Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
You think Imperator pop system is good?
I have been hoping the exact opposite.
This is going to be the biggest Frankenstein ever made.
Marquoz, go and play Imperator, I have tried to tell you, I saw in another post you said you havent played Imperator.
Seriously, lucky to get 500 people playing Imperator and for some unknown reason people want this to be Imperator, totally ridiculous.
No thanks. I don't have enough interest in the period to bother with it. I've played Paradox pop-based games that I enjoy, though--Victoria 2, the game in which Johan first created them, and Stellaris--so the fact that Project Caesar (EU5) will have pops doesn't bother me the way it does you.
Done right, it will be great. Done wrong, it won't be. I will judge the released game on its merits or lack thereof. Predictions like "This is going to be the biggest Frankenstein ever made" are silly at this point.
A Frankenstein is a combination of different parts.
It is obvious to everyone it is a collection of parts from existing games.
Refusal to admit doesnt alleviate truth.
Edit: dont you think about Rome twice a day?
So at least once a month by that?
Did Frankenstein think about Rome?
Was the monster capable of thinking about Rome?
Did Romans think about olives?
Do all roads lead to Rome?
Most importantly, If you were in Rome, what would you do?
Pop culture sees Frankenstein as something bad because of people's illiteracy. Frankenstein is the perfect example of sciences progress, and dangers that might emerged from it. IR is the perfect example of the progress made by Paradox to offer layers of strategy through the main tool of progress through history: people. It has great tech trees, maybe the best of Paradox's games, good game mechanics for the 4 very different kind of government, a fast paced expansion system with a decent diplomacy.
And I kind of hope Paradox will take specific buildings for culture, religion... from Civilization. The main issue with EU or IR, it's that all cultures are played pretty much the same way as the other despite having different modifiers. It's just that those modifiers don't weight enough on the balance to specialize your economy around them unlike the last two Civ did.
The monster lived for what 4-5 years?
Did it even know about Rome?
Its hard to reflect on something you know when you are rapidly ingesting new information
How does illiteracy affect a non fiction novel?
Maybe you mean others adaptions of the novel are the story they see on TV and know?
EU4 can be played in any way you desire.
It just is boring without conquering everyone.
EDIT- IR far exceeds any game in which approach you want to take.
Entire tech trees where you can focus on any speciality, money buys you armies with great generals, diplomacy gives large vassals and allies will win wars, military will win wars.
Imperator Rome is just boring without conquering anyone.
Sound familiar, well I wonder if Caeser will be boring without conquest?
If it is, then what?
EDIT- IR can be played in dramatically different ways, it has tech trees which you specialise in, you dont learn everything like Civ
Everyone has different perceptions, I dont rate Civ as highly as you do.
When I was 14 Civ1 was the pinnacle of world empire building games, it was also the only one.
Each to their own but I prefer EU4 over Civ in every way, but I dont think they are comparable games in reality.
EU4 doesnt have victory types, CIV has different ways to win, hence specific buildings.
IR is not boring if you just focus on improving your lands, quite the opposite. There're much more to do with pops than what you can do with EU4 by playing tall.
But grand strategy ultimately revolves around conquest. That's the players' main drive.
Civ has merits Paradox doesn't: while using simpler mechanics it offers a more realistic experience of how civilizations exchange, grow, fall... Proving that realism is not achieve by just accumalting numbers, modifiers... that give an illusion of complexity and layers.
Anyway, for games like Parzdox's, going "Frankenstein" is mostly a good thing. They still haven't find the recipe to offer realism, fun and accuracy to the period of time they try to simulate while they continue to improve.
So far, I didn't see Paradox failing with characters, not even with IR where pops is the key parameter to success.
The culture and religion pop assimilation are for one pop at a time and must be done sequentially to be efficient.
Thats just my opinion and Im not trying to change yours.
Most of this system relies on harbors and aqueducts. Then if you want to manually do it, it's just money and you can move only slaves or tribesmen. And migration is just one mechanic related to pops, when they count for levies/legions, manpower, income tax, research... and you can highly specialize provinces and regions.
Yes, conversion and assimilation are for units, giving you more control over it and is more realistic as it is a process. It's not spend 80 diplo points and in 80 months the whole province is assimilated.
IR is full of missed opportunities, but overall offers the most layers of strategies than Paradox's games before it.
The cabinet here is a good idea, EU is lacking a developed court/government system. From what I've read it won't be a cabinet like IR but it'll serve the same purpose, including people in the nation/state management.