Which is better? Imperator Rome or Crusader Kings 3?

[Chillshotz]

I am exploring opportunities whether if its good to have Imperator or Crusader Kings3. I want to know which is more valuable for the price if its magnetic enough I wont wait for discount. I want to know which one is worth purchasing and I can put my time doing the campaigns... Its been more than One year since Imperators release and they say theres been a lot of changes. I want to know if people are satisfied, can you help me decide?

[Solitus]

引用自 John_Bircher：

引用自 Solitus：

If you want a good complex state simulator; then Europa Universalis IV :P

Yeah, without pops or meaningful trade and where land is improved with manapoints.

I was legitimately confused about the hate over dip/adm/mil. Is it because it is instantaneous? Because other than that; its the same as buying improvements with gold. Maybe I'm missing something.

But yes, if you hate having resources other than Gold, get Imperator.

I will agree that the trade goods having more value than (WORTH X MONEY) is a nice touch.

[xXxHussarxXx]

引用自 Solitus：

引用自 John_Bircher：

Yeah, without pops or meaningful trade and where land is improved with manapoints.

I was legitimately confused about the hate over dip/adm/mil. Is it because it is instantaneous? Because other than that; its the same as buying improvements with gold. Maybe I'm missing something.

But yes, if you hate having resources other than Gold, get Imperator.

I will agree that the trade goods having more value than (WORTH X MONEY) is a nice touch.

It was kind of silly. Say you had lots of diplo power in EU4 and you conquered Italy while playing Spain. You could pause the game and click assimilate on every province. Great. Now the entire area of Italy just changed its culture in a single day.

In imperator it was similar. You could assimilate pop using oratory power. For example if you took over Rome and it had a very high population of Romans. If you had enough mana you'd just be able to assimilate the entire city of Rome while also changing their religion.

You can see why it was disliked. That stuff was incredibly unrealistic

[Solitus]

引用自 Hakob #Nerdbash2020：

引用自 Solitus：

I was legitimately confused about the hate over dip/adm/mil. Is it because it is instantaneous? Because other than that; its the same as buying improvements with gold. Maybe I'm missing something.

But yes, if you hate having resources other than Gold, get Imperator.

I will agree that the trade goods having more value than (WORTH X MONEY) is a nice touch.

It was kind of silly. Say you had lots of diplo power in EU4 and you conquered Italy while playing Spain. You could pause the game and click assimilate on every province. Great. Now the entire area of Italy just changed its culture in a single day.

In imperator it was similar. You could assimilate pop using oratory power. For example if you took over Rome and it had a very high population of Romans. If you had enough mana you'd just be able to assimilate the entire city of Rome while also changing their religion.

You can see why it was disliked. That stuff was incredibly unrealistic

Hmm. I guess. Since even though EU4 has mana (which doesn't bother me) its effects take time. Either by sending missionary to convert or by spending diplo to convert the populace.

You still had to have a strategy on how you were going to use spend your mana, since it doesn't accumulate instantly. But if the gripe is "instant spend for instant effect"; then do the people who hate mana also hate mercenaries? Because that is a instantly spending gold to get armsmen that you didn't have before also.

Oh well. Thanks for your explanation.

[xXxHussarxXx]

引用自 Solitus：

引用自 Hakob #Nerdbash2020：

It was kind of silly. Say you had lots of diplo power in EU4 and you conquered Italy while playing Spain. You could pause the game and click assimilate on every province. Great. Now the entire area of Italy just changed its culture in a single day.

In imperator it was similar. You could assimilate pop using oratory power. For example if you took over Rome and it had a very high population of Romans. If you had enough mana you'd just be able to assimilate the entire city of Rome while also changing their religion.

You can see why it was disliked. That stuff was incredibly unrealistic

Hmm. I guess. Since even though EU4 has mana (which doesn't bother me) its effects take time. Either by sending missionary to convert or by spending diplo to convert the populace.

You still had to have a strategy on how you were going to use spend your mana, since it doesn't accumulate instantly. But if the gripe is "instant spend for instant effect"; then do the people who hate mana also hate mercenaries? Because that is a instantly spending gold to get armsmen that you didn't have before also.

Oh well. Thanks for your explanation.

I wasn't a big hater of mana myself. I just didn't like using it for instant affects that would take generations of work to do. Mercs can be bought with money instantly and it's been done before. An entire city could not be assimilated in a matter of seconds though. Especially considering that EU4 had mana and most people weren't bothered by it. There's a lot of CK2 people who came into this game thinking that this would be Crusader kings in the Roman period. They were most of the people bothered by the mana since they didn't play EU4/3 and never had to deal with mana

[Solitus]

引用自 Hakob #Nerdbash2020：

引用自 Solitus：

Hmm. I guess. Since even though EU4 has mana (which doesn't bother me) its effects take time. Either by sending missionary to convert or by spending diplo to convert the populace.

