Bad Game?

[ShySkullDice]

This game isn't bad lol far from it, Why do people get so mad around video games.?

When played like EUIV it's better than EUIV easily, This is why I don't listen to opinion unless it's my own opinion because my own opinion is the only opinion that isn't biased lol

This game isn't bad and actually it's micro manager tool for armies is way better than any other feature they've ever done in any of their titles.

I think people don't like the game for 1 to 2 reasons.

1. You don't understand how to play it
2. You don't like games that are built for scaling because with pops this game is just one huge scaling simulator but it's not bad at all

The only bad parts to this game from what I played of it on someone else's computer was the character system is irrelevant the character don't matter at all outside of just rank and the politics is really boring but it's early roman era so obviously the politics are boring

Other than that the game is solid. To be fair to Paradox though if I hate to read all them crap posts about how bad the game is when it isn't I would have left development too lol

You guys overall should complain less and give positive constructive feedback otherwise how do you expect for anything to ever improve?

There is enough in the game though it's awesome don't listen to horrendous opinion on the game decide for yourself if it is worth it for you ^^

[galadon3]

Yes but there is a big difference between one of several european nations and just one, because none of the european nations is next to hardcoded for success, France, Austria, England Spain, Ottomans you can see them succeed or fail miserably, while so far I never saw Rome fail in Imperator (at least not without the player taking care of that)
The whole situation isn't really helped by the fact that there is just one starting time.

Especially since realisticly at the starting point rome historically had plenty opportunities to fail, they are just a medium regional power in italy at the point.
Now with just this one starting date pdx decided to basically next to hardcode, romes takeover of italy and often it happens in just a couple of decades.
If they had more start dates, they could have given rome more chances to fail in that rather early start, because they could be the unstoppable juggernaut in later starting dates.
(after the punic wars for example, when romes military might was so big that even unbelievable infighting between its generals didn't really save their opponents).

But to a certain point thats a matter of taste, I for example really disliked the mission trees in EU 4, because they basically set the AI-Nations on a somewhat "historical" path no matter if that makes sense or not.
It basically killed a lot of alternate history freedom. In EU3 you could without a problem for example manage an independent sweden that turns its back to europe and becomes a colonial empire, while maintaining cordial relations with its nordic neighbours.
In EU 4 the mission tree will lead the other scandinavians at some point to be aggressive towards sweden even if it doesn't make much sense for them.
With the question if Rome should be set to almost always be the top dog, its the same. If you want a more historic-y game they need to be set on that path to success (and bolstered with bonusses, missions and events), if you want more a version were you are given a starting position and all the rest has to emerge from gameplay naturally (wich ofc will have the game deviate from history quite a bit more), that kind of artifical interference can be a bit offputting.

(All that said, other then EU4, I DO enjoy Imperator, but I see a limited longevity for my enjoyment of it because of those factors.)

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

That's what I find great basically: no need to copy/paste other games, especially when you name it after Rome. Not because it's historical, but because the game is centered on it. A run without a powerful Rome wouldn't feel the same. I'd say, like a run in East Asia without seeing Maurya dominating and being aggressive.
This game is one of the rarest I enjoy doing achievements, because basically most of them are not centered on Rome even though Rome can become a threat if you take time doing it. I wonder how it'll be for the Mosylon spice run.

I've seen only one successful Etruscan-Carthage alliance, and mostly because both were aggressive towards their neighbours early on and probably got enough levies. Also, Rome didn't have a fleet while most often it destroys Carthage's larger fleet.
Very rarely too, Rome just stop expanding. Sometimes I feel it depends on what we're doing on the map. But that's just a feeling, I have no interest for files informations to check if it does impact Rome's behavior.

Stellaris would be a more open Paradox Game as it's not a historical set. I wouldn't know about CK because I don't remember it much.

