Grand Strategy Imperator: Rome - the new grand strategy from Paradox

[Mortmal]

Btw is this game so bad?

It is really boring and apparently broken. If you want a good time in the same period go and play imperium universalis mod for EU4,it is far superior than this game.

If you want a good time i'd say that even total war games feel deeper now.Get rome total war attila for a few euros, its discounted very often , its a lot more fun.

 

[Werdna's Revenge]

Typical Paradox, release something bare-bones and fill it out with DLC that should have been base features. Might be fine in a couple of years after the Punic Wars DLC, Gallic Wars DLC, and Triumvirate/Civil War DLC.

 

[Fishy]

Typical Paradox, release something bare-bones and fill it out with DLC that should have been base features. Might be fine in a couple of years after the Punic Wars DLC, Gallic Wars DLC, and Triumvirate/Civil War DLC.

Sad yet all too likely, when these should have at the very least been alternative starting dates/conditions, if not an actual year-by-year slider to select exactly in which conditions (belligerents, territories, alliances...) you want to start with. This is such a historically packed period with a *lot* of things that would have had long-lasting impacts on the world (Caesar going East as was the fashion rather than in Gaul? Pompey winning the civil war?). As is, I doubt the AI allows for anything remotely like the historical conditions around those times. I can appreciate that it's unlikely they'll whip up an AI that good (and that actually might end up super boring too), but a set of historically meaningful starting conditions?

 

[fantadomat]

Typical Paradox, release something bare-bones and fill it out with DLC that should have been base features. Might be fine in a couple of years after the Punic Wars DLC, Gallic Wars DLC, and Triumvirate/Civil War DLC.

Sad yet all too likely, when these should have at the very least been alternative starting dates/conditions, if not an actual year-by-year slider to select exactly in which conditions (belligerents, territories, alliances...) you want to start with. This is such a historically packed period with a *lot* of things that would have had long-lasting impacts on the world (Caesar going East as was the fashion rather than in Gaul? Pompey winning the civil war?). As is, I doubt the AI allows for anything remotely like the historical conditions around those times. I can appreciate that it's unlikely they'll whip up an AI that good (and that actually might end up super boring too), but a set of historically meaningful starting conditions?

They didn't because of how much work is needed for the tribes to more or less accurate. Pinning the big empires of the times is not a hard thing to do,but the small and irrelevant ones are hard to research. There will always be some authist that goes insane because one of the tribes in his home country is not what it was in reality. Tho the whole thing could be fixed if you have thread or a forum where people could post historical information and sources to help the "devs" researchers.

 

[Fishy]

Typical Paradox, release something bare-bones and fill it out with DLC that should have been base features. Might be fine in a couple of years after the Punic Wars DLC, Gallic Wars DLC, and Triumvirate/Civil War DLC.

Sad yet all too likely, when these should have at the very least been alternative starting dates/conditions, if not an actual year-by-year slider to select exactly in which conditions (belligerents, territories, alliances...) you want to start with. This is such a historically packed period with a *lot* of things that would have had long-lasting impacts on the world (Caesar going East as was the fashion rather than in Gaul? Pompey winning the civil war?). As is, I doubt the AI allows for anything remotely like the historical conditions around those times. I can appreciate that it's unlikely they'll whip up an AI that good (and that actually might end up super boring too), but a set of historically meaningful starting conditions?

They didn't because of how much work is needed for the tribes to more or less accurate. Pinning the big empires of the times is not a hard thing to do,but the small and irrelevant ones are hard to research. There will always be some authist that goes insane because one of the tribes in his home country is not what it was in reality. Tho the whole thing could be fixed if you have thread or a forum where people could post historical information and sources to help the "devs" researchers.

Oh for sure the outrage would be real, but the foundation would be there, the world would mostly look like what it likely was then, and you'd expect mods to simply pop up over time to address some of those issues (meaning Paradox wouldn't even have to actually bother fixing it). From my cosy chair I see it as low-effort big-payoff but then, it's not my job so I might massively underestimate the issues. The only thing I can think of is that any starting date from Marius onwards would make for a short game, but meh, if it makes for an interesting short game, it has to be a worthwhile alternative to a map painting slog.

 

[Space Satan]

To be expected

 

[ZeniBot]

To be expected

I improved it.

