some rough napkin math in my Rome game, and three libraries was all that gave a marginal increase of greater than 2.5% more citizens, while each academy gives 2.5% increased research, so after three libraries I spam academies as allowed. Aqueducts I only build in cities with enough modifiers that give more than 10 pop capacity per aqueduct, which at the game start limits them to farmland cities only (might change late game with enough stacking bonuses). Settlements, I build farming settlements everywhere possible, then slave estates everywhere else. I used to build mines but razed them all and don't anymore, since unlike slave estates, they don't boost food output. Another tip about food: if you have a heavily populated capital and are importing a ton of grain (it's the most efficient since each additional good is a flat +5 food), don't forget to make sure that you also have at least one of fish, livestock, and vegetables, since the first one of each gives a +10% modifier, which can end up being more than +5 after you're stacking enough imported grain. Still trying to get a handle on the migration system. Seems like pops can really only move to either the capital, province capital, or ports (and it seems like slave distribution from conquests works the same way). So, if you have an inland city that's not the province capital, or a port, no one's gonna be able to move there. You can use aqueducts to encourage pop migration where desired, the open capacity they provide encourages pops to move there. Tribesmen are also super slow to migrate (like they might take a century or two to move one pop...) without the province legation building but gently caress building those. I keep demolishing the ones I conquer (along with tribal estates) just so I don't forget to destroy them later, but it's probably optimal to leave the legations there until all the tribesmen migrate to a city where they can be assimilated, converted, and promoted/demoted. I'm also finding that in newly-conquered lands with high unrest and unhappy pops, it's more effective to leave them on the "local autonomy" governor policy and let them slowly convert, where having the active culture/religion conversion policies would give an effective progress of 0% due to all the negative modifiers from unhappiness and unrest. I'm enjoying 1.2 a lot (though I also enjoyed 1.0 at release, and didn't think it was fundamentally broken like some people did). Biggest annoyances right now are the unending spam for trade requests for the food that's keeping your people from starving (an inefficient workaround is to trade away what you produce, and then import more from other provinces, which wastes trade routes but stops the spam) and that the 'nearby river' province modifier to pop capacity was seemingly automatedly and randomly applied, and it's being correctly redone by hand for 1.3. This thread has some interesting information about cities that got me thinking (it's some gamey min-maxing, but has some useful principles in it, though I don't follow all of them): https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-state.1278714/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
I'm trying to finish my Rome campaign in Cicero before updating... the struggle is real... Also, I just upgraded to a 1440p IPS monitor (LG 27GL850-B) and I am sitting here in awe of how drat good the map in this game looks. E: Said "gently caress it" and updated, RIP my dream of Augustan borders. E: Went back to Cicero. 1.3 looks neat, but it was killing me that they reduced the number of available mapmodes (I like that they're customizable, but not that I can't have all the ones I want) and broke edge scrolling (at least on dual monitors) Azuren fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
I would expect a hotfix soon, the saving bug is widely reported and Paradox said, "This is a known issue and something that should be part of the fix in the near future " on their forums. Suddenly I don't feel so bad about staying on 1.2 That said, Imperator patches do seem to be buggier than usual. I was in the seeming minority that enjoyed 1.0 at launch, and was annoyed by the 1.0.1 "can't take islands in peace deal" bug. For bonus points, I bought the game on GOG, and we never got the beta patches that Steam did, at least for that version.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
Gaj posted:Is there any guide or database about how sometimes when you build a city, the trade goods produced changes? It seems to mostly happen when you build a city on a food tile. You got it. If you build a city on a territory that produces food, it will change to one of several 'urban' trade goods. The tooltip before you build it will list the odds of what each one will be (25% chance of earthenware, etc). If you reduce a city back to a settlement, if it originally produced food, it will return to producing food.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:That’s pretty much just granaries iirc. I think you’d be better off just jamming them all full of academies though. Maybe some libraries too but I think we’d need a maths nerd to analyse it and tell us when libraries are better than academies I did some bar napkin math for 1.2 and found that, at least for Rome (being a republic adjusts the weights for each pop type in a city, not sure how monarchies differ in that regard), the first three libraries are better than academies (they provide a marginal increase of more than 2.5%, which is what one academy gives) but there's rapid diminishing returns past that, and so after three libraries I spam academies. You also definitely don't want any forums, or mills, in a city you're speccing for citizens, since they will dilute the effect and counter-act each other. And this is assuming you're sitting at 100% happiness (i.e. same culture pops, different culture/religion pops + any appreciable amount of AE will be at zero happiness and so provide nothing). Depending on what your modifiers are, if you're sitting at 80% or 85% happiness or something, you may want to have enough libraries to hit 100% happiness before investing in academies. E: I also always put at least one theater and temple in every city before investing in libraries, and then academies, both to convert pops (and any incoming migrants/slaves), as well as for the happiness boost to same culture/religion pops once converted. Azuren fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Dec 8, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
It's pretty good. I'm getting back into it after six months or so. For what it's worth, I thought it was perfectly playable and fun at launch too, but most of the changes have been positive and have fleshed out the game. The last patch focused on religion, and the upcoming one will focus on culture, two of the biggest complaints people have had about lacking "flavor". Also, it's gonna play closer to EU4 with a smattering of CK2-lite characters. I liked this because i loved EU4 and didn't really care for CK2, but I think a lot of the bad reaction at release was people either thinking it would be closer to CK2 and being disappointed, or people venting general frustration with Paradox on their DLC policies, etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Most of the bad reaction at release was because people didn't enjoy playing it. People have been frustrated with DLC policies for forever, nothing else got a reaction like Imperator did. I dunno, I thought the reception that Imperator got upon release was insanely disproportionate to the game's flaws. Sure, there were reasonable criticisms to make (I'm still annoyed that some of the interface hassles hasn't been improved, looking at you taking 500 clicks per slave per province to shuffle them around), but I can't think of another parallel case in recent memory (and I've seen nerds bitching on the internet about video games for a long time  ) of a pretty decent, playable game that was a good, if somewhat barebones foundation, from a company with a track record of developing and improving games for years that you'll play for a billion hours anyway, to just being completely savaged and review bombed into "mostly negative" on Steam and people blaming Johan personally for the game not being what they wanted. I remember being totally blown away last April when it came out for how much hate the game got, which was a lot more than "game's not quite what I wanted and I'm not having fun with it". That's just, like, my opinion though I bought it at release for full price and I was happy with it, if it's on sale for half off I think that's a crazy deal. If you like Paradox games and classical antiquity, and want a map-painting empire builder rather than a super deep character-driven RPG, you'll probably have fun.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
Sio posted:I know many people were rightfully critical of this game because it launched while repeating way too many of the mistakes that EU: Rome made. It was inexplicable that they chose to incorporate so much on the original design, as if it had somehow been a good game. Fair point. I was never able to get into EU:Rome, and I played the crap out of EU2/3/4 and thought "Wow, EU but Rome sounds really fun!". I think I picked it up on Steam, played it briefly, tried to get Wiz's mod (Reign of the Ancients?) to work, got some janky crashes or incompatibility, and gave up and refunded it (think it was the first game on Steam I ever refunded, actually)
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Beamed posted:You also had Johan openly telling people that if they didn't like Imperator on release, they probably wouldn't like Paradox games anymore either, and then doubling down on "our most polished and best release ever" when MP barely functioned This is giving me terrible Battlefield V flashbacks 
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2020 18:17
|
|