Remove ads

Imperator: Rome, a New Antiquity Grand Strategy Game from Paradox Interactive

Reader mode
So... I have been playing Imperator for some days now, and I got some things to say about it.

I am slightly disappointed, and I am not the only one. The main issue that has been discussed in the interwebs is basically presented in this video

In it, it describes how the concept of mana points takes away from the overall strategy that the game offers by basically allowing you to change your plans with zero consequence. How it makes it very easy to change strategy when faced with changing circumstances.

It is a valid point, and one that I believe is correct, but that isn't my only problem with the game.

My main problem with it is the lack of flavor.

When I play CK2, I would get events about the world that surrounds me. I would hear about the Fall of the Avars as they settled in Hungary, about the Italians replacing the Lombards, the forming of the HRE by Charlemange or Rome itself by the Byzantines, and that is without going on about the Crusades or the rise of the Shia! Heck we even hear about what the Western protectorate is doing.

My point is, when I play CK2, I have this sense of what is happening around in the larger world. I know the other factions are conspiring, waring, and prospering with each other. They have their own agenda, and the continuing of events I get is basically the rumour mill doing their work when it eventually reaches my capitol.

Currently in my imperator game, all the events I have received have been centered almost exclusively within my realm, and they are frequent enough and non-varied enough that I would get repeat of them in a single Monarch's life. They get old pretty fast. Heck I've invaded as Macedon, and I am facing a Rome that has conquered Italia and I still don't get a sense of the World like CK2 and other paradox games did.

Victoria 2 did it with the newspapers, HOI4 did it with Tension levels, EU4 I believe still has events, personal unions, and other avenues, Stellaris has loads of them with crises and anomalies.

Imperator... besides the Diadochi event at the start, I find it severely lacking in that department. I am hopeful that the free patch will solve some of those issues.
 
The other games are a better comparison than CKII there, considering a lot of what you listed in CKII is from near on a decade of developing the game and adding things in.
 
Skywalker_T-65 said:
The other games are a better comparison than CKII there, considering a lot of what you listed in CKII is from near on a decade of developing the game and adding things in.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I have been playing CK2 for years now. There are many things that kept me connected to the wider world from the very first release. The Crusades for one thing at the very least.

I compared it to CK2 because it is my favorite game of old time. And as the game was advertised as having the best things of EU4 CK2 and Victoria 2 in a single game, I thought it fair to compare it to them as they are now, as that was the claim that was made when the game was pitched to the fans. (According to second hand sources I've read)
 
Last edited:
I don't remember ever hearing that.

That aside, it would have been basically impossible to include absolutely everything from the old games into Imperator at launch. Unless they spent a hell of a lot longer on developing it, on top of what they already did. I've been playing Paradox games since EU3...this is always how they look like on launch. Stellaris didn't have near as much stuff, CKII was pretty barren, and EUIV used a metric ton of EUIII code (still does, really :V ).

Imperator is just continuing the trend. The basic things are all there, and they'll add more flavor as it goes.

Of course, one can complain about this, but it's probably better to have not expected something as fleshed out as the older games on launch.

EDIT: CKII, in specific, only let you play as Catholic Europeans at launch. Imperator already has more than CKII did.
 
Not even getting into all the things stuff like Way of Life and Conclave added.

Vanilla CK II is dryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
 
Skywalker_T-65 said:
I don't remember ever hearing that.

That aside, it would have been basically impossible to include absolutely everything from the old games into Imperator at launch. Unless they spent a hell of a lot longer on developing it, on top of what they already did. I've been playing Paradox games since EU3...this is always how they look like on launch. Stellaris didn't have near as much stuff, CKII was pretty barren, and EUIV used a metric ton of EUIII code (still does, really :V ).

Imperator is just continuing the trend. The basic things are all there, and they'll add more flavor as it goes.

Of course, one can complain about this, but it's probably better to have not expected something as fleshed out as the older games on launch.

EDIT: CKII, in specific, only let you play as Catholic Europeans at launch. Imperator already has more than CKII did.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
CK2 was also a huge improvement upon the original Crusader Kings. Crusader Kings 2 was pitched as an improvement on the original Crusader Kings. It achieved that purpose really well.

All I am saying is that I am slightly disappointed in it. I expected at least the same polish that Stellaris got, which in my opinion was a heck of a lot more than what we got with Imperator.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of good in this game, and I will continue to play it, but I can't help but feel that there should be more events added about the changing world.

