Could you point me to some In depth comparisons, you know, beyond “Imperator teh suxx0rs”?
Game lacks a certain character.
4 hrs playing as Rome and the senate seems pretty pointless.
I keep getting the same building options showing up., which is a bit annoying. I don’t need horse ranch number 7.
To be honest though, those are all very minor niggles and very likely down to me just starting the game and messing around, as I have yet to read the manual.
Or any instructions.
Willpower is not a muscle that gets stronger with use. It is a resource like gasoline, that you exhaust.
Therefore, you should buy this game without delay and save your willpower to resist more dangerous things in life, like heroin addiction and potato chip binges.
Not sure I have come across any in-depth comparisons or multi-tabbed spreadhseets. Nor would in-depth comparisons be of much use now since the current gameplay/mechanical state of Imperator is a dead end.
Things like Tim Stone’s intro are enough for me:
Making bold statements about titles you’ve never played is a recipe for disaster in my line of work. I only do it when the risk of being wrong is infinitesimal. I can, for instance, tell you that waging war in Field of Glory: Empires is far more interesting than waging war in Imperator: Rome despite never having played the Paradox game. What I’m not prepared to do – not yet anyway – is tell you that Slitherine’s offering is more interesting and flavoursome in peacetime too, although I suspect that may indeed be the case.
Imperator Rome is in mechanical limbo at the moment with no telling if the October update will provide the saving grace fixes for the game. FoG: Empires has reviewed quite strongly and seems worth playing (perhaps along with Aggressors) right now.
I read Tim Stone’s review. I liked it.
Didn’t enjoy my first go with the game, but I was exhausted when I tried and that’s not often the best mindset when trying to learn a new strategy game. Going to try again during the weekend.
I haven’t been able to dig into to Empires yet, but I bought it. One impression that I have from reading the manual is that the game has a coherent vision of what it is and what the core mechanics are. Paradox has really turned me off with their millions of DLC approach and never ending development. I just a game that is relatively “finished,” and Field of Glory Empries looks like that.
Oh God… an empire that goes to ruin if it’s not in at least six wars.
How you doin’?
It got delayed? That makes this even harder to put off buying.
I like the trade good system. Basically all your food, resources and culture are all generated from the buildings your cities haves. The buildings need certain trade goods to work, which you need to own in your empire, or have enough trade range to buy them automatically. So the game incentivizes you to expand in specific directions based on what trade goods you want access to.
Oops, I was working off of memory and I think the Cicero update is still scheduled for September…I just had sometime in Autumn in my mind.
I just quickly did the suggested intro scenario and quickly got demolished. I’m going to take a look at the tutorials. :)
Mp doesn’t include foge 2 battles :(
That is a letdown.
I’m in too, I thinkI’m losing my first game but I plan to try again.
at the start I seem to have 1 army with 3 leaders. Each leader gives benefits to a “stack.” what is a stack, is it an army? is it usually best to make one army per leader?s
I do remember seeing in the video that it can be helpful to have more than one leader in an army in case one dies in battle.
Anyone getting things like this Steam review mentions?
"Diplomacy is kind of strange. I jumped into the deep end and started playing as Carthage and I will get a message from, say, Numidia asking for further cooperation. I agree to it. Next turn it says we are now cooperating on deep and many levels. I ask them to be allies since I have a 51% of success. Next turn they declare war on me. Hmmm. "
Yes, I was surprised when a neighbor asked to cooperate and although I accepted they declared was a few turns later.
Does a given nation get the same set of objectives revealed at the same times on each play through? If so I’d rather they announce the sequence at the start?
Sort of. I am finding the AI factions to be extremely hostile. I think that by turn 10 or 12 I had Aquitania, Aedui, Massalia, Emporia, and Gallii all declare war on me. And that is still playing on the lowest difficulty level.
Not sure what to make of this.
If this is the way the game is written, so as to produce difficulty where realistic AI would fail to produce difficulty, I am going to be unhappy. The one bit of evidence of this is that Aquitania and Aedui declared war on me both on turn 5, and the Aquitania referred to the Aedui declaration in theirs. Since there is no game mechanic that would allow the human player to do that (allies with high diplomatic relations will declare war on anyone that their ally declares on, but it would not be possible for the human to obtain an alliance or high diplomatic relations by turn 5). So I would rather think that within the game mechanics, Aedui declared first, and this just colored the wording of the Aquitainia declaration which happened to come the same turn.
On the other hand, if this is just AI factions acting in their self interest, regardless of which opponent is the human, I love it. I started with the largest army, so would be seen as the primary threat. So especially the weak factions like Emporia are just waiting for a chance to benefit from a larger neighbor fighting a war against multiple factions.
None of these, however, had sought cooperation. I do remember reading in the rules, though, that cooperation treaties do not prevent a declaration of war unless diplomatic relations are fairly high. Which struck me as odd.