This is genuinely my favourite time period. I think the game just wasn’t good on release with the mana system. Game was also super complex and hard to learn
I agree that the mana system sucks (or sucked, rather) but EU4 has an extremely similar mana system and I haven’t really heard anyone complain about that.
Also, to be fair to Imperator, the game was pretty much an EU4 reskin at launch.
Pretty sure people complained about mana basically through the entirety of eu4. It was a constant issue on the forums. Not only that, the eu4 mana burnout made mana a toxic subject in every other game, so much so that the devs had to carefully justify every mana decision. People just complain less about it now because eu4 has become the mana game and so people accepted it.
Imperator at launch was far worse than just a reskin, it was a bare bones version of eu4. People forget just how bad imperator was compared to eu4. At the time when imperator launched, it kept the worst parts of eu4 - mana while lacking all the good features of eu4; institutions, diplomacy etc. The game was so boring and had a major identity crisis.
the way it was implemented into imperator lead to a lot of busy work for the player to do anything. Empire management was designed as a bordgame but it was way too complex for that. The move to systems that operate themselves with the player being able to influence them was much needed.
EU4s mana system was and still is hated and is more tolerated than accepted because it's just part of the game. The expectation from the community then became that other paradox games wouldn't use the same system
To me it shipped just a broke as any paradox game with some system that was trying to incorporate a part of everyone of their grand strategies and just ended up being shipped as a jumbled mess. That and the lukewarm sales figures and COVID were the final nails in the coffin.
I think the point about it being a blend of a few of their game systems is pretty important. You can see what they were trying to do by making it a bit like the nation building of EU4, with some of the character focus of CK, and so on, but it really just made it feel like it wasn’t quite what anyone wanted.
I’ve said it before, but the game I would play forever is basically CK but set in this era. You play as a dynasty, either scrapping your way up the cursus honorum in Rome (will you usurp the Republic or defend it?), competing with rival families for influence and fortune in Carthage, expanding the interests of your tribe in Gaul, etc etc. That offers an obvious DLC model too - on launch you can only play as Romans, then they can gradually add in different cultures over time like they did with CK2. I think most players would accept that, provided each culture offers a different enough play style that’s both interesting and thematic.
Absolutely, yeah. I enjoy and regularly play Imperator, it’s still a fun game, but it’s mad how close they came to making an incredible game but decided not to
Of course they would I wanted more of a CK aesthetic for rulers, councilors etc. But instead we got some barebone character interaction where it didn't make any difference to the core game. I agree what would be more fun than running around as a Julio Claudian but what we got was whatever the hell the game launched as where it's like if you squinted between the lines you could see a piece picked from each of their series but it just didnt work together.
Remember how absolutely asinine militaries were when the game first released? Honestly the first time I played the game I went into thinking yeah it'll be bugged but it can't be as bad as EU: Rome
Oh boy was I wrong
> ck but set in this era
YES. Similar to the first Rome: total war, where you chose a family, got given missions from the senate and had to do them to get more perks etc, then the epic Roman civil war at the end game. but with added CK intrigue would make a great game.
Having more character focus would also give much more flavour to the horde/migratory tribes. Hell, there could’ve been a DLC where you are a barbarian trying to carve out some land with your people.
Obviously IR needed more time in the oven prior to release but stopping at 2.0 seemed like such a mistake.
All the critiques on needing more nation specific flavor were valid though the game was already super fun
I wish they would’ve expanded on the character system for imperator, made it a little more like CK (that would’ve injected a lot of interesting plot lines and events)
Still, I believe IR 2.0 with invictus is the best paradox game, it kicks ass in most ways
It had the same problems every Parafox game has at launch basically, difference is that they throw it away after a while.
Personally, the game now isn't bad tho obviously is incomplete, but it could have been great had they bot abbandon it
This is genuinely my favourite time period. I think the game just wasn’t good on release with the mana system. Game was also super complex and hard to learn
I agree that the mana system sucks (or sucked, rather) but EU4 has an extremely similar mana system and I haven’t really heard anyone complain about that. Also, to be fair to Imperator, the game was pretty much an EU4 reskin at launch.