The_Reptile_ said:
Not even getting into all the things stuff like Way of Life and Conclave added.

Vanilla CK II is dryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
CK2 is very different today than it was when it came out, but I would argue that the starting CK2 was a heck of a lot better than the original CK1, and offered a lot more in every aspect.
 
Last edited:
I'll add though that CK2 cheated by being able to use Sengoku as a prototype. Also, for some of the issues raised, I did poke the imperator embedded, but I have no idea what their priority on that kind of stuff is.
 
EliudFS1 said:
In it, it describes how the concept of mana points takes away from the overall strategy that the game offers by basically allowing you to change your plans with zero consequence. How it makes it very easy to change strategy when faced with changing circumstances.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Frankly, I strongly disagree with this and what is said in the video on the matter (more is said in the video than your post). There is strategy to the point system, but it is a different one. Maybe you don't like the strategy to the system, but that doesn't change the fact that it is there and you do have to take into account. The idea that there is zero consequence is false because you have only so many points and can only get some many at once so you have to carefully choose what you spend them on. The fact that the consequences are that you have committed points rather time doesn't mean that there are no consequences to the former because in both cases, you have committed a limited, but valuable resource and the opportunity costs of committing that resource down paths that have been rendered irrelevant/sub-optimal.

In the video, the guy is wrong when he gives his example for why there are no consequences in the point system. His example is how the claims system works by just having to save up orator points points to get a claim at once means there is no strategy because you can choose not to if the wars turns out to not be such a good idea when you got the claim. Okay, yes, you can not just spend the points and not get the claim, but by that point, you spend a good couple of years saving up those points. That fact that I have saved up those points for a war that is no longer doable means that I spent two years saving up points I could have spent on something else. I could have spend those points on assimilating pops so they are less unhappy and therefore more productive, not providing unrest and not making the province less loyal. I could have spent those points on getting more research points by promoting pops.

Yes, I don't have to commit points on a claim for a war which turns out to non-viable, but I am spending a couple years with lower research, lower income, lower manpower with more unhappiness and more unrest. I am not getting zero consequences from having to change my plans. I have ended up less productive nation than than I could have by saving up points for something which turned out to be undoable or not wise to do. I have definitely had consequences in that situation.

So the idea that you have zero consequences or less strategy from the point system is wrong. You have different strategy and different consequences, but that are still there. Maybe you don't like those different strategies and consequences, but they are still there and I find it annoying when people try to pretend that they aren't.
 
Oshha said:
Frankly, I strongly disagree with this and what is said in the video on the matter (more is said in the video than your post). There is strategy to the point system, but it is a different one. Maybe you don't like the strategy to the system, but that doesn't change the fact that it is there and you do have to take into account. The idea that there is zero consequence is false because you have only so many points and can only get some many at once so you have to carefully choose what you spend them on. The fact that the consequences are that you have committed points rather time doesn't mean that there are no consequences to the former because in both cases, you have committed a limited, but valuable resource and the opportunity costs of committing that resource down paths that have been rendered irrelevant/sub-optimal.

In the video, the guy is wrong when he gives his example for why there are no consequences in the point system. His example is how the claims system works by just having to save up orator points points to get a claim at once means there is no strategy because you can choose not to if the wars turns out to not be such a good idea when you got the claim. Okay, yes, you can not just spend the points and not get the claim, but by that point, you spend a good couple of years saving up those points. That fact that I have saved up those points for a war that is no longer doable means that I spent two years saving up points I could have spent on something else. I could have spend those points on assimilating pops so they are less unhappy and therefore more productive, not providing unrest and not making the province less loyal. I could have spent those points on getting more research points by promoting pops.

Yes, I don't have to commit points on a claim for a war which turns out to non-viable, but I am spending a couple years with lower research, lower income, lower manpower with more unhappiness and more unrest. I am not getting zero consequences from having to change my plans. I have ended up less productive nation than than I could have by saving up points for something which turned out to be undoable or not wise to do. I have definitely had consequences in that situation.

So the idea that you have zero consequences or less strategy from the point system is wrong. You have different strategy and different consequences, but that are still there. Maybe you don't like those different strategies and consequences, but they are still there and I find it annoying when people try to pretend that they aren't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's completely fair.