[galadon3]

Again, thats very much up to taste, I for one like historical settings but am really not a fan of external factors trying to railroad the game into a pseudo-historical run.
I even most of the time ignore the missions in Imperator since they feel so damn gamey, often having to do stuff that doesn't make sense from ingame factors, purely because they give you an artificial external reward.
EU 2 and 3 as well as CK2 mostly give you a historical starting point and some rather small event-chains for certain nations but those are by far not as intrusive.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Missions are uninteresting, even for the major countries. Achievements are much more fun. They have no historical value for most, but are fun considering the historical moment they're set in. Missions can be interesting to build up cities if you're a tribe, but that's situational.

I won't call them external if they're part of the gameplay and the way developers intended to make the game though.

This game is closer to EU: Rome than other EU. But I do prefer EU3 to EU4.
Yet, again, games don't have to be a copy/paste of others. And I'll always prefer developer's vision to my own or those of other players. Like I prefer the original fiction to a fan fiction.

[galadon3]

The rewards for the missions are completely external, there is nothing tying them to anything happening in the game, they don't grow from anything that makes sense in the game, in fact a lot of them often run counter to what would make sense to do ingame.

I several times had missions to build cities, harbours etc, fixed on spots I would not take because others make more sense, and the game gives out an artifical reward for something that runs counter to things making sense game-systemwise.
So if you do what the mission wants its purely to game it for an external reward. EU4 is way worse in that regard and I waaay prefer the missions in Imperator at least they (mostly) don't set the nations course in stone.
But honestly the single missions you could get in EU 3, with some nation specific ones mixed in was pretty much my favorite because I could just skip ones that don't make sense for the game strategy and could go with those that fit the way I play that nation at that moment.
The tree-system has the problem that there are many you can't skip if they don't fit with the situation in the game, unless you want to abort the whole tree. (Again imperator being better then EU4 in that it least usually gives 2 or more mission trees to choose from)
I did some runs doing mission trees usually just being annoyed that I had to delay stuff that would make sense at that moment because then the mission tree doesn't work right, so I finally chose to just ignore the feature exists.

No idea why you keep talking about copy&paste when I talk about very broad game concepts, thats basically the same as claiming Crusader Kings would be a copy&paste of EU because both are historically themed strategy games.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

I:R is specific with one big nation
EU is specific with a lot of big nations mostly around Mediterranea
Stellaris is specific with its space environment with no historical link
CK is specific with its game mechanics centered on characters and dynasty building
...
The fact that Rome is the country to beat is also what makes this game great and unique. The unbalance choice is a good choice. Without this choice is would be too much of a copy/paster of what is already existing.

The missions mostly tell you one thing: how to build a strong economy. You should build cities is most provinces and develop them to stabilize them, so any spot makes sense. And quite often, in a conquest mission, you get a free city on a decent spot for a fortified city.

[galadon3]

Sorry but BS, concentrating on one specific detail and calling it "copy and paste" if that specific detail would be the same is pure nonsense.

EU 3 and 4 have both several big nations, the two games are very different because a lot of systems differ, you could as well claim all paradox games use real time instead of turns, wich most grand strategy did before them so they are all "copy&paste" btw CK2s Charlemagne start has the Abbassid Caliphate being overwhelmingly big, so by your definition Imperator would be a "Copy&Paste" of CK2s Charlemagne DLC.

The missions mostly tell you one thing: how to build a strong economy. You should build cities is most provinces and develop them to stabilize them, so any spot makes sense. And quite often, in a conquest mission, you get a free city on a decent spot for a fortified city.

No they don't, a lot of them want you to build harbours and fortresses, the former don't help much with the economy, the latter often end up in strategically useless spots and actually drain money.
The cities, if you haven't understood that they are the key to a working economy, you need a tutorial not a regular ingame feature and again, often the missions have you put them in non-optimal spots. Especially at start the best spots for cities are the valuable trade-goods to quickly generate valuable exports and get your income rolling (or if the province doesn't offer any and has enough food spots put em there and hope for something good like dyes or papyrus).

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

You're just misinterpretating what I wrote.