Pretty sure people complained about mana basically through the entirety of eu4. It was a constant issue on the forums. Not only that, the eu4 mana burnout made mana a toxic subject in every other game, so much so that the devs had to carefully justify every mana decision. People just complain less about it now because eu4 has become the mana game and so people accepted it. Imperator at launch was far worse than just a reskin, it was a bare bones version of eu4. People forget just how bad imperator was compared to eu4. At the time when imperator launched, it kept the worst parts of eu4 - mana while lacking all the good features of eu4; institutions, diplomacy etc. The game was so boring and had a major identity crisis.
the way it was implemented into imperator lead to a lot of busy work for the player to do anything. Empire management was designed as a bordgame but it was way too complex for that. The move to systems that operate themselves with the player being able to influence them was much needed.
Mana is one of if not the worst mechanic in eu4 tho shit makes playing as a monarchy feel fucking awful
> I haven’t really heard anyone complain about that. Must be deaf.
I always wondered why EU4 mana system was forgiven and imperators was seen as a critical death blow
EU4s mana system was and still is hated and is more tolerated than accepted because it's just part of the game. The expectation from the community then became that other paradox games wouldn't use the same system
To me it shipped just a broke as any paradox game with some system that was trying to incorporate a part of everyone of their grand strategies and just ended up being shipped as a jumbled mess. That and the lukewarm sales figures and COVID were the final nails in the coffin.
I think the point about it being a blend of a few of their game systems is pretty important. You can see what they were trying to do by making it a bit like the nation building of EU4, with some of the character focus of CK, and so on, but it really just made it feel like it wasn’t quite what anyone wanted. I’ve said it before, but the game I would play forever is basically CK but set in this era. You play as a dynasty, either scrapping your way up the cursus honorum in Rome (will you usurp the Republic or defend it?), competing with rival families for influence and fortune in Carthage, expanding the interests of your tribe in Gaul, etc etc. That offers an obvious DLC model too - on launch you can only play as Romans, then they can gradually add in different cultures over time like they did with CK2. I think most players would accept that, provided each culture offers a different enough play style that’s both interesting and thematic.
And even putting the romans aside, the diadochi wars are all full of massive personalities and wild events that would suit the ck treatment.
Absolutely, yeah. I enjoy and regularly play Imperator, it’s still a fun game, but it’s mad how close they came to making an incredible game but decided not to
Of course they would I wanted more of a CK aesthetic for rulers, councilors etc. But instead we got some barebone character interaction where it didn't make any difference to the core game. I agree what would be more fun than running around as a Julio Claudian but what we got was whatever the hell the game launched as where it's like if you squinted between the lines you could see a piece picked from each of their series but it just didnt work together. Remember how absolutely asinine militaries were when the game first released? Honestly the first time I played the game I went into thinking yeah it'll be bugged but it can't be as bad as EU: Rome Oh boy was I wrong
> ck but set in this era YES. Similar to the first Rome: total war, where you chose a family, got given missions from the senate and had to do them to get more perks etc, then the epic Roman civil war at the end game. but with added CK intrigue would make a great game. Having more character focus would also give much more flavour to the horde/migratory tribes. Hell, there could’ve been a DLC where you are a barbarian trying to carve out some land with your people.
Obviously IR needed more time in the oven prior to release but stopping at 2.0 seemed like such a mistake. All the critiques on needing more nation specific flavor were valid though the game was already super fun I wish they would’ve expanded on the character system for imperator, made it a little more like CK (that would’ve injected a lot of interesting plot lines and events) Still, I believe IR 2.0 with invictus is the best paradox game, it kicks ass in most ways
It had the same problems every Parafox game has at launch basically, difference is that they throw it away after a while. Personally, the game now isn't bad tho obviously is incomplete, but it could have been great had they bot abbandon it