 

[JarlFrank]

Typical Paradox, release something bare-bones and fill it out with DLC that should have been base features. Might be fine in a couple of years after the Punic Wars DLC, Gallic Wars DLC, and Triumvirate/Civil War DLC.

Sad yet all too likely, when these should have at the very least been alternative starting dates/conditions, if not an actual year-by-year slider to select exactly in which conditions (belligerents, territories, alliances...) you want to start with. This is such a historically packed period with a *lot* of things that would have had long-lasting impacts on the world (Caesar going East as was the fashion rather than in Gaul? Pompey winning the civil war?). As is, I doubt the AI allows for anything remotely like the historical conditions around those times. I can appreciate that it's unlikely they'll whip up an AI that good (and that actually might end up super boring too), but a set of historically meaningful starting conditions?

They didn't because of how much work is needed for the tribes to more or less accurate. Pinning the big empires of the times is not a hard thing to do,but the small and irrelevant ones are hard to research. There will always be some authist that goes insane because one of the tribes in his home country is not what it was in reality. Tho the whole thing could be fixed if you have thread or a forum where people could post historical information and sources to help the "devs" researchers.

Oh for sure the outrage would be real, but the foundation would be there, the world would mostly look like what it likely was then, and you'd expect mods to simply pop up over time to address some of those issues (meaning Paradox wouldn't even have to actually bother fixing it). From my cosy chair I see it as low-effort big-payoff but then, it's not my job so I might massively underestimate the issues. The only thing I can think of is that any starting date from Marius onwards would make for a short game, but meh, if it makes for an interesting short game, it has to be a worthwhile alternative to a map painting slog.

A CK2 style game with a focus on character interactions, with Vicky 2 style pop management shoved in, would have been perfect for this game. But they only implemented the CK2 and Vicky2 style features in a very barebones way. Barely even matters.

Playing as a provincial governor in the late Roman Republic would have been cool. You have to answer to the Senate, put down rebellions of local pops, try to settle Roman soldier pops in some of your provinces to offset the high rebelliousness of the native pops, etc.
As a barbarian you could make an alliance with Rome and send your sons and daughters to get educated in Rome. You could play as a Seleucid ruler and choose to adopt Persian culture and gods rather than Hellenic, cool stuff like that.

But noooo, they had to turn it into another map painter rather than the cool "do dumb shit with your character" game that CK2 is. And this era would be PERFECT for doing dumb shit with your character. Manage a Roman senatorial family with a long tradition and increase your prestige. Play as a barbarian lord who Romanizes in order to gain a powerful ally and Roman military knowledge. Play as a Celtic raider and sack Rome, the mechanics could work like CK2's viking raids.

CK2 and Vicky2 are the best Paradox games because while they also have map painting, it's not the focus. The focus is on doing fun cool shit with characters and pops. Imperator Rome is just EU4 in ancient times - map painting with little else to do.

 

[Raghar]

why the fuck is the combat so bad???
if I have 19000 troops and 4600 die and the enemy has 11000 troops and 5900 die, how the fuck is that a defeat for me?? if you can't control combat encounters directly, they should at least make sense.

Morale?

oh, didn't think of that.
still makes no sense imho, yes my troops have lost more men, but there are also more left. and the ones that are left could be stronger and more efficient than the ones who've died. I would've preferred that morale was not included in such an abstract implementation of combat.
in Total War I can understand low morale and troops fleeing the battlefield, for example after their leader has died. but here it is just numbers and my numbers were bigger to begin with. so in the end it is just "bad luck".

That's actually quite historical.

In old China, one general moved 500 km in two weeks, then fought, and of course lost. Because his army was completely worn out from moving so fast so far without proper rest before fight. And proper rest would be at least 3 more days before fight.

On the other hand it's variation on EU IV combat, and EU IV combat was completely shitter.

 

[stunner345]

I have been slightlly hyped for this game in the last months, but I have played it for maybe ten hours and I think it is utterly boring at the moment.
There is no "ancient" flair to the game and I am feeling like I clicked through a few boring excel sheets. Even as a map painter, it isn't very good.
Every paradox title in the last years has it's issues, but with Imperator Rome I think the buggy release of Rome 2 was more interesting than this game.
The Ancient World is my favourite setting, but I think i will return to Crusader Kings 2.