I think the crucible of the matter is that the points make all the problems you may have go away instantly. I am not denying that there is strategy in choosing when or how to spend the points, but that it gives too much freedom on the fact that all the way to use the points have immediate effects.

One thing that the video touches upon is that assuming you have shored up a couple thousand oratory and religious points. You could in theory, (and I have first hand experience in this) take over a province through war, and on the same day you signed the peace deal, go through all the pops in the province, and convert and assimilate all the population the cities in the province holds.

All in a single day.

There is strategy there, the guy in the video addresses it at one point. Just not a good one, or at least inferior to the ones found in Victoria II and other paradox titles. Look I like the game, and again, I am confident that these issues are being addressed, they have already announced the implementation of timers and some significant changes. (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...or-development-diary-29th-april-2019.1172430/) Among them are changes done to stability and religion, not making those changes instant, which is something that I really approve of.
 
EliudFS1 said:
That's completely fair.

I think the crucible of the matter is that the points make all the problems you may have go away instantly. I am not denying that there is strategy in choosing when or how to spend the points, but that it gives too much freedom on the fact that all the way to use the points have immediate effects.

One thing that the video touches upon is that assuming you have shored up a couple thousand oratory and religious points. You could in theory, (and I have first hand experience in this) take over a province through war, and on the same day you signed the peace deal, go through all the pops in the province, and convert and assimilate all the population the cities in the province holds.

All in a single day.

There is strategy there, the guy in the video addresses it at one point. Just not a good one, or at least inferior to the ones found in Victoria II and other paradox titles. Look I like the game, and again, I am confident that these issues are being addressed, they have already announced the implementation of timers and some significant changes. (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...or-development-diary-29th-april-2019.1172430/) Among them are changes done to stability and religion, not making those changes instant, which is something that I really approve of.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh yeah, I get that and I agree that it is annoying. I just got annoyed by the guy in the video claiming that there is no strategy to the point system since I just concluded a Massilia campaign which I had to carefully manage how I used my points just to survive (it ended when Rome went all Veni, Vidi, Vici on me).

But in general, I do agree with you. The point system is too instant and I think in some cases, there should be a time delay between clicking the button and the effects taking place so you have to wait a bit. I also agree that the world events need more flavour. The closest I got to that in both of my campaigns is when Rome spend a few decades without Rome in my Massilia campaign and I only noticed that because I was keeping an eye on Rome.
 
EliudFS1 said:
That's completely fair.

I think the crucible of the matter is that the points make all the problems you may have go away instantly. I am not denying that there is strategy in choosing when or how to spend the points, but that it gives too much freedom on the fact that all the way to use the points have immediate effects.

One thing that the video touches upon is that assuming you have shored up a couple thousand oratory and religious points. You could in theory, (and I have first hand experience in this) take over a province through war, and on the same day you signed the peace deal, go through all the pops in the province, and convert and assimilate all the population the cities in the province holds.

All in a single day.

...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly, at the point when you can do that a single province is kinda meaningless and I don't think such an action would have much impact on the game or your strategy.


Where I have to agree though is that the game really lacks flavour and differences between the various nations.
 
VolantRedX said:
Knowing Paradox each nation will get a bunch of new flavor text and unique features, sold back to us at 20 dollars a pop.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You know, if the DLC was offered at a subscription rate, at the amount I've paid for DLCs for their core games since they came out, I think Crusader Kings 2 has been running me about $1.50 or $1.75 a month. HOI4 I picked up their expansion pass, so that is running me really close to $1.00 a month, and effectively getting cheaper every day.

I've paid more for RPG magazines and gotten substantially fewer words per dollar.

I don't know about you, but with the amount of improvements and new things added, I'm perfectly happy to continue to pay that. Although I would be more interested in more of those expansion passes; being able to not worry about if the next update is DLC or free is nice. About the only game of their that I'm not happy with the update speed on is Victoria 2. (Stellaris needs Pops and real economy, btw.)
 
Last edited:
My 2 cents:
  1. There's no real flavor to the different nations. My current pet project is forming Brittania, as the Etruscans, after migrating the entire population to Ireland and Scotland by boat. The fact that it is not only doable, but honestly doesn't feel any different to if I had been playing as a Pict, concerns me. For that matter the religion/culture system in general is just lacking. The Bosporan Kingdom is one of my favorite places in the ancient world for the blend of Greek and Scythian culture, but in this you're basically required to just convert everyone to Greek, at which point.... why I am I playing them?
  2. The game feels choppy. It's not the graphics either, just sort of... stuttering? Slow to respond?
 
