Imperator Rome?

[Julius Caesar]

Well since that game is dead, I need another to fuel my drug habit. How is this compared with Imperator? I understand you can actually fight battles, so that’s a major advantage. But one thing I like about Imperator, is the character RPG aspect. This game looks like it’s lacking in that department?

[Nepos]

Personal opinion here, but I think what partially doomed Imperator was its attempt to focus on characters. I mean characters are great in a game like CK2 (a game that I love), not Imperator or FOGE. Just have a look at how bland was/is the portrayal of the Eastern Romans (an empire closer to those of Imperator and FOGE than feudal Europe) in CK2 and CK3. And Imperator also seems too arbitrary in the way characters (and levies) are handled.

Anyway back to you topic, you are right the game doesn’t focus on characters. You get generals (bad ones, mediocre ones and good ones) and rulers/parties (with positive and/or negative traits), and that’s it. However to answer you first question I’ll say that this is easily the best strategy game set in the Hellenistic era. What makes me say that? Well several big and small features. I won’t list all of them here, just the one that struck me the most:

• Semi-random building choice: don’t get too scared, it’s not actually that random. A city that is developing in a certain way is more likely to give you certain choices. Simply put there are like hundreds and hundreds of buildings, some of them common to everyone, some nation-specific, some world wonders you can restore etc. And no it’s not just barrack level 1,2,3,10 etc., each building as its own perks and drawbacks, and you’ll come to love some of them more than others. You can optimize you cities but you can't build them all the same. If you enjoy city building as much as conquering stuff, find a city of bricks and leave it a city of marble, this one is for you;

• Trade. Best trading system ever. The Mediterranean even acts as the highway of goods it historically was. Now I don’t know at what point trade is in Imperator (I remember you could just shop whatever you wanted), but here you have to entice your cities to actually produce of import goods. Some goods can even be further worked on to produce something else, or just more money. If you want more info on buildings and resources just have a look at Grognerd’s wonderful guide;

• Sieges. Defenders can actually win a siege and you can build you own “Constantinople”. Do keep in mind however that enemies can walk all over your territory, unlike EU4 or Imperator where they have to siege border forts. Think of CK2. This is something I would like to see changed. However you can fortify your most important cities and tell the enemies to go to hell;

• Number of cities, tags, and ethnicities. This is just my personal opinion, but I think FOGE does it better. It’s no secret that Imperator has more all of three of those. More cities. How many wars does it take you in Imperator to conquer all Carthaginian territories? All of Egypt? 4/5 wars, maybe more. In FOGE you can do it in one war or two. Or you can pull an Alexander, ignore completely diplomacy and outright annex an empire 10 times bigger than yours. Not recommended but fun to try at least once to sate your power craze. Imperator Rome also has more tags but most of those are just there to fill the map, there is no such thing as spheres of influence or special way to interact with those insignificant city-states so you might just as well outright ignore/annex them. As for ethnicities I find one single ethnicity representing all of Italy or all of Greece better that 20 cramped in the same area;

• Factions feel different. Ok don’t ask for the Caledoni to be as fleshed out as the Romans, but at least all relevant powers have something making them interesting. Which is already way more that what Imperator has achieved. Some examples: Rome is better at culture converting and building, has a good army that’s at the same time great for both battles and sieging while others factions needs to use different units (not sure however if it’s still like this) and can also order its soldiers to build roads and forts, some faction specific buildings but more prone to civil wars once it evolves into an empire. Greeks are more focused on culture, Epirus and Pontus on liberating Greek factions, Diadochi more prone to collapse if too hard pressed by other Diadochi, tribes more unstable once a ruler dies etc.

• Probably the main one, factions can actually collapse. Something that I have never seen in any other strategy games (maybe CK2?). I’ll give you an example: while minding my own business as Rome I noticed these events in the East: the Seleucids doing well against the Antigonids, with the latter collapsing as a result of multiple defeats (special Diadochi rule). After that the Seleucids ruled a great empire that stretched from Sardis to India. A quick look at it immediately revealed that they were however a decadent empire. Fighting rebellions, civil wars, and even smaller factions sensing their weakness every 10 years. Not sure how they managed to last that long in my game. Until one year they finally gave it up. The empire just collapsed. No more central authority or field armies, every city (by now mostly hellenized) was by itself. That’s the greatest thing that can happen if you are close enough to take advantage. I was not that lucky. Some neighbors of the now dead empire started taking some lands for themselves and after a while, even new factions started appearing from the ashes of the Seleucids. Mostly in Anatolia but I also remember a Persian tag. The big winner however were the Parthians who were already an established faction with a strong army before the Seleucids collapse. Took over most of the old empire (historical Parthian border) and beat back other upstart factions. Only to find themselves inherit most of the decadence from the Seleucids. Soon enough their power didn’t extend anymore beyond Mesopotamia, with the Persians once again able to retake most of Persia proper (more or less mimicking the OTL collapse of the Arsacids). Granted this doesn’t always happen, more often than not the Mauryan are on a rampage in the East, but still how cool is that?

