I think one is slated for Q1 Q2 2020 unless the schedule changed (very well may have).
EDIT: I checked the roadmap and it’s scheduled for Q2.
Any chance one of you guys who loves this game could sell me on it?
Ooo, we’re getting supply trains in 1.3?!
Umm, I’m not much of a seller. For me, I’m a big EU4 fan. What Imperator provides for me is better internal mechanics and a lower-level view of your country that I really like. It’s not CK2, but having to juggle factions and pretenders and other important characters can be fun.
I also really like the way you can build up and grow a nation now. My favorite type of game is to start as a Tribe and try to centralize and reform them, modernizing and growing my society to the point where they can hopefully stand up to Rome. The early game consists of centralizing my people from wandering tribesmen into cities. Expansion and warfare can be interspersed here but that can cause setbacks in your march towards progress because you tend to be conquering more uncivilized “barbarians” that then need to be absorbed and also centralized.
I find Pops to be really interesting now that it’s all based on simulation instead of spending currencies to assimilate/convert/promote. Seeing a remote corner of the hinterlands turn into a populous and learned people is a lot of fun for me. It also ties into the new Food and province mechanics that I really like. Figuring out how many cities to build, where to build them, how to supply them with what they need is really enjoyable. You can use your precious Political Influence here if you’re playing Tall like I enjoy, increasing how many buildings you can construct throughout a province as well as the number of trade routes.
Another thing I really like over EU4 is the warfare. For starters, the RNG factor is significantly less: it uses a 1d6 instead of a 1d10 for rolls in combat which makes your leadership, troop quality, terrain, and tactics more impactful.
This is probably one of the few games where I feel like there’s not a clear min/max choice of what army composition is “best” and without it being a tedious waste of time (those are both criticisms I level at Stellaris and many other games that try it). Are armies of massed heavy infantry the best? It depends. Are you fighting in the barbarian hinterlands? Even if they win in an eventual battle, good luck keeping enough of them alive to win the war. Light Infantry are universally terrible against everything… but are they really? They take significantly reduced morale damage and are extremely light on attrition, being able to live off the land. So if you have a good manpower pool and you’re fighting in the forest and mountains, maybe they’re not as bad as they seem. Or do you go with Archers instead, for the better damage but with morale that causes them to shatter and break quickly? It depends. If you’re manpower constrained that’s probably far smarter, but it’s harder to win the battles. And then we start talking about what Tactics we’re using for our armies. Do you keep using Phalanx for your Thracian heavy infantry, knowing that the enemy is going to counter that tactic? Or do you mix it up with a tactic not as beneficial for your army composition, but can throw a real curveball into what the enemy general is doing?
Anyway, it has a lot more granularity to things than EU4 does. Your country is made up of people (both characters and the population). I feel like you can really develop a country and go tall, if that’s what you want to do. How you put together and fight with your armies is much more interesting than INF + 4 CAV + a bunch of artillery if Mil tech >= 16, which is what EU4 always boils down to. I also enjoy the trade system, which is very different from EU4. Different types of resources can be really impactful, so it’s fun for me to try to acquire them.
Yeah, CK2 is much more of a fun sandbox game. Even if you have some grand goal in mind you know that depending on a lot of random stuff any task can be trivial or impossible. I:R is certainly closer to an optimization puzzle of EU4.
Here we go, first dev diary of the Livy 1.3 update.
Sounds friggin’ amazing to me. Supply lines without the complexity of HOI4’s logistics system. I hope this gets ported into their other games!
I mean… yes?
I would love more war game in my Roman Empire game, thank you.
Pretty much what @KevinC said. My favorite thing in Paradox games is doing the internal development stuff, which is why Victoria has always been my preferred series. Imperator now has an interesting way of handling internal development that isn’t quite the same as any other game they’ve done. On top of that, I’ve been enjoying building up my small Greek city-state and trying to figure out how to my plan for ultimately taking down Rome(I’ve decided it requires me to team up with Rome to take down Carthage).
That’s me! Thanks guys, sold! Unfortunately, Pathfinder Kingmaker just sunk her claws into me so it’ll be a week or two but Imperator: Rome is next up!
Wow, what a turnaround!