Got it today.

Nice map.

50% of the mana is utterly wasted because nothing I can do or care about doing requires it at rates that would see me running out of it. Diplo and Religion mana, basically worthless
Civic, or more precisely, Research mana is used almost as soon as it fills up again, unless I see a tech looming that I want even more.
Military is used for traditions ASAP, I've gone down one tree already....

Now, starting as Opane - basically the bit at the very eastern end of africa - might have been a mistake but I didn't want to be surrounded by AI, and missions, and complex character business all at once for my first game.
But it is incredibly boring down there.

I thought I could colonize my way to entertainment, but it took till ~530 to grow 10 pops co I could.
Of course, I fucked the option to militarily colonize, a option the traditons brought me, earlier by not realizing that the 1 point of attrition I suffer in my own capital - it being a desert - would rapidly bleed my manpower once built a few more units.
To militarily colonize you need 2000 Manpower, some mana and an army with at least 2 units not loyal to their general. You also can't disband loyal units so fixing that mess basically bottomed out my manpower pool to the point that I could just do the 10 pop way.
In Africa, the event that gives you three free infantry is basically a trap you should read as "Do you want to suffer more attrition than manpower growth while being unable to disband units without offending your general who just got three loyal units?"

Building options seem to be incredibly constricted and boring. I also though you'd one pop of a class to build the corresponding building but it seems not.

How do I colonize islands? There's a juicy gemstone island just off the shore I'd like to grab.

How good are elephants? I got myself some war elephants and I hope I can use them to ride to Cairo.
 
Last edited:
Obfuscated said:
Got it today.

Nice map.

50% of the mana is utterly wasted because nothing I can do or care about doing requires it at rates that would see me running out of it. Diplo and Religion mana, basically worthless
Civic, or more precisely, Research mana is used almost as soon as it fills up again, unless I see a tech looming that I want even more.
Military is used for traditions ASAP, I've gone down one tree already....

Now, starting as Opane - basically the bit at the very eastern end of africa - might have been a mistake but I didn't want to be surrounded by AI, and missions, and complex character business all at once for my first game.
But it is incredibly boring down there.

I thought I could colonize my way to entertainment, but it took till ~530 to grow 10 pops co I could.
Of course, I fucked the option to militarily colonize, a option the traditons brought me, earlier by not realizing that the 1 point of attrition I suffer in my own capital - it being a desert - would rapidly bleed my manpower once built a few more units.
To militarily colonize you need 2000 Manpower, some mana and an army with at least 2 units not loyal to their general. You also can't disband loyal units so fixing that mess basically bottomed out my manpower pool to the point that I could just do the 10 pop way.
In Africa, the event that gives you three free infantry is basically a trap you should read as "Do you want to suffer more attrition than manpower growth while being unable to disband units without offending your general who just got three loyal units?"

Building options seem to be incredibly constricted and boring. I also though you'd one pop of a class to build the corresponding building but it seems not.

How do I colonize islands? There's a juicy gemstone island just off the shore I'd like to grab.

How good are elephants? I got myself some war elephants and I hope I can use them to ride to Cairo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, starting so isolated was a mistake. There are no missions in the game (well rome gives you some nice cb to direct your expansion along hostoric lines) and those resources are somewhat more useful if you expand and want to convert pops to avoid civil/war rebellion or kickstart the newly conquered economy. And even more than ck2 or eu4 there really isn't tgat much today besides warfare/conquest (and good luck going up against egypt as a minor power...)
 
I'm kind of surprised that no one has posted it, but Johan has been writing a series of posts on Currency design in Imperator and the changes they're making.

Abstract Currencies, Agent-Mechanics, "Realistic" Currencies

This is the first post and covers the types of currencies and what they did right and wrong in Imperator.

The types listed are:
  • Abstract currency- Things like monarchy power in EU4 that don't directly represent anything and instead act as 'soft' abstractions.
  • Agent mechanics- The council in CK2, diplomats/colonists in EU4, currency in the form of specialized people.
  • Realistic currencies- Things like gold, stability, manpower that represent concrete concepts or resources.
Johan then goes on to analyze what currencies worked well with Imperator and what didn't.

For examples of currency that worked well, he listed the ability to promote, convert, or assimilate pops manually at a great cost. Or you could do it cheaper which took more time.

