Hi, my name is Lucas and I’m a game designer. I'd like to offer my perspective on the 1 Consul issue.

So the justification for just 1 Consul every 5 years is "to make it more into a fun engaging game, where you care about your characters".

I think that's a totally valid concern.

Let’s say Paradox is right. Maybe they tried 2 consuls, but the game wasn’t fun. Maybe there were too many characters, maybe you didn’t feel attached to them. That's a problem and it needs a solution.

Maybe having 2 consuls simply doesn’t work with the current game mechanics. Then, the problem is either:

• The 2 consuls, or;

• The current game mechanics.

Paradox blamed the 2 consuls. They couldn't or didn't want to change the mechanics.

Their solution was to change History and break immersion. It might seem like a tiny detail to some, but much of the depth of the Roman Republic is lost. The complex political systems that Rome created to avoid sole rule are ignored in Imperator, and we miss out on all those intricacies.

They kept the fun, but was it worth it?

What if there was a way to keep both the fun and historical realism?

There is!

Change the mechanics, not History.

If the mechanics aren’t supporting the workings of the Roman Republic, then there’s something wrong with the mechanics.

There are no rules in game design that say that "2 characters that rule for 1 year = less fun". I bet it was indeed the case for Imperator, but it didn't have to be.

Instead of changing History, they should’ve changed the mechanics. Instead of shoehorning History into the game, the mechanics should've been made to allow for the depth of History in the first place. They had 10 years between EU:Rome and Imperator to figure out a way not to make the same mistake.

Imperator might be a fun game, but what is being sacrificed in the name of fun? Will it be worth it?

I don't think this sacrifice is necessary for a game set in Rome. If they are unwilling to change the mechanics of Imperator, or have time constraints, then sure, it's the right decision. It really is! It's too late for Imperator now. But the game will hurt. Players will miss out on what could have been.

You might say: it's easy to complain. Why don't you try doing it?

I am. I'm making a game called Historia Realis: Roma, which has everything people are seeing that Imperator is missing: a focus on characters, historical intrigue and deep politics. And, of course, 2 consuls.

If you're like me and you want to feel immersed in Rome, not annoyed by inaccuracies, join us at r/historiarealis! I'm doing my best to listen to the community, so let me know if you have any suggestions.

Thanks!

Edit: I have since apologized for the self-promotion here. Sorry!

As the title says, I am hearing alot on both steam and reddit that imperator rome is "not fun", "unplayable", etc.

Am I the only one that liked the game and still likes it?

Sure it has its flaws, but most of the big ones have been patched everything that the community wanted the are adding in patch 1.1

however I can agree on one thing it is quite expensive but for me it was worth it.

and one more thing keep in mind that a job like game designer and all jobs in the game industry is very difficult, so if you only complain about games try to make a better one and see for yourself. ;)

/ OpFern

This game is so shit I beat 10,000 men and then 5 seconds later another 6 thousand all in small army’s /tp straight into my fucking country before I can even do a single siege they ignore my castles, not to mention I have 14 times the troops I can’t keep up it’s so shit

Edit: I’m fighting a tiny welsh tribe if they can hire more mercs than they have people living in there shitty little wet country the game may have a issue

Edit 2: i returned after a mental health break and 2 years after winning the war my childless 23 year old ruler died of aids sparking a 3 way civil war and destroying my empire, wales remains sovereign, my pc is in the pool

I haven’t been impressed with any of the dev diaries, but after reading the currant outcry against the new POP system and the general abstraction of Paradox games, I wanted to remind everybody to speak with their wallets. Don’t buy games that are basically mana management sims. Paradox is making their games simpler and simpler to attract more players, show them that by doing so they will drive away their existing player base.

They are a company that is beholden to their share holders, but if the bottom line collapses because none of the core fan war goes out to buy Imperator, they will get the message.

Edit: I think people are misinterpreting what I meant. If you want to buy the game, good for you. I’m just pointing out that whining about stuff in forums is not going to change anything nearly as much as withholding your dollars.

After getting burned on Hoi4 by buying at release and Stellaris, I'm not going to be getting this game for at least 2 years post-launch. That will give them time to fix some of the bugs and get a sense of how the game really works. I'm also concerned that they dumped the last Rome game before it was finished so want to see if this one gets the same treatment.

After 2 years, I can pick up the game and the 3-4 DLCs PDX would have pushed out by then for 80% off.

https://www.youtube.com/@KingAlton9403

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, give this guy a chance if your looking to watch some Imperator content, he blends roleplay with mechanics and does a fantastic job of showcasing this game to its fullest potential, I really really like this guy and think a lot of you would appreciate his content too.

