Grand Strategy Imperator: Rome - the new grand strategy from Paradox

[Average Manatee]

You're right, the internal stability mechanics are a bit too easy. The problem is that if you make it hard enough that AIs will sometimes fall to them, then every AI eventually falls to them and you have games where there is no greater power on the map to fight.

I also don't think it should be reasonably possible for AI nations starting with <50 pops to end up a contender on the world stage. As you mention Rome already needs buffs just to ensure it can win. The AI can't fight with less pops, and it never will be able to, since the AI is going to be the same skill level on each side and the side with more raw pop power will win. I don't think its possible to change this without a much more in-depth CK2-like system.

 

[Mortmal]

The stability mechanics arent so easy to figure, many new players struggle on it , only once you know how it works yes it is, like everything else..Its the point of the game figuring out all that stuff . The end game turn one player blob vs 1 or 2 aI blobs yes but what else to expect ? We arent getting quasi sentient AI and probably wont ever , if you want something else the only solution is multiplayer, i think this game can really shine there.Launch was a disaster but finally it end up one of best paradox games.

 

[Fedora Master]

"It's bad but what do you expect?"
Says a lot about PDX fans.

 

[Mortmal]

"It's bad but what do you expect?"
Says a lot about PDX fans.

Name better, you prefer to play civ 6 ? No i think not. Only recent strategy game i liked was shadow empires, AI , is not any better.

 

[Fedora Master]

"It's bad but what do you expect?"
Says a lot about PDX fans.

Name better, you prefer to play civ 6 ? No i think not. Only recent strategy game i liked was shadow empires, AI , is not any better.

Sometimes, everything is shit with no better alternative.
By the way, even the usual Russki pirates who will otherwise autistically update the worst shovelware haven't bothered with 2.0.1 yet. Makes you think.

 

[Mortmal]

"It's bad but what do you expect?"
Says a lot about PDX fans.

Name better, you prefer to play civ 6 ? No i think not. Only recent strategy game i liked was shadow empires, AI , is not any better.

Sometimes, everything is shit with no better alternative.
By the way, even the usual Russki pirates who will otherwise autistically update the worst shovelware haven't bothered with 2.0.1 yet. Makes you think.

Strategy games are rpg brothers when it comes to AI, the computer rpg will never do better than a real DM , not in my lifetime in any case. I havent check torrents,torrenting is decline and kill my hobbies, the best way to make them focus on phone games .Steam peak players is only 5700, once people move away its very hard to get them back.

 

[thesecret1]

So what is your argument? That a nation 1/2 the size of Rome should be able to beat Rome even if both sides are played equally well? That makes little sense.

Yes, if the smaller nation is the defender. History is full of smaller nations defending themselves against superior foes, since being on the defense just opens you different options than being on the offense. It's not just that you have the home field advantage, it's also that you are generally willing to invest far more in the war than the attacker – you'll utilize every last scrap at your disposal, throw everything you have at the enemy. The attacker, historically, did not do that, and would settle for smaller gains, or end the war entirely if his army got slapped around enough – he's not willing to drain his country to the bone to win the war, his nobility (or, in non-feudal cases, the various governors and big landholders in general) is not willing to throw everything it has at the enemy (whereas the defenders nobility often will, as losing the war also means they lose their lands), and, more importantly, the attacker does not want to leave himself open to his other neighbours, who might figure that since the attacker threw literally everything at the defender, he now has a soft underbelly to invade (something that AI made full use of in EU3, but not in later titles).

 

[Average Manatee]

So what is your argument? That a nation 1/2 the size of Rome should be able to beat Rome even if both sides are played equally well? That makes little sense.

Yes, if the smaller nation is the defender. History is full of smaller nations defending themselves against superior foes, since being on the defense just opens you different options than being on the offense. It's not just that you have the home field advantage, it's also that you are generally willing to invest far more in the war than the attacker – you'll utilize every last scrap at your disposal, throw everything you have at the enemy. The attacker, historically, did not do that, and would settle for smaller gains, or end the war entirely if his army got slapped around enough – he's not willing to drain his country to the bone to win the war, his nobility (or, in non-feudal cases, the various governors and big landholders in general) is not willing to throw everything it has at the enemy (whereas the defenders nobility often will, as losing the war also means they lose their lands), and, more importantly, the attacker does not want to leave himself open to his other neighbours, who might figure that since the attacker threw literally everything at the defender, he now has a soft underbelly to invade (something that AI made full use of in EU3, but not in later titles).