 

[Werdna's Revenge]

A CK2 style game with a focus on character interactions, with Vicky 2 style pop management shoved in, would have been perfect for this game. But they only implemented the CK2 and Vicky2 style features in a very barebones way. Barely even matters.

Playing as a provincial governor in the late Roman Republic would have been cool. You have to answer to the Senate, put down rebellions of local pops, try to settle Roman soldier pops in some of your provinces to offset the high rebelliousness of the native pops, etc.
As a barbarian you could make an alliance with Rome and send your sons and daughters to get educated in Rome. You could play as a Seleucid ruler and choose to adopt Persian culture and gods rather than Hellenic, cool stuff like that.

But noooo, they had to turn it into another map painter rather than the cool "do dumb shit with your character" game that CK2 is. And this era would be PERFECT for doing dumb shit with your character. Manage a Roman senatorial family with a long tradition and increase your prestige. Play as a barbarian lord who Romanizes in order to gain a powerful ally and Roman military knowledge. Play as a Celtic raider and sack Rome, the mechanics could work like CK2's viking raids.

CK2 and Vicky2 are the best Paradox games because while they also have map painting, it's not the focus. The focus is on doing fun cool shit with characters and pops. Imperator Rome is just EU4 in ancient times - map painting with little else to do.

I wouldn't be surprised if this game gets somewhere near the mark with the CK2/Vicky stuff after a number of DLC. Everything I'm reading makes this sound like the last bunch of Paradox games where the initial release is barebones, but in all those cases the DLC flood fills stuff out.

 

[Preben]

A CK2 style game with a focus on character interactions, with Vicky 2 style pop management shoved in, would have been perfect for this game. But they only implemented the CK2 and Vicky2 style features in a very barebones way. Barely even matters.

Playing as a provincial governor in the late Roman Republic would have been cool. You have to answer to the Senate, put down rebellions of local pops, try to settle Roman soldier pops in some of your provinces to offset the high rebelliousness of the native pops, etc.
As a barbarian you could make an alliance with Rome and send your sons and daughters to get educated in Rome. You could play as a Seleucid ruler and choose to adopt Persian culture and gods rather than Hellenic, cool stuff like that.

But noooo, they had to turn it into another map painter rather than the cool "do dumb shit with your character" game that CK2 is. And this era would be PERFECT for doing dumb shit with your character. Manage a Roman senatorial family with a long tradition and increase your prestige. Play as a barbarian lord who Romanizes in order to gain a powerful ally and Roman military knowledge. Play as a Celtic raider and sack Rome, the mechanics could work like CK2's viking raids.

CK2 and Vicky2 are the best Paradox games because while they also have map painting, it's not the focus. The focus is on doing fun cool shit with characters and pops. Imperator Rome is just EU4 in ancient times - map painting with little else to do.

I wouldn't be surprised if this game gets somewhere near the mark with the CK2/Vicky stuff after a number of DLC. Everything I'm reading makes this sound like the last bunch of Paradox games where the initial release is barebones, but in all those cases the DLC flood fills stuff out.

CK2 was surprisingly good at release.

 

[lophiaspis]

CK2 was surprisingly good at release.

Which increasingly looks like a fluke. You'd think they would hand over senior design duties to whoever managed to make something that competent overall. But no, the bad old paradox is back with a vengeance.

I'm just about ready to write off this company. Just look at everything that's stacked against them releasing anything good ever again:

-Sidelining their best devs
-Chinese owners
-Casino lady in charge
-Consolization focus (one reason Stellaris UI is so shit!)

Oh well, CK2 is still one of the top 5 in both strategy games and RPG. In terms of C&C it's arguably the best RPG ever. Any company should be happy to release 1 game that good in its lifetime.

 

[HeroMarine]

I'm just about ready to write off this company. Just look at everything that's stacked against them releasing anything good ever again:

-Sidelining their best devs
-Chinese owners
-Casino lady in charge
-Consolization focus (one reason Stellaris UI is so shit!)

Oh dear, this changes my perspective about the future of the company. I knew things were rough, management-wise, but not so abominable. Reminds me of Obsidian, InXile and other lesser cRPG companies.

I was not informed about these clear death knells when I made predictions that this game - Imperator - could be good with 3-4 DLCs, as I never even played it, and was not following all those company backgrounds news (sidelining best devs? what's that about?