We need our own Laith or One Proud Bavarian and this guy could use the love.

I hope conquering and building an empire in Imperator is more akin to EU 3 than EU 4 because every mechanic in EU4 blocks you from actualy conquering others, while in EU3 you can conquer as much as you want but then there is reprecursion in form of infamy and others gang on you if you are too careless.

Edit: This is a PERSONAL RANT

Final Edit: Guys,. I wasn't trying to dictate what can/should be posted in this sub. I'm sorry some of you feel that way! Some agree, some disagree. So.. let's all agree to disagree ? Let's just support Paradox and Imperator

I am all for having discussions about the game itself, and it's mechanics, but my God... Some of you are complaining too much! The game isn't coming out until 2019! I repeat: 2019! Now, just like all of you I share a love for Paradox games and (armchair) History. Just like all of you, I'm incredibly hyped for the game and want to see it succeed, but some of you are projecting your own ideas of "how it should be". Others, understandably, want to know how certain Wars/Campaigns will work in the game but I fear some of you are hoping for a game that isn't there, leaving to disappointment/frustration. Like some of you have said, this isn't Vicky 2 nor CK2. In fact, it's most likely EU:Rome 2. I understand that you want Vicky 2 pops, but I don't understand how so many people make posts every day complaining about how this mechanic works, or doesn't work. The Beta hasn't even come out, let's wait and see how it plays! Some of you are asking about absolute minor details in the game and, coupled with all the negative posts, just makes browsing this subreddit not worth it other than to read the Dev Diaries.

I seriously think that the focus of the game should be on the Roman noble families more than anything else. Everything else should be secondary in my opinion. The scheming and competition and politics of Rome's ancient (and upstart) noble families is perfect for a game that is similar to CK2.

Everything we think about Rome originates from these conflicting families. The many Titles and Offices and hierarchies of the Roman State should be in the game like the Cursus Honorum for example.

It would be a total failure to ignore this central aspect of ancient Rome in favor of some EU4 style proto-modern nation state gameplay. I imagine a game similar to CK2, but with conflicting families in place of individuals. But Rome was more of a Nation State than medieval Kingdoms so I think Imperator should be some kind of blend of EU4 and CK2 gameplay.

Just my opinion.

Sort of like After the End for CK2, I think it would be so cool to have a North/Central America map mod for this game. You could even go crazy with alligator cavalry or something, and it the Caribbean or the Great Lakes could be the new "Mare Nostrum".

Just an idea while I daydream about this game. What do you all think?

I'm not even talking about the combat but the diplomacy,buildings,character interactions and the characters themselves etc.

I have seen a lot of post defending the exclusion of China saying "Imperator is a game centered around Rome and Mediterranean world, thus China shouldn't be included." That's a fair argument, *if India is not included in the game.* In no way is India a Mediterranean nation the had direct contact with Rome.

However, people would defend the inclusion of India by saying India

1. had a lot of contact with the Hellenic world,

2. had trade with Rome,

3. was regarded as the edge of the known world to the Romans.

The first two arguments are true, but can also be applied to China.

The timeline of the game is to 303 BC to around 1AD, War of the Heavenly Horses happened in 104–101 BC fought between Han China and Greco-Bactria is well within the time frame of the game.

The Silk Road connecting China and Rome was also within the timeframe established around 114BC.

The third argument, that India is the edge of known world for the Romans so that Romans didn't know China before 1AD is blatantly false: here is a Roman world map and Seres is China. This map is made around 40AD but the idea of China already existed in 1 century BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serica

/img/91gqf51ggop21.jpg

I am not saying China has to be added, you can say you just want India more in this period. Personal preference doesn't need to be reasonable. I just hate people using ignorant arguments like Romans interacted with India but not with China bla bla. Facts have to be told. You can downvote me all you like, I know sometime fact triggers.

We have 14 dev diaries, which is either around 25%-50% of the total amount of diaries based on Stellaris or HOI4 respectively.

The question is in the title.

I know that there will be more dev diaries, but there is plenty of stuff we already know about Imperator.

I'm asking this, because currently Rome 2 has a seemingly deeper political system, an economic system that has like 6 times as many buildings with way more nuance to them, has like 5 different campaigns with different factions, hands down better combat because of the real time battles, and the game has been fixed and polished since release with some damn good mods accompanying it.