Yes, but if it's AI vs. AI then both sides are going to be operating by very similar rules, strategies and tactics. So the big one is going to win the vast majority of the time unless the AI completely fucks up.

If you just made AIs less aggressive and more willing to peace out in offensive wars then you'd have every major vs. major war ending with little territory swapped. As far as defensive advantages... there's not really a good system for that in Paradox games. You can scrape by minor terrain advantages on forts but that's about it.

 

[thesecret1]

Yes, but if it's AI vs. AI then both sides are going to be operating by very similar rules, strategies and tactics. So the big one is going to win the vast majority of the time unless the AI completely fucks up.

Well, the key would obviously be to NOT have them play by the same rules, strategies, and tactics, and introduce assymetry. Less war exahustion for defender, more for attacker, additional troops for defender from his landholders, war taxes, etc.

 

[Fedora Master]

Yes, but if it's AI vs. AI then both sides are going to be operating by very similar rules, strategies and tactics. So the big one is going to win the vast majority of the time unless the AI completely fucks up.

Well, the key would obviously be to NOT have them play by the same rules, strategies, and tactics, and introduce assymetry. Less war exahustion for defender, more for attacker, additional troops for defender from his landholders, war taxes, etc.

Assymmetry? But that would't be BALANCED! Think of the MP!

 

[Theodora]

The stability mechanics arent so easy to figure, many new players struggle on it , only once you know how it works yes it is, like everything else..Its the point of the game figuring out all that stuff . The end game turn one player blob vs 1 or 2 aI blobs yes but what else to expect ? We arent getting quasi sentient AI and probably wont ever , if you want something else the only solution is multiplayer, i think this game can really shine there.Launch was a disaster but finally it end up one of best paradox games.

People who minmax these games instead of playing them as RPGs weird me tf out. (Arcade-y minmax'ers are the demographic Johan aimed at that made 1.0 such a mess.)

Sponsored video, dope aar:

Spoiler

 

[Delterius]

Does this remain the most evil and totalitarian game made by paradox where you spend 'political power' (Not Mana®) to genocide every nation into whatever the fuck you want?

 

[Theodora]

Does this remain the most evil and totalitarian game made by paradox where you spend 'political power' (Not Mana®) to genocide every nation into whatever the fuck you want?

it's very orientated around internal stability and happiness among your various pops and factions, arguably much more so than the general relevance of other nations

 

[Average Manatee]

Uhh... you beeline for the +2 pop assimilation rate law and that's about it for internal stability.

 

[Mortmal]

Does this remain the most evil and totalitarian game made by paradox where you spend 'political power' (Not Mana®) to genocide every nation into whatever the fuck you want?

Yes, first when you conquer provinces, you kill pops , you kill armies you can see the population of that country drop in real time, then when you capture a city you can let the troop loose , no one can escape options in special cases even raze it. Then your generals get extra loyal troops for razing raping and pillaging . Those generals will likely end up too powerful and betray you .Once you are done you have crushing repression policy, you can demote cultures to slaves deport them around in your working fields .Your governor often ends up corrupt and backstabbing too . It's fairly historic and would be considered evil and totalitarian by today standard . Very historical indeed as a strong and stable empire is homogenous ,one culture , one religion. In this woke age its almost unthinkable.

 

[Fedora Master]

There's an event when you conquer Judea about a certain "group of recalcitrant locals who refuse to worship foreign gods".

 

[AgentFransis]

The stability mechanics arent so easy to figure, many new players struggle on it , only once you know how it works yes it is, like everything else..Its the point of the game figuring out all that stuff . The end game turn one player blob vs 1 or 2 aI blobs yes but what else to expect ? We arent getting quasi sentient AI and probably wont ever , if you want something else the only solution is multiplayer, i think this game can really shine there.Launch was a disaster but finally it end up one of best paradox games.