He then covered how the various currencies didn't work well, such as how most currency usages had an instantaneous effect which made the world feel less real and more like a board game, not enough major decisions on what to spend your currency (some had too much stockpiling and some were spent too often), and that he considered gold to power to be a stupid decision.

The second post covered what they intended to change in Imperator to make its currency system feel more strategic, A new currency design

Their plans are to remove the four types of political power from the game and replace their costs with other consequences and one new currency called Political Influence. Political influence is gained by the loyalty of the characters in your government, if none of your characters are loyal you get nothing and if your co-ruler is disloyal then you lose it. A reported consequence of this is that choosing who enters your government will no longer be an easy choice, you'll have to balance loyalty and ability.

Johan went on to state that only a few actions will require political influence the rest will be using tyranny, stability, aggressive expansion, gold, manpower or war-exhaustion.

He also provided a few examples of price changes:
  • Getting an Invention will cost 4 months of income.
  • Enacting a Law costs some political influence, but also reduces stability by 25.
  • Fabricating a Claim costs some upfront Aggressive Expansion
  • Endorsing a Party is merely a small hit on stability and tyranny.
Military traditions are unlocked every 20 years, previously they had discussed connecting it to tech but that would hurt nomad factions too much. The value may change.

So far I have to say I'm very impressed with the changes they're making, abstracted currency isn't the worst but it really seemed like one of Imperator's most glaring flaws was its overreliance on it. The changes seem much more grounded and logically consistent. I'm happy that Johan was willing to admit his mistakes and lay down the kind of significant improvement Imperator seems to dreadfully need. If I had the money this might be enough to convince me to buy it.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
I'm kind of surprised that no one has posted it, but Johan has been writing a series of posts on Currency design in Imperator and the changes they're making.

Abstract Currencies, Agent-Mechanics, "Realistic" Currencies

This is the first post and covers the types of currencies and what they did right and wrong in Imperator.

The types listed are:
  • Abstract currency- Things like monarchy power in EU4 that don't directly represent anything and instead act as 'soft' abstractions.
  • Agent mechanics- The council in CK2, diplomats/colonists in EU4, currency in the form of specialized people.
  • Realistic currencies- Things like gold, stability, manpower that represent concrete concepts or resources.
Johan then goes on to analyze what currencies worked well with Imperator and what didn't.

For examples of currency that worked well, he listed the ability to promote, convert, or assimilate pops manually at a great cost. Or you could do it cheaper which took more time.

He then covered how the various currencies didn't work well, such as how most currency usages had an instantaneous effect which made the world feel less real and more like a board game, not enough major decisions on what to spend your currency (some had too much stockpiling and some were spent too often), and that he considered gold to power to be a stupid decision.

The second post covered what they intended to change in Imperator to make its currency system feel more strategic, A new currency design

Their plans are to remove the four types of political power from the game and replace their costs with other consequences and one new currency called Political Influence. Political influence is gained by the loyalty of the characters in your government, if none of your characters are loyal you get nothing and if your co-ruler is disloyal then you lose it. A reported consequence of this is that choosing who enters your government will no longer be an easy choice, you'll have to balance loyalty and ability.

Johan went on to state that only a few actions will require political influence the rest will be using tyranny, stability, aggressive expansion, gold, manpower or war-exhaustion.

He also provided a few examples of price changes:
  • Getting an Invention will cost 4 months of income.
  • Enacting a Law costs some political influence, but also reduces stability by 25.
  • Fabricating a Claim costs some upfront Aggressive Expansion
  • Endorsing a Party is merely a small hit on stability and tyranny.
Military traditions are unlocked every 20 years, previously they had discussed connecting it to tech but that would hurt nomad factions too much. The value may change.

So far I have to say I'm very impressed with the changes they're making, abstracted currency isn't the worst but it really seemed like one of Imperator's most glaring flaws was its overreliance on it. The changes seem much more grounded and logically consistent. I'm happy that Johan was willing to admit his mistakes and lay down the kind of significant improvement Imperator seems to dreadfully need. If I had the money this might be enough to convince me to buy it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
quite an interesting addition to his discussion on their podcast.
 
It's looking real fucking sexy. I'm actually hyped for this - was pretty disappointed in what I saw of Vitruvius but this makes up for it - and I really do want to see their changes to warfare.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top