I already suspect I’ll be downvoted like crazy but I think critical voices are necessary all the same. I know the sub is extremely defensive of Imperator but I still want to express this as a Paradox fan of many years.

The most successful Paradox games all have two big things in common:

1. They start off in a time period where multiple states of similar power are on the cusp of greatness or must pursue greatness while competing with each other.

2. The games have an extremely open-ended starting setup such that every game turns out quite differently and has its own little narrative that builds itself in the player’s head.

I think Imperator fails to capture either of these aspects. First of all, we have a political setup that very clearly shows us 6 or 7 viable nations with the rest being utterly weak and useless. Now, it could be cool to see competing city-states fighting over the ashes of crumbling super powers, but in practice this simply doesn’t happen. You have Macedon, Egypt, Phrygia, and the Seleukids who start the game already with victory. The Diadochi wars never come in a meaningful way. They don’t actually mean anything, and the political atmosphere of Imperator is so stifled and rigid that it basically just becomes a slog where nothing is happening.

In short, you’ve got these big powers who feel too big to play with a sense of accomplishment while having countless small countries who are either unplayable because of diplomatic lock out or multiple layers of alliances or vassal status. Carthage and Rome have no competition and nothing to engage the player with. Not even Imperator’s greatest strength, the possibility of a unique narrative, is enough to overcome the drag this puts on gameplay.

This feeds into the second problem. Every game is basically the exact same. The differences that occur are 95% of the time just random haha moments rather than interesting/organically arising developments that change the way you have to approach gameplay. The gameplay is so pre-defined by the time period that there is no room for uniqueness.

Naturally, this would be fine if there were a bunch of awesome content and action to really get us immersed in the Diadochi Wars or the rise of Rome etc. But...nothing happens. There’s just no flavor to this. It’s just a map painter and it’s really a shame. It’s a shame because this is one of the most interesting and consequential time periods in human history.

Sadly, I just don’t think the Paradox model was able to fit into a game with this very particular political and historical atmosphere. As a result, it just never quite gets it right.

edit: I wanted to add that I think these criticisms are evident by the overwhelming amount of “historical flavor/gameplay improvement” suggestions we get that all seem to be saying the same thing I have said here in more specific attenuations.

I've seen an issue with Imperator's gameplay so far from the footage which is that for the most part everything feels very detached and samey. For the most part you play as a country in charge of a family which is in charge of a bunch of other families, and mechanics between the countries are largely the same, which might be relieved through DLCs later down the line (actually, who are we kidding? We know it will be), but even then I feel like Imperator will ultimately not be a great game because the mechanics don't fit the time period.

Imperator's mechanics lean much heavier to EU4 where you're the disembodied spirit of a nation rather than the individuals experiencing history in the making. Now I think that honestly Eu4 probably should have been closer to what Imperator's mechanics are now, but I also think that Imperator's would have been better with something more akin to CK2's mechanics.

If you've studied Roman and Greek history much you know that a lot of the fun in it is about studying the amazing individuals that shaped that history. I took Latin for about 5 years and most of what we actually learned was the history of certain individuals ranging from Gaius Marius and Sulla (who had a long standing rivalry and caused a spiral that eventually led to the Roman Empire) to the Gracci Brothers to (obviously) Julius Caesar and the two Triumvirates (and all their fascinating rivalries and friendships), and a bit beyond that.

Then you have fascinating historical figures such as Cleopatra (who was both Julius Caesar's, and Marc Antony's lover), Alcibiades who was just a suave Athenian who ran around the Mediterranean, to people like Boadicea who led a rebellion in Britain against Roman rule, to Hannibal and his family who swore blood oathes to destroy Rome. Like there is some seriously crazy shit that would be literally perfect from a character perspective.

But as far as why it would work with Imperator in context of the period, you could simply play as Patriarchs/Matriarchs of a family/clan and try to vie for influence over the state to get elected or assigned jobs by your republic/kingdom/tribe.

You could be a Patrician family with no actual assigned holdings other than your estate which might reside in a particular province.

• You could make improvements to that estate

• Try to start up businesses like trading/farming/slave trading/fire fighting (ala Crassus)

• You could try to buy up as much land as possible

• Try to pay off soldiers to be loyal to you

• Get other families to support you for governor positions and consul

• Also support Plebians or lower class citizens in personal matters in exchange for their loyalty

• Deliver speeches for and against different senators and topics

• You could also make improvements to your estate which could create new events that open up the game more

All while keeping the character traits of CK2 to have interesting character based relationships.