You still had to have a strategy on how you were going to use spend your mana, since it doesn't accumulate instantly. But if the gripe is "instant spend for instant effect"; then do the people who hate mana also hate mercenaries? Because that is a instantly spending gold to get armsmen that you didn't have before also.

Oh well. Thanks for your explanation.

I wasn't a big hater of mana myself. I just didn't like using it for instant affects that would take generations of work to do. Mercs can be bought with money instantly and it's been done before. An entire city could not be assimilated in a matter of seconds though. Especially considering that EU4 had mana and most people weren't bothered by it. There's a lot of CK2 people who came into this game thinking that this would be Crusader kings in the Roman period. They were most of the people bothered by the mana since they didn't play EU4/3 and never had to deal with mana

That's fair. I was primary CK2, but I have now spent the same number of hours in EU4 as in CK2. I also thought Imperator was going to be Ancient CK2; so I had issues with Imperator but it wasn't the mana haha.

[spike86]

引用自 Solitus：

引用自 Hakob #Nerdbash2020：

I wasn't a big hater of mana myself. I just didn't like using it for instant affects that would take generations of work to do. Mercs can be bought with money instantly and it's been done before. An entire city could not be assimilated in a matter of seconds though. Especially considering that EU4 had mana and most people weren't bothered by it. There's a lot of CK2 people who came into this game thinking that this would be Crusader kings in the Roman period. They were most of the people bothered by the mana since they didn't play EU4/3 and never had to deal with mana

That's fair. I was primary CK2, but I have now spent the same number of hours in EU4 as in CK2. I also thought Imperator was going to be Ancient CK2; so I had issues with Imperator but it wasn't the mana haha.

actually IR is not ck in ancient times. that's why a lot of people complain about the game :D

it's a blend between eu and ck.
you are the state, as a whole.
and characters are both tools to use and hindrance to fight.
a necessarily evil of sort.

[xXxHussarxXx]

引用自 spike86：

引用自 Solitus：

That's fair. I was primary CK2, but I have now spent the same number of hours in EU4 as in CK2. I also thought Imperator was going to be Ancient CK2; so I had issues with Imperator but it wasn't the mana haha.

actually IR is not ck in ancient times. that's why a lot of people complain about the game :D

it's a blend between eu and ck.
you are the state, as a whole.
and characters are both tools to use and hindrance to fight.
a necessarily evil of sort.

Many CK players complain that it's not ck in ancient times. To me, the CK influence is far too high in the game. If anything, I would decrease the CK influence in the game and make it more like EU.

[spike86]

引用自 Hakob #Nerdbash2020：

引用自 spike86：

actually IR is not ck in ancient times. that's why a lot of people complain about the game :D

it's a blend between eu and ck.
you are the state, as a whole.
and characters are both tools to use and hindrance to fight.
a necessarily evil of sort.

Many CK players complain that it's not ck in ancient times. To me, the CK influence is far too high in the game. If anything, I would decrease the CK influence in the game and make it more like EU.

that's why this game is so divisive.
for me it's the right mix, it just need a bit of refinement and added depth.

[zorkman]

引用自 Hakob #Nerdbash2020：

引用自 spike86：

actually IR is not ck in ancient times. that's why a lot of people complain about the game :D

it's a blend between eu and ck.
you are the state, as a whole.
and characters are both tools to use and hindrance to fight.
a necessarily evil of sort.

Many CK players complain that it's not ck in ancient times. To me, the CK influence is far too high in the game. If anything, I would decrease the CK influence in the game and make it more like EU.

At least that would put the game out of its misery quicker.

[Aleksandr Vasilevski]

Two different games two differents period. Imperator is a very good game and crussader too.

[Kagerou]

imperator rome fps is bad big time.. Ck3 fps is good

[Chillshotz]

there are times when ck3 suddenly stops and blacks out hmmm

[KONZENTRATION]

Both are good, if you are more into medieval times, play ck3, if you like the ancient times more, play rome.

[Viltae]

Imperator without any possible doubt. Rome, damn it, Rome! (this is an unbiased message).

[Ericus1]

A couple hundred people play I:R. 10s of thousands play CK. Which is "better" is a pointlessly subjective and unanswerable question. Which do far more people like and play and is far more likely to appeal to the "average gamer" we otherwise know nothing about? CK, overwhelmingly so.