People who minmax these games instead of playing them as RPGs weird me tf out. (Arcade-y minmax'ers are the demographic Johan aimed at that made 1.0 such a mess.)

Sponsored video, dope aar:

Spoiler

You mean LARPing. But these are strategy games you know, at least in theory. It's fine to LARP to an extent but the point of a strategy game is to play smart and efficiently. If you're not doing that then you're just looking at a map and masturbating and you'd be better served to buy an ancient atlas and go do that on your bed.

 

[Fedora Master]

Wait, what the fuck? There's no Germanic military traditions in the game? Weren't there some before?
Goddamn Paradox.

e:

 

[Theodora]

You mean LARPing. But these are strategy games you know, at least in theory. It's fine to LARP to an extent but the point of a strategy game is to play smart and efficiently. If you're not doing that then you're just looking at a map and masturbating and you'd be better served to buy an ancient atlas and go do that on your bed.

kinda cringe bc most of the time they're not hard enough to be a decent challege in those terms (which is why minmax'ing is a sad).

 

[Raghar]

Wait, what the fuck? There's no Germanic military traditions in the game? Weren't there some before?
Goddamn Paradox.

e:

There are Saxons, Bavarians. Germ-many is relatively new. It happened when EU killed all anti-epidemic barriers with its ideology of mixing everyone into one pot to become somehow equal in skills to Latin America population.

Of course if they forgot about Saxons, Franks and other stuff. That would be bad. They should add the infamous event when Saxons sold fake gold in south Frankonia? and killed theirs economy for decades.

 

[Theodora]

Of course if they forgot about Saxons, Franks and other stuff. That would be bad. They should add the infamous event when Saxons sold fake gold in south Frankonia? and killed theirs economy for decades.

Isn't that like a millenium after the game starts?

 

[Raghar]

Of course if they forgot about Saxons, Franks and other stuff. That would be bad. They should add the infamous event when Saxons sold fake gold in south Frankonia? and killed theirs economy for decades.

Isn't that like a millenium after the game starts?

Be nice at my senility. I remember it's from time when Saxons migrated, found they would have to live according to foreign laws not Saxon ones, and returned back to original area. Don't remember exact date. But Frank-ly I'd expect a pre EU4 game to last at least 1000 years. And have events for all these 1000 years.

 

[Theodora]

Be nice at my senility. I remember it's from time when Saxons migrated, found they would have to live according to foreign laws not Saxon ones, and returned back to original area. Don't remember exact date. But Frank-ly I'd expect a pre EU4 game to last at least 1000 years. And have events for all these 1000 years.

Senility forgiven! But yeah nah there's no Migration Period PDX game yet, really imperator only covers the Hellenistic Age and little else. I don't know many games that cover the MP besides like the original Rome Total War's expansion or Attila, which is a shame.

 

[Fedora Master]

Wait, what the fuck? There's no Germanic military traditions in the game? Weren't there some before?
Goddamn Paradox.

e:

There are Saxons, Bavarians. Germ-many is relatively new. It happened when EU killed all anti-epidemic barriers with its ideology of mixing everyone into one pot to become somehow equal in skills to Latin America population.

Of course if they forgot about Saxons, Franks and other stuff. That would be bad. They should add the infamous event when Saxons sold fake gold in south Frankonia? and killed theirs economy for decades.

That's not what I'm talking about. The game has a military tradition tree for various cultures like Celts or Britons but none for Germanics. So you're forced to pick between the latter two as a Germanic tribe. Its stupid.

 

[AgentFransis]

You mean LARPing. But these are strategy games you know, at least in theory. It's fine to LARP to an extent but the point of a strategy game is to play smart and efficiently. If you're not doing that then you're just looking at a map and masturbating and you'd be better served to buy an ancient atlas and go do that on your bed.

kinda cringe bc most of the time they're not hard enough to be a decent challege in those terms (which is why minmax'ing is a sad).

That's why I usually play paradox games for 2-3 playthroughs and then get bored. You either play a real nation and have no challenge or play a two hut microstate and have to out-autism the retarded AI to get anywhere.