There's just one path asking you to build at least 3 ports with a fortress. And it goes with a mission that allows you to increase you number of import trade route which is useful either for food production or happiness production. Nothing close to a waste of money.
Generic missions are just recalling you that constantly. And no, you absolutely don't need to have any optimal management in I:R even in the hardest difficulty. Also, the purpose of a city is not for trading goods, but demography and civilization level that give a lot more than trading (the more you expand and other nations too, the less trade is interesting so trading is useful for specific runs).

[Rico]

The game was horrible when it was released and the reputation unfortunately stuck. They fixed it fortunately but it was too late to save it from cancellation. Still a great game in the end even if not many play it

[galadon3]

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

You're just misinterpretating what I wrote.

No I am not, you are just repeating ad nauseam that not having a pre-determined powerhouse in every game would make it a "copy and paste" wich is nonsense, no matter how often you repeat it and I am not "interpreting" anything its what you said.

There's just one path asking you to build at least 3 ports with a fortress. And it goes with a mission that allows you to increase you number of import trade route which is useful either for food production or happiness production. Nothing close to a waste of money.

You're again missing the point, what I say is you have to do stuff that would make no sense from the normal game-systems to get a reward that does not come FROM said game-systems, hence it is EXTERNAL.

Its the same as if you had a farming-simulation that tells you to build a nice statue on your farmland and then you get a 10 tons of carots you can sell.
The reward has nothing to do with any ingame-systems how you would normally aquire the thing, hence it is EXTERNAL.

Also, the purpose of a city is not for trading goods, but demography and civilization level that give a lot more than trading (the more you expand and other nations too, the less trade is interesting so trading is useful for specific runs).

Nice that you purposfully ignored the parts

ESPECIALLY AT START the best spots for cities are the valuable trade-goods to quickly generate valuable exports and GET YOUR INCOME ROLLING

Also I am not speaking of the general use for cities, I am aware what they are for I am speaking of the PLACEMENT and specifically in early game.

With that I am pretty much done, discussing this.
Repeating the same nonsense over and over and finally just claiming to be misinterpreted as well as purposfully ignoring parts of what was said to then have a strawman argument left you can "correct" isn't exactly an honest way to go through a discussion.

[kek]

True, it's always strange how missions direct you to a certain path which, chances are, does not at all align with what you want to do in your campaign. It would be more fun if they were more dynamic and based on the way you play (rather than game telling you how to play) or maybe even you as the ruler of the country choose your own missions for your nation.

I also tend to mostly ignore missions for this reason.

[galadon3]

Yea its why I kinda liked the missions in EU3 better, they were just single missions wich made them more flexible, since the single mission (if its a random one) is generated from your situation at that moment (so for example conquering a border-province will just randomly take one at your borders).
Ofc they might be nonsensical for your goals at that moment too, but at least you can just skip em, with the fixed mission trees, imperator and eu4 have thats only an option for a very limited number of branches or you have to abandon the tree altogether.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Well, as I said, you misinterpretated me. Because I haven't say that.

That's why it's called generic missions. And that's not external, that's a game mechanic. Not the most interesting, but still.
Building harbors and markets tend to increase your number of trade routes. You get one for free for doing so in the generic mission.

At start, it's better to conquer lands with cities than building some. They're expensive in money and political influence, it's better to save for some mercenaries or claims to expand quickly. Once you get tech and military traditions that decrease their cost, you can begin to spam cities.

[Klutch]

It was good in every iteration, and in my opinion one of the best games I ever bought. I was just starting my Alexander coin collection, maybe had 10 coins at that point when the game came out. The hype was real. I watched the epic livestreams, and the game released and the people who wanted their own vision trolled the forums like nobodies business.
Anyways, best game in the world, funnest launch videos and the loss of so many great creaters is tragic. Really miss those days.

[Enola Gay]

The question to the OP would be, did you play it on release, or did you pick it up later. On release this was a framework of a game with the strategic depth of a puddle.

Not at all what it was marketed as. So people were understandably upset they paid for an overpriced pos.

The customer backlash was so great, that they made the first few dlc's free to keep people playing. Then the devs abandoned the game contradicting their promises to keep working on it. Coming back to it later doesn't excuse they gave up when it became easier to give up than to try and deliver what they had sold people on.