Now there is a lot more to say (both big features and minor subtleties) but I think this should be enough for a general overview, however if you wish feel free to ask for more details or just have a look at the great manual. With that said I am not saying this game doesn’t have flaws or is for everyone. If characters are everything for you than this game is not for you. Do not expect great graphics or an amazing soundtrack. For that you have you have to look at Paradox. However if you are looking for a fun game, with a good mixture of both innovative new features and old but consolidated mechanics than this game is for you. All in one great game and a single DLC (all things mentioned above are part of the base game).

[wven]

Imperator Rome received more additional features and content after release then this game. This game is just as dead....no longer being developed.

[Nepos]

Not all games need 50 DLCs to be playable, this one is playable with just one (or you can easily skip it). And Paradox’s DLCs quality has been a bit lacking lately. As for free updates FOGE got the “Bactria update” like just a week ago with a new small fix expected soon. That doesn’t sound like dead to me. Meanwhile what Imperator got after release, if I remember correctly, was: an update to fleets and supplies, wonders (already part of FOGE base game), mission trees (I can easily live without those since they add literally nothing to the game), a reworked military system (not perfect in my opinion but I’ll give credit to Paradox for at least trying to do something different) and unit packs (just graphics).
Imperator: Rome is dead and that’s official, FOGE on the other hand is still getting updates. While being already a complete game as it is. Something that apparently Imperator will never get to be.

[Julius Caesar]

Imperator just died lol.

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by wven:

Imperator Rome received more additional features and content after release then this game. This game is just as dead....no longer being developed.

No longer being developed? Two patches were just released with a third on the way? Another DLC may be possible...

[PocusFR]

Originally posted by wven:

Imperator Rome received more additional features and content after release then this game. This game is just as dead....no longer being developed.

There is something to say about you Wven, you are determined. I don't know why you still linger in the forum one year after having bought the game, as you clearly stated numerous (or more precisely innumerable) times you did not like it. Is it a personal crusade of sort?

[Julius Caesar]

Originally posted by PocusFR:

Originally posted by wven:

Imperator Rome received more additional features and content after release then this game. This game is just as dead....no longer being developed.

There is something to say about you Wven, you are determined. I don't know why you still linger in the forum one year after having bought the game, as you clearly stated numerous (or more precisely innumerable) times you did not like it. Is it a personal crusade of sort?

I love the Roman civil wars game!!

[Julius Caesar]

Any plans of a Julius Caesar DLC Lol.

[Nepos]

I honestly don’t think a Caesar DLC would be a good idea. FOGE is a game about rising and falling empires, while Caesar’s career was mostly about expanding an already big empire, by conquering Gaul, and fighting a huge civil war. I would really like however a DLC that fleshes out civil wars more (a DLC focused on new mechanics rather than adding a new start date). I remember reading recently an old post by Pocus himself about the possibility of adding a hidden loyalty value to generals. That and other mechanics (pretenders and usurpers) could really make civil wars much more interesting.

Alternatively for new start dates, how about a DLC set in the V/VI/VII century: the fall of the West, the attempt to restore the empire, and that hope being finally crushed during the VII century. Those three fit really well with the general theme of the game.

[Julius Caesar]

I guess I’ll pass on this.

Alea Jacta EST should do it.

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Julius Caesar:

I guess I’ll pass on this.

Alea Jacta EST should do it.

Yep that is the best game made for that for sure.

[Julius Caesar]

Originally posted by Tanaka:

Originally posted by Julius Caesar:

I guess I’ll pass on this.

Alea Jacta EST should do it.

Yep that is the best game made for that for sure.

Wish a Caesar in Gaul DLC or Mod existed..

[BroJo]

Originally posted by Nepos:

Alternatively for new start dates, how about a DLC set in the V/VI/VII century: the fall of the West, the attempt to restore the empire, and that hope being finally crushed during the VII century. Those three fit really well with the general theme of the game.

This is a good idea. The armies of that period are also well represented in FoG2.

[PocusFR]

A campaign starting around the Year of the Four Emperors would be cool :-)

[Nepos]

Originally posted by PocusFR:

A campaign starting around the Year of the Four Emperors would be cool :-)

Any chance of seeing any of that happening, either as an update or a proper DLC? This game has a huge potential with its decadence mechanic and the richness in buildings. I’d love to see more of it. Heck just yesterday I got an idea on how you could implement a proper Foederati system into the game by just using some new roman-specific buildings.

Or in case of a “year of the four emperors” scenario, I’ll definitely play as the only rightful emperor of Rome: Otho