This, to me at least, would have made far more sense than playing the spirit of the family of the nation, and not offer much anything in the way of the real historical interactions between different people and families.

Honestly the criticism from these people is just damn ridiculous, most of them just make stuff up or just type “Still sucks”, Seriously tho I understand this game is still pretty incomplete but being a toxic idiot isn’t helping anybody, and most of ‘em just hate it because some you tuber told them to, so people please formulate your own opinions, don’t be a follower.

i was immediately semi decent at hoi4 (especially on blitzkrieg start) thanks to my knowledge of ww2 guiding me, and i could understand ck3 thanks to its emphasis on characters and simplicity elsewhere. but ive tried vic3 and stellaris but i just cant get a grasp on them (stellaris i can sort of play but not like ck3, and to a lesser extent hoi4)

i think its pop mechanics and trade that screw me up, and my lack of historical knowledge for these eras leaves me little guidance too

but anyways this is a post about imperator rome. i gave all that pretext to say that the anniversary update + sale finally got me to get this game, and its immediately clear to me that im getting the same issues and struggling

so what im looking for with this post is this: id like to know the basics on where rome is at the start of the game, as well as the ancient world in general, and where its expected i take rome by the end date

also if someone could basically explain the gameplay loop that would be great. for example, i would describe ck3s loop like this: you try to develop your domains and expand your borders while trying to keep your vassels happy so they dont revolt

any help is much appreciated

Hello. I used to play in early version of Imperator Rome, somewhere around 2020/21. Despite quite interesting population and economic ideas and absolutely stunning map (best made by Paradox so far) game felt quite... boring? It felt like a handful of wasted potential. Today I stumbled on massive sale, did a little research and found out devs had made a huge progress upgrading this game, redesigning many core mechanics. I would love to hear from other players, if these (at least in my opinion) mechanics had been fixed:

- Obviously I played as a Romans and after few first hours of struggle with Etruscans and other minor Italic states game feels too easy to play with. Just gather enough resources and manpower attack and smash another state, wait till recovery and repeat this process as much as you can. No hostility from other nations, no attacks, no inner conflicts. In fact the biggest 'difficulty' was matching my conquest with historical Roman expansions in fear if I will be able to expand Roma as fast as the actual Romans did.

- war exhaustion and aggressive expansions took a ridiculous amount of time to recover, especially the second one. I started a major war with Carthage and it took me more than 8 years to smashed them to the ground. Both these indicators went so high that it took me about 20 years to get back to normal. My pops were extremely upset for about a generation, even if no Carthaginian soldier ever attacked any of my settlements. My taxes and manpower went low because of it. For me it was an artificial difficulty designed intentionally by devs to not make a game that much easy.

- smaller states are basically defenceless against bigger countries. Just like my Romans, Egyptians, Phrygians and Seleucid Empire basically digest everything around them, establishing 100% safe and secure states without any inner or outer threats. They did not take any risk of attacking each other so the later period of the game is a never ending cold war between 4-5 superpowers doing nothing. AI was a bit broken, kinda reminding me oldschool strategy games from 90s.

- there was something off with assimilation and cultural coexistence system. E.g around 90BC almost entire Greece was packed by Latin speaking people, even though in reality Greek culture was so developed that it not only prevailed romanization but also took over entire Eastern Roman Empire in late antiquity. Or Ptomelemic Egypt quickly became 100% Hellenic in terms of culture and faith. While in real life it was mostly restricted to the elites living in major cities. I think some extra layers should be added to this mechanics, allowing more developed cultures to resist assimilation, to make whole process more historically accurate.

It was such a promising game and I would love to know if at least some of the mentioned issues were fixed since my last play!

btw: It was never explicitly stated in the game, but I always translated on 1 pop as a group of 1000 people. It more-less matched historical demographics estimations. Am I right on this one?

Unpopular Opinion on this sub at least....but take one look at Steam reviews, and the general consensus (aside from being overwhelmingly negative) is that this game lacks serious depth.

Beautiful? Yes. Glitchy? To be expected.

But, man...they really should have emulated Ck2. Even at release, Vanilla CK2 had so much more depth. Something that (imo) people would appreciate more, in that they feel like they are getting more for their money AND there is more to do! Too much focus on trying to be a "map painter" strategy game.

My only hope is that the DLC gears the gameplay more towards this.

Downvote away.

Imperator looks interesting, I'm a huge fan of Stellaris and CK2, how does Imperator play compared to those games? I also heard that the game had a lack luster launch, but is now mostly playable and the most recent patch is praised for being well made.