Game definitely getting better, still a ways to go on the reviews front though!
I looked at that last night and thought about actually putting a review in myself since my opinion has turned around so much.
Finally got this. The tutorial feels like a bad introduction, it’s all about the war side of the game and because you play Rome you can basically steamroller everything.
I am confused by the military system. How am I supposed to structure my armies? Are tactics just an annoying guessing game? Am I supposed to be optimizing my economy at all?
I might try the tribe game next, what is a forgiving tribe to try to civilize?
The tutorial is kind of silly because it dumps massive amounts of every resource on top of a very powerful Rome. It’s really just there to explain the interface and some basic concepts.
Tribe games are basically all I play. The Iberian tribes are great because they allow women to hold positions in government, which doubles your pool of available ministers and generals. Iberia has Carthage to deal with, though, so I wouldn’t recommend starting anywhere in the southern half of the region for your first game.
I’ve had quite a few games with Trevaria. I picked them for my first game because they’re not the smallest of tribes, and they have their back to the Rhine so I could try out colonizing uninhabited areas. You could also try Brigantia or another tribe up in the British Isles with a goal of forming Albion.
There’s not a one-size fits all answer to how to structure your armies. It depends on what resources you have access to, military traditions your nation has, and what region you’re fighting in. Are you battling across the Italian peninsula or are you up in northern Gaul? Heavy Infantry and Heavy Cavalry are great but they are expensive and have resource requirements to build them. They also take massive attrition damage so it’s not viable to fight with big armies of them in uncivilized lands.
Tactics aren’t really a guessing game, they’re based on what your army composition is and what the enemy composition is. Different unit types have aptitudes for certain tactics. If your army is comprised of mostly Heavy Infantry and some support, you probably don’t want to use Skirmish, Deception, etc. The screen will tell you what kinds of bonuses you will be getting for a given tactic based on what units you have. Archers and Light Infantry are great at things like Skirmish but you wouldn’t want to throw them in using Shock Action. Tactics also perform very well vs some tactics and poorly vs others, so that’s another thing to consider. If you know the enemy army is comprised mostly of Heavy Infantry and they have used Phalanx the past two battles, you might counter with an Envelopment even if your army isn’t optimized for that necessarily (you have some cavalry to take advantage of it, but your archers won’t benefit, for example). There is some uncertainty as you can’t know precisely what the enemy general will use, but you can make an educated guess and choose a tactic on your side that A) your forces can take advantage of and B) might counter the opponent’s tactic.
Barbarian traditions have access to Chariots and have great bonuses to Light Infantry and archers, especially when fighting in forests. Light Infantry are easily the worst unit on paper but they do have advantages and I’ve used them to success. They are VERY good at absorbing morale damage so their ability to stay in the fight is terrific. They don’t fair very well against other units, though, so while they can hold the line and win you battles, they also take a LOT of casualties. You’ll need a large manpower pool to sustain them, but with Barbarian Traditions and access to base metals and leather, they can be a real solid fighting force. This is especially true in uncivilized lands, because they are VERY light and you can mass them without suffering attrition.
Sorry, I’m rambling and I’ve got to run for a bit, but I hope some of that was useful in getting started at least.
An addendum to that: Countering a tactic is more of a bonus, it’s not majorly impactful to the battle. From the wiki, here’s the largest impacts on battles:
I wish they would give us Victoria 3
Yeah me too.
I can certainly understand a desire to play as tribals only. Have the same in CK2 cause tribals look like what you’re supposed to play first. They have prestige-based economy and easy wars and small realms while as Feudal you eventually get big realms, gold as an important resource, council, more societies and a lot of gameplay complications. Both in I:R and CK2 you can select some starts that will be as complex on day 1 as endgame huge empire. EU4 is more approachable in that regard as no matter who you play most mechanics unfold with time.
Oh you understate your selling skill. You pretty much sold me on the game a couple of weeks ago with your write up of your tribe game. You are bigger fan of EU4 than I am, I think we both love HOI IV, and have a love hate relationship with Stellaris. I’m happy to take the @KevinC stamp of approval that Imperator is now worth a look.
I’ll be curious to hear your thoughts if/when you give it a go!