Requiescet in pisces, paradox.

 

[lophiaspis]

(sidelining best devs? what's that about?)

From looking into it more, perhaps that should read "failure to utilize their best devs properly", since Henrik Fåhraeus, Project Lead on CK2, has been "Game Director" for a while (including on Stellaris) so it's not like he's been put out to pasture.

I honestly don't know why they haven't been able to follow up the quality of CK2. There must be some kind of internal inefficiency that we are not privy to. Maybe Doomdark himself was just really good at refining a ready made model in CK but out of his depth when making something new in Stellaris? But then why is every other aspect of Stellaris so bad and not just the gameplay?

It's a big mystery honestly.

 

[Deflowerer]

Ubik put an ancient Portuguese curse on Paradox.

 

[Maggot]

A CK2 style game with a focus on character interactions, with Vicky 2 style pop management shoved in, would have been perfect for this game. But they only implemented the CK2 and Vicky2 style features in a very barebones way. Barely even matters.

Playing as a provincial governor in the late Roman Republic would have been cool. You have to answer to the Senate, put down rebellions of local pops, try to settle Roman soldier pops in some of your provinces to offset the high rebelliousness of the native pops, etc.
As a barbarian you could make an alliance with Rome and send your sons and daughters to get educated in Rome. You could play as a Seleucid ruler and choose to adopt Persian culture and gods rather than Hellenic, cool stuff like that.

But noooo, they had to turn it into another map painter rather than the cool "do dumb shit with your character" game that CK2 is. And this era would be PERFECT for doing dumb shit with your character. Manage a Roman senatorial family with a long tradition and increase your prestige. Play as a barbarian lord who Romanizes in order to gain a powerful ally and Roman military knowledge. Play as a Celtic raider and sack Rome, the mechanics could work like CK2's viking raids.

CK2 and Vicky2 are the best Paradox games because while they also have map painting, it's not the focus. The focus is on doing fun cool shit with characters and pops. Imperator Rome is just EU4 in ancient times - map painting with little else to do.

I wouldn't be surprised if this game gets somewhere near the mark with the CK2/Vicky stuff after a number of DLC. Everything I'm reading makes this sound like the last bunch of Paradox games where the initial release is barebones, but in all those cases the DLC flood fills stuff out.

CK2 was surprisingly good at release.

Even on launch CK2 had a bunch of gated content hinting at DLC like anything arab/muslim and they still sold everything piecemeal.

 

[JarlFrank]

Even on launch CK2 had a bunch of gated content hinting at DLC like anything arab/muslim and they still sold everything piecemeal.

Well, they just followed the tradition of the first CK which only allowed Christians as playable characters. It's called Crusader Kings, after all, not Jihad Kings or Pagan Kings. And Muslims and Pagans got enough unique mechanics in the end to make the DLC worthwhile, especially compared to what the EU IV DLCs do.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

To be fair, Paradox knows the fertile ground they're plowing for DLCs. A Triumvirate or Roman civil war addon would be cool. Thing is, you can get those from AGEOD's Alea Acta Est games, and for cheaper. And unlike the Paradox versions, they're complete.

 

[razvedchiki]

......and much much better than the paradox "adstraction is thy name" "strategy" "games".

 

[Edija]

I pirate Paradox shit out of principle, no one should support their DLC policies. CA is a close second when it comes to that (although I'm a sucker for TWWH and I bought most of it). I'm really on the fence when it comes to the new Age of Wonders which I kinda want to buy, but I'll pirate it too if they go for a gorillion DLCs.

 

[KazikluBey]

Ubik put an ancient Portuguese curse on Paradox.

Actually, what happened with him? He was put in a mental institution by his relatives, got out, and sued; it became a pretty big story in Portugal as I recall, but I don't think I heard what happened after.

 

[Fedora Master]

Haha, imagine someone going for one of the hardest achievements in a game they don't even like all that much.
Imagine having to click hundreds of times to build boats and move slaves to get this shit.
I mean lol what kind of faggot would even do that haha

 

[Preben]

Achievements are a fucking cancer, poor substitute of the game's actual playability.

 

[LESS T_T]

Release retrospective podcast by Paradox VPs and Director Johan Andersson.



I did not listen to this myself, but I guess that like/dislike ratio and comments are telling?